The GOP’s Senate Worries

Incumbents elected in the 2010 midterms will face an electorate that is demographically more daunting in a presidential year.

New Hampshire Gov. Maggie Hassan, shown at a celebration for leading women in Washington in 2013, announced Monday that she would challenge first-term Republican Sen. Kelly Ayotte in the 2016 election.
National Journal
Oct. 5, 2015, 8 p.m.

No mat­ter how en­ter­tain­ing the cir­cus of the pres­id­en­tial cam­paign, also re­mem­ber this: Con­trol of the Sen­ate is def­in­itely in play. Mag­gie Has­san offered a re­mind­er Monday when the Demo­crat­ic gov­ernor of New Hamp­shire an­nounced that she will chal­lenge Sen. Kelly Ayotte, a first-term Re­pub­lic­an, in next year’s elec­tions. Has­san had been si­lent about her in­ten­tions, but pub­lic polling sug­gests that the race would be very close; most sur­veys show the Re­pub­lic­an in­cum­bent with the nar­row­est of leads.

Re­pub­lic­ans hold a 54-to-46 ad­vant­age in the Sen­ate. This means that Demo­crats would need a net gain of four seats if they hold onto the White House, or five seats if they don’t (be­cause the vice pres­id­ent can break a Sen­ate tie).

The GOP’s ma­jor­ity is flimsy, though. Re­pub­lic­ans have 24 seats at risk next year, com­pared to just 10 for the Demo­crats, and sev­en are in states that Pres­id­ent Obama car­ried in 2012. One of those sev­en seats looks safe; Iowa’s six-term in­cum­bent Chuck Grass­ley is widely seen as both un­beat­able and un­likely to re­tire. But the oth­er six are in real danger—in­cum­bents Ayotte, Mark Kirk (Illinois), Ron John­son (Wis­con­sin), Pat Toomey (Pennsylvania), and Rob Port­man (Ohio), plus a seat in Flor­ida held by Marco Ru­bio, who is run­ning for pres­id­ent rather than Sen­ate reelec­tion.

Hap­pily for the Demo­crats, none of their in­cum­bent sen­at­ors will face the voters in states that Mitt Rom­ney, the Re­pub­lic­an pres­id­en­tial nom­in­ee, won in 2012. But Demo­crats are in danger of los­ing the seat that Harry Re­id is va­cat­ing in Nevada, where Obama won. Next-most vul­ner­able is Mi­chael Ben­net of Col­or­ado, but he’s a strong fa­vor­ite for reelec­tion.

It is hard to over­state the un­usu­al boom-and-bust nature of our elec­tions these days. De­pend­ing on wheth­er the year is di­vis­ible by four, we have two very dif­fer­ent Amer­icas. One of them ex­ists when the pres­id­ency is at stake, and the elect­or­ate is big, broad, and demo­graph­ic­ally di­verse—look­ing pretty much like the coun­try. But midterm-elec­tion Amer­ica, with an elect­or­ate only about 60 per­cent the size of pres­id­en­tial years, is older, whiter, more con­ser­vat­ive, and more Re­pub­lic­an. This, in ef­fect, puts a thumb on the scale that simply isn’t there in pres­id­en­tial years, when the turnout is sub­stan­tially lar­ger.

The res­ult: Demo­crats have fared well in Sen­ate races when the pres­id­ency was up for grabs. In 2008 and 2012, they picked up eight and two seats, re­spect­ively. Their gain in 2012 wasn’t lar­ger be­cause they’d already picked up four seats in 2000 and six more in 2006—the two pre­vi­ous times this class of sen­at­ors had faced voters—leav­ing few­er ad­di­tion­al seats with­in their reach.

Con­versely, Re­pub­lic­ans did won­der­fully in the midterm elec­tions of 2010 and 2014, when they picked up six and nine seats, re­spect­ively. Add in the im­pact of the polit­ic­al tox­icity sur­round­ing Obama in 2010, and Re­pub­lic­ans had a hur­ricane-force wind at their backs. The class of sen­at­ors who are up for reelec­tion in 2016 were the be­ne­fi­ciar­ies, but now they must face an elect­or­ate that is demo­graph­ic­ally more daunt­ing.

One factor may mit­ig­ate the sever­ity of the Re­pub­lic­ans’ Sen­ate chal­lenge: Of the six Obama-cap­tured states where Re­pub­lic­an in­cum­bents are run­ning scared, only Illinois is over­whelm­ingly Demo­crat­ic. In oth­er words, only fresh­man Kirk faces a chal­lenge as re­motely dif­fi­cult as Demo­crat­ic in­cum­bents had in 2014 in strongly Re­pub­lic­an states—Mark Be­gich in Alaska, Mark Pry­or in Arkan­sas, and Mary Landrieu in Louisi­ana, be­sides the open seats in Montana and West Vir­gin­ia that Demo­crats lost as well. Neither Pennsylvania nor Wis­con­sin, which lean Demo­crat­ic in pres­id­en­tial races, is any­where near as hos­tile a polit­ic­al ter­rain for Re­pub­lic­an in­cum­bents Toomey and John­son.

Thir­teen months be­fore an elec­tion, it’s im­possible to know what the polit­ic­al en­vir­on­ment will look like or, for that mat­ter, who will run at the top of the parties’ tick­ets. But put­ting all that aside, and con­sid­er­ing the likely match­ups and voter turnout, Re­pub­lic­ans will be very lucky if they can keep their Sen­ate losses down to just two seats, which would give them a 52-48 ma­jor­ity. A loss of three seats, trans­lat­ing in­to a 51-49 GOP edge, seems a bit more likely. It’s very plaus­ible that the Re­pub­lic­ans could lose four seats, leav­ing con­trol of a 50-50 Sen­ate to the out­come of the pres­id­en­tial elec­tion. A five-seat Re­pub­lic­an loss could hap­pen as well.

It is a little too bold to pre­dict that the out­comes of the Sen­ate and pres­id­en­tial elec­tions are in­ex­tric­ably linked. But there’s a pretty good chance they could go the same way. Many of the com­pet­it­ive Sen­ate races are in states ex­pec­ted to be hard­est-fought in the pres­id­en­tial elec­tion, such as Col­or­ado, Flor­ida, Nevada, New Hamp­shire, and Ohio.

I’m not a be­liev­er in coat­tails—the no­tion is highly simplist­ic. But the dy­nam­ics of voter turnout, the is­sue agenda, and un­pre­dict­able events that tip a close state one way in a pres­id­en­tial race can just as eas­ily tip that state’s close Sen­ate race in the same dir­ec­tion.

Be­fore Demo­crats start pop­ping cham­pagne corks and Re­pub­lic­ans crawl out onto a ledge, it should be re­membered that 2018 will fea­ture a more Re­pub­lic­an-friendly midterm elect­or­ate, with 25 Demo­crat­ic and just eight Re­pub­lic­an seats at stake; the Demo­crats are dis­pro­por­tion­ately in polit­ic­ally dif­fi­cult states. Midterm elec­tions tend to be rough for the party in the White House, as a ref­er­en­dum on the pres­id­ent. This means that the pop­ular­ity in 2018 of who­ever wins the White House next year will mat­ter a lot.

What We're Following See More »
Mueller: No Evidence of Collusion
9 hours ago

"The investigation led by Robert S. Mueller III found that neither President Trump nor any of his aides conspired or coordinated with the Russian government’s 2016 election interference, according to a summary of the special counsel’s findings made public on Sunday by Attorney General William P. Barr. The summary also said that the special counsel’s team lacked sufficient evidence to establish that President Trump illegally obstructed justice, but added that Mr. Mueller’s team stopped short of exonerating Mr. Trump." Read Barr's summary here.

Barr Releases Mueller Summary Letter to Congrees
9 hours ago
Mueller Reports
2 days ago

"The special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, has delivered a report on his inquiry into Russian interference in the 2016 election to Attorney General William P. Barr ... Barr told congressional leaders in a letter late Friday that he may brief them within days on the special counsel’s findings. 'I may be in a position to advise you of the special counsel’s principal conclusions as soon as this weekend,' he wrote in a letter to the leadership of the House and Senate Judiciary committees. It is up to Mr. Barr how much of the report to share with Congress and, by extension, the American public. The House voted unanimously in March on a nonbinding resolution to make public the report’s findings, an indication of the deep support within both parties to air whatever evidence prosecutors uncovered."


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.