Fred Barnes: Stretching Their Lead (The Republicans' Senate prospects look increasingly good)

The Weekly Standard ^ | October 4, 2004 | Fred Barnes

[RWR8189]

THE QUESTION no longer is whether Democrats can win back the Senate, now controlled 51-49 by Republicans. The prospect of a Democratic takeover was always remote and has recently become more so. The question now is how much can President Bush, should he defeat John Kerry by 5 percentage points or more, help Republican Senate candidates, assuming there's a coattail effect. And that leads to the more important question of how many seats Republicans might pick up. As many as four or five, or none at all?

The trend at the moment is favorable to Republicans, but nothing is guaranteed. Of the top ten vulnerable seats for either party, Republicans are all but assured of gaining two now held by Democrats (South Carolina and Georgia) and lead in a third (Louisiana). Of these same ten, Democrats are confident of winning only one Republican seat (Illinois). Democrats lead in three more states, one now in Republican hands (Oklahoma) and two currently Democratic seats (Florida and North Carolina). The other three are tossups.

Republicans started with one big advantage: Nine of the top ten races are in red (Bush) states, notably five in the South now held by Democrats. There's a new advantage: the presidential candidates. Bush is welcomed by Republican candidates as a boon to their campaigns. Kerry is treated like a pariah by Democratic candidates. Even Senate minority leader Tom Daschle has rejected him, running a TV ad showing Daschle and Bush hugging. "The remarkable thing about it is how quickly he was willing to throw John Kerry overboard in order to help himself in South Dakota," said Daschle's Republican foe John Thune on Meet the Press on September 19. "I mean, I don't know very many party leaders that would do what he just did." Bush is expected to win South Dakota by 20 points or more.

Let's look first at the slam-dunk races. South Carolina is now a solidly Republican (and conservative) state, which makes Rep. Jim DeMint the prohibitive favorite over Democrat Inez Tenenbaum. Georgia, too, has rapidly trended Republican, which means Rep. Johnny Isakson is a shoo-in. Illinois is the opposite of Georgia--one of the few states that's moved in a Democratic direction. Barack Obama, whose speech was a big hit at the Democratic convention, should have no trouble defeating Alan Keyes, recruited from Maryland as the Republican candidate.

Among closer contests where one candidate enjoys a visible lead, the most worrisome for Republicans is in Oklahoma. Former representative Tom Coburn, who kept his promise to limit his terms to three, took an early lead over Democratic representative Brad Carson, then lost it with impolitic utterances.

Carson is probably the best Democratic candidate in the country. He broadcast a TV ad endorsing a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, thus denying Coburn a pivotal issue in a very conservative state. A Rasmussen poll shows Bush ahead in Oklahoma by 25 points and Carson by 5. To pull Coburn in, Bush may have to win by 30 points or more, a not impossible feat.

North Carolina is the home of Democratic veep candidate John Edwards, but Bush could win the state by a large enough margin to pull Rep. Richard Burr to victory in the Senate race. The Burr campaign got off to a slow start and only now is effectively challenging wealthy Democrat Erskine Bowles, who was trounced by Sen. Elizabeth Dole in 2002. Bowles, once President Clinton's chief of staff, spent $7 million of his own money against Dole and may open his wallet again. The Bush landslide in North Carolina (Bush won by 13 points) broke late in 2000. A win of that proportion this year should rescue Burr.

In Florida, ex-Housing secretary Mel Martinez won a brutal Republican primary and stands a realistic chance of overtaking Democrat Betty Castor. Martinez trailed last week by six points in one poll, by a single point in another. Hurricanes kept politics out of the news for much of September. Now, however, President Bush appears to be expanding his small lead in the state and Martinez may follow. Castor is a centrist Democrat, perfect for Florida. But she's been zinged for her role as University of South Florida president in not firing professor Sami Al-Arian, who's been indicted for aiding terrorists. This is not a marginal issue. She ran a television spot defending herself on the matter. Martinez aims to turn out a huge Latino vote. If he succeeds, he wins.

Republican representative David Vitter has gradually widened his lead in Louisiana, a state that Kerry has now conceded to Bush. But he's unlikely to reach 50 percent in the state's jungle primary on November 2, forcing him into a runoff in December. He'd rather face liberal state treasurer John Kennedy than the more conservative Rep. Christopher John. And, lucky for Vitter, Kennedy was endorsed last week by the most important black Democrat in the state, Rep. William Jefferson. If Vitter wins the seat being vacated by John Breaux, he'd become the first Republican since Reconstruction to represent Louisiana in the Senate.

The toss-ups? We'll start with Colorado, where Republican Pete Coors, the beer baron, has gained parity with Democratic state attorney general Ken Salazar. Coors has never run before, but he's turned out to be a capable candidate. Tall and gray-haired, he looks like a senator. The bad news for him is that Bush is running only slightly ahead of Kerry in Colorado and Salazar is a proven vote-getter. But if Bush improves, Coors may as well.

In Alaska, Republican senator Lisa Murkowski is looking stronger than almost anyone expected. She is currently tied with former Democratic governor Tony Knowles. He has won statewide twice, but never when Republicans were united behind a single candidate, as they are now. Murkowski was famously appointed to her father's Senate seat--by her father, Gov. Frank Murkowski. This was an unpopular move. But Alaska is a Republican state that Bush may win more lopsidedly than Kerry does in Massachusetts. If that doesn't lift Murkowski to victory, nothing will.

Finally, there's conservative South Dakota, stomping grounds of liberal Tom Daschle, who's fighting for his political life. Daschle looks more beatable than his fellow Democratic senator Tim Johnson was in 2002. Johnson barely edged out John Thune, but Thune leads Daschle by three points in one poll. In their scintillating debate on Meet the Press, Thune called Daschle a tool of liberal special interests and Daschle labeled Thune a rubber stamp for Bush. This is another state Bush will win handily. To help Thune, it better be a landslide.

I've left out an eleventh Senate race, Rep. George Nethercutt's challenge of Democratic senator Patty Murray in Washington. Murray is a drab liberal, but hard to beat in a blue state like Washington. A Nethercutt win would be a bonus for Republicans, the product of a national sweep that elects Republicans almost everywhere. It's possible, but no more so than a string of victories that gives control of the Senate back to Democrats and Tom Daschle. Don't count on it. But sometimes wonders never cease.

 

Fred Barnes is executive editor of The Weekly Standard.

[MplsSteve]

I agree.

To me, the most important races are Burr and Thune.

Here are links so Freepers can do an on-line contribution:

http://www.richardburrcommittee.com/contribute.html

https://www.rapiddonor.com/JohnThune/

I have contributed a few times to Thune and will do one for Burr.

[DeweyCA]

I also like Fred Barnes, but he has almost always been overly optimistic in his election predictions. I sure hope that he is right, but I'm afraid that we will have to settle for just 2 more Senate seats overall.

[Thickman]

If W wins (and I am sure he will) it won't be called by the networks until about 11 - 11:30 p.m. EST. In that case the polls in SD will have been closed for 2 -3 hours and in OK they will have been closed an hour earlier. In WA, however, the race could be called 1.5 - 2 hours before the polls close. If we are close in WA, this could make the difference in sending Patty packing.

[Zechariah11]

I have contributed a few times to Thune and will do one for Burr.

Same here.

The Richard Burr Committee
P.O. Box 5928
Winston-Salem, NC
27113-5928

[AmishDude]

All of the races that seem tossups are trending pubbie. Most are due to a late primary and an unknown R candidate running against a well-known D candidate.

Barnes is saying:

• SC: D->R
• GA: D->R
• IL: R->D

As for the other races, I predict:

• OK: R->R (too Republican a state to go to the dark side in a presidential election year, Carson looks tough but has a mountain to climb)
• NC: D->R (again, Republican state, polls trending to Burr, why vote for Bowles this time?)
• FL: R->R? (the hurricanes will require Martinez to work very hard and be delicate about foisting politics in the cleanup era, but a Cuban Republican in FL is the perfect storm -- as it were, I'm also suspicious of FL polls since 2002)
• LA: D->D (those runoff elections were built to elect Democrats and they still work)
• CO: R->R (come on, who doesn't want to have Coors rallies -- over 21 only -- every six years? another late/contentious primary)
• AK: R->R (irate pubbies had their chance to have their pound of flesh from Lisa in the primary and she won easily, the fact is she was probably the best one for the job when she was unlucky enough to have her dad as gov.)
• SD: D->D (sorry, Daschle will get more votes in SD than Thune, even if his vote total exceeds the population of South Dakota)

Regarding WA, Nader on the ballot sunk it for Nethercutt. Besides the unappeasable 3rd party types who kicked out Gorton deciding that Nethercutt's exceeding his promised self-imposed term limit by one makes him unworthy of their virginity-like vote, Nader being on the ballot guarantees that there will be high enough liberal turnout despite the hurt it would put on Kerry's chances. Patty bin Murray will be re-elected.

[WOSG]

I agree ... one who really could use money and would definitely win if he had enough is COBURN FOR US SENATE in OKLAHOMA.

[RandallFlagg]

The toss-ups? We'll start with Colorado, where Republican Pete Coors, the beer baron, has gained parity with Democratic state attorney general Ken Salazar. Coors has never run before, but he's turned out to be a capable candidate. Tall and gray-haired, he looks like a senator. The bad news for him is that Bush is running only slightly ahead of Kerry in Colorado and Salazar is a proven vote-getter. But if Bush improves, Coors may as well.

Helloooo? Mr President? Any chance of getting out here and giving Pete a hand?

[WOSG]

Info on COBURN FOR US SENATE in OKLAHOMA.

http://www.coburnforsenate.com/

Carson, his opponent, is lying about his record on life issues, posing as anti-abortion when he opposed partial birth abortion ban:
http://www.coburnforsenate.com/20040901pressrelease.shtml

[alisasny]

My husband thinks he and Fred would be best friends if they got to meet LOL

[AmishDude]

Note that, after a tough and late primary, Coors is even with Salazer. Even. The Joementum is with Coors. Also, CO, for a red state, has been polling low for some reason. All the signs point to a Coors win.

[deport]

LA: D->D (those runoff elections were built to elect Democrats and they still work)

---

How is that?

[StarFan]

Thanks for the ping, especially an article by Fred Barnes who I positively adore. He may have to amend his Thune/Daschle numbers as I thought a recent poll had Thune up by a larger margin.

[AmishDude]

Louisiana is a bizarre state electorally. They vote for Republicans for president but vote for Democrats for local and statewide office. The runoff system was designed with the Solid South mentality in mind. The top two most popular candidates were usually Democrats (there were regional differences) but if the Republican party were allowed to select a single candidate to oppose a single Democrat then the Republican stood a pretty good chance of winning.

Thus, the open primary would guarantee two Democrats fought for the runoff in November. (The original plan, by Huey Long, was to have the open primary in November, but the SCOTUS knocked that down.) These days, it's usually a pubbie against a Dem, but the Dem competition is fierce. The Dems find a way to win these, even with the polls pointing against them. A lot of yellow dogs in the swamp.

[deport]

(The original plan, by Huey Long, was to have the open primary in November,

---

LOL...... Huey Long was long dead and gone when this current system was put in place.... It was adopted in 1975 under Edwin Edwards as a means of eliminating the two party primary. It ran that way until 1997 when the SCOTUS told LA to revise it's system because in some cases people were being elected to federal offices before the assigned date. It was revised by pushing the primary back to Nov. and having any necessary runoffs in Dec.

The fact remains Louisiana stills has a high ratio of registered Democrats to Republicans [over 2 to 1] thus by party turnout in statewide elections the democrats are most likely to win unless you get a fair cross over vote...

[Kuksool]

In 2002, I donated a lot of my personal income to help put Liddy Dole and John Cornyn in the Senate. For 2004, I have done the same thing. One note: you don't have to live on the same state of the GOP candidate to donate funds to.

[okstate]

My personal Senate predictions:

South Carolina
DeMint 53
Tenenbaum 46
GOP PICKUP

Georgia
Ikason 57
Majette 43
GOP PICKUP

Louisiana
(November)
Vitter 41
John 24
Kennedy 19

(December)
Vitter 49
John 51
DEM RETAIN

Florida
Martinez 48
Castor 51
DEM RETAIN

North Carolina
Burr 47
Bowles 52
DEM RETAIN

Illinois
Keyes 27
Obama 71
DEM PICKUP

Colorado
Coors 50
Salazar 50
TOSSUP

Alaska
Murkowski 49
Knowles 50
DEM PICKUP

Oklahoma
Coburn 47
Carson 46
GOP RETAIN

Reasoning: DeMint has more momentum than originally predicted. SC is an easy pickup.
We knew Georgia would be easy.
Unfortunately, many Illinois residents are becoming socialists.
Castor's lead in the Florida polls leads me to believe that she will pull it out.
Louisiana - tough for Vitter to win in December without President Bush on the ballot.
North Carolina - Bowles' name recognition aedvantage should be wearing off... but he's still up in the polls.
In Oklahoma, there are way too many undecideds for Carson to win, assuming most will break to Coburn.
Alaska - Murkowski is still unpopular, and Knowles is popular. It will be close, but the nepotism charge hurts.
As for Coors and Salazar, I have no idea what will happen. Call it 49.9 percent to 49.9 percent.

[AmishDude]

Look, I may be nobody, but I'm 4 years more senior a nobody here than you are, so why should we believe you? The polls are dynamic. Your "predictions" seem to be cut-and-paste of the latest polls.

[okstate]

You don't have to believe me. A lot can happen in the next month.

[AmishDude]

You're right. Why did I think Long started it? Probably just part of the Long family "legacy" broadly defined. Too broadly. Sorry. I should have researched it more thoroughly instead of relying on memory.

[K1avg]

Forgive me for tooting my own horn a bit...

Good article, but...Sounds almost exactly like what I've been saying for weeks.

Senate Update 9/20/2004 - my second Senate race article that the mod just *had* to move to B&P

www.senate2004.blogspot.com - my spanking-new blog about the races

The way I see it, GA, SC, LA, and SD all go Rep. IL goes Dem. AK stays R. NC and FL (barely), WA, and WI stay Dem. CO is a tossup. If the Reps. keep CO (which I think they will), it's +3 Reps and a 54-46 Senate. With a little work, the NC and FL races could come to us too, and WA and WI are not out of the question.