Ranting On...the Extinction of the Red-State Democrat

State Sen. Jason Carter (D-GA), one of several red state Democrats
running competitive races this year

It's Friday, and that means it's time for a rant, though I must say that in this week of me struggling with being sick (I'm still there, but am, knock on wood, feeling a little bit better today as opposed to the past three days) I've been ranting quite a bit this week.  Still, though, Friday rants are one of those things I love to do on the site, and since we haven't had a political post yet today, that seems to be an appropriate avenue.

I have to say that most of the interesting things to be said about this election have been said.  Right now it's primarily about watching the polls whether they are starting to trend toward the Republicans (KS/NC Senate) or the Democrats (IA/GA Senate) and waiting to vote.  But voting is still something that I want to discuss, because 2014 is starting to look more and more like a last stand of sorts for a state's minority party, particularly when it comes to Democrats.

Looking at the Senate races in particular, there are currently twelve Democratic senators that represent states that were won by Mitt Romney, a staggering seven of which are up for reelection this year (the seats currently held by Sens. Hagan, Pryor, Landrieu, Begich, Johnson, Walsh, and Rockefeller).  Everyone has talked about how this is the reason that the Senate is so terribly in play this year, and they're right, but there's something lost in that sentiment: is this the end of the ballot-split or the minority party being competitive?

Looking a few years back, particularly for Democrats, this wouldn't have been the case.  Immediately following the 2000 election of George W. Bush, when there was a 50/50 Senate (a theoretical possibility for a few weeks from now), the Democrats had twenty seats in Bush states, while the Republicans had nine seats in Gore states.  Now that number is down considerably, with Democrats only having twelve (though it's worth noting that Republicans still have nine).  However, it's theoretically possible that after November's election, all seven of those above seats could go to the Republicans, giving the Democrats only five Romney state Senate seats (for the curious, they are currently held by Sens. Heitkamp of North Dakota, Donnelly of Indiana, McCaskill of Missouri, Tester of Montana, and Manchin of West Virginia, all five senators who were elected or reelected in 2012).

The reality is that 2014 may be the last stand of the ballot split at the ballots, and not just in the Senate.  Despite historically being able to compete on pretty conservative territory with Blue Dog Democrats, the House has seen the basic extinction of the Blue Dog, and with Reps. Mike McIntyre and Jim Matheson both retiring (and Rep. Nick Rahall potentially destined for defeat), the most conservative district held by a Democrat could shift from a Cook PVI of R+16 all the way down to a R+9.  In fact, of the seven Democrats running for reelection in districts that Mitt Romney won, the only one that seems pretty confident of returning is Patrick Murphy in Florida-18.  Theoretically the rest of them could be wiped out this election.

Rep. Collin Peterson (D-MN)

This is part of a larger, more cohesive approach that can in part be blamed on Citizens United.  In the past a congressman like, say, Collin Peterson in Minnesota could focus most of his campaign on retail politicking, relying on years of goodwill in a rural district in order to hold his district.  Now, though, with multi-millionaires able to control specific attacks against incumbents, someone like Peterson is forced to run a digital and televised campaign, exposing his associations with national Democrats.  This is in part why the years of voter approval built up by Peterson (and the likes of Mary Landrieu and Mark Pryor) don't seem to amount to as much this year.

The Republicans are not immune to this situation, they just aren't quite getting it this year.  Thanks to a pretty solid anti-Obama wave sweeping the country, it's near certain that more Republicans will represent Obama-won House and Senate seats come January, but in 2016, this is probably going to come back to bite them in the butt.  Even if the Democrats lose seats like Maine-2 or Massachusetts-6, two years from now they're almost assured to be competitive in getting them back, as a Hillary campaign would likely have strong coattails.  This is also why Republicans have to be a bit nervous about the longevity of their Senate majority-all but two of their Obama-state senators are up for reelection in 2016 (for the continually curious Sen. Heller of Nevada is up in 2018 and Sen. Collins of Maine, who has managed to be the bizarre exception to this rule, and is cruising to a win in a few weeks).

This may also be why Democrats in red states should be far more excited to vote than they clearly are: this is potentially their last chance to make a major difference.  Those seven Senate seats, coupled with competitive races in Kansas, Georgia, and Kentucky in the Senate, are probably the last time the Democrats will ever be competitive in so many red states, at least until current voting trends start to change.  Couple that with competitive gubernatorial races in Georgia, Kansas, and Alaska and you see that this is one of those last elections where the minority in these red states could still make a difference if they get out and vote in large numbers.  I frequently pity blue state Republicans and red state Democrats, since they frequently are shutdown by simply not being the majority in their state, but not this year.  The fate of three governor's races and a half dozen Senate races will be decided by whether or not ticket-splitters and the Democratic minority are able to get out to the polls.  In a few weeks, we'll find out if this is the end of the red-state Democrat.