The conventional wisdom WAS that Republicans would make great gains in this fall’s election.  That perspective took a blow on Tuesday, May 18^th when Democrat Mark Critz defeated Tea-Party supported favorite Republican Tim Burns by eight points in the PA-12 Special Election.

 Now we find that South Carolina Republican Senator Jim DeMint, who had been considered so likely to win re-election in November that the race does not even appear on wiki’s April 27 chart of major Senate polling for 2010 predictions, is leading Democratic challenger Vic Rawl by only seven points.

Pollster SCIndex reports;

According to our May 18th telephone survey DeMint’s job approval and re-elect numbers are well below the marks of a strong incumbent. Only 53% of all voters currently approve of his job performance while only 48% of all voters are likely to support his re-election. In a head to head question with Democratic challenger Vic Rawl, DeMint gets 50% of the vote to Rawl’s 43%. It is important to note that Rawl has never run for statewide office and has not aired any TV ads during this primary season.

Keep in mind that DeMint won his first term in 2004 by ten points, and South Carolina voted for McCain over Obama in 2008 by 54 to 45.  Now we hear that DeMint is only seven points ahead of a candidate that “has never run for state statewide office and has not aired any TV ads during this primary season.” AND only 48% of voters support DeMint’s re-election.

Rawl appears to be a very strong candidate, but Democrats may now want to attract a well-known top-tier candidate for the race, and we can imagine what that will do to DeMint’s numbers.

With Republicans now having to play defense in Senate races in Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Missouri, North Carolina, New Hampshire, and now South Carolina (total of 10 states), the 2010 Election is shaping up to mirror the 1934 Election, two years after FDR won the White House because of the Republican-created Great Depression, and Democrats went on to win 10 Senate seats and 9 House seats.  American voters don’t tend to reward a Party for destroying their economy.  That’s a lesson Republicans seem destined to learn big-time this November.

South Carolina's freshman Republican Senator Jim DeMint isn't particularly vulnerable in his reelection bid this coming cycle. But that doesn't mean that news of illegal campaign contributions doesn't sting.

Federal Election Commissioners have approved an agreement by which Sen. Jim DeMint's (R-S.C.) campaign will pay a $25,000 fine for accepting contributions above legal limits, according to files made public Friday.

The freshman senator, who has emerged as a leading conservative voice, accepted $68,000 in excessive contributions during his 2004 bid to replace ex-Sen. Ernest "Fritz" Hollings (D-S.C.).

Most of the contributions, made during the primary and runoff elections, could have been applied to the general election, though federal law requires donors to be notified of such an application. DeMint's campaign could not locate those notifications, according to the FEC complaint.

The committee also failed to file nearly two dozen notices of contributions in excess of $1,000, mostly in advance of the primary runoff in which DeMint faced former South Carolina Gov. David Beasley (R). Contributions of that size made within about three weeks of the election must be reported within 48 hours.

South Carolina is a fairly barren state for Democrats right now, with the Cook Political Report (subscription required) not even listing a potential challenger for DeMint. What's more, although Barack Obama improved on John Kerry's 2004 showing in the state, he still received just 44.9 percent of the vote in the state, not a great base upon which a future candidate for a down ballot race to build a campaign. That all said, no incumbent wants to see his name in the news being fined by the Federal Election Commission for improper campaign contributions, particularly an incumbent that otherwise shouldn't be vulnerable, so to that extent this news isn't great for either DeMint or the GOP.

There's more...

So with less than half a year to go, it's time for another look at all the 2008 Senate races.  There are 35 seats up for election because of a scenario in Wyoming and Mississippi where both seats are up, due to the passing of Craig Thomas and the resignation of Trent Lott, respectively.  Now obviously, quite a few of the races are considered "safe" for the incumbent.  So I'll rank these in terms of tiers.  The top tier will be the races where the party holding the seat has a real shot of switching.  The second tier are races that could become top tier races, but are not at this point.  Tier III are ones where a major event would need to happen for the seat to come into play.  And the safe seats?  Well, Mike Gravel has a better shot at winning the presidency than those incumbents have of losing their races.

Follow me below the fold for all the races.  This is meant to be a primer for both newcomers and political junkies alike, so some of the information may seem repetitive for you junkies out there.  Also see my previous March diary to see what things have changed since my last update.

There's more...

So with less than half a year to go, it's time for another look at all the 2008 Senate races.  There are 35 seats up for election because of a scenario in Wyoming and Mississippi where both seats are up, due to the passing of Craig Thomas and the resignation of Trent Lott, respectively.  Now obviously, quite a few of the races are considered "safe" for the incumbent.  So I'll rank these in terms of tiers.  The top tier will be the races where the party holding the seat has a real shot of switching.  The second tier are races that could become top tier races, but are not at this point.  Tier III are ones where a major event would need to happen for the seat to come into play.  And the safe seats?  Well, Mike Gravel has a better shot at winning the presidency than those incumbents have of losing their races.

Follow me below the fold for all the races.  This is meant to be a primer for both newcomers and political junkies alike, so some of the information may seem repetitive for you junkies out there.  Also see my previous March diary to see what things have changed since my last update.

There's more...

There is much debate over whether primaries help or hurt the eventual nominee toward winning the general election.  I'm typically of the opinion that, for the purposes of practical political benefit (small-d democratic ideals aside), primaries are only helpful in two cases: first, when the primary opponents need to raise their name identification; and, second, when the primary combatants are completely civil and avoid character attacks on each other, instead jointly turning their offensive aim toward the opposing Party.  That's why the MN-Sen Dem primary is good for Democrats, the NM-Sen GOP primary is bad for Republicans, and the TX-Sen Dem primary could have been good for Democrats.

That said, when there is an incumbent running for re-election or a clear presumptive nominee running for an open seat, an upstart primary opponent can hurt the favorite by forcing the the favorite to deplete financial resources and by testing lines of attack against the expected nominee.  In the 2008 cycle, we see a number of Senate races with such upstart primary opponents, or "ankle biters," challenging Republican incumbents or presumptive nominees.  While it is less than likely that any of these candidates will win their respective primaries in an upset, some of these candidates should be closely followed as they may offer insight into the Achilles' heels of the eventual Republican nominees.  Also, in the case that any of them gain noticeable traction, these upstart "ankle biters" may force the eventual Republican nominees to spend some significant cash.

Much more below the fold.

There's more...