What Do Senate Retirements Mean?

Sen. Roy Blunt (R-MO)

In the past few weeks we've seen a number of different senators announce their retirement, not seeking reelection in 2022.  To date, five Republicans (Richard Shelby, Pat Toomey, Richard Burr, Roy Blunt, & Rob Portman) have announced they won't seek reelection, with two more (Ron Johnson & Chuck Grassley) publicly toying with the idea, while no Democrats have announced they will, and only one (Pat Leahy) being even a 50/50 shot at actually leaving.  This has led to both a series of articles proclaiming "Republicans are retiring because they don't think they can win the majority!" as well as a series of articles shouting "Republicans won seats the last time they had more retirements!" and I wanted to take a look at where the truth lands, as well as talk about what some of these retirements really mean for 2022.

Let's discuss first the idea of whether or not the retirements are a bad omen for the GOP.  I think, first-and-foremost, that the gut instinct to assume this isn't good news for the Republicans isn't a wrong one.  People like Blunt & Toomey, in particular, are individuals that are younger & actively involved in other races in their states (Blunt has been a fixture of congressional leadership for decades, Toomey openly considered a gubernatorial race before deciding against both), so it's not illogical to assume that something else, either avoiding a primary or general election defeat, is behind their decisions.  But many people have focused on 2010 among several other races, as an election that would be an indicator that Republicans aren't actually worried about next November, and I just don't think that's correct.

2010 did, for the record, have a large number of Republican retirements (six), more than most recent cycles.  And the Republicans did, in fact, pickup six seats (plus a seventh if you count the special election in Massachusetts).  That would indicate that the Republicans weren't retiring because they didn't think they would get the majority, right?  Not exactly.  For starters, the Democrats, if you count appointed incumbents, had six retirements as well; it might not be fair to count appointed incumbents, but it also feelsspecious to dismiss them out-of-hand since they made the same decision as the Republicans.  Secondly, and more critical, the retiring senators would've been right-the Republicans didn't win back the Senate in 2010.  The Democrats had a 59-41 majority on Election Day, and ended it with 53-47, a slimmer majority to be sure, but the Republicans if they wanted to hold the gavels would have to wait four years.  The calculus was right if they wanted out of the minority, as they wouldn't win it.

Sen. Richard Burr (R-NC)

Other recent election cycles indicate, at best, that either politicians do factor in the majority in their retirements during midterms or they aren't great at predicting races.  In 1994, when the Republicans won back the majority, twice as many Democrats retired as Republicans.  More Republicans retired in 1990, a year where the Democrats held their majority.  In 2002 & 2018 the theory that retirements aren't an indicator of what might happen is a sound one, though both races have some caveats to the incumbent party's thinking.  For 2018, after the election of Doug Jones, there was a reasonable expectation that the Democrats might actually take back the Senate majority, and indeed several incumbents who stuck around (specifically Claire McCaskill & Bill Nelson) were leading/tied in polls heading into Election Day, showing that this was a decent bet.  In 2002, four Republicans retired early on, but let's keep in mind that most people assumed the Republicans would stay in the minority.  The untimely death of Paul Wellstone caused a race that was trending blue to slip away from the GOP, and a surprise defeat in Georgia took the majority with it.  All of this is to say that retirement tea leaves probably shouldn't be interpreted one way or the other for the end result, other than that retirements indicate that the chances aren't good for the party's chances at that moment.

What these retirements mean in general, though, is a good question.  Burr & Toomey's races, as we've discussed here before, are in contests that are now tossups, or bordering on them (some would quibble with North Carolina being characterized that way, but I think it is until we get a bit closer).  Shelby & Blunt's races are Solid Republican, and unless there's a Roy Moore-type miracle for the left (and I don't think even Eric Greitens is that miracle), they are staying red, likely with more Trump-loyal figures than the incumbents.  Rob Portman's seat is Strong R, but it's at least on the cusp of being competitive if the Republicans foul up.  I've been a firm advocate for Democrats only investing in plausible races after 2020...too much money was spent on longshot bids in Kentucky, South Carolina, & Kansas that should have been put into other places like the House contests in California/Florida.  Ohio is on the cusp of that for me, since Trump won it by less-than-ten, but it's not a super realistic shot for the Democrats.

Sen. Chuck Grassley & Speaker Pat Grassley (both R-IA)

Wisconsin & Iowa are the last two pieces of the puzzle.  Wisconsin is honestly competitive no matter if Johnson runs or not.  Johnson is acting like a senator from Alabama when he's really a senator from a state Biden won.  Underestimating him is a fool's errand (just ask Russ Feingold...and then ask him again), but his behavior in recent months is shocking for a swing state senator, and I honestly think he'll retire, and perhaps more telling, I think Wisconsin Republicans are hoping he'll retire.  Whether he does or doesn't, this being a Biden state (even slimly) will make it a top priority for both sides.

As for Grassley, who will be 88 on Election Day, while senators sometimes struggle to know when to leave (and Grassley has been in politics for 60+ years at this point), I think something slightly more nefarious is happening here.  Grassley is unbeatable-no Democrat can take him on-but his seat would at least be worth investing in if he retired, as Biden lost this state by less-than-ten and the incumbent governor is increasingly unpopular.  However, it does appear that Grassley knows this, and is holding off until the last minute to negate the Democrats from being able to gain in grassroots fundraising, something they'll need to beat the tough odds in increasingly red Iowa.  This could hurt the Republicans but it feels like Grassley is counting on that as well-his grandson Pat is the Speaker of the House of Representatives, and it's possible Grassley is pulling these levers in order to give him a leg-up for the nomination, and thus the general election.  This also potentially helps Rep. Cindy Axne (D) in her primary, though not to the same degree as the younger Grassley.  Axne can still fundraise for her reelection, but federal election law states that she can transfer over the funds she raised for a federal race to a different federal race, thus meaning she can use her current money in a race for the Senate.  State Auditor Rob Sand (a potential opponent) can't do the same for a Senate run, and former Rep. Abby Finkenauer (another potential opponent) can't do so without declaring a run.  This sets up a unique situation in Iowa where Pat Grassley & Cindy Axne can run a shadow race, waiting on Sen. Grassley's ultimate decision.