Buckle Up for More Gridlock

Majority status in the Senate could swerve back and forth over the next few elections.

National Journal
Charlie Cook
Add to Briefcase
Charlie Cook
March 31, 2014, 5:40 p.m.

By a quirk of fate, we may be in for some pretty tur­bu­lent Sen­ate elec­tions, not only this Novem­ber but in 2016 and 2018 as well. Ma­jor­ity status could re­semble a rub­ber band as much as any­thing else. It is en­tirely plaus­ible that the Sen­ate will tip back in­to GOP hands in 2014, re­turn to Demo­crats in 2016, and then flip again to Re­pub­lic­ans in 2018. It’s all about how many — and which — seats on each side are up and ex­posed to losses, not to men­tion wheth­er it is a pres­id­en­tial or midterm elec­tion. Ob­vi­ously oth­er factors could come in­to play, chiefly the polit­ic­al en­vir­on­ment over the next four years, but also what the pres­id­en­tial tick­ets will look like in 2016, who will be in the White House come 2018, and how that per­son is do­ing.

As reg­u­lar read­ers of this column know, Sen­ate Demo­crats face a gruel­ing chal­lenge this year, de­fend­ing 21 seats to Re­pub­lic­ans’ 15. If they don’t lose any of their own seats, Re­pub­lic­ans could win a Sen­ate ma­jor­ity just by win­ning in states that Mitt Rom­ney car­ried by 14 points or more — land­slide states if there ever were any. This is a midterm elec­tion, mean­ing that the elect­or­ate will likely be older, whiter, more con­ser­vat­ive, and more Re­pub­lic­an than in a pres­id­en­tial year. Fi­nally, Demo­crats are play­ing de­fense in a tough polit­ic­al en­vir­on­ment, with Pres­id­ent Obama’s job ap­prov­al, as well as his sig­na­ture le­gis­lat­ive ac­com­plish­ment, the Af­ford­able Care Act, both un­der­wa­ter, suf­fer­ing from high­er rates of dis­ap­prov­al than ap­prov­al in the polls. Thus, Demo­crats have a per­fect storm on their hands in try­ing to de­fend their ma­jor­ity this year.

Ob­vi­ously, things can change over the next sev­en months, but aside from the three open Demo­crat­ic seats that the GOP is already favored to pick up (Montana, South Dakota, and West Vir­gin­ia), every oth­er likely Demo­crat­ic nom­in­ee in a com­pet­it­ive gen­er­al-elec­tion situ­ation has a floor vote in fa­vor of Obama­care to de­fend. (Every Demo­crat­ic mem­ber of the Sen­ate voted for it, as did Reps. Bruce Bra­ley and Gary Peters, the likely nom­in­ees for the party in Iowa and Michigan, re­spect­ively.) It’s a good bet that the ACA is un­der­wa­ter in the polls in every state with a com­pet­it­ive Sen­ate race.

However, in 2016, Re­pub­lic­ans will go from be­ing on the of­fense to be­ing very much on de­fense. This is be­cause the set of Sen­ate seats that will be up in 2016 were last up in the GOP wave elec­tion of 2010, caus­ing Re­pub­lic­ans to have 24 seats to de­fend com­pared with only 10 for Demo­crats. An­oth­er key factor is that 2016 is a pres­id­en­tial year and will thus likely have a big­ger and more di­verse voter turnout that will fa­vor Demo­crats.

What’s more, sev­en of the GOP seats are in states that Obama car­ried in 2012. In Illinois, where Mark Kirk will be up for reelec­tion, Obama won by 17 points.

Four Re­pub­lic­ans will be on the bal­lot in states where Obama pre­vailed by between 5 and 7 points: Kelly Ayotte (New Hamp­shire), Chuck Grass­ley (Iowa), Ron John­son (Wis­con­sin), and Pat Toomey (Pennsylvania). In two oth­er states where Re­pub­lic­ans will be up, Obama eked out nar­row wins: Marco Ru­bio (Flor­ida) and Rob Port­man (Ohio). Of the 10 seats Demo­crats are de­fend­ing, none went for Rom­ney in 2012; in fact, Obama’s worst mar­gins of vic­tory were still in the 5-to-7-point range: Mi­chael Ben­net (Col­or­ado), Harry Re­id (Nevada), and Ron Wyden (Ore­gon). Of these three Demo­crat­ic in­cum­bents, at least the first two can be ex­pec­ted to have ag­gress­ive chal­lengers, but each last won un­der hor­rif­ic cir­cum­stances for their party (the 2010 GOP wave), and in 2016, they will have a tail­wind from the pres­id­en­tial turnout. On pa­per, any­way, the 2016 Sen­ate elec­tions look pretty good for Demo­crats, and if they head in­to Elec­tion Day with 48 or 49 seats, they would seem to have a pretty good chance of re­gain­ing the Sen­ate.

Then comes 2018. It will be an­oth­er midterm elec­tion, so turnout will be­ne­fit Re­pub­lic­ans, and Demo­crats will have 25 seats to de­fend to just eight on the GOP side.

Mak­ing mat­ters still worse for Demo­crats, they will have five seats up in states that Rom­ney car­ried by at least 9 points in 2012. These in­clude Heidi Heitkamp (North Dakota), in a state that voted Re­pub­lic­an for pres­id­ent by 20 points; Joe Manchin (West Vir­gin­ia), in a state that the GOP won by 27 points; Claire Mc­Caskill (Mis­souri), which voted Re­pub­lic­an by 9 points; Joe Don­nelly (In­di­ana), where Rom­ney won by 10 points; and Jon Test­er (Montana), which went by 14 points for Rom­ney. The year 2018 will be a chance for the GOP to re­bound if they had a bad Sen­ate year in 2016.

In a weirdly co­in­cid­ent­al way, midterm-versus-pres­id­en­tial turnout dy­nam­ics are syn­chron­ized with ex­ag­ger­ated par­tis­an Sen­ate ex­pos­ure to cre­ate the po­ten­tial for a whip-saw­ing Sen­ate pic­ture, one that would at least sug­gest that neither party is likely to build any­thing re­motely re­sem­bling out­right con­trol of the up­per cham­ber — just nar­row ma­jor­it­ies. Add to that pic­ture the like­li­hood that Re­pub­lic­ans will keep their House ma­jor­ity at least un­til the 2022 elec­tion — the first elec­tion after the next re­dis­trict­ing — and the odds of the cur­rent polit­ic­al stale­mate con­tinu­ing re­main pretty high, re­gard­less of who wins the pres­id­ency in 2016.

What We're Following See More »
CITES CONFLICT OF INTEREST
Lieberman Withdraws from Consideration for FBI Job
2 days ago
THE LATEST
MINIMUM 2 PERCENT GDP
Trump Tells NATO Countries To Pay Up
2 days ago
BREAKING
MANAFORT AND FLYNN
Russians Discussed Influencing Trump Through Aides
2 days ago
THE DETAILS

"American spies collected information last summer revealing that senior Russian intelligence and political officials were discussing how to exert influence over Donald J. Trump through his advisers." The conversations centered around Paul Manafort, who was campaign chairman at the time, and Michael Flynn, former national security adviser and then a close campaign surrogate. Both men have been tied heavily with Russia and Flynn is currently at the center of the FBI investigation into possible collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia.

Source:
BUT WHITE HOUSE MAY USE AGAINST HIM ANYWAY
Ethics Cops Clear Mueller to Work on Trump Case
3 days ago
THE LATEST

"Former FBI Director Robert Mueller has been cleared by U.S. Department of Justice ethics experts to oversee an investigation into possible collusion between then-candidate Donald Trump's 2016 election campaign and Russia." Some had speculated that the White House would use "an ethics rule limiting government attorneys from investigating people their former law firm represented" to trip up Mueller's appointment. Jared Kushner is a client of Mueller's firm, WilmerHale. "Although Mueller has now been cleared by the Justice Department, the White House may still use his former law firm's connection to Manafort and Kushner to undermine the findings of his investigation, according to two sources close to the White House."

Source:
BUSINESSES CAN’T PLEAD FIFTH
Senate Intel to Subpoena Two of Flynn’s Businesses
3 days ago
THE LATEST

Senate Intelligence Committee chairman Richard Burr (R-NC) and ranking member Mark Warner (D-VA) will subpoena two businesses owned by former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn. Burr said, "We would like to hear from General Flynn. We'd like to see his documents. We'd like him to tell his story because he publicly said he had a story to tell."

×
×

Welcome to National Journal!

You are currently accessing National Journal from IP access. Please login to access this feature. If you have any questions, please contact your Dedicated Advisor.

Login