Analysis: GOP takeover of Congress now less of a long shot

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Alexander Burns, Jim VandeHei Alexander Burns, Jim Vandehei

Republicans suddenly have a conceivable path to winning back the Senate in November, after locking in top-flight candidates overnight in Illinois and Indiana.

A 10-seat pickup for the GOP — once regarded as an impossibility even by the party's own strategists — remains very much a long shot. It would still require a win in every competitive race, something that happens only in wave elections like 1994 and 2008.

But only 14 months after the GOP was routed up and down the ballot on the night of Barack Obama's election, the new political environment makes significant Senate gains likely. And within the past 24 hours, a Republican recapture of the Senate is at least within the realm of speculation.

With all the usual disclaimers attached — do not engage in political odds-making while taking medication or operating heavy machinery — here's why a Republican takeover is at least possible:

GOP officials tell POLITICO former Sen. Dan Coats will run against incumbent Democratic Sen. Evan Bayh, instantly transforming Indiana into a competitive race.

Rep. Mark Kirk won the Republican Senate primary in Illinois, beating back a tea party challenge and giving the GOP the best chance of winning President Obama's former seat.

This comes one week after Beau Biden, the son of Vice President Joe Biden, decided not to run for his father's former seat in Delaware. Democrats have a credible backup candidate in New Castle County Executive Chris Coons, but GOP Rep. Mike Castle, who has run and won 11 times statewide, is the strong favorite.

To pick up 10 seats, Republicans would have to run the table in competitive races — and get a miracle (or a big favor from an old friend), too. More on that in a moment.

Republicans look very strong in many of those races. They are clobbering Democratic Sen. Blanche Lincoln in Arkansas by 20 points in recent polls. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid isn't faring much better. He's down by double digits to relatively unknown GOP opponents. Sen. Byron Dorgan's decision to retire made North Dakota an almost hopeless case for Democrats.

The GOP has pickup opportunities in three other states: Colorado, where appointed Sen. Michael Bennet's reelection numbers remain low; Pennsylvania, where Sen. Arlen Specter trailed former GOP Rep. Pat Toomey by 14 points in one recent poll; and California, where either former Hewlett-Packard CEO Carly Fiorina or former Rep. Tom Campbell could make 2010 Sen. Barbara Boxer's toughest campaign in years.

It would be a tall order for Republicans to take nine of those races on Election Day — and even if they did, they'd still be one victory short of the 51 seats they need.

But in both 2006 and 2008, almost all the competitive Senate races broke in the same direction. Democrats won control in 2006 by seizing six out of seven targeted seats, and by putting one more race in play Republicans would have a similar path to taking a majority.

They would also need to recruit a living, breathing, competitive candidate to run against appointed New York Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand. Former Republican Gov. George Pataki consistently leads Gillibrand in public polling. Even if he stays out, Gillibrand could be vulnerable to a second-tier challenger, as almost-candidate Harold Ford Jr. is proving to be in the Democratic primary.

If they can battle Democrats to a 50-50 split in the Senate, Republicans could also try to bring Democrat-turned-independent Sen. Joe Lieberman all the way across the aisle. Lieberman recently said "it's possible" that he could run as a Republican in 2012 — "a good, old-fashioned, New England moderate Republican" — which should have been an alarm bell for Democrats concerned about keeping his vote.

Democrats think it's absurd to speculate about the possibility of a GOP takeover. In the ultimate wave year of 1994, Republicans picked up eight seats, prompting Sens. Richard Shelby and Ben Nighthorse Campbell to switch parties only after the GOP already had control. Until Republicans have a concrete, nonspeculative path to 51, Democrats say, it's all a parlor game.

Make no mistake: It's much more likely Republicans will end up gaining a handful of seats but fall several short of a majority.

The GOP has a number of seats to defend, too — in Florida, New Hampshire, Kentucky, Ohio, Louisiana, Missouri and North Carolina — and Democrats hold a significant cash advantage. The DSCC had $12.5 million in the bank at the end of December, with $1.2 million in debt, compared with $8.3 million on hand for the NRSC. The DNC has an even wider cash advantage over its Republican counterpart.

But the remote possibility of a power shift gives the 2010 campaigns even more drama — and national significance.

link

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Honestly, the Democrats deserve to get their behinds kicked for they have shown an indisputable inability to translate more than comfortable majorities in both chambers of the Congress into tangible results. They've defeated themselves while pointing fingers to the party of NO.

[The_Dude 1,142]

Many liberals think that the Democratic leadership should have just crammed their agenda down the Republicans throats in the senate with a super majority. But really, how can you call it a super majority when it is dependant upon people like Lieberman?

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Many liberals think that the Democratic leadership should have just crammed their agenda down the Republicans throats in the senate with a super majority. But really, how can you call it a super majority when it is dependant upon people like Lieberman?

If you can't govern without Lieberman, with 59 out of 100 votes in the Senate, then you don't deserve to be on the wheel.

[Otto 83]

So much 'drama' for so little progress.

These old guys/gals are out so these other old guys/gals are in (neither one accomplishes anything, so in the end, it doesn't really matter). Its just a bunch of good-ole-boys bitching and moaning about the other one and when the country gets tired of that, it will change again and still...nothing will get done. Hooray!

[one...two...tree 2,762]

If you can't govern without Lieberman, with 59 out of 100 votes in the Senate, then you don't deserve to be on the wheel.

I'm starting to agree with you on this. Here's something interesting coming from a Democratic insider:

A Chief of Staff for a House Dem chimes in on our discussion of legislation and politics -- and using the power of the Speakership ...

Absolutely. There have been tons of opportunities to force Republicans to take hard votes and make difficult choices. When you hold the majority in the House, you set the agenda and you control everything. We just haven't been good about using that to our advantage.

It's not just us being in the majority, either. Republicans continue to make very effective use of Motions to Recommit to force Dems into tough votes, regularly cleaving the Caucus. It's a tool they use very well. When we were in the minority? We'd offer policy positions or substitute legislation that they could easily vote against. Very rarely did we offer anything that was a tough vote for their marginal Members.

--Josh Marshall

[scandal 951]

Rep. Mark Kirk won the Republican Senate primary in Illinois, beating back a tea party challenge and giving the GOP the best chance of winning President Obama's former seat.

Kirk's victory in yesterday's Republican primary was never really in doubt, his challengers were distant laggards.

Meanwhile the Democrats selected Alexi Giannoulias as our contender, beating out David Hoffman. (I voted for Hoffman, thinking he was the better reformer of the two and lord knows Illinois needs some major reform). Giannoulias is young and photogenic and comes across well. It will be an interesting race in November between him and Kirk. I'm looking forward to it. The GOP could pick up the seat, but it's hardly a sure thing.

If you can't govern without Lieberman, with 59 out of 100 votes in the Senate, then you don't deserve to be on the wheel.

The trouble is that Senate rules require a 60 vote super majority for just about anything of consequence. 59 really isn't enough.

Unless we call their bluff on filibuster. Doris Kearns Goodwin suggested this on Jon Stewart's Daily Show last week - instead of avoiding a filibuster, let's have one. Force them to stay in their seats with no toilet breaks. Eventually they'll give in, and we'll pass health care with less than 60 votes.

[My Name Is Nobody 3]

Best thing is for them to remain gridlocked. When they are not passing laws we are better off.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Doris Kearns Goodwin suggested this on Jon Stewart's Daily Show last week - instead of avoiding a filibuster, let's have one. Force them to stay in their seats with no toilet breaks. Eventually they'll give in, and we'll pass health care with less than 60 votes.

I saw that and was wondering why the hell they won't call their bluff on this? If health care reform doesn't succeed in some form, it will be political suicide for the Democrats. It may already be too late for those who are up for re-election later this year.

[Gary and Alla 3,696]

Kirk's victory in yesterday's Republican primary was never really in doubt, his challengers were distant laggards.

Meanwhile the Democrats selected Alexi Giannoulias as our contender, beating out David Hoffman. (I voted for Hoffman, thinking he was the better reformer of the two and lord knows Illinois needs some major reform). Giannoulias is young and photogenic and comes across well. It will be an interesting race in November between him and Kirk. I'm looking forward to it. The GOP could pick up the seat, but it's hardly a sure thing.

The trouble is that Senate rules require a 60 vote super majority for just about anything of consequence. 59 really isn't enough.

Unless we call their bluff on filibuster. Doris Kearns Goodwin suggested this on Jon Stewart's Daily Show last week - instead of avoiding a filibuster, let's have one. Force them to stay in their seats with no toilet breaks. Eventually they'll give in, and we'll pass health care with less than 60 votes.

It was the Democrats who did away with REAL filibusters, I agree, go back to them. We need a few more Mr. Smith's in Washington!

[Gary and Alla 3,696]

I saw that and was wondering why the hell they won't call their bluff on this? If health care reform doesn't succeed in some form, it will be political suicide for the Democrats. It may already be too late for those who are up for re-election later this year.

the problem is in the house. The health care passed the house by 3 votes after major watering down. Now after they watched the Kennedy seat go to aRepublican, they cannot get the votes to pass it in the house either. The Democrats are a bunch of lilly livers. They had plenty of time and spent it makingdeals with OTHER DEMOCRATS!!!!! They didn;t make any deals with Republicans!

The DEMOCRATS, as usual, seeing an opportunity to line their own pockets (Republicans do this also, one breed of pig is no different than another) and it was Democrats that stood in the way, holding out for their piece of the action until the bill was so bloated, it was nothing but a pondering blob of legislative vomit! It was the Mary Landrieu's of the party (and she was not the only one) that poisoned the water. The only people needing something "rammed down their throats" was DEMOCRATS! They never needed and never attempted to get a Republican vote. Never.

Blaming it on Joe Lieberman is a cop-out. Lieberman is a man pf principal, he is not for sale. The people that harpooned this are the greedy Democrats holding out for themselves.

Democrats have no one to blame but themsleves and now they have nominated the only guy that could possibly LOSE Obama's former Senate seat. Oh way to go! No wonder they want gun control, Democrats are forever picking up guns and shooting themsleves in the eye!

I, for one, hope the Democrats continue to blame George Bush and Martha Coakley and Joe Lieberman and continue to eat their own children. What more can one ask than his opponent be a dumb@ss?????

[Pooky 3,930]

I saw that and was wondering why the hell they won't call their bluff on this? If health care reform doesn't succeed in some form, it will be political suicide for the Democrats. It may already be too late for those who are up for re-election later this year.

If healthcare reform is passed in any form right now, it will mean the death knell for every Democrat in a close-run election. Public opinion is firmly against what is out there now and any attempts by Pelosi or Reid to fragment the Bill and pass it piecemeal will stink so bad to the electorate that the Democrats will likely lose three-quarters or more of any Independent votes.

The longer this drags on and the more deals that are cut to pass something/anything, the worse it will get for the Democrats facing election/re-election. The President should cut his losses now and kill healthcare reform in its current form. If it dies now, then the next time it becomes a possibility we can hope for a Bill that meets the needs of this country, not just the needs of a Democrat party seeking a legacy.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

The trouble is that Senate rules require a 60 vote super majority for just about anything of consequence. 59 really isn't enough.

Unless we call their bluff on filibuster. Doris Kearns Goodwin suggested this on Jon Stewart's Daily Show last week - instead of avoiding a filibuster, let's have one. Force them to stay in their seats with no toilet breaks. Eventually they'll give in, and we'll pass health care with less than 60 votes.

This is where legislative strategy and stamina comes into play and - more importantly - effective communication with the nation to put public pressure on those that stand in the way of getting done what the people want to get done. Remember 2002, 2003 when they had a huge scare campaign going on to build the support for the misguided Iraq adventure? It was all bullshite and lies but by the time they were done, few Senators had the spine and balls to vote against it. Where has an effective communication campaign taken place to put the pressure on the Senate to pass effective health care reform? It just wasn't there. They left the stage to the industry which sought to derail the effort in much of the same way they did in the 1990's. They didn't even put up a fight worth talking about. They failed to lead, plain and simple. And they deserve to have their azzes whipped for it come November.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Lieberman is a man pf principal, he is not for sale.

Lieberman once supported opening Medicare up to people under 65 as a way to get to universal health care. I don't recall him being in favor of such move anymore nor him actually being interested in universal health care anymore. Where did Joe's principles go? Oh right, they're in the Bahama's somewhere compliments of Joe's constituency - Aetna, UHC, etc...

Joe Lieberman a man of principle.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Lieberman once supported opening Medicare up to people under 65 as a way to get to universal health care. I don't recall him being in favor of such move anymore nor him actually being interested in universal health care anymore. Where did Joe's principles go? Oh right, they're in the Bahama's somewhere compliments of Joe's constituency - Aetna, UHC, etc...

Joe Lieberman a man of principle.