With all the attention being placed on the battle for the House in 2022, realistic analysis of the battle for the Senate has been lacking, so I tried to provide some at New York:
Political handicappers looking to the 2022 midterms have focused on House races because the very predictable pattern of midterm House losses by the president’s party makes continuation of a Democratic House a real long shot (and probably a prohibitive long shot unless Joe Biden’s job-approval rating shows significant improvement soon). The loss of either chamber, of course, means the governing trifecta that has made enactment of part of Biden’s legislative agenda possible will be gone, probably for a good while (at least until 2026, by my reckoning). But there is some independent value in continued Democratic control of the Senate thanks to that chamber’s role in confirming Biden’s executive branch and judicial nominees along with the ability to control committee and floor action in a way that gives Democrats significant leverage and opportunities for conveying their message.
Because only one-third of the Senate is up for reelection every two years, there is not the sort of predictable relationship between Senate outcomes and the general political climate. In other words, a bad year for either party in presidential, House, or gubernatorial contests doesn’t mean a bad year in Senate races if the landscape is positive. We saw that most recently in 2018, when Republicans lost 41 net House seats and seven net governorships yet picked up two net Senate seats because the landscape (with 26 Democratic Senate seats and only nine Republican Senate seats at stake) was very positive for the GOP.
The Senate landscape is modestly positive in 2022 for Democrats, who have to defend only 14 seats as compared with 20 seats for Republicans. Moreover, as Amy Walter points out, none of the 14 Democratic seats are in a state carried by Donald Trump in 2020. Meanwhile, Republicans are defending two seats in states carried by Biden in 2020, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.
But at the same time, Democrats are defending three Senate seats (in Arizona, Georgia, and Nevada) in states Biden carried very narrowly (he won by 0.30 percent in Arizona, 0.24 percent in Georgia, and a relatively luxurious 2.39 percent in Nevada). Republicans in the two nominally blue states whose Senate seats they control don’t have much ground to make up, either (Biden won Pennsylvania by 1.17 percent and Wisconsin by 0.63 percent). They also control an open seat in North Carolina, a state Trump won by only 1.3 percent.
To give you an idea of how much “swing” Republicans might rationally expect in a midterm, consider that Republicans won the national House popular vote by 1.1 percent in 2016 and Democrats won it by 8.6 percent in 2018. That’s a lot of movement against the party controlling the White House. Anything remotely like that in 2022 — again, controlling for state aberrations despite the trend toward straight-ticket voting in recent years — and Republicans could pretty easily sweep the six contests mentioned above, all rated as toss-ups by the Cook Political Report, and take control of the Senate by a 53-to-47 margin, assuming neither party breaks serve by winning in a less competitive state.
What may give Democrats better Senate odds is the current nature of Republican intrastate and intraparty dynamics. There are potentially fractious GOP Senate primaries in Arizona, North Carolina, and Pennsylvania that could produce nominees with real weaknesses. Moreover, in these states and others (notably Ohio, a “red” state that recently reelected a progressive Democratic senator), Trump’s insistence on turning GOP primaries into referenda on loyalty to his ludicrous 2020 election claims could interfere with the expected pro-Republican midterm trend.
Potential Trump-generated problems affecting Senate races aren’t limited to his involvement in just those races. Georgia is a classic example. Freshman Democratic Senator Raphael Warnock, who along with Jon Ossoff won by an eyelash in 2021’s unique dual general-election Senate runoff in what has become the ultimate battleground state, ought to be a sitting duck in 2022 with even a minimal midterm swing. But Trump enormously complicated Georgia politics by pushing the man Ossoff beat a year ago, David Perdue, into a primary challenge to the incumbent governor, Brian Kemp, as part of a purge effort aimed at those who didn’t support the 45th president’s efforts to overturn the 2020 election results. The Perdue-Kemp primary is sure to be an extremely expensive and divisive affair. It could weaken the ultimate winner in a general election against Stacey Abrams and might spill over into the Senate race, where Republican front-runner and Trump favorite Herschel Walker hasn’t shaken questions about his background and temperament (or rid himself of primary opposition).
Divisive Republican gubernatorial primaries seem likely in Arizona and Pennsylvania, as well, and could extend to Wisconsin, where incumbent GOP Senator Ron Johnson is struggling with low favorability numbers.
Republicans should be considered the slight favorites to flip the Senate (and much stronger favorites to flip the House) in 2022, assuming Biden’s popularity doesn’t seriously improve by November. But Mitch McConnell should not be making big plans for 2023. His party’s lord and master, Trump, could screw things up yet, and you never know entirely what will happen in a wide array of competitive Senate races.
Marcus and Jeff (Jeff, not sure if you were responding in part to my comment): Just would like to clarify. My point was that the National Guard stuff is competing with what K/E are trying to say now. To the extent the National Guard coverage is being driven by 527s K/E cannot directly rein that in even if they would very much like to do so. If they did as you suggested, Marcus–make a public statement expressing their desire or intention to focus for the duration of this campaign on the issues voters are concerned about today–perhaps any 527s, with whom they cannot directly communicate, and other K/E supporters who are pushing more National Guard coverage would get the message and back off. Which of course guarantees nothing in terms of what the media decide to focus on.
I’m not aware of K/E voluntarily discussing Vietnam era events of late. This may be a situation where K/E’s efforts to get back control of the debate are being hurt by well-meaning pro-Kerry 527 groups and/or others.
Rasmussen polls daily and uses a three day rolling average for his daily numbers. Here is what they show:
————————————————-
***The Bush approval and disapproval numbers are exactly where they were before the Republican convention.
————————————————-
***The Bush v. Kerry numbers for voters are exactly where they were before the Republican convention.
————————————————-
Fox Dynamic poll
Fox reported RVs until after their August 4th poll showed Kerry gaining the lead. Once the RVs showed Bush losing the lead, Fox quit reporting their RV results and switched to the LV distinction. This is akin to discovering that Kerry is 6’3 and Bush is 5’9, so the Fox Pollster backs away until Bush APPEARS to be taller from this angle. Yeah, it is that BAD.
Fox shows Bush with only a two point lead TODAY, among LVs.
————————————————-
***Fox has Bush v. Kerry at two point race among LVs, clearly within the margin of error.
————————————————-
Tony makes a good point. As Ruy pointed out (trackback to http://www.emergingdemocraticmajorityweblog.com/donkeyrising/archives/000642.php) Kerry actually got a bump in the battleground. So the fact that ABC shows the race essentially tied in those states should mollify the hand-wringers.
And the ABC/Post poll shows the two tied among all voters in the battleground states. How much of what Bush did was to increase his strength in states he was going to win anyway?
OK, ABC is out. Taking a count again, for polls held at least in part after the convention, using RV’s when available, LV’s when not, we have:
CBS Bush +7 (Sept 6-8)
ABC Bush +6 (Sept 6-8)
Fox Bush +4% (LV, Sept 7-8)
Gallup Bush +1% (Sept 3-5)
ICR Kerry +1% (Sept 1-5)
There’s the question of what Labor Day is doing to all of this. And of whether the LV list (which favors Bush more) is better than the RV list. But this set has a median of Bush up by 4%. Hardly insurmountable.
I look forward to Ruy giving us a lot more insight on all of this.
Ohio, Florida, and Pennsylvania. That’s most likely the election. And the debates.
Logan, I don’t think Inside politics is all that bad. I always found Judy Woodruff pretty fair and Bill Snider usually tilts to the left. Of course I think it is a little to early to say we have a front runner. If two weeks after the convention ALL the polls show a more than 5 point lead, than that could be true. Even then we have the debates. I heard that when Regan Ran against Carter that Carter had a double didget lead going into the debates then after the debates Carter was toast.
As far as the media declaring Bush the “frontrunner.” I knew this would happen.
I mean, didn’t we all?
When Kerry is ahead by 5 or 6% it is a virtual tie.
When Bush is ahead by 5 or 6% he is the “clear front runner.”
Truth is, Kerry should embrace his new “underdog status.” Let it be how he connects with people.
He can claim that, like the people, he is the underdog against corporate interests, et al.
He then should say, there are more of us then them.
P.S. I agree that he should stop talking about Vietnam. Christ Almighty. I wish he had never brought up fucking Vietnam.
Think about the irony. That pitiful country cost us the 1968 and 1972 elections. Imagine if it costs us 2004 as well.
P.P.S. I’m beginning to think that Kerry is a dipshit.
FYI,
ABC poll includes “leaners.”
Well someone’s wrong. Either Zogby, Rasmussen Economist and Fox or CBS, ABC, Newsweek and Time.
I understand how you can spin maybe one or two polls, but almost every mainstream poll coming out lately has Bush up. ABC and CBS came out today. both have Bush up by seven and nine respectively. Can all these polls be wrong at the moment?
> Just a followup comment. When the Republicans were
> trying to run Clinton out of town on a rail Carville
> used to say that the public wants to know what the
> politicians are going to do about their problems and
> has little use for politicians who want all the talk to be
> about themselves and who did what to whom when.
Precisely why Kerry needs to stop talking about Vietnam already… Sure, he is justifiably proud of his medals, but that’s no substitute for real policies and ideas. If he can present those to the American public (and avoid “Kerrymeandering” by giving simple, clear answers to questions) during the debates, he still has a good chance.
Fortunately, “Shrub” also has offered little but cliches and tired rhetoric for his political base.
MARCU$
Just a followup comment. When the Republicans were trying to run Clinton out of town on a rail Carville used to say that the public wants to know what the politicians are going to do about their problems and has little use for politicians who want all the talk to be about themselves and who did what to whom when. Something along those lines.
This sort of mindset says: when you come right down to it, our side just has better ideas about what to do to improve the lives of ordinary citizens. The public has for decades agreed. It continues to agree. When we offer our ideas in straightforward, digestible language that frames the choice clearly, we usually win.
Why is Bill Schneider of CNN allowed to lie about the polls on their little Inside Politics right wing biased show? All the legitimate polls show a close race, yet Mr. Schneider claimed, “Well, we can now say that Bush is the clear front runner.” Say what? Just recently Kerry was in the lead, by about the same margins as Bush is supposedly now, yet Mr. S. nor anyone at CNN ever called Kerry the front runner. The Bush crowd and their media mininons are obvioulsy trying to use fake polls to influence a “band waggon” effort to sway voters, which seems really crass and clearly based on fake data.
Marcus, likewise I am hoping this campaign will move to, and stay in, the 21st century from this point forward. The National Guard stuff that is being reported is competing with what K/E are trying to get out there. If it’s about the distant past we are way off message. Yes, Bush and his surrogates continue to deceive about the distant past. But they have been both deceitful and wildly incorrect in what they have said to the public on matters of much more pressing concern to the voters.
Not really related to the Subject, but I think Kerry needs to do the smart but high-minded thing by urging _EVERYONE_ to stop talking about the supposed inconsistencies regarding a) “Shrub’s” national guard service in the early 70’s, b) his own Vietnam record. As some pundit pointed out, this discussion will not bring a single U.S. serviceman home from Iraq and nor will it be very helpful when trying to figure out how to shrink the annual $0.5-trillion federal deficit.
Let’s face it: the likelihood of another four years of “Shrub” will decrease if the election debate is focused on factual issues like the federal economy, jobs, Iraq and the role the current President’s decisions has played in all that. Conversely, an angry mud-slinging debate will only divert attention away from this Administration’s many failures while discouraging independents from voting for anybody. This will make it easier for Karl Rove to win by simply bringing the committed GOP base to the voting booths.
MARCU$
Interesting that Fox News has a poll that shows Kerry doing better than CBS’ poll.
And to answer some of JDC’s questions, I think Kerry has some ground to make up, but not really a lot. I don’t think Bush holds that “strong” a lead; to me strong indicates a wide margin that has held up for a long time, not a few points gained over the last couple of weeks. I
If Bush gets PA and FL, then I think he wins. But I personally wouldn’t bet too heavily on him winning Pennsylvania. With the GOP convention just last week, and with all the “Kerry is tanking/can’t do anything right” coverage we’ve been subjected to lately, this may be Bush’s highwater mark (barring external events, of course) and they’re still tied there.
Does anyone know what has happened to coldheartedtruth.com?
Ruy or anyone,
At this site:
http://www.dalythoughts.com/summary-classic-nozog.htm
…the ECV map seems to indicate Bush is holding a strong lead in the state polls and the national map. Aside from the Gallup fallacies you’ve been discussing, are there other fallacies internal to it, or is it accurate that Kerrry has alot of ground to make up? Is Zogby worth following or not?
If Pennsylvania and Florida break for Bush, is the election over?
Thank you.