As I noted this morning, it strikes me that if the Democrats hope to take back one arm of Congress in 2006, they should focus on the House. Why? It strikes me that there are more opportunities there for pickups than there will be in the Senate. Or, put another way, I don't think it's realistic at this point to expect that the Democrats can net 6 US Senate seats in 2 years.
As I see it, there are 14 seats that could be talked about, but 7 of those strike me as rather likely to remain with the party that currently holds them. Yes, Arizona may be trending blue, but I'm unaware of anyone on the Democratic bench who could take out Jon Kyl. Yes, Florida is always close, but I think that with the benefits of incumbency and a long, moderate record Bill Nelson should survive. Similarly, Michigan is a toss-up state, but it strikes me that Debbie Stabenow will be favored. The Democrats had a very good 2004 in Montana, but it will be hard to dislodge Conrad Burns. Yes, Bill Frist's retirement opens up a seat in Tennessee - but we saw this year that even when they run superb candidates, Democrats have a tough time winning in the South. Lincoln Chafee and Kent Conrad? It's possible they could be defeated. They represent states in which their party is unusually weak. But they are popular and seem unlikely to lose unless it's in a very close race against a very strong candidate.
So basically I think it will come down to seven states: NE (probably a Republican gain), MO (probably stays Republican), MN (potentially the definitive toss-up), MS (it depends on Mike Moore), PA (I'm so looking forward to this), VA (it depends on Mark Warner) and WV (depends on Bob Byrd). And if the Democrats somehow managed to win all of those seats (something that would be stunning) the Republicans would still have a majority. So if the goal is a Democratic majority in 2007 - the Democrats had best look to the House.
Posted by armand at November 17, 2004 04:03 PM | TrackBack | Posted to Politics