 |
| (L-R) Vulnerable Sens. Joe Donnelly (D-IN), Jon Tester (D-MT), Heidi Heitkamp (D-ND), and Joe Manchin (D-WV), along with Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR)-could they all win this November? |
This makes sense in some respects. America is a fickle nation, one where only 5-10% of the population regularly change their minds about politics, and thus swing the electorate back-and-forth. As a result, incumbents (people who have generally already won elections before, though not always as we'll get to in a second), are proven winners at this point and are getting what should theoretically be the best political environment that they can possibly imagine.
In 2018, this will be a huge deal. As I said above, I'm giving the Democrats a 1-in-4 shot of reclaiming the Senate this fall. Most of that reluctance, though, is precipitated on the idea that the Democrats will have one of their incumbents lose. The DSCC did a marvelous job of recruiting every Democrat to run for reelection (and though we're not quite of the woods on primaries, so far every one of them have cleared their primaries, though after Ayanna Pressley yesterday, I feel like Tom Carper should be watching his back tomorrow). If I could guarantee that every Democrat was going to win reelection, as history suggests most will, I'd say the Democrats have a 70% chance of winning back the Senate, as all that would stand in their way is two pickups (which feel probable in Arizona & Nevada). So in looking at this list, it's worth keeping in mind that if no Democrats this cycle suffer the fate of these five senators, Chuck Schumer will be popping the champagne in two months.
 |
| Sen. Howard Cannon (D-NV) |
State: Nevada
Party: Democratic
Year First Elected to Senate: 1958
Year He Lost Reelection: 1982
How'd He Lose: Cannon was a decorated military veteran when he finally won election to Congress in 1958 after a previous failed attempt. He had encountered tough reelections before (famously winning in 1964 against his future fellow senator Paul Laxalt by only 48 votes), but in 1982 he lost not because of the national environment which greatly favored the Democrats, but instead because of a bribery scandal involving Teamsters President Roy L. Williams. Though Cannon didn't serve any jail time, the scandal cost him dearly with Democratic voters, and he nearly was bested in the primary by Rep. James Santini. Ultimately, he lost to State Sen. Chic Hecht by just under 3-points.
Is There a Correlation Today?: The only senator who has clearly been involved in a scandal up this year is Sen. Bob Menendez, and it's worth noting that Menendez has struggled in the polls and had a tighter-than-expected primary challenge (though nowhere near what Cannon had). Otherwise, no other Democrat comes to mind, though it's worth noting that the rumors are rampant that Tom Carper could be in a closer-than-expected race tomorrow in his primary against Kerri Harris, though Carper has not had any scandals during his tenure.
 |
| Sen. Al D'Amato (R-NY) |
State: New York
Party: Republican
Year First Elected to Senate: 1980
Year He Lost Reelection: 1998
How'd He Lose: I frequently think about creating a storytelling podcast focusing entirely on specific elections. If I ever do, Al D'Amato will be one of the first episodes I do because, like so many New York politicians before and since, he was quite a character during his time-in-office. Despite being an "accidental" senator during his first term, he still managed to luck out and win in 1986 (with shocking ease) and 1992 (in a tight race against Robert Abrams). In 1998, though, he met his match with then-Rep. Chuck Schumer. Schumer knew how to turn moderate voters in New York City against D'Amato (who used a racial slur against Schumer which some attributed to his loss), as well as the increasingly blue politics of the Empire State to win the election. Even though D'Amato was considered moderate and relatively well-liked, he couldn't overcome the trend of his state to being solid blue (he lost by ten points, and quite frankly today it's unthinkable that a Republican could come so close to winning a New York Senate seat).
Is There a Correlation Today?: Schumer may have won because of a state drifting away from one party initially, but it's D'Amato's circumstance that keeps him up at night. Five of his most vulnerable senators (Jon Tester, Claire McCaskill, Heidi Heitkamp, Joe Manchin, & Joe Donnelly) are all in states that would have been much friendlier to their party two decades ago, and if they lose it will likely be because no Democrat could win their states. If there's a cautionary tale for the Democrats in 2018, it's D'Amato's.
 |
| Sen. Lauch Faircloth (R-NC) |
State: North Carolina
Party: Republican
Year First Elected to Senate: 1992
Year He Lost Reelection: 1998
How'd He Lose: Faircloth had spent the vast bulk of his career working in Democratic politics, and had only just switched parties two years before running in 1990 against his old boss Terry Sanford. Faircloth clobbered the once-popular Sanford as a tax-and-spend liberal, but was famously stiff on the stump, and was no match for trial lawyer John Edwards, who ran in 1998 (one of only two recent midterms that weren't bloodbaths for the party-in-the-White-House). Edwards, 25 years Faircloth's junior was handsome, charming, and as a successful attorney, much better at attacks against Faircloth than Sanford had been six years earlier. Edwards, of course, would have a very interesting career during his one term in Congress, but that's a story for a different day. It's also worth noting that this seat was famously "cursed," switching hands every cycle between 1974 and 2004 before finally settling on Richard Burr.
Is There a Correlation Today?: While no current Senate seats are cursed (that I'm aware of), you could make an argument that several candidates are running campaigns that target their opponents age, specifically Rick Scott against Bill Nelson (Scott is ten years Nelson's junior) and Josh Hawley to Claire McCaskill (Hawley is 27 years McCaskill's junior). Nelson, in particular, seems a good comparison since like Faircloth he's famously not a great public speaker, and while I wouldn't compare Scott to Edwards, he is better at retail politicking than his opponent (I wouldn't say the same for McCaskill/Hawley, even though the age difference is as pronounced as Faircloth/Edwards).
 |
| Sen. Max Cleland (D-GA) |
State: Georgia
Party: Democratic
Year First Elected to Senate: 1996
Year He Lost Reelection: 2002
How'd He Lose: You ever want to get a true die-hard Democrat mad, you bring up "Max Cleland's 2002 reelection" to them and watch their ears turn red. It's been sixteen years and I'm still pounding on my keyboard right now. Cleland, a decorated Vietnam War veteran, lost both his legs and his right arm during the war when he picked up a grenade he didn't realize was live. In 2002, Cleland was the heavy favorite against Rep. Saxby Chambliss, leading in most polls heading into the election. However, Chambliss ran one of the dirtiest campaign ads I've ever seen right before the election, linking Cleland's votes against some homeland security measures to Osama bin Laden & Saddam Hussein, essential comparing terrorists to a war hero. Prominent Republican Sens. John McCain and Chuck Hagel (like Cleland, both former Vietnam War veterans) criticized the ads and they were eventually pulled, but the damage to Cleland was done. He lost by seven points on Election Day.
Is There a Correlation Today?: It's hard to tell if there's any significant vote that is going to hurt Democrats the way that it did Cleland (all of them supported the ACA, for example, so that's not an option, though perhaps how they cast their ballots of Brett Kavanaugh could make a difference). I haven't seen an ad as heinous as the one brought by Chambliss on Cleland, but the campaign season is still young so give it time, as these sorts of nasty commercials are more common now than they were in 2002.
 |
| Sen. Jean Carnahan (D-MO, middle) with Massachusetts Sens. Ted Kennedy & John Kerry |
State: Missouri
Party: Democratic
Year First Elected to Senate: 2000-technically Carnahan wasn't on the ballot in 2000, her husband Mel was (we discuss this story more in-depth here), but it was well-known at the time that Jean would take his spot so essentially it was her victory.
Year She Lost Reelection: 2002
How'd She Lose: Carnahan's win in 2000 was very close, and in many ways is too unusual to draw any correlations with, but her 2002 loss was largely a combination of three factors. The first was that 2002 wasn't a particularly weak year for the Republicans. President Bush enjoyed solid popularity still after his handling of the 9/11 crisis, and the Iraq War had just started & was still quite popular. Thus Carnahan didn't get a natural antipathy to the Republicans that most other midterm senators could enjoy. Secondly, she wasn't the natural campaigner her husband was and didn't have the skill that her opponent, Rep. Jim Talent, would bring to the trail. Her third problem was that she voted a bit too liberally to hold her seat, namely casting a ballot against her 2000 opponent John Ashcroft during his Attorney General confirmations, which was seen as bad sport considering Ashcroft had suspended his campaign in 2000 to pay respects to her husband.
Is There a Correlation Today?: The only candidate that's running as an appointed senator is Tina Smith, who seems pretty safe in her reelection. None of the current senators that are in tough races are running their first campaign, as well, and in fact most of them (McCaskill, Heitkamp, Nelson, etc), are running one of many statewide contests. About the only person you could easily draw a comparison to here is Joe Donnelly, who won in 2012 in what some would call a fluke, and that was his only statewide election, though unlike Carnahan he had run competitive House races previously.
So overall, the only real case to be made for senators who could lose this year would be the D'Amato-model, which admittedly could affect a lot of senators. But it's worth noting as the discussion over whether the Democrats can take the Senate heats up that their incumbents are likely more protected than they appear on paper.
So overall, the only real case to be made for senators who could lose this year would be the D'Amato-model, which admittedly could affect a lot of senators. But it's worth noting as the discussion over whether the Democrats can take the Senate heats up that their incumbents are likely more protected than they appear on paper.
No comments:
Post a Comment