Share

Democrats Could Hit 60 Senate Seats

by: Jim VandeHei and Mike Allen  |  The Politico

photo
North Carolina Sen. Elizabeth Dole is trailing in her bid for re-election. (Photo: Susan Walsh / AP)

    The possibility that Democrats will build a muscular, 60-seat Senate majority is looking increasing plausible, with new polls showing a powerful surge for the party's candidates in Minnesota, Kentucky and other states.

    A poll out Friday shows Sen. Norm Coleman could now easily lose his Minnesota seat to comedian-turned-candidate Al Franken. A Colorado race that initially looked like a nail-biter has broken decisively for the Democrats. A top official in the McCain camp told us Sen. Elizabeth Dole is virtually certain to lose in conservative North Carolina.

    Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky has seen his race tighten dangerously close over the past week - and Democrats are considering moving more money into the state very soon. And there is even talk that Republican Sen. Saxby Chambliss is beatable in conservative Georgia after backing the economic bailout package opposed by many voters.

    "Before the economic crisis, we had a number of races moving our way," said Matthew Miller, communications director of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee. "But now we're seeing Republican numbers plummet." GOP officials largely agree.

    Senate races don't grab national attention like the White House battle does. But if these trends hold, the Senate outcome could be almost as important to Washington governance as the presidential winner will be. It takes 60 votes to pass anything through the slow-moving Senate. So the closer the Democrats get to the number, the more power they will have next year to put their stamp on the country.

    Democrats say their candidates are benefiting from the wipeout on Wall Street with a single message in every region of the country: "These are the Bush policies coming home to roost." Senator Charles E. Schumer of New York, chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, told Politico: "Americans know that in economically difficult times, we need a change from George Bush's policies. And incumbents who have voted for six years with Bush, up and down the line, are having a difficult time trying to convince the electorate that they've changed their spots."

    The trends reflect the growing fear of among top Republicans that their prospects could crater on Nov. 4, with Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) running weakly at the top of the ticket, President Bush as unpopular as ever and the economic crisis serving as a last-minute propellant for the change message of Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.).

    With Republicans fearing the loss of 17 to 21 House seats, January 2009 could bring Democrats a dominance over Washington that neither party has experienced since the Reagan years.

    The current Senate lineup is 49 Democrats, 49 Republicans and two independents who caucus with Democrats.

    Democrats need to pick up nine seats to hit 60 votes. Republicans have been bracing for big losses, but it wasn't until the past few days that they have started to privately sound the alarms that the bottom could fall out on Election Day.

    GOP Senate candidates are getting pounded by the same waves of public discontent over the economy and Bush that could sink McCain, and it shows in polls from coast to coast.

    Republicans fully expect to lose Virginia and New Mexico. They think there is a pretty strong chance that they also lose Colorado, Alaska, New Hampshire, Oregon and North Carolina.

    This means everyone should keep their eyes on Minnesota, Kentucky, Mississippi and Georgia over the final month of this campaign to see if a wave is coming.

    Several Republican strategists close to the White House said there is increasing fear among party leaders about a bloodbath. But they added that they hope to keep losses to as few as five or six seats, rather than the nine that Democrats would need to gain to reach the magic number of 60 seats.

    These strategists hope the Minnesota poll out Saturday overstates Franken's strength, because it was taken at the height of turmoil over the bailout bill that Bush finally signed Friday.

    "It reflects a lot of intense unhappiness that will fade as the market restores some equilibrium," a Republican official said.

    But that same timing is very dangerous for Sen. Gordon Smith (R-Ore.), because his state has mail voting with a heavy early vote, meaning he has less time to recover from angst about the Wall Street wipeout.

    Republicans say they have become more optimistic in recent days about Sen. John Sununu (R-N.H.), who had been considered one of the party's most endangered incumbents.

    Sen. Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) will certainly lose if he is convicted in a corruption trial now under way in Washington but will probably win if he is acquitted, the strategists said.

    Top Republicans say they have no hope for Dole in North Carolina. "There's no point in even counting the votes," said a top McCain official.

    Republicans said they hope to make up for one loss by persuading Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (I-Conn.) to caucus with them. He has campaigned vigorously for McCain, and Democratic Party leaders have vowed to punish him.

    One indication of the Republicans' mood: They're already looking past this grim election season.

    "2010 looks pretty good for us to pick up three or four or five seats pretty easily," the McCain official said.

  

»


Comments

This is a moderated forum.  It may take a little while for comments to go live. Be civil and on-topic, don't threaten or advocate violence, please keep it under 300 words. Thanks for participating.

The voters in 1932 gave FDR

The voters in 1932 gave FDR a comfortable majority in the Senate: 59 out of 96 seats. We can only imagine how the history of the New Deal would have been affected if Roosevelt had to worry about Senate Filibusters. Today, as the shadow of a second great depression hangs over us, we need to ask if we can afford to give Obama less than a working, 60 seat, majority in the Senate. The answer to that question lies in whether you think Congress is going to need to act efficiently in reconstructing our financial markets, or whether the Democrats should be forced to provide the Republicans with pork and concessions every step of the way. Without a 60 seat majority you can expect grid lock, alternating with panicked decision making when the effects of government impotency roll down upon us.

We must hope for this with

We must hope for this with every fiber of our beings. We need not only Obama in the White House, but also a U. S. Senate with some muscle (and spine). The public seems to be waking up to this and inclined to go all the way during the upcoming election. The McCain is helping as--like a wounded snake that has taken to devouring itself--it sends Sarah Palin forth in public as a sacrificial liar to sing in harmony to John McCain's dirty lyrics. Only the racists and die-hard rich should be sticking with McCain by election day.

unfortunatley, if 45% of

unfortunatley, if 45% of "those polled" (likely voters?) think that Monty Palin is presidential stuff, and given that rove and murdoch still have a month of sundays to do their tricks, I wouldn't hold my breath, hope? sure I'm hoping!

Want to help in those

Want to help in those battleground states. Give some of your hard earned dollars to those candidates. The Rs will be throwing everything they can at them.

Sorry, but stories like this

Sorry, but stories like this make me nervous. For one thing, almost none of the Democratic candidates mentioned are actually winning -- Franken trails Coleman in MN, Lundsford trails McConnell in KY, Chambliss trails Martin in GA, etc. Dole is only two points behind Hagan and the party's abandoning her? Really? Weird, too, that the only comfort the writers give Republicans is John Sununu, who was trailing Dem rival Jeanne Shaheen by 10 pts in the Oct. 1 Rasmussen poll. Things might be tilting, but this story comes off a little strange.

A lame duck Bush has been

A lame duck Bush has been able to get his own way on pretty much everything these last two years even with a minority position in the House and an evenly-split Senate, but the democrats need a democratic president, a majority in the House AND a filibuster-proof Senate before they will even begin to enact any progressive initiatives? Anyone up for a bet that they will still be as ineffective even with control of all three branches of executive and legislature? Then the refrain will be that they can't do anything until some Supreme Court justices retire... By which time it will be 2010 and we'll be back to a Republican Senate majority. FDR was a different breed of democrat... one with spine.

It'll take more than 60

It'll take more than 60 seats to prevent gridlock. The Blue Dogs still wag the Democratic Party's tail, and they are not dependable on economic or constitutional issues -- that is, they are the enemy, too.

Well, Anonymous at 23:52, I

Well, Anonymous at 23:52, I like what Frank H. Logan had to say. I think, if elected, Obama will have the spine, particularly if his mandate is healthy. Despite all the scatter shot about his character and motives being proffered by Republicans, my instincts tell me his commitment to reviving the middle class, his intellect and administrative chops will result in very effective governance. And that is not even factoring in the plethora of qualified Democrats for cabinet posts and his formidable campaign organizers. They clearly have the desire and ability to make up a crack White House staff.

And the demonrats are going

And the demonrats are going to change what? Look what they did with the bailout, patriot act,HR1955,posse comitatus, Protect America act. I mean come on these two parties are different wings on the same bird. They have voted for everything Bush wanted. war and more war and domestic police powers. Please its time to have an epiphany because if you don't you will be kicking yourselves in the ass.