2008 Senate Races: Who Has Coattails?

No matter who is elected President in November, the battle for control of the Senate will be pivotal. If Democrats do not substantially increase their majority from 51 to at least 56, then most significant legislation will die in the Senate because of the quorum rule requiring 60 votes to pass anything. As Dems consider candidates Clinton and Obama, they would do well to ask: Who will be best for the Party overall? Who will have the strongest coattails?

Ten Democratic incumbents have safe seats. Two bear close scrutiny: Louisiana Senator Mary Landrieu remains ahead in most polls but many political observers feel she may fall victim to the changing demographics of her state and the ultimate winner might be either Republican State Treasurer John Kennedy or Secretary of State Jay Dardenne. Landrieu's problem is that after Hurricane Katrina large numbers of black voters left the Louisiana. Judging by the February 9th primary, where he won by 21 percentage points, Senator Obama will bring the most votes to Senator Landrieu.

Even though South Dakota Senator Tim Johnson suffered a debilitating stroke, in 2006, he has made a remarkable recovery and is favored to win over the Republican challenger determined in a June 3rd primary. The same primary will determine how the states 15 delegates are allocated. If the results are similar to those of neighboring states, Senator Obama will prevail.

There are three open Senate seats currently held by Republicans: In Colorado Wayne Allard is retiring and Boulder-based Democratic Congressman Mark Udall is favored in a race against arch-conservative Republican Bob Schaffer. Representative Udall has the lead in money and public sentiment; however, Schaffer recently hired dirty tricks master Dick Wadhams, the architect of South Dakota Republican John Thunes' upset win over Tom Daschle in 2004. Senator Obama overwhelmingly won the February 5th caucuses taking 67 percent of the vote and proved to be a huge attraction throughout the state.

New Mexico Republican Pete Domenici is also retiring. The early favorite is Democratic Congressman Tom Udall - Mark Udall's cousin. The Republican candidate will either be Representative Steve Pearce or Representative Heather Wilson. The polls favor Udall. In the February 5th primary, Clinton bested Obama by 1 percent - 1709 votes.

Virginia Republican John Warner is the third retiree. The leading candidate is former Democratic governor Mark Warner - no relation. The Republican challenger will either be Jim Gilmore or Bob Marshall. Mark Warner is a prohibitive favorite. In the February 12th primary, Obama defeated Clinton by 29 percent.

Five Republican incumbents are also in tight races. The most surprising contest is in Alaska where the ranking Republican senator, 85-year-old Ted Stevens, is in jeopardy because of an ongoing lobbying scandal. The leading Democratic candidate is Mark Begich, the popular Mayor of Anchorage, who has a solid chance to unseat Stevens. In the February 5th caucus, Obama received 75 percent of the vote.

Maine Republican Susan Collins has an uphill fight for her third term in the Senate. Her Democratic opponent will likely to be Congressman Tom Allen. Early polls give Collins a double-digit lead over Allen, but political observers expect the gap to narrow. In the February 10th caucuses, Obama received 59 percent of the vote.

In 2002, Minnesota Republican Norm Coleman won the Senate seat occupied by Paul Wellstone after Wellstone's tragic death. Political observers expect the Democratic candidate to be commentator / comedian Al Franken. The latest polls indicate Coleman and Franken in a virtual dead heat. In the February 5th caucuses, Obama garnered 66 percent of the vote.

In 2002, New Hampshire Republican John Sununu won a close Senate contest after GOP operators fouled Democratic get-out-the-vote efforts with an illegal phone-jamming operation. Since then many New Hampshirites have found Sununu to be too closely aligned with the Bush Administration. The Democratic candidate will be former Governor Jean Shaheen. The latest polls give Shaheen a double-digit lead over Sununu. In the January 8th primary, Clinton received 39 percent of the vote and Obama 37 percent.

Finally, Democratic leaders feel Oregon Republican Gordon Smith is vulnerable. However, the wily Smith has disassociated himself from the Bush Administration and taken a strong position against the war in Iraq. In May Democrats will choose their candidate, probably Jeff Merkley, speaker of the Oregon House. Polls show Smith well ahead and Obama leading Clinton.

While past results are no guarantee of future performance, it is interesting to note that in six senate races, Senator Obama appears to help the ticket much more than does Senator Clinton. In New Hampshire and New Mexico they appear to have an equal impact. In Oregon and South Dakota, where the primaries have yet to be held, Obama leads Clinton in the polls. Viewed from here, Senator Obama appears to help Democratic Senatorial candidates far more than does Senator Clinton.

Comments

[LeftRight]

I think that you're right, but not really for the reasons listed. The numbers turning out to vote this election cycle are HUGE! We're looking at numbers voting in the primaries that normally only come out in a general election for the president. Further, in the case of Obama, he's gaining very large numbre of independants and republicans. More than any other candidate, ever. While I'm not saying that he will get all those votes in November, it's a good sign. Further, I don't think that we can count on large numbers of Hillary supporters refusing to vote for him. Unfortunately, I think that we CAN count on large numbers of HIS supporters refusing to support HER. When you add these facts to those stated in the post here, I think that we can all agree that his coattails are much larger than hers are!

[GLBorchert]

Thanks for posting a well thought out blog.

We began to see what kind of coattails Senator Obama would have in Illinois' 14th congressional district last week, when an Obama-supported Bill Foster beat the well-funded and well-known GOP candidate Jim Oberweis. Before moving to Texas a decade ago, I lived in Illinois 14th district for twenty years. I lived in the town where the Oberweis Dairy is headquartered. That is a conservative district that is a combination of white-collar suburban professionals and rural communities. It stretches from far west suburban Chicago almost all the way to Iowa, and includes such places as Dixon - the birthplace of Ronald Reagan.

Bill Foster's victory is significant. This is the first victory for a Democrat in that district since the Watergate era. Most all races there have been lopsided Republican victories. Bill Foster was not expected to win. The Chicago Tribune called it a "stunning upset."

As was characterized elsewhere on HuffPost, there are four reasons why Obama's coattails are better than Hillary's in the key Senate races you mentioned:

1.Obama will turn out large numbers of new Democratic voters that simply won't show up if Hillary is the candidate. This is true across the board, but even moreso in districts that have large minority populations and a lot of young people.
2.Obama will be attractive to independents and will also be a competitive alternative for moderate Republicans. His coattails will have a broader base than Hillary could provide.
3.Obama will help the down ticket candidates raise more money than Hillary will, and he will also provide the strongest grassroots organization to get those down ticket elected. Obama's organization played a key role in Bill Foster's victory. He has put together a large and impressive organization that has proven willing to give both money and time. Combine Obama's army with the traditional Democratic organizations in many of these states and you've got the kind of team that swings elections.
4.Clinton's presence on the ticket will galvanize right-wing Republicans. Many of my evangelical Christian friends will stay home if Barack is the Democratic nominee, but they will turn up to vote for McCain if Hillary heads the ticket. I know this to be true because I am an evangelical Christian myself, but one who happens to be politically progressive. Virtually all of my friends, all of my neighbors and all of my business clients spanning decades are Republicans. I'm telling you that many of them will simply not vote if Obama is taking on McCain, but will come out to vote against Hillary.

[LeftRight]

This is also a well thought out and clearly stated post. I feel that I must, however, make one correction and one addition, in the name of fairness. I am an Obama supporter, and I would LOVE to be able to vote for him in November.

1) The 14th district race included Jim Oberweis, who has now run for office 4 times, and lost all of them. He had a large amount of bagage, including an immigration stance which is at odds with almost all the democrats in the district, and even against many of the republicans. 2) Dixon is not the birthplace of Ronald Reagan. It is where his boyhood home is at, but he was born in Tampico, a small town about 25 miles to the southwest of Dixon.

[JustAnotherJoe]

If the Dems turn out in the same proportion as the Repubs did in the Texas primary, Rick Noreiga, a vet form Afganistan may have a shot at dethroning Bush's lapdog and chickenhawk John "Roadblock" Cornyn in Texas.

[Lon]

I do think that Obama helps down ticket candidates in most places more than Clinton does. (In fact I suspect he helps most of them while she hurts them in more places). But it is a little tricky reading that off of the voting results.

In Lousiana, for example, which votes as a Southern state, the black vote that goes for Obama is only half as important in a general election than in a primary. While Obama might turn out more black voters, there is reason to suspect (confirmed by Mississippi yesterday) that he turns off Southern Baptist white voters.

But outside of the deep south, his appeal to moderates and independents does suggest he will have coattails.

[IsaacKuo]

In Louisiana, Obama isn't going to turn off nearly as many Southern Baptist white voters as Hillary.

Earlier this decade, we had a historic contest between a Democrat white woman and a Republican non-white man. She was Kathleen Blanco, and she won because more racist voters wouldn't vote for a non-white governor than sexist voters wouldn't vote for a woman. However, Blanco's popularity sunk like a rock during the Katrina debacle, and she didn't even bother trying to run for re-election. Her former non-white opponent, Bobby Jindal, won the next Gubernatorial election in an easy landslide victory against white male opponents.

For that matter, Senator Mary Landreau, another Democrat white woman, looked pretty bad during Katrina also. She's had tough, close election battles so far, and this will be another one. If the polls show she's in a good position so far, it's only because the campaign hasn't begun and her opponents aren't well known. It's going to be REALLY tough for her when the campaign begins in earnest and her opponents start playing ads with clips of her pathetic dithering after Katrina (in sharp contrast to the confident and forceful Bobby Jindal sitting next to her).

In the minds of a lot of white Louisiana voters, the whole Hillary Clinton Kathleen Blanco Mary Landreau thing will sort of get mished up into a general bias against white women Democrat candidates. In contrast, Barack Obama is rather similar in style to the very popular Bobby Jindal--also a youthful energetic dark skinned politician with an uplifting style.

If Hillary is the candidate, a lot of Louisiana Southern Baptist white voters will flock to the polls just for the chance to vote against her, seeing as they didn't get the chance to vote out Blanco. If Obama is the candidate, that won't happen.

[Lon]

I certainly agree that Clinton won't be much of a help in the South, although for more generic reasons that non-democrats in general don't like her much.

The real problem for Blanco in the last election, and Landreau in the coming election is that many democrats simply left the state because of Katrina and so will be voting in Texas instead. Louisiana was always a tough state for democrats and it is now demographically almost impossible. Only incumbancy could save Landreau.