That’s how one reader characterized my recurring hope that the Republicans will regain the Senate in two years and thus provide the counterbalance every great President needs, even one with the exceeding skills and exceptional character of Barack Obama.
This reader/critic has a point.
Thirty-five Senate seats will be contested in 2010. (Normally, it would be 34, but VP Biden’s vacated Senate seat will be subject to a special election in 2010. His named replacement, Democrat Ted Kaufman, has indicated he won’t run then. Also, the number of contested seats could be 36, if Republican Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison resigns to pursue the Texas governorship, but let’s stick with the scheduled 35 for the purposes of this post.)
Sixteen of the 35 seats up for contest in 2010 are currently held by Democrats and 19 by Republicans. Of these, Chris Cillizza offers a list of 10 that he thinks are the most likely (based on current variables) to change parties, with three of them potentially going from D to R; and seven from R to D. (Nate Silver stacks up all 35 seats, plus Hutchison’s, in order of their likelihood to switch parties; however, because I saw Cillizza’s list first, I’m using it as the basis for the following illustrations.)
If Cillizza bats a thousand with his list — and all the other contested seats stay in the same party — the D’s 59 seats in 2009 (assuming Franken prevails in Minnesota) would become 63 in 2011, while the R’s 41 seats would shrink to 37.
If Cillizza bats a mere .500 — with his five most-likely-to-switch seats proving accurate, and the next five not — the D’s would actually do one better, emerging with a 64-36 seat advantage. (The D’s improve their margin in this scenario because Cillizza’s five most likely would all be R to D switches, while the next five would have three D’s withstanding R challenges — for a net gain of five. In the prior scenario, seven seats would switch from R to D, but three would switch from D to R, for a net gain of four.)
Looking at it another way: If the Republicans hope to regain the Senate majority in 2011, they will have to defend all 19 of their seats that will be up for re-election in November 2010 — of which five to seven could prove painfully competitive — plus pick up 10 out of 16 D seats, when the best they’re predicted to do (per Cillizza’s list) is 3 out of 16.
Then again, anything can happen.
Bush the Elder was so popular in mid-1991 that “most observers …. assumed his [certain] re-election.” Less than 18 months later, he was ousted by Bill Clinton. (Rutland, p. 248)
When Clinton took office in January 1993, he enjoyed Democratic control of the House by a 78-seat margin, and of the Senate by a 12-seat margin. By November 1994, the Republicans shattered all expectations, achieving a 104-seat swing in the House and an 18-seat swing in the Senate to give them control of both chambers. (Rutland, pp. 250-251)
Granted, the R’s seem to be in much greater disarray now than they were in 1993; and they don’t seem to have today (in either House or Senate) the capable, focused leadership they had back then in the juggernaut known as Newt.
So, yes, there’s no question the Republicans have a very steep climb to Senate control in 2010. And yes, the thought of them completing that climb may be “cheek-cramping laughable,” given their current state of disarray, battered as they are between Resurgent Democrats and Rush the Belligerent Bully/Clown. Still, if I were one of the resurgent Democrats, and if history is any guide at all, I wouldn’t bet too much on the hope that Obama’s popularity today will prevent the impossible from happening tomorrow.