Why 2014 Is Do-or-Die For the GOP

Republicans can’t afford to have any weak candidates next year if they want to regain control of the upper chamber.

WASHINGTON, DC - OCTOBER 16: U.S. Senate Minority Leader Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) walks to the Senate Chamber at the U.S. Capitol October 16, 2013 in Washington, DC. On the 16th day of a government shutdown, Senate Majority Leader Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) and Minority Leader Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) announced that they have reached to an agreement to raise the nation's debt ceiling and reopen the government.
National Journal
Charlie Cook
Oct. 28, 2013, 5:44 p.m.

This is not go­ing to be one of those columns that we read al­most every oth­er year pro­claim­ing the next elec­tion to be the most im­port­ant one since the Greeks de­veloped the idea of demo­cracy 2,500 or so years ago. It does, however, make the case that this elec­tion is a pretty im­port­ant one in terms of de­term­in­ing the Sen­ate’s par­tis­an bal­ance of power for the bet­ter part of the next dec­ade.

Any dis­cus­sion of Sen­ate elec­tions has to start with the ob­ser­va­tion that what happened six years earli­er — the is­sues, dy­nam­ics, cir­cum­stances, and out­come of that elec­tion — ef­fect­ively set the table for this up­com­ing midterm. In the House, with two-year terms, the play­ing field is de­term­ined in the pre­vi­ous elec­tion. In the Sen­ate, with six-year terms, it is what happened six years earli­er that sets the field. If one party had a great elec­tion and picked up an un­usu­ally large num­ber of seats one year, that party is likely to be over­ex­posed six years later. It not only will of­ten have sig­ni­fic­antly more seats up and at risk, but of­ten will have some fresh­men with­in the ranks who were first elec­ted with a strong par­tis­an tail­wind, some of whom might not have won un­der nor­mal cir­cum­stances.

First, let’s look at the last four rounds of Sen­ate elec­tions. In 2006, with the Ir­aq war weigh­ing heav­ily on him, Pres­id­ent Bush went in­to his second midterm elec­tion with his Gal­lup job ap­prov­al rat­ings down to 38 per­cent. With a strong wind at their backs, Demo­crats picked up six Sen­ate seats, set­ting the stage for the 2012 elec­tions, when they would have 23 seats up com­pared with just 10 for the GOP. Re­pub­lic­ans entered the 2012 elec­tion with high ex­pect­a­tions that they could cap­it­al­ize on this over­ex­pos­ure. However, with a weak na­tion­al tick­et, primary voters who ten­ded to pick weak nom­in­ees, and strong GOP res­ist­ance among minor­ity, wo­men, young, and mod­er­ate voters, the party lost eight of the 10 races that The Cook Polit­ic­al Re­port had rated as “Toss Up” go­ing in­to Elec­tion Day and ended up los­ing two seats when they had been ex­pect­ing to pick up at least that many. A real op­por­tun­ity to cap­ture con­trol of the Sen­ate, set up by the 2006 elec­tion, slipped through the GOP’s fin­gers in 2012.

In the 2008 elec­tion, just two months after the fin­an­cial crisis, with the Obama-Biden tick­et beat­ing the Mc­Cain-Pal­in tick­et 52.9-45.7 per­cent and a strong turnout among young­er and minor­ity voters, Demo­crats picked up eight Sen­ate seats. This meant that in 2014, Demo­crats would have 21 seats at risk, to just 14 for the GOP. Thus, again Re­pub­lic­ans have an op­por­tun­ity to score big gains, but that op­por­tun­ity could slip through their fin­gers as it did two years earli­er. If we give Re­pub­lic­ans the be­ne­fit of the doubt in the fight to pick up open Demo­crat­ic Sen­ate seats in Montana, South Dakota, and West Vir­gin­ia, the six seats most likely to de­term­ine wheth­er Demo­crats will hold the Sen­ate are all in states car­ried by Mitt Rom­ney. These are Alaska (Mark Be­gich), Arkan­sas (Mark Pry­or), Louisi­ana (Mary Landrieu), and North Car­o­lina (Kay Hagan), all Demo­crat­ic in­cum­bents, and Re­pub­lic­an seats in Geor­gia (where Saxby Cham­b­liss is re­tir­ing) and Ken­tucky (Mitch Mc­Con­nell). In North Car­o­lina, Rom­ney won by only 2 points, and in Geor­gia he won by only 8 points. In the oth­er four states lis­ted, Rom­ney ran up huge mar­gins of vic­tory. However, none of these races are gimme putts — in fact, the toughest seats for Demo­crats to hold are at no worse odds than 50-50.

As­sum­ing that all oth­er races go the dir­ec­tion that they are widely ex­pec­ted to go, and Re­pub­lic­ans win the Montana, South Dakota, and West Vir­gin­ia con­tests, the GOP then has to win five out of those fi­nal six con­tests. To put it dif­fer­ently, even if Re­pub­lic­ans hold Geor­gia and Mc­Con­nell wins in Ken­tucky (neither is a sure bet at all), the GOP would still have to knock out three Demo­crat­ic in­cum­bents, which is as many as they have un­seated in the last five elec­tions com­bined (since 2004, the only in­cum­bent Demo­crat­ic sen­at­ors to lose gen­er­al elec­tions were Blanche Lin­coln, Tom Daschle, and Russ Fein­gold. If the GOP loses either Geor­gia or Ken­tucky, they would have to beat all four Demo­crat­ic in­cum­bents up in 2014 to win a ma­jor­ity.

The reas­on next year is so make-or-break for Sen­ate Re­pub­lic­ans is be­cause in 2016, when all of the seats they won in 2010 come up — they net­ted a six-seat net gain that year — there will be 24 GOP seats up, com­pared with only 10 for Demo­crats, lead­ing to some ser­i­ous Re­pub­lic­an over­ex­pos­ure. Sev­en of the 24 GOP sen­at­ors up are hail­ing from states that Obama car­ried in 2012. After hav­ing had plen­ti­ful Demo­crat­ic tar­gets in 2012 and 2014, it will be Re­pub­lic­ans in 2016 who will have the most in­cum­bents in the crosshairs.

All of this is to say that Re­pub­lic­ans really have to do well in the Sen­ate elec­tions in 2014, largely be­cause they will have few op­por­tun­it­ies for gains in 2016, a year in which they will be play­ing de­fense, not of­fense. This means that Re­pub­lic­ans can­not nom­in­ate some of the more exot­ic can­did­ates that they nom­in­ated in Delaware and Nevada in 2010, or weak can­did­ates with weak cam­paigns as they did that year in Col­or­ado. Com­par­able can­did­ates to Todd Akin or Richard Mour­dock, the 2012 Mis­souri and In­di­ana can­did­ates whose nom­in­a­tions ef­fect­ively meant that the GOP seized de­feat from the jaws of vic­tory in mul­tiple states, should be avoided. So, the 2014 Sen­ate elec­tions really are im­port­ant.

{{ BIZOBJ (video: 4352) }}

What We're Following See More »
GOP Budget Chiefs Won’t Invite Administration to Testify
17 hours ago

The administration will release its 2017 budget blueprint tomorrow, but the House and Senate budget committees won’t be inviting anyone from the White House to come talk about it. “The chairmen of the House and Senate Budget committees released a joint statement saying it simply wasn’t worth their time” to hear from OMB Director Shaun Donovan. Accusing the members of pulling a “Donald Trump,” White House spokesman Josh Earnest said the move “raises some questions about how confident they are about the kinds of arguments that they could make.”

Snowstorm Could Impact Primary Turnout
13 hours ago

A snowstorm is supposed to hit New Hampshire today and “linger into Primary Tuesday.” GOP consultant Ron Kaufman said lower turnout should help candidates who have spent a lot of time in the state tending to retail politicking. Donald Trump “has acknowledged that he needs to step up his ground-game, and a heavy snowfall could depress his figures relative to more organized candidates.”

A Shake-Up in the Offing in the Clinton Camp?
8 hours ago

Anticipating a primary loss in New Hampshire on Tuesday, Hillary and Bill Clinton “are considering staffing and strategy changes” to their campaign. Sources tell Politico that the Clintons are likely to layer over top officials with experienced talent, rather than fire their staff en masse.