The conventional wisdom of the day is that Democrats will probably lose their majority in the US Senate in the elections this fall. I can understand why so many people think so — certain historical factors would seem to stack the deck in favor of the GOP. But I think Democrats are going to keep the Senate this November. The political environment isn’t meaningfully different from in 2012, and Democratic candidates in key races are running strong. It won’t be by much, but in January of 2015, Harry Reid will remain the Majority Leader.
First, let’s acknowledge the environmental factors that are working for the Republican side. Democratic retirements in Montana, West Virginia, and South Dakota have made those three seats near-certain pickups for the GOP. This means that Republicans only need to net three more seats from among Democrat-held Colorado, Iowa, Arkansas, Alaska, Louisiana, and North Carolina, while not losing either Georgia or Kentucky. These are red-leaning states where Mitt Romney won handily in 2012 or swing states where Barack Obama won by only a little.
Meanwhile, presidential approval ratings are usually a pretty good harbinger of electoral outcomes for members of his party; the President’s approval rating is currently in the low 40s.
Voters continue to report that the economy is by far their most important political issue. The President, and Democrats in Congress, continually attain low ratings from the public on their ability to deal with the economic issues.
Take all these indisputable facts, and Vegas will tell you that based on all the elections that have taken place before, the odds that Democrats will keep the majority are slim. But this election hasn’t taken place before, and Democratic candidates have some factors working in their favor too.
The Democrats running in Arkansas and Louisiana (Mark Pryor and Mary Landrieu, respectively) are longtime incumbent Senators whose entire careers have been built on winning narrow victories in their red states. They also come from political families with strong independent name identification, and are hard to portray as “just another Obama Democrat.” Mark Udall, running in a close race in Colorado, also has an independent identity in his state, and not a bad reputation.
Non-partisan polling that has come out this cycle has been sporadic and inconsistent. However, the data so far do not show that any of the five incumbent Democrats in these races are in dire peril. Landrieu has led in several non-partisan surveys, and in the Rasmussen poll, which usually overstates Republican support. The last two non-partisan polls that have come out in Arkansas have alternately shown Pryor to be up 11 points or down 7. Udall is showing a narrow advantage, and Colorado polling has underestimated Democratic support there in the last several cycles.
Even the incumbent Kay Hagan in North Carolina, who does not have the benefit of name recognition and seasoned re-election experience that Pryor and Landrieu have, has a lead in both partisan and non-partisan polling against her opponent, Thom Tillis.
Bruce Braley, the Democratic challenger for the open seat in Iowa, is a respected incumbent congressman from the eastern part of the state with a strong base of support. The three most recent polls in Iowa indicate that he has a slight lead over his Republican opponent, Joni Ernst. In Alaska, whether or not Democratic Sen. Mark Begich is leading against his chief opponent depends on which party conducted the poll. Taking polls in The Last Frontier is notoriously difficult, anyway. But it would be wrong to conclude that he's running behind.
Democrats certainly can lose any of these races -- but where polling is tight and unpredictable, the power of incumbency and fundraising hold weight. And on these measures, Democratic candidates are punching heavy.
Congressional Democrats’ relatively low approval ratings, like the approval ratings of the President, are due to general dissatisfaction with the state of the country and the economy. Moreover, they do not signal any great inclination to support Republicans, whose ratings are even lower, on the economy and other issues.
There also isn’t some kind of single defining issue or vote that any of the Democrats have taken that would disqualify them in the eyes of general election voters the way, say, a vote in favor of TARP might threaten a Republican in a primary. Republicans will cry out and say that all these incumbent Democrats voted for ObamaCare, and voters hate ObamaCare, so they’ll vote against these Democrats. But polling doesn’t really bear out that voters really care about ObamaCare that much, especially compared to how much they care about the economy.
Indeed, Republicans seem certain that dissatisfaction with Obama alone will be enough to push them over the top in these close races.
But remember — Obama himself won re-election when his own approval ratings on the economy were under water, because he still was seen as caring about ordinary people, and because Mitt Romney wasn’t able to articulate a clear case for why he would be able to improve the economic outlook of average people. If Republican Senate candidates can’t do better, Democrats will hold the line.
Two other factors are important here:
First, the contests in Kentucky and Georgia. I don’t think Democrats will actually win in Kentucky or Georgia, but polling is close enough in both races for their candidates to have a shot.
Finally — and this is a real wild card — if the economy improves in these next three months at the same pace it did in the previous three, it could provide Democrats with something positive to campaign on heading into the Fall.
Barring gaffes and other individual mistakes, Democrats will pull out most of these toss-up races.
I think that the national lay of the land reflects a fairly immoveable status quo: polarized, dissatisfied, with most voters thinking Democrats are not effective, but that Republicans aren’t much, either.
If this were a Presidential year, I would predict that Democrats would sweep the toss-ups, like they did in 2012. With an older, whiter electorate than in a Presidential year, Republicans will win one or two of the six vulnerable toss-up Democratic seats. But especially with the possibility that Republicans will lose in Kentucky or Georgia, I don't think they're going to get to 51. As in the last two Senate cycles, Republicans will fail to capitalize on a great opportunity to seize the majority.