Retaking the Senate for Dummies (such as myself)

Currently, Republicans control the Senate 51-48-1. However, when it comes to retaking the Senate, the numbers are actually slightly different. This is because:
  • Zell Miller is really a Republican
  • Jim Jeffords is really a Democrat
  • John Kerry will become President, and Romney will appoint a Republican
All together, this means that from the standpoint of Senate control after November 2nd, Republicans currently hold the Senate 53-47. Here is a map based on this standpoint (blue for double Democrat, red for double Republican, and purple for a split state):

In order for Democrats to be in control (even if it is the bizarre position of controlling the Senate despite being technically down 50-49-1 but controlling the Vice-Presidency and being allied with the Independent), Democrats need a net gain of three seats. In November, there are 34 Senate seats up for election. With Zell Miller as a Republican, 18 of those seats belong to Democrats, and 16 to Republicans. For Democrats to take the Senate in the highly unusual minority controlled fashion described above, they need to win 21 of these elections. To win the Senate outright, they need to win 22 of those elections (which would reproduce the 50-49-1 Democratic edge of 2001 and 2002).

Of the 18 Democratic seats, 13 are considered safe (although Washington, California, North Dakota, Wisconsin and Nevada are not hard-core locks). Of the 16 Republican seats, 9 are probably safe (although Kentucky, Ohio and New Hampshire are not in the bag). These leaves control at 46-42 Republican plus tight races, or 43-37 Republican plus all conceivable races. In the tight-race scenario, Democrats must win 9 of the 12 races to take outright control (8 for the minority control scenario). In the all conceivable races scenario, Democrats must win 14 out of 20 to take the Senate outright (13 would be enough for minority control).

The 20 states that could conceivably be close races are Alaska, California, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana, Missouri, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Washington and Wisconsin. In 2000, Bush won eight of these states by double digits. Gore won two of these states by double digits, and less than ten points decided ten.

On their excellent Senate page, Kos, Jerome and Stephan Yellin provide detailed information on all of these races. For somewhat less-informed people (such as myself), I hope this quick breakdown of the numbers needed in order for Democrats to retake control is a useful add-on.

Tags: Senate 2006 (all tags)

Comments

11 Comments

Thanks
What an excellent summary.  Thank you.
by Tito 2004-06-09 11:18AM | 0 recs
We could lose these six...
Georgia, New Hampshire, Ohio, Kentucky, Pennsylvania, and Missouri.

Then we would need to claim all the rest.

Not much margin for error, but of course we could win a couple of the above and lose a seperate race or pad our margin.

by Keith Brekhus 2004-06-09 11:28AM | 0 recs
Re: We could lose these six...
We ain't gonna lose Pennsylvania.
by Chris Bowers 2004-06-09 11:34AM | 0 recs
If we win Pennsylvania...
that protects us from a blow in South Carolina, Florida or Oklahoma.

If Bush continues to tank and Kerry has coattails we could win 18 or 19 of the 20 races--maybe even all of them. That a huge stretch but 14 or 15 certainly looks possible.

by Keith Brekhus 2004-06-09 12:46PM | 0 recs
Re: We could lose these six...
Georgia will have a female senator! That means it will be purple in the map above...
by BettyAlex 2004-06-09 02:16PM | 0 recs
Re: We could lose these six...
That's exactly how I calculated it. Nice way of thinking about it, actually--taking Miller's seat as a R incumbent and assume that Kerry gets elected, kind of assuming the worst I guess. We would have to sweep the races you don't mention there, though, because the races you do mention I don't see us as having any chance at all of winning.
by asf6 2004-06-10 01:42PM | 0 recs
Kerry wins
....we lose the senate?  Maybe.  Pressure is on Romney to stay within the Dem party, or to allow the state legislature to make the choice.  Unlikely, but one can hope.
by Tito 2004-06-09 11:36AM | 0 recs
Actually, the proposed MA law...
would take away Romney's power to appoint replacement Senators completely, and provide that a special election must be held to fill a Senate vacancy.  (Under the 17th Amendment, whether a governor has the power to appoint replacement Senators is up to the state legislature, though most but not all state legislatures have given their governors this power.)  

As for whether the proposed legislation could override a Romney veto, the Democrats certainly have more-than-veto-proof majorities in both houses of the Legislature; the only question is whether they'll be able to maintain enough partisan unity.  Polling on the subject has apparently found that the prospect of the people voting to fill a Senate vacancy is fairly popular in Massachusetts, so I'm optimistic.

by David 2004-06-09 08:22PM | 0 recs
a question...
What was the cause of the power sharing bipartisan senate until Jeffords switched? Why wouldn't we have that again if the Senate split 50-49-1?

Having established my ignorance, I'd also not that Chafee has indicated that he might consider switching parties if doing so was the only way to give Democrats control of the Senate...

by samiam 2004-06-09 08:35PM | 0 recs
Re: a question...
The leaders (Daschle and Lott) agreed on the power-sharing on the theory that the unique circumstances of a "50-50 Senate" required different-than-usual rules.  The Democrats had, I believe, threatened to filibuster the Senate's organizing resolution if some accomodation was not made, and Lott backed down.

Whether the same different-than-usual rules would apply to a 50-49-1 Senate where the 1 caucuses with the 49 is not entirely clear-- precedent does count for something in the Senate, but the question is whether that would be a true "50-50 Senate".   Certainly an argument could be made that with a VP on the side of the 49+1, the 50-vote "minority" was entitled to at least as much power as the minority had during the 50-50 split; with a VP on the side of the 50, the case for the 49+1 to have "50-50 Senate" power is a tiny bit weaker  but still reasonable.  It would ultimately come down to who conceded the point, and I think with a Democratic President the Democrats would be more vulnerable to a Republican threat of filibuster than vice versa.  So if Kerry wins, as I think he will, the Republicans will probably get the same powersharing deal with a 50-49-1 Senate as the Democrats did in 2000.

by David 2004-06-10 07:46AM | 0 recs
oh and...
Olympia Snowe might accept a cabinet post, given that she seems perenially hated by everyone and Maine has a Democratic governor.
by samiam 2004-06-09 08:38PM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads


----------- myDD - skin -----------