Control for the Senate Looms Large in November. Here’s a Glimpse of the Playing Field.
With the midterm elections a mere four months away, the race for which party will control congress is in full force. In the house, retiring Speaker Paul Ryan faces a daunting task: salvaging enough seats (about two dozen) to keep the GOP’s grip on the chamber. It won’t be easy, and most analysts consider the race to be a toss-up.
The Senate, however, is looking considerably more rosy for Republicans. Donald Trump’s victory in 2016 came with a slew of unexpected victories in the Senate, causing a GOP hold with a narrow, albeit functional, 52–48 majority. This year’s map looks especially daunting for Democrats; of the 35 seats up for grabs, Republicans are defending only nine of them. Democrats are defending 26, ten of which are in states that Donald Trump won. Five of them are in states Trump won by double digits.
With Trump’s approval ratings sitting low, and Democratic activism seeing a resurgence, Democrats have a fighting chance in November. Their luck was bolstered upon a surprise victory in December, when Democrat Doug Jones defeated alleged pedophile Roy Moore, shrinking Mitch McConnell’s caucus to a mere 51–49 advantage. This gives the Democratic Party perhaps just enough breathing room to thread the needle and claim a majority. They’d have to play impeccable defense and flip a few Republican held seats along the way.
Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, reserved as he is, must feel good about his chances. Privately, he has remarked that the Senate is “absolutely in play”, and has assured donors that every dollar will count. Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, who acknowledges that he has his work cut out for him, agrees, and both have laid out similar-looking battle maps in November. Both leaders are seen by the opposing party as master politicians, brilliant strategists, and coldhearted web-spinners who will do anything to claim the majority. In other words, it’s game on.
Democrats began behind, but have narrowed the playing field with strong incumbents
While the Democratic Party had decisive victories in Senate races in 2006 and 2012, their luck is coming back to bite them with half of their caucus up for reelection in one cycle. Senate races are extremely expensive, second only to presidential elections, and having to divide money between two dozen states seems heinous.
Luckily for the Democratic Party, they’ve caught a bit of a break. Half of the Democrats’ Senate seats are in solidly blue states, e.g. Delaware, Connecticut, and California. This leaves about a dozen states that either were competitive in the 2016 election cycle or broke hard for Donald Trump. While they are branded as competitive, this hasn’t shied away any sitting senators. Save for Al Franken’s, um, departure, no Senate Democrat has decided to retire.
While Donald Trump won in states like Michigan, Ohio, and Pennsylvania, Republicans are having a tough time playing competitive in these purple states. All of these states hold strong incumbent Democrats who have won at least two terms on their own and have no intention of losing their seats. Polls have shown double-digit leads for Democrats for the Midwestern senators, effectively branding them as non-competitive. Even Ohio, which decisively fell for Trump by more than eight percent, has incumbent Sherrod Brown wiping the floor with Republican opponent Jim Renacci, sometimes by nearly 15% (generally, a race polling within 5% is considered very competitive).
These races are especially helpful for Democrats because they patch a hole in the prospect of taking back the Senate: money. With strong incumbents able to hold their own, the Democratic Party doesn’t have to worry about spending money in large states’ expensive media markets. Chuck Schumer and the DSCC (The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee) can avoid spending millions in Philadelphia and Columbus and can instead focus their attention in smaller states. As far as campaign money goes, a million dollars goes a lot further in Fargo, North Dakota than in Detroit, Michigan.
Although the Midwest has seen Democrats’ luck improve, there’s trouble in the South. In Florida, businessman-turned-governor Rick Scott, a multimillionaire Republican, has lobbed tens of millions of dollars into a Senate race against Senator Bill Nelson. In the last quarter alone, Scott has raised over ten million dollars, and has deep pockets he can continue to reach into. Bill Nelson, up to bat for his fourth term, has won his past elections easily enough, has low name recognition and has failed to make necessary inroads with Latino voters. I imagine there are plenty of scenarios where Democrats nearly pitch a perfect game in the Senate, and lose out to a majority because Bill Nelson under-performs. For Senate Republicans, Rick Scott is a dream.
Centrism matters… if you’re a Democrat
For all the talk about Democrats moving too far left in 2018 for voters to stomach, the path for them to win in the Senate runs right through the center.
Generally, red states like to elect red Senators, but the Democrats have made key inroads in a few of them, often by weak Republican opponents. Senator Claire McCaskill, D-Missouri, can thank her victory in ruby-red Missouri for when her Republican opponent claimed that “legitimate rape” rarely causes pregnancy, turning away women voters and independents at the polls. Joe Donnelly, D-Indiana, faced a similar victory after his opponent claimed that rape was “something God intended”.
To win re-election, candidates like McCaskill and Donnelly can’t rely on their opponents to make brainless statements. Instead, they not only need to capitalize on Democrats’ votes; they need to win independents and often some Republicans as well.
In states where Democrats need to get voters to cross party lines, there is evidence that running to the center has its perks. Heidi Heitkamp, a first-term Democrat from Republican stronghold North Dakota, won election in 2012 (a year Mitt Romney swept the state) with campaign promises of “voting what’s best for North Dakota, not for her party” and advertisements of her literally standing in the center of a field. Today, Heitkamp remains relatively popular and holds a fighting chance in a state that Trump won with 63% of the vote.
The strategy is clear: even in states that decisively lean one way, voters will sometimes choose a more moderate option. While these red-state senators draw the ire of liberals when they vote for Trump’s cabinet picks or refuse to support progressive legislation, they still aren’t voting for Mitch McConnell to be their majority leader.
“I don’t think they can beat who I am”, says Senator Jon Tester, D-Montana. The two-term Democrat has won close elections and drawn fire from conservatives against his refusal to support tax reform and from liberals in 2010 when he voted against the DREAM act. Yet, Tester is running on a platform of “getting things done in Washington”, and he appears to hold a steady lead against his opponent.
Liberal-leaning senators in conservative-leaning states are forced to work with both sides of the aisle to get re-elected. It doesn’t mean that they become Democrats in name only, however: every Senate Democrat voted to protect the Affordable Care Act last year, and tax reform passed solely on Republican votes. With Washington being so polarized, perhaps a few moderate members of Congress could do D.C. some good.
For Republicans, it’s Trump or bust
While the Trump takeover of the GOP has been apparent all over Washington, Trump’s influence has manifested perhaps nowhere more than Senate candidates running for election in 2018.
In red states, their job is easy: tie themselves as close to Trump as possible. Dean Heller, the only Republican up for reelection in a state Hillary Clinton won, began his reelection campaign cautious of Trump, and even spoke out against early provisions of the Obamacare repeal. After a contentious primary challenge, however, he has warmed up to the president, and hopes that a loyal Trump-enthused Republican Party will come through for him in November.
Further, any Republican senator frequently critical of Trump has effectively been pushed away from reelection. Senator Jeff Flake, R-Arizona, regularly received national attention for his verbal criticisms of the president throughout 2017. All press aside, Republican voters have not been fond of Flake’s comments, and dreadful approval ratings pushed Flake to announce he would not seek reelection. The new Republican running in Arizona, Representative Martha McSally, has vilified Flake for what she calls “absurd comments” against the president.
While running as close to Trump as possible is a great strategy for winning the midterms, I’m doubtful it can always lead to success in the general election. Trump’s approval rating hovers around 40% nationally, which is not awful, but hints at trouble for candidates who tie themselves extremely close to Trump in states he barely won. There is even trouble in states that Trump won handily; when Doug Jones won Alabama’s Senate seat last December, exit polls showed voters held a 48% approval rating, matched with a 48% disapproval rating. For a state that Trump won over 63% of the vote, that shows a clear voter enthusiasm gap between Trump fans and midterm voters.
This isn’t unique to Alabama, either; even though Martha McSally is heavily courting Republican voters by nuzzling up to Trump, polls show her trailing her Democratic challenger, sometimes by double digits, and many GOP operatives worry that McSally, seen as the strongest candidate, has moved too far to the right. Only November will tell us if McSally and other Republicans like her can get adulation from Trump and the general voting population.
A wildcard could shake up everything
Just as the 2016 election taught us, the election isn’t over until the ballot boxes are counted. Any number of surprises could doom either party’s chances for control.
Trump’s trade war has been a key area where Republicans often disagree with him, and it may haunt him in the midterms. Taxes on Chinese goods resulted in China cancelling tons of orders for American soybeans, slashing the price of soybeans by nearly thirty percent. Soybeans are no joke in high-profile Senate races like North Dakota, where it is a livelihood for many farmers. Foreign tariffs on brewery companies like Jack Daniels and automotive businesses like General Motors and Nissan have hurt the GOP’s chances in Tennessee, where Republican Marsha Blackburn refuses to disavow Trump’s actions.
Many see the confirmation battles of Brett Kavanaugh, Trump’s Supreme Court pick to replace retiring Anthony Kennedy, as a surprise issue that could motivate both parties to turn out in November. Dean Heller, R-Nevada, claimed back in March that a Kennedy retirement and a subsequent confirmation battle could turn the tide in his favor. While the Kavanaugh hearings have yet to get started, the final vote could squeeze some red-state Democrats into taking a tough vote.
There are also some sleeper races that could potentially become competitive for either party. In Texas, Ted Cruz is seeking re-election against Democratic congressman Beto O’Rourke. Texas is an expensive, decisively Republican state, and Ted Cruz remains fairly popular there, but O’Rourke has raised an eye-popping amount of money, including ten million dollars in the last three months alone. Texas’s growing suburban areas and Hispanic population make it a Democratic target in the House, but it’s unlikely that that luck will float up to the Senate race.
In New Jersey, embattled Democrat Bob Menendez seeks another term after facing a federal indictment on corruption charges. Though a mistrial was later declared, and federal charges against him have been dropped, Menendez’s reputation has been severely scarred and an upset is in the cards.
Of course, the prospect of another open seat in Arizona looms large. John McCain, one of America’s most well-known senators and a frequent Trump critic, has been absent from the Senate since January amid brain cancer treatment. It is unknown when (or if) McCain will return to Washington, and his health status remains a mystery. If McCain leaves his seat, a special election would be triggered after the 2018 elections, opening up a Republican seat in an increasingly competitive swing-state. It’s possible that control of the Senate could be decided by an intense, expensive special election on the eve of the 2020 presidential race. God help us all.
Final Thoughts
If I had to place a bet, I’d guess Senate control isn’t going to shift by more than two seats either way. On a good night for Republicans, they’ve padded their majority to 53–47. On a great night for Democrats, they’ll have clinched a 51–49 majority, something no one would have seen coming if Hillary Clinton were president today.
Democrats have an immense task to win the Senate, balancing winning conservative-leaning states while catering to a base that detests Donald Trump. But they have the firepower to pull it off, and stranger things have happened on an election night.
One thing’s for sure: if you live in a swing state and don’t like political ads, you should probably cut cable.
