Democrats More Hopeful About Senate Races
More Seats Now Viewed as Competitive, But Regaining Control Still Looks Unlikely
By Helen Dewar
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, March 14, 2004; Page A05
The number of competitive Senate races has edged up in recent months, buoying Democratic hopes of minimizing their losses -- and possibly even winning a majority -- in the November elections.
Republicans scoff at the notion of a Democratic takeover, and many independent observers say odds still favor continued GOP control of the Senate, probably with at least some gains in the party's current 51-vote majority in the 100-member chamber.
But there is a growing view among political analysts that Democratic gains can no longer be ruled out -- a view reinforced by the recent decision of Sen. Ben Nighthorse Campbell (R-Colo.) to retire, the emergence of potentially bruising contests within the GOP and Democrats' somewhat brighter -- or, at least, less dismal -- prospects in the South.
"The situation for Democrats looks a whole lot better than it did six weeks ago . . . but Democrats need a lot to go right for them to reach 51," said Jennifer E. Duffy, who oversees Senate races for the Cook Political Report. Republicans could pick up a seat or two but are unlikely to gain three or four, as some have predicted, Duffy added.
Stuart Rothenberg, editor of the Rothenberg Political Report, said new opportunities have opened up for both parties, but largely to the benefit of Democrats. "The Democrats have more to work with than they did before," he said. "It doesn't mean they're going to win those seats, but they have more places to play and more potential for gains."
Democrats need a net gain of only one or two seats to win control of the Senate: one seat if voters elect a Democrat as vice president, who breaks ties in the Senate; and two seats if they elect a Republican.
Republicans have controlled the Senate for all but 18 months of the last decade. The Senate was divided 50-50 after the 2000 elections, with Vice President Cheney breaking the tie in favor of the GOP. When Vermont Sen. James M. Jeffords left the GOP in mid-2001, Democrats ruled with a one-vote majority until the 2002 elections, when Republicans regained control.
For Democrats, the big break came March 3 when Campbell, who had been favored to win reelection this fall, announced he will not seek another term, citing health problems. Although Colorado leans Republican, Campbell's decision put the state in play for the Democrats.
Colorado Democrats' fortunes were bolstered again Tuesday when Gov. Bill Owens, who had been regarded as the GOP's strongest possible contender, announced he will not run. Shortly after, state Attorney General Ken Salazar (D) jumped into the race, clearing out all other Democrats. Several House Republicans also decided against running, forcing a scramble among GOP leaders to find a suitable candidate.
An earlier break for Democrats came late last year when Sen. Don Nickles (R-Okla.) announced he will not run again this fall, providing an opening that Democrats were quick to exploit. Rep. Brad Carson, a moderate-to-conservative Democrat who jumped quickly into the race, is heavily favored to win his party's nomination and has run ahead of Republicans in a recent poll. The Republican picture has been complicated by the recent entry of former representative Tom Coburn to challenge the establishment-backed Kirk Humphreys, former mayor of Oklahoma City, in what could be a divisive insider-vs.-outsider primary clash.
In another recent development, former South Carolina governor David Beasley joined five other Republicans competing for that state's GOP senatorial nomination. Beasley is better known than the others, but he was defeated for reelection in 1998 and carries baggage from his four years as governor, including lingering controversy over his support for removal of the Confederate flag from atop the state capitol.
Probably the best targets for Democratic gains are Democratic-leaning Illinois, where first-term Sen. Peter Fitzgerald (R) decided against seeking reelection, and Alaska, where Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R) was appointed to the seat by her father when he left the Senate to become governor. Illinois will chose its nominees in a primary Tuesday. In Alaska, Lisa Murkowski is opposed by former governor Tony Knowles.
With the recent signs of progress for Democrats in Senate races, Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee Chairman Jon S. Corzine (N.J.) called a news conference earlier this month to declare that the Senate is "now officially up for grabs."
But Democrats start out with imposing disadvantages, including the retirement of Democratic senators in five southern states: John Edwards (N.C.), Ernest F. Hollings (S.C.), Zell Miller (Ga.), Bob Graham (Fla.) and John Breaux (La.).
Republicans have been gaining ground in the region in recent years, and all five states voted in 2000 for President Bush, who is expected run strong in the South again this year. Three of the five states -- North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia -- elected Republican senators to Democratic-held or open seats in the last election cycle.
As of now, Democrats are still scrambling for a viable candidate in Georgia "We're looking for volunteers," joked Sen. Debbie Stabenow (Mich.), vice chairwoman of the Democrats' campaign committee. But Democrats appear to be doing better than anticipated earlier in the Carolinas. Inez Tenenbaum, the Democratic state superintendent of schools in South Carolina, and Erskine B. Bowles (N.C.), a former White House chief of staff who ran unsuccessfully against now-Sen. Elizabeth Dole (R) two years ago, have done well in some recent polls. Democrats are most optimistic about Florida and Louisiana, but the outcome in those states remains unclear.
Outside the South, Democrats appear to be in strong or at least seriously competitive positions in running for at least four Republican-held seats: in Illinois, Alaska, Oklahoma and Colorado. But, even if they won all these races, which is problematic, they would suffer a net loss of one seat if they are wiped out in the South. Democrats are also eyeing several other GOP-held seats but have to worry -- at least a bit -- about some of their own seats in states such as California.
Another disadvantage arises out of the fact that Democrats are defending more seats than Republicans: 19 as opposed to 15. Democrats have six seats at stake in the 10 most competitive races, including the seat held by Democratic leader Thomas A. Daschle (S.D.). Daschle faces a tough challenge from former representative John Thune (R), who was narrowly defeated in a bid to unseat Sen. Tim Johnson (D-S.D.) two years ago.
In second-tier races, Democrats appear to have more opportunities than Republicans, but they are considered long shots.
Even more significantly, nearly all of the Democrats' critical battlegrounds, including the GOP-held seats they are targeting as well as the Democratic seats they are defending, are in Republican-leaning states that Bush carried four years ago.
A Democratic presidential ticket headed by Massachusetts Sen. John F. Kerry could be a drag for Democratic candidates in heavily GOP states, especially in the South. But the choice of a southerner to run for the vice presidency, such as Edwards or Graham, could help soften the blow. And the impact of job losses, especially in textiles and manufacturing in the Carolinas, could help offset normal Republican advantages, some strategists suggest.
Money is another problem. The most recent figures show the Senate GOP campaign committee had $9.7 million in the bank as of January, compared with $2.6 million for the Democrats. While conceding the disadvantage, Democrats say they have raised money at a fast clip since January and contend that all candidates in critical races will be adequately financed.
Later primaries may determine whether other races are seriously competitive. For instance, Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.), who is generally regarded as a moderate, faces an April primary challenge from Rep. Pat Toomey, a staunch conservative. Specter is favored to survive, but Democrats would benefit if he is defeated or wounded by Toomey.
© 2004 The Washington Post Company |
