Projected 2010 Senate: Democrats 52-48 (assuming no caucus switches)
Senate forecast overview
Dems*
GOP
Not up for election
41
23
Currently safe
8
12
Sub-total
49
35
Current polling
2.67
13.33
Projected total
52
48
* = Because they caucus with Senate Democrats, Independents Bernie Sanders and Joe Lieberman are considered Democrats
The 16 Senate seats that might switch partisan control Republicans would have to win all 16 of these campaigns to take control of the Senate (Campaigns where incumbent party currently leads by 18.5% or more are considered "safe," and not listed) Democrats: 2.67 (3)
Republicans: 13.33 (13)
In an attempt to make the Senate forecast a little easier on the eyes, I have produced a chart showing the polling averages only for the current frontrunners for the Democratic and Republican nominations. The full chart, which includes all of the primary campaigns and potential general election matchups, can be found in the extended entry. the methodology and notes to these charts can be found there, too
As disastrous as this looks, it is still possible for Democrats to have a more effective Senate majority in 2011 than they have right now. With filibuster reform pending, a 52-seat Democratic majority might actually be stronger than the current 59-seat incarnation. If the Democratic electoral situation improves, which could happen if the jobless rate declines and if Rasmussen polls become a smaller percentage of the averages, Democrats could keep a 54 or 55 seat majority. If combined with filibuster reform, a majority of that size would make Mary Lanrieu, Ben Nelson, and Joe Lieberman irrelevant.
There is still hope for change yet. More info in the extended entry.
In the past I have argued that Democratic losses in 2010 will move the Congressional Democratic caucuses to the left. This is because, according to my argument, most of the Democrats who will lose in 2010 will be in the right-wing of the party. Thus, the remaining group of Democrats will be, on average, more left-wing than the current group of Democrats.
However, at least as far as the Senate is concerned, it turns out that isn't the case. Despite prominent center-right Senators such as Blanche Lincoln, Arlen Specter, and Evan Bayh set to leave the Senate by either retirement or the ballot, the Democratic Senate caucus will not see any significant ideological shift in 2011.
For this analysis, I measured the current 59 members of the Senate Democratic caucus according to three oft-cited ideological voting scorecards: Progressive Punch (crucial votes), and DW-Nominate and National Journal. I recalibrated all of those scored along a 0.0 to 100.0 scale, with 0.0 being the most conservative and 100.0 being voting the most progressive. Only scores for 2009-2010 were used.
According to this analysis, the current 59 members of the Senate Democratic caucus have a mean progressive score of 74.7. Debbie Stabenow stands at the median of the caucus, with a score of 78.1.
Removing the Senators who are retiring (Bayh, Burris, Dodd, Dorgan, Kaufman) and the Senators who are currently trailing in their bid for re-election (Bennet, Lincoln, Reid, Specter), the caucus mean would become 75.5. Patty Murray would become the median, at 78.3.
Here is the chart I used, with departing members in red:
The slaughter of the moderates would thus move the Democratic Senate caucus less than 1% to the left. The size of the shift would be the equivalent of the difference between Debbie Stabenow and Patty Murray, whatever that is.
Further, if Barbara Boxer were to lose re-election, which is entirely possible, the Democratic Senate caucus would actually shift slightly to the right on the mean, and remain with Debbie Stabenow on the median.
So, if you are hoping that a Democratic wipeout in 2010 will move the party to the left, think again, at least when it comes to the Senate. Setting fire to the forest will just result in having the exact same forest, only with fewer trees. The Democrats who remain in the Senate will be, on average, virtual ideological twins to the ones who left.
I will try to whip up an equivalent analysis of the Democratic House caucus, post-2010, tomorrow.
Former Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy Thompson, who served four terms as Wisconsin governor, is securing financial pledges and ramping up his outreach to longtime political aides in preparation for a possible campaign against Democratic Sen. Russ Feingold.
Thompson has alerted his Washington-based law firm of his moves and is contacting key clients about the prospect of challenging Feingold, the most tangible signals yet that he's seriously exploring a 2010 campaign.
"The governor has taken additional steps in the past week and will continue to do so over the next several weeks. If the meetings go well, you can expect to see an exploratory committee set up near the end of March," former state commerce secretary and Thompson campaign manager Bill McCoshen told POLITICO.
The thought of losing Feingold is just... scary. In addition to his well known fight against the Patriot Act, and being the first Senator to introduce legislation to withdraw troops from Iraq, Feingold was one of only two members of the Senate to vote against the 1999 financial services deregulation, the Iraq war authorization, and the 2008 bailout (Bernie Sanders was the other, and he voted against the de-regulation act while in the House). Even beyond his votes, he is a public leader for his causes, and manages organize other Senators behind them.
Russ Feingold is worth about five Senators, or more. It might be time to organize some sort of huge, $3 million + money bomb for him to ward off Thompson's entry into the campaign.
Projected 2010 Senate: Democrats 52-48 (assuming no caucus switches)
****
Due to upward ticks in Illinois and Indiana, Democrats have slightly improved their overall stand this week. They are still at only 52 seats, though, and not much ahead of 51.
Still haven't hit the bottom, but we are close to it. The situation could still get worse in Wisconsin, Missouri and California, even to the point where control of the Senate becomes a question mark.
Senate forecast overview
Dems*
GOP
Not up for election
41
23
Currently safe
8
12
Sub-total
49
35
Current polling
2.65
13.35
Projected total
52
48
* = Because they caucus with Senate Democrats, Independents Bernie Sanders and Joe Lieberman are considered Democrats
The 16 Senate seats that might switch partisan control (Campaigns where incumbent party currently leads by 18.5% or more are considered "safe," and not listed) Democrats: 2.65 (3)
Republicans: 13.35 (13)
Projected 2010 Senate: Democrats 52-48 (assuming no caucus switches)
****
Evan's Bayh's departure has dropped Democrats down nearly a full seat in the forecast. At this point, Democrats are barely projected to even reach 52 seats.
Republicans are still not in a position to retake the Senate, fortunately. However, as I mentioned earlier in the week, if George Pataki (NY), Rino Rossi (WA) or Tommy Thompson (WI) were to enter the fray, then they would be.
An we are nowhere close to the bottom, either. Even if the senate picture improves a bit for Democrats in 2010, from 2012-2014 Democrats must defend 43 of the 66 Senate seats up for election. Given that Barack Obama will still be President in 2012, and that the economy will still probably stink, Democrats are going to the party in charge that voters blame for at least the 2012 elections (ala Republicans in 2008, even though Democrats controlled the House). In other words, we are not going to hit the bottom until sometime around 2013-2015.
This continued plummet is just so damn frustrating. If we had passed, as Matthew Yglesias wrote, what progressives had wanted:
- A $1.2 trillion stimulus.
- The forcible breakup of large banks.
- Universal health care with a public option linked to Medicare rates.
- An economy-wide cap on carbon emissions, with the permits auctioned.
- Repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell.
- A path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants.
- An exit strategy from Afghanistan.
- An end to special exemption of military spending from fiscal discipline.
- An independent Consumer Financial Protection Agency.
- The Employee Free Choice Act.
If all that had passed, plus D.C. representation, then really it wouldn't be so bad. For one thing, the political situation probably be a bit better (because the economy would be a bit better and activists would be really pumped). For another thing, at that point I would just say fine, you can have the Senate back--we made a big difference that will change the country for a generation.
But none of that list passed. Instead, we are looked at a huge wasted opportunity, and a massive electoral disaster to boot. Great, just great.
The complete Senate forecast chart can be found in the extended entry.
While the Senate health reform reconciliation whip count is taking priority right now, this morning brings an important update in the filibuster reform whip count. Two of the three leading Democratic candidates for North Carolina Senate, Elaine Marshall and Cal Cunningham, have both made public statements of support for filibuster reform.
It's time to end the filibuster in its current form. If you agree, sign my online petition to tell our elected and party leaders it's time to change the filibuster.
I asked someone in the Marshall camp to for a response to this email, and received the following reply:
Her statement is we need to fix the filibuster. Pretty much the same thing that Cunningham is saying. At a joint candidate appearance last week, she mentioned it, Cal didn't. He's late to the game.
To which the Cunningham campaign responded:
Cal Cunningham discussed reforming the filibuster in this interview taped on January 20.
Democratic candidates trying to one up each other on the filibuster? I like where this is going!
To be sure, neither Marshall nor Cunningham is by any means certain to be in the Senate next year when the crucial vote takes place in the first week of January. Still, North Carolina is a very winnable campaign, as both Cunningham and Marshall lead incumbent Republican Richard Burr among voters who have an opinion of either Marshall or Cunningham.
A new North Carolina Senate poll from PPP is perhaps the strongest indication yet that voters are not just in an anti-Democratic mood, but honestly in an anti-incumbent mood. Democratic frontrunner Elaine Marshall is way ahead of incumbent Republican Richard Burr among voters who have heard of Marhsall:
Among voters who actually have an opinion of Cal Cunningham or Elaine Marshall- whether it's positive or not- they lead Burr. Cunningham is up 46-44 and Marshall is up 49-40.
Most of the voters with no opinion about Burr are Democrats, which could mean that his approval numbers are even worse than they look.
Elaine Marshall can, and should, win this campaign. Even though she is challenging an incumbent in North Carolina, she is currently polling at a level roughly equal Democratic incumbents in bluer states like Arlen Specter, Michael Bennet and Harry Reid. She is also doing better than Democrats in other purple states, like Florida and New Hampshire, even though those are open seats. And, as the above polling shows, she has a lot of room for growth.
Marshall has the right resume for a Democrat in 2010. Her background is in financial regulations, and her main legislative achievement was pushing the North Carolina legislature to enact tougher anti-lobbying laws. From her website:
The Secretary of State's office today is a key law enforcement agency protecting consumers, investors, and charitable givers against securities fraud and financial scams. Elaine's commitment to protecting investors and combating financial fraud has in just the past year and a half alone lead to the recovery of over $340 million from major Wall Street banks for North Carolina investors and foundations.
Since taking office, Elaine has cut the costs of doing business for companies and individuals -helping small businesses create jobs. She has taken on lobbyists in Raleigh, reforming North Carolina's ethics laws.
Here is to hoping she is willing to run on a populist, anti-Wall Street platform, rather than a more generic anti-big government platform that consumes so many southern Democratic candidates.
Either way, Marhsall is way ahead in the Democratic primary, by 35% according to the most recent poll, and that is a good thing. Her main opponent in the primary, Cal Cunningham, would be another Blanche Lincoln. From a source over email:
Cal just had a fundraiser in DC hosted by a couple of lobbyists one of whom who's proclaims him being a founder of Third Way and involvement with the DLC. The other co-host was Blanche Lincoln's former Chief of Staff. The lobbying firm that held the event, their client roster reads like a who's who of the usual suspects that worked to torpedo HCR (AHIP, Pharma, etc).
Go Marhsall, go!
This is a very winnable Democratic pickup in a purple state in a bad year for Democrats. Further, the strongest Democratic candidate in the general election also happens to be the more progressive candidate in the primary. This is a primary, and a general election, we need to win.
Even before Evan Bayh's retirement, the latest Senate polling showed Democrats teetering between only a 52-48 and 53-47 Senate majority after 2010. With Bayh's retirement, Democrats are now firmly staring at a 52-48 majority.
But, it could get even worse than that for Democrats. Potential Republican Senate recruits in a number of states could even threaten Democratic control of the chamber:
Maryland: If incumbent Barbara Mikulski retires, as a new report is claiming, that would create an open seat in Maryland. Democrats would still be favored to win, but by no means would they be a lock. Mikulski, by contrast, would not have faced any serious opposition.
New York: If former Republican Governor George Pataki were to enter the campaign, he would start 3.5% ahead of Democrat Kirsten Gillibrand, according to the Pollster.com trendline.
Washington: If two-time Gubenatorial loser Dino Rossi were to enter the campaign against Patty Murray, he would start the campaign 2% ahead, according to Rasmussen polling.
If Republicans can indeed put up to four more Senate seats into play, they would indeed threaten control of the chamber itself. They have plenty of time to put this together, too, as all four of these states have filing deadlines in June or later.
There is no guarantee at all that we have hit the bottom yet. Even Democratic control of the Senate after 2010 is somewhat in question.
Evan Bayh's surprise retirement announcement comes only four days before the filing deadline for the Indiana primary. Since Indiana requires Senate candidates to submit 500 signatures from each of the state's nine congressional districts (by tomorrow!), there is no feasible way for a new candidate to announce and gather the necessary signatures before the filing deadline.
So, this means that the only option left for Democrats in Indiana is for the state party to select a candidate. As such, there will be no primary election:
R.J. Gerard, communications director for the Indiana Democratic Party confirmed to TPMDC that the state Democratic Party would be able to select a new candidate to run in November's general election if no one files petitions with 4,500 signatures (500 within each of the state's nine House districts) to run in the primary.
"I would imagine that it would be the plan, depending on what happens between now and Friday," Gerard said. Gerard did not know whether any discussions are going on with potential new candidates.
This means the Indiana Democrats would avoid holding a primary to choose who will be their nominee in the fall.
Who might the state party choose? The Indiana bench, at least at the Congressional level, is weak.
They could go with Andre Carson, but would Indiana really be the first state to put a Muslim in the Senate? Doesn't feel like a red state in 2010 is when that barrier will be broken.
So, among Indiana Congressman, this basically leaves Joe Donnelly by default. This would not be very exciting, given that Donnelly is one of the most conservative members of the Democratic House caucus. His lifetime Progressive Punch score on crucial votes is only 33.78%, ranking him 245 out of the 255 current Democratic members of the House.
Anyway, given the anti-Washington mood, it is probably a good idea for the Indiana state party to look outside of the Congressional delegation. Hopefully, they can find a Mayor or State Senator in the mold of Eric Massa or Alan Grayson. Anti-financial institution and anti-bailout rhetoric is probably the best chance Democrats have in red districts this year. Also, Massa and Grayson also happen to be the only two members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus from lean-Republican districts. They have the only proven model for Progs in Republican districts.
Update--another Democrat already in the race: There is an existing candidate, Tamyra d'Ippolito. She has 23 followers on Twitter, 2 donations on Act Blue, and a pretty bare bones campaign website. She hasn't collected the signatures to get on the ballot yet, and I doubt that she will given what appears to be a very small organization. But, if she did somehow get on the ballot, the Democratic Party would probably have to defeat her in a write-in campaign. Otherwise, she would be the nominee, and Republicans would cruise in the general election.
Kind of makes me wonder if Republicans will start helping her get on the ballot now..
Rep. Brad Ellsworth (D) is the early name Dem strategists are throwing around. He easily beat ex-Rep. John Hostettler (R) in '06 to capture a centrist district, and he has cut a moderate swath in his 2 terms in the House.
Its true that Ellsworth defeated Hostettler. However, Hostettler is not a strong candidate. If Hostettler were to win the Republican primary, the seat would be very winnable for Democrats.
There are three problems with Ellsworth: he is in D.C., his House seat would be taken over by a Republican, and he is just as right-wing as Donnelly.
They need to pick someone from outside of D.C. who is willing to go after financial institutions. That is the model right now.
Sen. Evan Bayh (D-IN) will not seek a 3rd term in the Senate next year, according to a Dem source, handing Dems yet another setback as they struggle to salvage their damaged ship.
Bayh, elected statewide 5 times, will become the 5th Senate Dem not to seek another term. His decision to step aside , first reported by The Fix and confirmed to Hotline OnCall, creates an open seat in IN, a usually-red state that broke the mold in '08 by voting narrowly for Pres. Obama.
Bayh actually had a pretty solid lead on his various Republican challengers, so this is something of a surprise. It is also another blow to Democratic Senate hopes in November. Bayh, for all the frustration he caused progressives, was part of a well-known family institution in Indiana, and as such was the best Democratic bet to keep the seat.
It is going to be much more difficult for Democrats to keep this seat, now. Given that Bayh was currently listed at a 98% chance to retain the seat, it will also push the projected Democratic Senate total for 2011 down to only 52 seats.
Projected 2010 Senate: Democrats 53-47 (assuming no caucus switches)
Democrats continue their downward spiral in the Senate forecast, reaching their lowest point to date. Right now, Democrats are forecasted to win only 52.63 seats, and there hasn't been upward movement in a while.
One positive sign is that Senate Democrats are increasingly warming to the possibility of destroying the filibuster. Today, after the filibuster of a routine nominee, Senators Leahy and Levin signaled their openness to filibuster reform:
"I'm in my thirty-sixth year. I've never seen anything like it," said Judiciary Committee Chairman Pat Leahy (D-Vt.), noting that no previous Republican Senate leader would have allowed his party to filibuster such a routine nomination.
Leahy said that the overuse of filibusters by the GOP was leading Democrats to consider ways to modify it.
Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.), another long-serving member, said that abuse of the filibuster is unsustainable. "I think it will either fall of its own weight -- it should fall of its own weight -- or it will fall after some massive conflict on the floor, which has happened in the past where there have been rulings from the chair that have led to reform," Levin told the Huffington Post, adding that the filibuster should be restricted to major issues.
Of course, Democrats will have to maintain control of the Senate in order to destroy the filibuster (it can be done on the first say the Senate is in session next year, with only 50 votes plus the Vice-President). As the Senate chart shows in the extended entry, they still have a good chance to do so, barring significant downward movement in the California, Indiana, Missouri and Wisconsin Senate campaigns.
Following up on last night's Illinois primary, Republican nominee Mark Kirk releases an internal poll showing up ahead by 12% against Democratic nominee Alexis Giannoulias:
Magellan Strategies for Mark Kirk (R)
2/2/10; 885 likely voters, 3.3% margin of error Kirk: 47%
Giannoulias: 35%
Now, because this is an internal poll, and was conducted on only one night, many people will be prone to doubt it. However, this is the first poll to be released since the banking scandal around Giannoulias broke, making it entirely possible that the campaign has changed dramtically. Further, Charles Franklin has previous noted that internal polls favor the candidate who purchased them by an average of 5%. Even with that deviation in mind, it would not be surprising in the slightest that Giannoulias has taken a huge hit with the general voting population as a result of the scandal.
While we should wait for more polls to draw any conclusions, this seems to suggest the worst fears of those who thought Giannoulias became a severely damaged candidate from the banking scandal were warranted. Now, Illinois is up from grabs, threatening to become a second Massachusetts.
Also, it had previously escaped my notice that there is an Indiana poll featuring Evan Bayh versus an announced Republican candidate, John Hostettler. That poll shows Bayh leading by only 3%, 44%-41%. No word on what polling will look like with newly announced Republican Dan Coates in the campaign.
The New York campaign is included in this chart, but will not appear in the overall forecast because it is not quite close enough (I only forecast campaigns where the incumbent part leads by less than 18.50%).
Senate forecast overview
Democrats*
Republicans
Not up for election
41
23
Currently safe
8
12
Sub-total
49
35
Current polling
3.93
12.07
Projected total
53
47
* = Because they caucus with Senate Democrats, Independents Bernie Sanders and Joe Lieberman are considered Democrats
This sidecar update drops Democrats down to a projected 53 seats after 2010, equaling their lowest point in the forecast. It also opens the door, ever so slightly, to the prospect of Republicans actually taking control of the Senate after 2010. With only 49 safe Democrats seats, and with big potential Republican recruits still possible in Wisconsin (Tommy Thompson) and New York (George Pataki), Republicans may yet control the Senate in 2011-2012. Even Washington State may yet enter the realm of competitive campaigns, depending on Republican recruiting there.
The Illinois Senate primary is tonight. Polls close at 7 p.m. central time (8 p.m. eastern, 5 p.m. pacific). There are a lot of races taking place but, as a D.C. focused blogger, I will only be providing updates on the Democratic primary for U.S. Senate. Check out Swing State Project and Archpundit for the nitty gritty on the other campaigns.
Vote margin: Giannoulias +34,822 (going up--this is over. No further updates.)
Update (9:12 eastern)--Looking like Giannoulias: Smart observation from alex in the comments:
it's hard to see a path for victory for Hoffman. He's not doing well enough in the collar counties to offset Chicago city and he's doing mostly poorly outside of Chicagoland at the moment.
Hoffman isn't strong enough in the city of Chicago to stage a comeback there. His weakness among African-Americans, and downstate, appears ready to sink him.
Very worried about Giannoulias making himself, and the party, look bad with his banking ties. He may be the more lefty than Hoffman, but I can't say I was pulling for him tonight. Ties to a banking scandal are just terrible right now.
Update 2--A look at the Illinois 10th. Worth noting, from minvis in the comments:
But the House 10th District is shaping up to be a good chance at a pickup for the Democrats. This is Kirk's old House seat. The moderate Republican, Elizabeth Coulson, is losing substantially to a more conservative Republican. This is a slightly Democratic leaning district nationally. It voted for Gore, Kerry and Obama the last 3 presidential elections. Whoever wins the Democratic race, Seals is leading slightly right now, will more closely align with the electorate there than a right-wing Republican.
Good note. Too add, IL-10 actually isn't slightly lean Democratic--it is D+6 in Cook PVI, which makes it roughly 12 points more favorable to Democrats than the national picture. It is the second most Democratic district in the country held by a Republican (Delaware at-large is #1 in this category).
Follow the results of the House race here. I am a little dubious about Seals--pretty sure he isn't particularly progressive. This is also his third run, and he failed to take the seat during two very Democratic years. On the other hand, I know nothing about Julie Hamos, his main opponent.
With 4 precincts left to report, Seals leads by 662 votes. Looks like Seals eeked it out.
update 3--Hamos appears to be Jan Schakowsky protege. Multiple commenters are now reporting that Hamos is a protege of Jan Schakowsky. That sounds pretty good to me.
If Hamos is great, and if she doesn't pull this out, it feels like a lost opportunity for a progressive pickup. Terrible mistake on my part--should have done my research and gotten involved.
Update 4--Mark Kirk crushes tea party challengers in Republican Senate primary: To no one's surprise, Mark Kirk cruises to victory in the Republican Senate primary. He currently has 56% of the vote, and only 19% for the closest challenger.
Update 5--I am calling it for Giannoulias: Giannoulias is going to be the Democratic nominee for Senate in Illinois. Hopefully, his scandals will stay local, and he will find a way to beat Kirk despite them. He leads in the polls right now, but keep an eye on this campaign. Could get very dicey.
No further updates tonight. This is an open thread on the Illinois primary.
Projected 2010 Senate: Democrats 54-46 (assuming no caucus switches)
News
Illinois primary tonight. The Illinois primary is tonight. For our purposes at Open Left, the Democratic Senate primary is the featured matchup. It is likely that either Alexis Giannoulisor David Hoffman will win. Giannoulis has long been the frontrunner, and is perhaps the more lefty candidate. However he has recently been beset with a banking scandal, is spinning his wheels in the polls and, even before the scandal, trailed Hoffman badly among people who know both candidates. As such, Giannoulis's polling advantage is probably a mirage.
Arkansas--Blanche Lincoln is toast. I hope Blanche Lincoln enjoyed her time in the Senate, because it will end in less than a year. New Arkansas polling from PPP put her down 23 points to forthcoming challenger John Boozman. Rasmussen has her down by 19%. At this point, running a primary challenger against Blanche Lincoln has more to do with electability than anything else. Given her deficit, there is no real point or possibility of pushing her to the left. She is done.
Florida--Charlie Crist is also toast. As the charts in the extended entry show, Marco Rubio has taken a substantial, 7.2% lead on Charlie Crist in the Florida Republican primary. It is hard to see any conceivable way that an incumbent comes back from such a deficit, given the extremely pro-Rubio trendlines. This is a political environment where being in prominent, elected office is bad for a campaign.
It is also worth noting that Crist's demise does not help presumptive Democratic nominee Kendrick Meek at all. Meek currently trails Rubio by 11.8%, compared to his 10.2% deficit against Crist. IT is difficult for me to see how Meek overcomes that sort of deficit, given the current political environment and strong, pro-Rubio trendlines. Florida is rapidly moving out of play.
Massachusetts--Scott Brown to be sworn in on February 11th. Scott Brown will be sworn in on Friday, February 11th, at 12:45 p.m. Given that Democrats only reached 60, active, voting Senators on Friday, September 25th, at 3:30 p.m., that means the Democratic supermajority for 138 days, 21 hours, and 15 minutes. Hope they enjoyed it because, as the forecast shows in the extended entry, it won't be coming back anytime soon.
Complete forecast charts can be found in the extended entry.
Broadway Bank, the troubled Chicago lender owned by the family of Illinois Treasurer and U.S. Senate candidate Alexi Giannoulias, has entered into a consent order with banking regulators requiring it to raise tens of millions in capital, stop paying dividends to the family without regulatory approval, and hire an outside party to evaluate the bank's senior management.
The Jan. 26 consent order with the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. and the Illinois Division of Banking comes less than a week before Mr. Giannoulias - Broadway's chief lender and then vice-president from 2002 to 2006 - must face voters in the Democratic primary for the Senate seat previously held by President Barack Obama.
The story broke on January 26th, the day after both PPP and Rasmussen completed their polls on the campaign. As such, any polls showing Giannoulias performing better in the general election than his two main rivals, David Hoffman and Cheryle Jackson, are now out of date.
Being caught in a banking scandal is always bad. Being caught in one during this political environment is practically a death sentence to a campaign. If Giannoulias were to win the primary, Democrats would be extremely hard pressed to keep the seat in November. Even worse, having a prominent Senate candidate--the Democratic nominee for President Obama's old seat--personally involved in a banking scandal like this could hurt Democratic chances in many other elections, too.
So, is there any chance Illinois Democrats will make the right move, and nominate either Jackson or Hoffman? Actually, the odds seem pretty good, especially for Hoffman. Here are all public polls on the campaign since early December:
Since December, Giannoulias has effectively picked up no undecided voters. At the same time, Jackson has gained 3%, while Hoffman has surged 11%.
Even before the banking scandal hit, Giannoulias was not picking up any new support. Now, with Hoffman (and, to a such lesser extent, Jackson) apparently surging, and with the banking scandal in play, it is hard to see how Giannoulias picks up any of the remaining undecided support. With 25% of the electorate still undecided, this should be enough for Hoffman to win.
Hopefully, the banking scandal will boost the current pro-Hoffman trend. If Jackson wins, that's fine too. The worry is if Illinois Democrats either ignore this scandal, or give Giannoulias a sympathy vote for being targeted (that has happened in another big Dem machine town, Philadelphia, before). If they do, this Senate seat is probably GOP. Many others will become easier GOP pickups, too.
Projected 2010 Senate: Democrats 54-46 (assuming no caucus switches)
Even though it is only January, developments in the 2010 Senate picture keep coming in every day. So, it is time for another major update to the Senate picture.
****
Today's forecast shows the Democratic situation has improved in a number of states: Missouri, Colorado, Nevada, and North Carolina. Much of this was due to new statewide polling from Polimetrix. While those all of those states except Missouri still show significant leans, they have moved back into more competitive territory.
While still grim, the situation is far from hopeless for Democrats. A national swing of 3%--which is very doable given the dominance of Rasmussen in the polls here and if the employment situation improves--would add another 2 seats to their total. Keeping a majority of 56 seats would actually be pretty respectable, given that Republicans haven't had a majority like that since the 1928 elections.
Senate forecast overview
Democrats*
Republicans
Not up for election
41
23
Currently safe
9
12
Sub-total
50
35
Current polling
3.68
11.32
Projected total
54
46
* = Because they caucus with Senate Democrats, Independents Bernie Sanders and Joe Lieberman are considered Democrats
The 15 currently competitive Senate campaigns ("Competitive" is defined as campaigns where incumbent party currently leads by 18% or less in current polling among announced candidates) Democrats: 3.68 (4)
Republicans: 11.32 (11)
The continuing Democratic decline in the Senate forecast led me to start wondering: could Republicans actually retake the Senate in 2010?
While it remains a real longshot, Republicans are only one or two more top recruits from actually putting the Senate in play.
Here are the current Senate matchups that polling shows to be within 18% or closer. For the sake of clarity, only the leaders of the most recent primary poll is included:
That is a pretty bad environment for Democrats. However, even if Republicans win every single one of these campaigns--which right now is not very likely at all--they would still only have 50 seats in the Senate. Since Joe Biden would still be Vice-President, Democrats would retain control even in that nightmare scenario.
So, in order to retake the Senate, Republicans are going to have to put more seats into play. Here are their best options:
* = Poll from February 2009. Political environment has significantly worsened for Democrats since that time.
Before any of the 19 campaigns listed here are decided, Democrats have a 47-34 edge in the Senate. Since Democrats hold the tiebreaker, in order to retake the Senate, Republicans need to win 17 of these campaigns. This means they need at least one of the three recruits in the "potential" section before they even have a shot. And, even then, they would need to shoot the moon.
While it is an extreme longshot that Republicans retake the Senate, that it is even possible at all is quite remarkable. It is a testament to just how negative the political situation has become for Democrats.
Jan 25 Senate update: Democratic loss of 6.01 seats (six)
Change from Jan 21: Democrats down 1.21 seats
Project 2010 Senate: Democrats 53-47 (assuming no caucus switches)
In what is becoming almost a daily routine, today brings even more bad news for Democrats in the 2010 Senate outlook.
In Delaware, Beau Biden has declared he is not running. This means Delaware from a 38% chance for a Democratic victory to, pending the announcement of another Democratic candidate, a 0% chance of victory.
In Indiana, Evan Bayh might actually be in real trouble. A new Rasmussen poll shows Bayh losing to Representative Mike Pence, 47%-44%. The NRSC has been trying to recruit Pence into the campaign, and he would also be a favorite of the teabaggers. This would give Pence a nice combination of grassroots and establishment support, plus a strong poll standing to start with. So, throw another potential Republican pickup opportunity onto the pile:
These two shifts push Democratic chances down further, to a loss of 6.01 seats (from 4.80 seats). This makes a 53-47 Democratic majority currently the most likely outcome based on polling, primary outcomes, and recruiting.
This is turning into a bloodbath. The Senate Forecast methodology can be found here.
Jan 21 Senate update: Democratic loss of 4.80 seats (five)
Change from Jan 20: Democrats down 0.49 seats
Project 2010 Senate: Democrats 54-46 (assuming no caucus switches)
Adding to the sense of impending collapse, Democrats hit a new low in today's Senate forecast update. For the first time, I am now projecting Democrats to retain only 54 seats in the Senate--and that includes independents Joe Lieberman and Bernie Sanders. New polling from California (Field), Missouri (Rasmussen), North Carolina (PPP) and Pennsylvania (Rasmussen) were the contributing factors to this downgrade.
It is worth noting that North Carolina is one of only two Senate campaigns in the country right now (Illinois is the other) where the likely Democratic nominee, Elaine Marshall, is trending up:
This also happens to be only one of two campaigns (Louisiana is the other) where Democrats are seriously looking to knock off a Republican incumbent. I will have to look into this more, but I wonder if competitive seats featuring a Republican incumbent will be easier for Democrats to win than competitive open seats. This thought makes me cautiously optimistic about North Carolina.
