The Bleak Outlook

Jonathan Weisman has an excellent rundown of the horserace as it pertains to congressional elections. Beyond the broad point that big picture trends look bad for Republicans, he shows that these bad trends have already manifested themselves in a series of candidate-recruitment failures -- only Mary Landrieux in the Senate is facing is a serious GOP challenge and "Republicans have largely failed to recruit credible candidates for the swing-district seat of retiring Rep. Jerry Weller (R-Ill.) or to challenge several Democratic freshmen who took GOP seats in 2006. They include Zack Space of Ohio, Joe Courtney of Connecticut, Chris Carney and Joe Sestak of Pennsylvania, John Hall of New York, Joe Donnelly of Indiana and Heath Shuler of North Carolina."

Consequently, whatever happens between now and November, the Republicans are basically condemned to be playing defense. The question becomes how many seats will they lose, not whether they will lose one. That's a pretty bad situation for a minority party to be in since, by definition, a majority party can only make further gains by pushing into not-incredibly-favorable geography. At any rate, if I've said it once I've said it a thousand times, but in the event a Democrat is in the White House in 2009, the trajectory of domestic policy in the next administration is going to have more to do with the outcome of the congressional elections (especially in the Senate) than with the outcome of the Democratic primary.

Comments

Maybe McCain can use this very fact--he can say to independents "Look, I wish it were otherwise, but the odds of my party winning back control of either house of Congress this November are bleak. Even holding out own will be an uphill struggle. And that, my friends, is why it is so important to have me in the White House to counterbalance the Democratic [or "Democrat"?] Congress."

True, Congressional Republicans will not like the idea of their chances being publicly written off this way...

Posted by David T | March 16, 2008 4:51 PM

On your final point, yes and no. I think certainly having a padded majority in the Senate is very, very important, but we've had situations in the post-FDR past where incoming Democratic Presidents have been greeted by Democratically-controlled House and Senate chambers and they've not been able to achieve any significant policy breakthroughs. The difference-making element, at least on surface, seems to be the will of the President to exploit the political moment. The obvious counterargument is that any new padded, in particular, Senate majority in 2009 wouldn't be built on the foundation of a Southern conservative bloc, meaning we'd truly be in terra incognita and perhaps it would not require Rooseveltian instincts to produce a significant bend in the domestic policy arc.

Posted by Robert Paulson | March 16, 2008 4:59 PM

I think it would be unwise to overlook the possibility of war with Iran together with a confused Democratic Party reaction to it changing the game between now and November.

Posted by otto | March 16, 2008 5:08 PM

Ouch. Now Hillary's constituents in New York state are asking her to step aside-

http://start-a-petition.com/showPetition.asp?p=DearHillary

Posted by cosmo | March 16, 2008 5:19 PM

Here's a question: Say, the Democrats self-destruct over Obama's past (that they tried so hard to ignore), and McCain slips into the White House. How big will the Democratic victory in 2012 over the 76 year old McCain be? I think the plus-minus betting line would start at about 530 electoral votes.

Posted by Steve Sailer | March 16, 2008 5:25 PM

by definition, a majority party can only make further gains by pushing into not-incredibly-favorable geography

This is conventional wisdom but hardly an absolute truth. In reality different parts of the country trend towards one or another party based on a variety of factors, and it's not implausible to propose that the utter incompetence with which Bush and the GOP have run this country for the past 7 years have turned many former GOP strongholds into Democrat-friendly territory

Posted by crayz | March 16, 2008 5:43 PM

I would think that further economic deterioration favors the Democrats as well.

Posted by blah | March 16, 2008 5:45 PM

Steve, given that we may be spending the first two years of your hypothetical McCain presidency in a severe recession accented by painfully high gas prices, I'd say, yeah, about 530.

Posted by Robert Paulson | March 16, 2008 5:48 PM

Speaking of economic deterioration, Bear Stearns apparently announced that it would seek bankruptcy protection if it can't reach a deal to get bought by JP Morgan.

Posted by blah | March 16, 2008 5:52 PM

I'm surprised about the South Dakota race. Johnson still hasn't been healthy enough to return to work, right? I did not think he was running for re-election, but just hadn't announced it yet

I wonder if the former Lt Gov is using both the political headwind and the no-win situation of running against someone with serious health concerns (sort of like Ashcroft vs Carnahan) so decided to opt out - and bide his time of the non-trivial chance of a special election in 2010 (for the class 2 seat) where conditions would be more favorable. Also the Gov seat will be open that year due to term limits.

This is of course also in total ignorance of how popular Kirby is in his state, or what sort of access to the local centers of influence and power he possesses.

Posted by Kolohe | March 16, 2008 6:20 PM

The real question is when will the Democrats get 60 seats in the Senate and the Republicans become irrelevant to the political process.

The forward looking political scientist should be theorizing on what the U.S. will be like as a one party state with the Democratic Party being the only viable political party. Is Mass. or DC the model for the political process. Also, what will the U.S. be like when the general election is moot and the real election is the Democratic Primary. Will the Democratic Party move all of its primaries to September to keep from having too lng of lame duck periods.

Posted by superdestroyer | March 16, 2008 6:44 PM

Republican failure to recruit a challenger for Chris Carney would suit me just fine. It would make a primary challenge to Carney even more attractive.

Howie Klein treated Carney's right-wing views as a big revelation after he was already in office, but the evidence was there before the November election. He should never have been supported by the netroots.

Posted by Nell | March 16, 2008 6:57 PM

I have my fingers crossed for a Heath Shuler-Ryan Leaf match-up.

Posted by Venjamin Jenkman | March 16, 2008 7:16 PM

""Republicans have largely failed to recruit credible candidates for the swing-district seat of retiring Rep. Jerry Weller (R-Ill.) or to challenge several Democratic freshmen who took GOP seats in 2006. They include Zack Space of Ohio, Joe Courtney of Connecticut, Chris Carney and Joe Sestak of Pennsylvania, John Hall of New York, Joe Donnelly of Indiana and Heath Shuler of North Carolina."

Could be that the GOP is having a hard time finding candidates that are more conservative than some of these Democrats.

Posted by Fred | March 16, 2008 7:24 PM

Kolohe, Johnson returned to the Senate in September and according to this list has voted in all the votes since then.

Posted by Matt Weiner | March 16, 2008 8:05 PM

Matt W.-
Thanks for the correction. I was going by this (from the same site!) that said

Tim Johnson has missed 311 votes (59.0%) during the current Congress. See a list of his missed votes since 1991 or see a full list of vote missers. Note: Johnson suffered a brain hemorrhage on Dec. 13, 2006, and has not returned to the Senate.

but obviously didn't scroll down far enough.

Posted by Kolohe | March 16, 2008 8:25 PM

That confused me too. Guess they didn't update the note when he returned.

In other weirdness, if you go to the vote page for individual bills you can get the votes broken down by astrological sign.

Posted by Matt Weiner | March 16, 2008 8:29 PM

The Republicans were 'condemned to playing defense' in the Senate six years ago - they have 23 seats up for reelection. Given the current situation I would consider anything under 7 pickups by Dems as a poor showing.

The next Senate might want to actually pass some progressive legislation as the 2012 Senate election breakdown is almost the exact opposite of this years with lots of Dems in red and purple states.

Posted by realist | March 16, 2008 9:09 PM

Uh, Joe Sestak has a general election republican opponent. Retired USMC Reserve Colonel, I believe, who will have a fair amount of credibility granted to his hawkish view on Iraq. He was an aviator-turned-lawyer in the service.

Posted by Other Mike | March 16, 2008 10:47 PM

"Could be that the GOP is having a hard time finding candidates that are more conservative than some of these Democrats.

Posted by Fred | March 16, 2008 7:24 PM"

Are those Dems conservative enough to vote GOP when choosing the majority leader / Speaker? When you can't find a Republican to run in North Carolina, you have problems. Hell, Republicans ran people in House races in MA in 2006 that ended up going over 70% Democratic.

Posted by Reality Man | March 17, 2008 5:21 AM

"The next Senate might want to actually pass some progressive legislation as the 2012 Senate election breakdown is almost the exact opposite of this years with lots of Dems in red and purple states."

Please do, it's the Republicans' best hope of a speedy return from irrelevance.

Actually, after seeing the vote on the earmark moratorium, I don't think there's much chance of that irrelevance lasting too many election cycles, short of Democrats using their legislative dominance to legally entrench themselves, in the same way the 2 'major' parties built in legal disadvantages for all the rest of the parties. Too many Democrats view majority status as just an opportunity to pig out the way the Republicans did.

Posted by Brett Bellmore | March 17, 2008 6:48 AM

Uh, Joe Sestak has a general election republican opponent. Retired USMC Reserve Colonel, I believe, who will have a fair amount of credibility granted to his hawkish view on Iraq. He was an aviator-turned-lawyer in the service.

Unlike some of the other districts discusses in this group, that's not really a Republican district. At the Presidential level, Democrats have been winning in that territory (most of Delaware County, not far from Philly) since 1992. It was held for so long because Republicans dominated local politics until recently, and Curt Weldon had made himself into a fixture.

Not sure there are many takers for hawkish candidates anywhere in the NE Corridor.

Posted by Answer Guy | March 17, 2008 9:01 AM

Uh, Joe Sestak has a general election republican opponent. Retired USMC Reserve Colonel, I believe, who will have a fair amount of credibility granted to his hawkish view on Iraq. He was an aviator-turned-lawyer in the service.

Unlike some of the other districts discusses in this group, that's not really a Republican district. At the Presidential level, Democrats have been winning in that territory (most of Delaware County, not far from Philly) since 1992. It was held for so long because Republicans dominated local politics until recently, and Curt Weldon had made himself into a fixture.

Not sure there are many takers for hawkish candidates anywhere in the NE Corridor.

Posted by Answer Guy | March 17, 2008 9:01 AM

I live in Sestak's district, and the Republicans still have an edge in registration. The Delaware County Republican machine still has a pretty tight grasp on things; it's been decades since a Dem won a seat on the county council. It is definitely moving blue, as are the Philly burbs in general, but it's not there yet.

That being said, I think Sestak's in excellent shape going in to the election. He's raised a ton of cash, and it will be difficult for a Republican to get any traction with the war and the economy.

Posted by Dave | March 17, 2008 10:05 AM

No "X" in Landrieu, Matt.

Posted by Andrew | March 17, 2008 10:26 AM

It's not very often that people really get to see what it's like to lose the House. You're not getting it back anytime soon. Because all the challengers for the new people face the prospect, even if they win, of starting of their career in the minority. A lot of risk, not much reward. Add to that the retirements that inevitably come up because old guys in the minority decide it's time to hang it up. So it's no surprise at all that the cycle after a realignment really sucks for the losers, too.

Posted by Colatina | March 17, 2008 10:33 AM

Will John Hall's re-election slogan be "Still the ONe"?

Posted by CJColucci | March 17, 2008 12:08 PM

Republicans have largely failed to...challenge several Democratic freshmen who took GOP seats in 2006. They include Zack Space of Ohio, Joe Courtney of Connecticut, Chris Carney and Joe Sestak of Pennsylvania, John Hall of New York, Joe Donnelly of Indiana and Heath Shuler of North Carolina."

If they cast any more Bush Dog votes this year, nobody can say they really didn't want to, but had to do it in order to fend off potential challenges.

Not that that argument ever really made sense, outside of national security and cultural issues. And most of their Bush Dog votes have been pro-corporate votes, not anti-gay or pro-GWoT votes.

Posted by low-tech cyclist | March 17, 2008 4:51 PM