Democrats' Senate hopes hinge on red-state shuffle
By Ronald Brownstein
Los Angeles Times
From disenchantment over the Iraq war to the scandal surrounding former Rep. Mark Foley, R-Fla., a national tide may be gathering behind Democrats. For Republicans, the "red" states that President Bush carried in 2000 and 2004 loom as the sea wall against that force.
Election Day will decide if discontent over the nation's direction evident in polls overrides entrenched Republican advantages, especially with rural voters, in these culturally conservative states.
One of the most powerful trends in U.S. politics has been the growing alignment between the way states vote in presidential and Senate elections.
In the past, many states often would support one party in presidential races while sending members of the other party to Washington as one or both of their senators. But in a highly polarized era, more voters are supporting Senate candidates who come from the same party that they back for president.
Currently, the GOP holds three-quarters of the Senate seats from the 29 states that twice voted for Bush for president. Similarly, Democrats hold about three-quarters of the Senate seats from the 18 states that voted for Al Gore in 2000 and John Kerry in 2004.
This year, nothing is more important for Democrats than chipping away at the GOP-held Senate seats in red states.
Overall, Democrats need a net gain of six seats to win the Senate. Only two of their top targets this year are Republicans in "blue" states that the Democratic presidential candidates carried in 2000 and 2004: Sens. Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island and Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania.
All of the other targets are in red states — incumbents Mike DeWine in Ohio, Conrad Burns in Montana, George Allen in Virginia, Jon Kyl in Arizona and Jim Talent in Missouri, and an open seat in Tennessee.
Amid the bad political news that has battered the party this year, Republican strategists take comfort that so many of the critical Senate fights are being waged on what amounts to the GOP's home turf.
"I would much rather have a playing field that was predominantly red states than predominantly blue states," said Terry Nelson, field director for Bush's 2004 re-election campaign.
Still, Nelson acknowledged that even in the red states, the situation is precarious. The latest polls show the Democratic candidates running about even or slightly ahead in each of the hotly contested red-state Senate races except Arizona.
In most of these contests, Democrats express confidence that antipathy toward Bush will spark a large turnout by their core voters. They also believe concern about the Iraq war — as well as anger over other ethics issues, capped by the Foley scandal — will improve their showing among relatively well-off, socially moderate suburban voters, like those who live near Kansas City or Cleveland or in northern Virginia.
In all but one of the key red-state Senate races, rural voters constitute a larger share of the population than nationally (Arizona is the exception). And that means to win the seats they need to control the Senate, Democrats likely will have to minimize the GOP edge among culturally conservative exurban and rural voters in places such as southern and western Ohio, eastern Tennessee and the southern sections of Virginia.
Missouri precisely embodies this dynamic.
Talent, a smart but low-key politician, won his seat in 2002 by fewer than 22,000 votes over the Democratic incumbent. Jean Carnahan (she had served the first two years of the term won by her late husband, Mel Carnahan, in 2000).
In Democrat Claire McCaskill, Talent is facing an accomplished foe. A former county prosecutor in Kansas City and state legislator and current state auditor, she is gregarious and focused on the campaign trail as she delivers a sharp-edged populist message.
Experts in Missouri politics believe McCaskill is likely to post strong showings in Kansas City and St. Louis and their suburbs. Helping her in these metropolitan areas is the fact that she supports, and Talent opposes, a state ballot initiative to authorize stem-cell research.
But in her 2004 gubernatorial race, McCaskill won only eight of the state's 109 rural and exurban counties, noted Kenneth Warren, a St. Louis University political scientist. To win this year, he said, McCaskill's main challenge "is to get more of the rural vote."
The opportunities and barriers facing McCaskill in that effort were on display as she and Talent crossed paths on recent campaign swings through rural counties in southeastern Missouri, an area known as "the Bootheel."
McCaskill's biggest obstacle, by far, is her liberal views on social issues: She supports abortion rights and opposed state constitutional amendments to ban gay marriage and allow residents to carry concealed weapons. Talent's campaign has run ads in rural markets highlighting these positions.
When McCaskill appeared Sept. 30 at the 62nd annual Cotton Carnival Parade in Sikeston, several of those lining the route said they did not need to know her opinions on any subject beyond abortion and gay rights to conclude they could not vote for her.
McCaskill is trying to convince more rural voters to consider "the money side" of the race (in the Bootheel's major counties, the poverty rate substantially exceeds the state average).
She spotlights her support for an increase in the minimum wage, denounces last year's energy bill for providing tax breaks to oil companies and proposes new tax credits for college education, child care and first-time home buyers.
She's also unambiguous in her criticism of the Iraq war, urging the removal of U.S. troops over the next two years.
Talent, meanwhile, is attempting to localize the race by focusing on his legislative priorities, such as measures to require increased use of ethanol and to crack down on methamphetamine production.
seattletimes.nwsource.com |
