They say a month is an eternity in politics, so two years is … uhhh … even longer. Nevertheless, it looks like the Democrats face some big, big problems in 2012.
They’ll have to defend 23 Senate seats compared to only ten for the Republicans. And to make matters even worse, the Republican seats all seem relatively safe while nearly half of the Democrat seats could be in jeopardy.
Bottom line: Democrats will lose even more ground in 2012 and Republicans will take firm control of the Senate.
Here’s a quick review of what the future may hold.
Safe Democrats seats (also includes two Independents who caucus with the Democrats):
1. Dianne Feinstein of California (Feinstein will be 79 years old and has more money than God. Even if she doesn’t run, California should be a safe state for the Democrats)
2. Tom Carper of Delaware (Got 70% of the vote in 2006. Even if rumored health problems knock him out of the race, Delaware will probably elect another Democrat)
3. Ben Cardin of Maryland (This seems like a pretty safe seat, but Cardin only managed 54% of the vote in 2006 against moronic Michael Steele. If the Republicans can find a strong candidate, this seat could be vulnerable.)
4. Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota (Seems popular and no strong Republicans seem to be waiting in the wings.)
5. Jeff Bingaman of New Mexico (Got 71% of the vote in 2006. Probably one of those safe Democrat seats.)
6. Ken Conrad of North Dakota (Got 69% of the vote in 2006. Likely another safe Democrat seat.)
7. Bob Casey, Jr. of Pennsylvania (Destroyed Rick Santorum in 2006. No reason to think he won’t repeat in 2012.)
8. Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island (Got nearly 54% of the vote against a well-known Republican incumbent in 2006. No reason to think wacky Rhode Island voters will send him packing now.)
9. Maria Cantwell of Washington (Seems to be a safe seat in left wing Washington.)
10. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut (Quirky Lieberman will be 70 in 2012, but remains popular in the state. Will probably win reelection if he runs. Republicans will be working on him to officially switch the the Republican party the day the 2010 elections beginning on November 3.)
11. Bernie Sanders of Vermont (Lunatic socialist who probably hasn’t voted with the Republicans once since he joined the Senate. Safe Independent (read: Democrat) seat.)
12. Kirsten Gillibrand of New York (Democrats will probably hold onto the seat. Stranger things have happened than a Republican winning in New York, but we can’t think of any off the top of our heads.)
13. Joe Manchin of West Virginia (Manchin is probably the most popular politician in America. There’s no reason to think the guy who won this seat in 2010 won’t repeat in 2012.)
Questionable Democrat seats
1. Bill Nelson of Florida (might be vulnerable to a run by Jeb Bush)
2. Daniel Akaka of Hawaii (Akaka will be 88 friggin’ years old in 2012, but can anyone remember the last Republican senator from Hawaii? That being said, if Akaka decides to retire, popular but termed-out Republican Governor Linda Lingle might be able to give any other Democrats a run for their money.)
3. Debbie Stanenow of Michigan (No genius, she. A poll taken in March, 2010 indicated that she’d be in for a tough race if former Governor John Engler chooses to run against her.)
4. Claire McCaskill of Missouri (Was first elected in 2006 with less than 50% of the vote and has never been particularly popular with her constituents.)
5. Jon Tester of Montana (Also won election in 2006 with less than 50% of the vote. Could be vulnerable if Montana Republicans can find a strong candidate.)
6. Ben Nelson of Nebraska (Perhaps one of the most vulnerable Democrats. Republicans are lining up to oppose him after his ObamaCare “Cornhusker Kickback” fiasco.)
7. Bob Menendez of New Jersey (Menendez has never really been embraced by his constituents and he’ll be fighting a Chris Christie-inspired, anti-incumbent, anti-corruption, anti-tax and spend mood in New Jersey.)
8. Sherrod Brown of Ohio (Vulnerable in increasingly conservative Ohio. Got 56% of the vote in 2006 against a Republican opponent weakened by scandal.)
9. Jim Webb of Virginia (Squeaked out a victory by a razor-thin six-tenths of one percent in 2006. Republican George Allen is making noises about a rematch, which makes Webb very vulnerable.)
10. Herb Kohl of Wisconsin (Kohl will be 77 when 2012 rolls around. If he runs for reelection, he probably wins. If he doesn’t run, young gun Republican Congressman Paul Ryan is waiting in the wings.)
Safe Republican Seats
Remarkably, every Republican seats up for grabs in 2012 seem to be safe. Some incumbents may face strong primary challenges, but they’re in states so red that they’ll probably remain in Republican no matter who runs in the general election
.
1. Jon Kyl of Arizona (Will probably win if he chooses to run in 2012. Even if he doesn’t, the state seems reliably Republican unless the border issue goes away. Like that’s going to happen.)
2. Richard Lugar of Indiana (Got 87% of the vote in 2006. A lock for reelection.)
3. Olympia Snowe of Maine (Got 73% of the vote in 2006. A lock for reelection, but conservatives say she’s not much different than a Democrat. She did hold the line against Obama on most issues, though.)
4. Scott Brown of Massachusetts (Swimming uphill as a Republican in Massachusetts, but seems popular and should retain his seat.)
5. Roger Wicker of Mississippi (One would assume a Republican seat in Mississippi would be safe. No reason to think it won’t be.)
6. John Ensign of Nevada (Will probably have trouble getting out of the Republican primary, but whoever wins will probably win the general election in Nevada)
7. Bob Corker of Tennessee (First termer who narrowly won election in 2006. Tennessee if getting redder, so whoever wins the Republican nomination should hold onto the seat.)
8. Kay Bailey Hutchison of Texas (probably faces a primary challenge, but Texas is about as reliably Republican as a state can get)
9. Orrin Hatch of Utah (same boat as Hutchison)
10. John Barasso of Wyoming (Won a special election in 2008 and there’s no reason to think a Republican will lose in Wyoming anytime soon.)
Quibble away, if you wish. Tell us where you think we’re full of it and where we’re wrong. But it seems clear to the braintrust (such as it is) here at IHateTheMedia.com that Republicans probably can’t wait until 2012.
Of course, we would have said the same thing about Democrats 24 months ago.
H/T: Wikipedia.org
This post was last modified on November 2, 2010
View Comments (21)
The House should be safe for years - redistricting from the new census data comes up, and most states have Republican legislatures where gerrymandering won't be good to Democrats.
This is especially true in my state of Ohio. But honestly it would have been a big surprise for Strickland to hold on to the governorship. Ohio rarely has a Dem Governor.
Since the collapse of the Democratic - Republican Party in 1824 the Democrats have held the Governorship of Ohio 22 times as opposed to 30 Republicans. There have been 8 mufti-term Democratic Governors as opposed to 11 Republicans. This hardly qualifies as “rare”.
What has been rare is Democrats stringing together back to back governorships, which has only occurred twice in Ohio history.
Don’t know what part of Ohio you are from but I was born and raised in Southwest Ohio, namely, Hamilton County. This section of Ohio is historically conservative, but throughout my lifetime the split between Democrats and Republicans has been fairly even.
In my opinion, Strickland was elected more as a relief from Taft (who proved himself to be a buffoon) and the ground swell of the hope and change mantra sweeping the nation. Strickland has also proved himself to be quite inept as exemplified by the disabled veteran’s debacle, the Ohio Rebate Program, the airplane rides, and of course, the “drug bust” that never happened. Strickland really has done nothing for Ohioans - Unemployment is at 10.1% across the state and there seems to be no light at the end of the tunnel. Ohio’s economy continues in its stagnation and companies are leaving the state, rather than coming in. These are the reasons for his ouster – along with a lot of other hope and change advocates across the nation. The “People” of the nation have sent a strong and clear message that the current direction is not working and therefore, not acceptable.
People want results, not rhetoric about hope and change and some futuristic concept about greener pastures. People want to feel safe and secure – in their jobs and in life. The foremost responsibility of government is to ensure safety and security. Strickland’s administration, as well as the Obama administration, has a horrible track record in this department.
So you pulled those numbers out of your head did you? Look I have a computer and could run a search if I wanted. I make most comments based on common sense. Of the last twenty years Ohio has had sixteen under a Republican governor. After this term it will be twenty out of the last twenty four years. What Ohio did a hundred years ago hardly matters as political landscapes change over time.
You say people want results not rhetoric. Well now it is time for the Republicans to put up or shut up. The ones that were in office for the last two years can start by giving those pay checks back because they were the biggest bunch of do-nothings in the history of our government.
"hope and Change" that was the call when Obama ran. Strickland was elected in 06, prior to the hope and change campaign platfrom of Obama. And while we're on the subject of hope and change, almost every election cycle both sides are saying that. The Republicans now are saying "Americans sent a message that their tired of the spending and so on. Well if someone is tired of a thing, they want change right? Its all the same. Both sides use the hope and change thing all the time in elections so why are you so stuck on that campaign slogan when Obama uses it?
You say the Obama administration has a bad history on "security". We haven't suffered a terrorist attack on his watch which makes him far better than Bush correct? Actually Bush will go down in history as one of the worst presidents ever. Especially in the matters of economics, and security.
“Ohio rarely has a Dem Governor.” - Your statement implies that Ohio has been governed mostly by Republicans. I apologize for not making the”common sense” leap that you meant recently, not historically.
Since you were so kind as to expound on your statement I will, in kind, expound on my statement of safety and security. I was using those terms in the context of the economic landscape we find ourselves in at this time in history. People do not feel safe and secure about their future right now given the uncertainty of the economy; and the current administration most certainly has not done a very good job at abating those fears.
You are correct in that Strickland was elected prior to President Obama’s run – I was wrong on that one – but I do stand by my opinion that he was elected more as relief from Taft and his stupidity than on his own merits.
Hope and change is overused – I’ll give you that one – but so is blaming the former administration for every woe we now encounter. At some point in time the people who currently hold the power need to be held accountable.
Whether the Republicans put up or shut up remains to be seen – one thing is for certain-at least until 2012 we won’t have party line legislation rammed through Congress – a nice 2 year respite as far as I am concerned.
I am a Libertarian going on twenty years – I do not vote party lines. I am a conservative person by nature, so I generally lean with the more conservative candidates. I have great concerns with the far right and the far left wings of both the Republican and Democratic Parties. I find it extremely dangerous when a single party controls the government.
Chillie willie,
You're right about the constant blaming of the previous administration. That happens all too often. I think the problem in current times is that many Republicans immediately started blaming Obama and the Democrats for the TARP spending and the bailouts. This caused the natural reaction by the Dems to keep pointing out that the economy crashed during the Bush administration. This was a legitimate excuse for the Democrats early on, but in my opinion that excuse failed with health care reform.
Obama and the Democrats made a serious mistake in taking up healhtcare reform before closing the books on the jobs situation. I knew that was a mistake from the beginning and the Dems payed the price for it this last Tuesday. If the previous administration crashes the economy it is perfectly fair to put the blame on them as long as you are doing everything you can to fix the problem. Once you go off in a completely different direction, and address a completely seperate issue, then you no longer have that excuse.
The whole time the Democrats were passing the health care bill they addressed the job problem with an extension of unemployment benefits here and there.
They would have been better served by spending even more money and going into an all out WPA style jobs move. Yes they still would have been blamed for deficit spending, but they might have succeeded in bringing jobs back which would have helped them somewhat. At the very least they could have said that they did everything possible on jobs.
I agree with you on the party legislation getting rammed through. We saw six years of it with Bush and the last two with Obama. Gridlock won't stop everything. Necessary legislation will get through. But you don't see as much of the pork-barrel crap as you do when one side holds the checkbook.I don't agree with you on everything, but you have well reasoned arguments and I respect your position.
Here is a reference for my comment:
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN0328435720101103
Nice photo of Feinstein.
Reminds me of that creature from The Lord of The Rings...
It's all they got.
The Dem's rallying cry this morning will be "It's Bush's fault!"
Isn't that what it's always been, for the last two years?
It will be for the next 2 years as well. Some will still go to that well, despite the fact it's dry now. Some will still say that.
Way too early to speculate on this stuff. The wave the Dems rode in on in 08 was larger than the one we saw last night for the Reps and it only took two years for that to go sour.
If the economy picks up and people are working and things are going good, the incumbents (Dem and Rep alike) will do well. If the economy is still in a mess look for a lot of people to get the axe. Then it comes down to who has more positions on the line and who can convince voters to blame the other side.
People can say America is center right, or center left all they want. In reality it changes depending on how we're doing and who's in charge at the time.
As for Obama, the same holds true. Presidents get most of the credit when the economy is good and most of the blame when it goes badly. Whether it is actually the fault of the president or not. Look at Bush senior. He largely inherited the "trickle-down" backlash from Reagans two terms. He himself never agreed with the tax cuts and was working to turn things around. In Clinton's early years he benefitted from moves Bush made. None of this helped Bush and he was blamed for the economy and got tossed along with almost everyone else who was in government at the time.
"The wave the Dems rode in on in 08 was larger than the one we saw last night for the Reps...."
Can you explain what makes you think so? The Democrats' 2008 net gain in the House was 21 seats vs. last night's 60-odd seat pick up for the Republicans that is being called "historic."
I call it a bigger wave because it was the second of two consecutive waves and more power was gained by the Dems in 08.
Look no one is taking anything away from the Reps. They had a big day yesterday. They picked up 65 seats in the house and 6 or so in the senate. In 08, the dems held the house, took a "Super Majority" (60 plus seats) in the Senate and won the white house. In terms of power gained the Dems had a bigger one day win in 08, and that was the second of two consecutive election cycles in which they gained ground against the Republicans.
But I don't say this to say the Dems did better in 08 so there, it wasn't a "gotcha" statement. I was using the Democratic sweep of 08 to show that two years is a long time in politics and it is way too early to start predicting these things. Two years ago at this time the Dems were talking about the death of the Republican party. And look what happened in two years. Make predictions if you want. Only luck can prove you right from this far out.
Also, try not to be so emotionally invested in these things. Someone makes a simple point to illustrate their argument and you take it as slight against the Republicans.
Throw the bums out!!! All of them. If Obama's reelected I won't live here anyway. Buying a farm in South Africa, I hear there going cheap...
The Republic of South Africa? Interesting...
I think you're spot on--Republicans will win the senate majority. They will also keep the house.
So what do you think of the position of POTUS? You think a dem will take it or do you think the Republicans will have it all? If so, do you think that's a good thing or a bad thing?
SCD we can't predict this, until we see the results of what we did on Tuesday. Remember 1946 we we took 70 House seats, and then lost almost all of them in 1948 as the "Party of NO"? If our group sits on their thumbs, we are doomed for a situation worse than 2008. Stay Tuned!
As for Palin, I like her a lot, but I suspect she's unelectable. Thompson is wonderful, but lacks the fortitude to run again. (Plus with a wife that cute, I suspect he has other things to do...) Romney? Huckebee? Dunno...
Yeh, I hear that. They have a lot of proving to do..
Agree on Palin, no matter how much I adore her. Coincidentally, I heard that both Huck and Romney are ahead in the polls if the elections (agains the sitting prez) were held today. Both were in the low fifties vs the prez' 40-something. For Palin, the polls were flipped.