Sen. Roy Blunt (R-MO) |
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) |
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) |
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.
No comments:
Post a Comment