November 2, 2004 - Ugh...
First off, let me state my bias: I am not a fan of the U.S. Senate! It is antidemocratic, and its disproportionate powers make it even worse. Still, it's not going anywhere, so we need to win back control if we're ever going to get anything good done.
Before the 2006 elections Republicans had a 55-45 edge in the Senate. Our victories in 2006, 2008 and 2012 gave us a net 15 Senate seats. All but one of them have been lost thanks to 2010 and 2014. Right now the Republicans will likely have an effective majority of 54-46 pending the results of Alaska and the Louisiana runoff, which Republicans will probably both win. This means we'll need to win back 5 in 2016 to regain control, or 4 if we also win the Presidency.
I'm already over Tuesday; it's time to get back to work! In preparation for the 2016 Senate elections, I just want to reassure fellow Democrats that, despite the maladies of the Senate, one thing it is not is inherently biased towards Republicans, that 2004 Electoral College map notwithstanding. I'll explain why below.
I. A Surprising Truth
First, a pop quiz: which candidate 'won' more states in the 2012 Presidential Election?
Answer: Obama did, 26-24! Sorry DC, maybe someday...
States for Romney:
AL, AK, AR, AZ, GA, ID, IN, LA, KS, KY, MO, MS, MT, NC, ND, NE, OK, SC, SD, TN, TX, UT, WV, WY
States for Obama:
CA, CO, CT, DE, FL, HI, IA, IL, MA, MD, ME, MI, MN, NH, NJ, NM, NV, NY, OH, OR, PA, RI, VA, VT, WA, WI
Hats off to
crystalvala for
reminding us of this important fact. Small states are not inherently Republican states: Montana and Wyoming have only 1 House Representative, but so do Delaware and Vermont.
Which party wins the most House Reps in a state can be manipulated by gerrymandering. A state's legislature can allocate its Presidential electoral votes by any method it chooses (as Scalia obnoxiously reminded us in Bush v. Gore). By contrast, Senate elections are strictly determined by the popular vote. So the fact that we have won a majority/plurality of the popular vote for President in more states than the Republicans have, is a great encouragement for future Senate races.
II. Crossover Senators in the next 3 elections
But as 2014 emphatically showed, the partisan alignment of a state as revealed by its Presidential preferences matters. There used to be plenty of crossover Senators—my term for Senators of one party where the other party won the Presidential vote. However, the growing polarization and nationalization of elections in America, first prompted by desegregation, have substantially reduced their numbers. Starting with the 114th Congress, there will only be 15 crossover Senators remaining:
Democratic Senators in Romney/Republican states:
Indiana: Donnelly (2018)
Missouri: McCaskill (2018)
Montana: Tester (2018)
North Dakota: Heitkamp (2018)
West Virginia: Manchin (2018)
Republican Senators in Obama/Democratic states:
Colorado: Gardner (2020)
Florida: Rubio (2016)
Illinois: Kirk (2016)
Iowa: Ernst (2020); Grassley (2016)
Maine: Collins (2020)
Nevada: Heller (2018)
New Hampshire: Ayotte (2016)
Pennsylvania: Toomey (2016)
Wisconsin: Johnson (2016)
Currently Republicans enjoy a +5 advantage in crossover Senators. The first step to regaining control of the Senate is to redress this imbalance. In 2016 we'd better take back at least 4 of those 6 seats held by Republicans in states won by Obama, because in 2018 the GOP will have the double advantage of challenging Democratic incumbents in Republican states during a midterm election; it would not surprise me if we lose 4 of the 5. Incredibly, after the 2020 elections there could be no crossover Senators left at all!
III. Swing States in 2016
We are probably not truly a '50-50' country, but in terms of the Senate it's not far from the truth; a Senate that exactly paralleled the 2012 Presidential election would be 52-48 Democratic. Of course, when there are only 100 Senators, and 33 Senate races at any one time, fortune can either create opportunity or leave us scrambling. We still need to run a 50 state strategy for the Senate elections to take advantage of chance, but for now the red-blue divide appears to be a high hurdle for both parties.
Outside of incredible bad luck/good luck we won't be seeing a Republican Senator from Hawaii or a Democratic Senator from Oklahoma anytime soon, but in any election there will almost always be a few swing states where crossover Senators can win, so let's take a quick look at them. In 9 states the party that won the popular vote for President changed from 2004 to 2008: CO, NM, NV, IA, IN, OH, FL, NC, VA. Safe to say Indiana going blue in 2008 was a fluke not likely to recur. Conversely, New Mexico is the most likely to remain strong blue for federal elections in the future.
For the 2016 elections, there are two regions of the country that are obvious battlegrounds: the Southwest (NV and CO) and the 'New South' (FL, NC, VA). The results of the Colorado Senate race and the Nevada state races are a major wakeup call; Democrats cannot take these states for granted, although they are still trending our way. Likewise, the Republicans will fiercely contest the new South states, as Florida is a must-win and North Carolina a must-hold. Fortunately Virginia will be a very high hurdle for them; not even the hurricane-strength winds of 2014 could blow the Old Dominion back to the New Confederacy Republicans.
IV. Troubling Portents from the Heartland
The final region of interest for the future is the Midwest. With the notable exception of Ohio, it has not really been a battleground, but I think this is the area of the country that Republicans will have the best chance of making inroads, both for the Presidency and the Senate, in 2016 and beyond. Currently Iowa is the only state where both Senators are crossovers, which is either a major anomaly or a sign that it's heading in the red direction. Throughout the Midwest Republicans are showing sustained and growing strength at the state level, as evidenced by their victories for governor in Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio, and even Illinois. Demographic and economic changes here do not seem as favorable for the Democratic Party in the short-term (i.e., more white, becoming older, weakening unions and fewer manufacturing jobs).
In the South, political realignment generally took place in a top-down fashion, starting with the Presidency, then Congress in the 1994 elections on, and since 2000 in state governments. A similar process may be happening from the bottom up in the Midwest, starting with recent Republican victories for governor and state legislatures. With the exception of Ohio, Presidential and Senate elections have largely gone Democratic, but outside of Minnesota and Illinois Republicans now are the majority of House delegations throughout the Midwest.
I'm not liking these trends. In 2016, under the right circumstances Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin and Iowa could vote Republican. We had better not take the Midwest for granted, so the sooner we lay the groundwork the better off we'll be.
V. Future Pickups
There do not seem to be many obvious choices for red states that will become purple/blue in 2016. Georgia won't be a swing state until 2020 at the earliest. Missouri seems irretrievably lost, and I predict the ramifications of Michael Brown's death will make it even worse, but a tiny voice inside me also whispers that we can make a comeback here someday.
My bold prediction: in 2016 Arizona will become the Virginia of the West, where Republicans are as right-wing as they come, but narrowly outnumbered by a diverse Democratic majority. McCain will be 80 years old in 2016 and a prime target for Tea Party feasting; this is the red state race we should devote the most amount of effort to.
Conclusion: A Call to Action
There is no reason we cannot control the Senate in the future, and the path to regaining the Senate starts on our side of the field. Let's start getting ready to win in 2016!
7:06 AM PT: UPDATE: Made an edit because I forgot that Tester won reelection in Montana, and will be up for reelection in 2018.
7:12 AM PT: UPDATE #2: And I forgot about Senator Collins in Maine, so I updated that as well.