by Frank James
The federal indictment of Sen. Ted Stevens certainly is buoying Democratic hopes that they could pick up enough Senate seats to get to the magical 60 votes, enough for a veto-proof majority.
It would be the first time in 30 years that a party would hold such a majority in the Senate. The Democrats now have 51 votes, including Sen. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut who as an Independent caucuses with the Democrats.
Even before the indictment was announced yesterday Stevens, the Republican from Alaska, wasn't doing well in polling. Real Clear Politics has Anchorage Mayor Mark Begich leading or in the margin of error in most of the polls it has compiled and, again, those were done before the indictment was handed up by the federal grand jury on Tuesday.
In the Senate races, the outlook for the GOP is bad and getting worse. Few Republicans think that they have any real hope of holding retiring Sen. John Warner's seat in Virginia. Former Gov. Mark Warner, who is a Democrat, appears to have a lock on that contest, which The Cook Political Report rates as "Likely Democratic." In New Mexico, where Republican Sen. Pete Domenici is retiring, GOP Rep. Steve Pearce is the underdog, trailing Democratic Rep. Tom Udall in a contest that we moved this week from the "Toss-Up" column to "Leans Democratic."
In Oregon, Republican Sen. Gordon Smith faces an increasingly difficult challenge from Democratic state House Speaker Jeff Merkley. The Cook Political Report this week shifted that race from "Leans Republican" to "Toss-Up." The GOP's problem isn't so much that Merkley is an especially formidable challenger; it's just that the political climate has effectively erased the natural advantages that Smith brings to the race.
Smith's contest joins five others involving Republican-held seats that we had already rated as "Toss-Ups"--those of incumbents Norm Coleman of Minnesota, John Sununu of New Hampshire, Ted Stevens of Alaska, and appointed Sen. Roger Wicker of Mississippi, as well as the open seat in Colorado where Wayne Allard is retiring. Sununu's situation is looking increasingly ominous; Coleman's stock has risen, although not quite enough to warrant a move to the "Leans Republican" category.
In North Carolina, Republican Sen. Elizabeth Dole's challenge from Democratic state Sen. Kay Hagan is getting increasingly competitive, warranting a shift from the "Likely Republican" column, effectively a watch list, to "Leans Republican," signaling that the outcome is now in doubt. This is not yet a "Toss-Up" and may not get there, but it is now a real race. Dole joins GOP Sen. Susan Collins of Maine, whose contest has been in the "Leans Republican" column since April 2007.
So the smart money says the Democrats will pick up several seats, though to have a veto- proof majority, given that Lieberman has been voting with Republicans on Iraq, Democrats would need 10 seats.
This appears to fall in the category of a man's (or woman's) reach exceeding his grasp. Ten seats would seem an impossible goal at this point.
Here's another snippet from Cook's column:
Jennifer Duffy, The Cook Political Report's Senate editor, says the bottom line is that Democrats are poised to pick up five to seven seats. Holding that pickup to four would be a moral victory for Republicans. The possibility that Democrats will net eight or nine seats remains unlikely, but it isn't as laughable a scenario as it was six months ago.
So it's looking right now as though there will still be divided government of sorts, regardless of who wins the White House, since Republican senators will still be able to slow down or kill legislation it opposes.
• 
• 
• 
Comments
First of all, Lieberman is NOT a Democrat. And Stevens will probably resign and be replaced by a Republican who will then be elected in November. Alaska is firmly a red state. 60 seats is a NICE thought, but I'm not counting on it.
Posted by: Quippy | July 30, 2008 11:08 AM
Smith will be reelected in Oregon, easily. He's not a part of Stevens' machine and is more closely aligned to reform republicans. Only the swamp would try to insinuate that Coleman isn't trouncing Al the Actor Franken. Franken's behind by 20 points in some polls and has resorted to going negative in his ads because, goshdarnit, people just don't like him.
Posted by: Jeff | July 30, 2008 11:19 AM
Republicans can thank Dubya's arrogant war of choice and failed economic policies for the fact they will lose seats in both houses of Congress.
Posted by: Zook | July 30, 2008 11:52 AM
"Reform Republicans". That's a funny one Jeff. Keep those knee slappers coming.
Posted by: Neil | July 30, 2008 12:31 PM
They already stated that his numbers went down when media started covering accusations of pork spending....his numbers went down at that point. What were numbers before media went after him? Dems/media had a lot to gain to get his numbers down.
I just missed him on Fox news, where he was allowed to state his case, since the media is trying him in the news. CNN C. Brown putting his photo up on what she refered to as the Hall of SHAME, prior to his even going thru the legal system, that was tasteless. I will be the first one to poo poo anyone doing wrong in office, but media being the first to cry 1ST AMENDMENT RIGHTS are nothing but hypocrites expecting that it be afforded to no one else but them. Another RAMSEY CASE, guilty before found to be by law. BOOOOOO MEDIA !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by: Teresa Halter | July 30, 2008 12:33 PM
Okay, I'll admit it: I'm pleased to see the GOP once again destroying themselves without any help from the Democrats.
But what's not so pleasing? What they've done to this country -- again.
The GOP has proven, once again at the expense of the American people, unfortunately, that their economic policies, which favor the rich, while spending billions upon billions of dollars in a country that we invaded and call it "war," and preventing real issues here, at home, from being addressed, and cutting taxes, does not lead to economic surges, except of course if you're on Wall Street.
And speaking of economics, remember the so-called "economic stimulus package" that was supposed to help the American people and the economy? Well, I don't know about you, but what was my "economic stimulus" that I received? A whopping $69.00!
It is rather amusing, however, and I am quite gratified, to see that the old addage of "what goes around comes around," or the inevitable Karma, is finally coming home to roost for the so-called Grand Old Party.
The sad part? Because of their morally bankrupt souls, (the GOP, that is,) their disdain for the U.S. Constition, their attempts to destroy the Bill of Rights, and dissing the rule of law, while they frighten Americans with color-coded, terror-based, fear-mongering tactics, at the same time they cloak themselves as "protecting" the American people, as they lie, cheat, and steal themselves to their own prosperity -- it's demoralizing, it's disgusting, it's despicable, it's reprehensible, repugnant, and creepy.
I was almost ready to grab a thesaurus just now, and find a whole slew of similar adjectives which would describe my feelings about the Republicans, but simply put, I don't have the 72 hours it would take to do so.
Posted by: Patrick H. | July 30, 2008 1:05 PM
60 votes is NOT a veto-proof majority. It is a filibuster-proof majority, but overriding a veto takes 67 votes.
Posted by: Ralph Kramden | July 30, 2008 1:25 PM
Here's a real knee slapper for you "Barack Obama isn't a corrupt Illinois machine democrat."
Neil you're obviously not very educated on the subject of Alaska politics if you don't know how Sarah Palin defeated Frank Murkowski to replace a sitting republican governor with another and how she stood up for the voters and swept the corruption out of the state house.
Wouldn't it be great if some democrat in Illinois did the same thing? You know, didn't kowtow to glorified thugs like Daley and Stroger or didn't keep a corrupt governor like Blagojevich from getting recalled?
The fact of the matter is Stevens is corrupt but what he did doesn't hold a candle to the graft and taxpayer looting that happens every week here in Illinois under the watch of the democrat machine.
What will you say, Neil, when Blago gets indicted and convicted? What will you say when the next Daley stooge gets federal time for the travesty that is city hiring? What will you say when Stroger raises your taxes again to give his relatives and friends more county jobs? The graft Stevens took part in is business as usual in true blue Illinois. The only difference is that Alaska republicans like Palin called foul on him and Murkowski's tricks a LONG time ago. Say, what has Obama done to clean up Illinois, again?
Posted by: Jeff | July 30, 2008 1:26 PM
Bush/Rover were packing the Justice Dept. with unqualified, right wing graduates of Bob Jones Law School and the like.
That's coming out now, as I knew it would.
But the real elephant dropping in the room is what they've done to the judiciary.
Friends of Ashcroft appointed to US Dist Courts, right wing ideologues to S Ct who have already repealed per se rules that were the underpinnings of antitrust law, and are well on the way to overrule Brown v. Bd.Ed. So, if the 60 vote threshhold is reached, it would be in order to enact he Judiciary Act of 2009. Expand the number of judges, including on the S.Ct. Eliminate those backlogs! Dilute the right wing ideology.
Posted by: ornery | July 30, 2008 1:45 PM
Libs obviously forget Dodd and how the liberal media overlooked his banking loans and bailouts. That was illegal, pork isn't.
McCain is suppose to go after Pork pretty good, he's got a good record. Obama will be the spender to end all spenders.
Posted by: Teresa Halter | July 30, 2008 7:42 PM
"So it's looking right now as though there will still be divided government of sorts, regardless of who wins the White House, since Republican senators will still be able to slow down or kill legislation it opposes."
Not to put too fine a point on this, but "divided government" is a specific term that has a specific definition as used by historians, economists, and political scientists who research the consequences of divided vs. single party control of the federal government. The definition of "divided government" - is not the ability of an opposition party to "slow down or kill legislation". The definition of divided government is that a single party does not hold the executive branch and control a majority in both legislative branches of government. As such, the only way we could realistically continue to have a divided government state in 2009, is if John McCain wins the presidency. The reason why it is important to be precise about the use of this definition, is that the scholarship outlining the benefits of divided government (restrained growth of spending, greater oversight, less corruption, fewer wars, longer lasting better considered major legislative reforms - see Mahew, Nisknanen, Slivinski, et.al.) is rendered useless if the same definition is not used.
Posted by: mw | July 31, 2008 3:17 PM