A while back, in a newspaper article detailing the woes of the current Republican House and Senatorial Campaign Committees, one Republican official commented that he and his colleagues could not wait for 2008 to be over so that they could get on to 2010, where, in their hopes, Republican prospects will have improved.
There are a bunch of really good reasons why looking at potential races in the 2010 midterms in 2008 is a waste of time (and I’ll enumerate some of them herein), but, really, "waste of time" describes a great deal of what the average political junkie does on time, and it’s fun. Speculating is more or less unavoidable, and it’s always fun to look back at old predictions to see how wrong (or, occasionally, right) you (or, better yet, other people) were. So, without further ado, let’s put some carts before some horses.
Firstly, the reasons why this is a waste of time:
X-Factor #1: We have no idea who the president will be in 2010, and the occupant of the Oval Office, though not on the ballot, will be a major factor.
X-Factor #2: Sort of a corollary to #2, we have no idea how things will go for President ___ in his first two years; will voters be disappointed by President Obama and elect more Republicans to rein him in? Wowed by President McCain and send him more help with those damn obstructionists in the House and Senate?
X-Factor #3: A lot can happen in 2 years; you have no idea who’s going to run again, who’s going to decide to retire, who dies, who gets caught in Vegas snorting pharmaceutical-grade cocaine off a prostitute’s backside.
Circa 2005 a lot of people thought that Minnesota would be the big close race of 2006, when ended up being a 20-point blowout for Amy Klobuchar. In 2006, I don’t imagine people would ever have guessed at close 2008 races in Mississippi and North Carolina.
All that taken into account, here we go:
The senators up for reelection in 2010 were last elected in 2004; ready your nostalgia, ladies and gentlemen, for the last class of senators for the next little while to be made up of a majority of Republicans. 2004 saw four seats switch, for a final return of 19 Republicans and 15 Democrats (in 2012, based on current standings, there will be 22 Democrats and 9 Republicans; 2016 obviously waits on the 2008 results, but, at minimum, the numbers will be about equal (a five-seat Democratic pickup this fall would give the Republicans 18 seats to the Democrats’ 17).
Five Republican-held seats (feel free to suggest other possibilities):
Arizona - There are a couple of different possibilities here, all of them contingent on the results of 2008, obviously. Best case: McCain loses, decides to call it quits. Worst case: McCain wins, leading to a semi-open-seater with a temporary appointee (now, the temp would be Dem-appointed, but this still means McCain is president). Middle: McCain loses, but decides to run again, in which case there’s likely little prospect of beating him.
Kansas - Sam Brownback, in his most magnanimous act in public life, is sticking to his promise to stay for only two terms, making this an open seat. Dorothy’s home state is not the most Dem-friendly territory, but it’s an open seat, and, with the right candidate. If the current Governor has not then relocated to Observatory Circle, she’d be the obvious choice, but I understand Charles Schumer is making a strong push to recruit favourite son Superman as a backup (though there’s been some talk of him being a Republican).
Kentucky - Jim Bunning will seek a third term; this is one of those cases where the incumbent sticking around is probably a good thing for us; incumbents tend to have devoted bases of support built up over time, but, well, Jim Bunning is a horrible candidate. He nearly lost in 2004 despite that being a Republican year.
New Hampshire - Judd Gregg must be watching the most recent election developments in his home state while doing that cartoon tug-at-your-collar-while-steam-releases action; Gregg’s a very powerful political commodity in the area, having been a Congressman, Governor, and now Senator since 1993. New Hampshire, though, has been swerving hard-Dem the last few years, what with the two Democratic Reps (though one is in a dogfight), the increasingly-assured election of Jean Shaheen, the incredibly popular Governor Lynch, and the historic switch of the assembly. Speaking of, Lynch would be the ideal candidate here.
Louisiana - Speaking of the prostitutes I mentioned earlier on, David Vitter’s up for reelection; now, unfortunately, that revelation came quite a while ago, so it’ll be old news by 2010 (heck, it’s old news now). Nevertheless, and despite Louisiana being one of those rare states that’s probably trending more Republican these days, this is a state to watch.
The Democrats, meanwhile, don’t really have much in the way of obviously vulnerable incumbents here; these are, after all, the survivors of the whupass of 2004. If Obama wins in 2008, then his seat will be held by a Dem-appointed temp (hmm, that’s a topic I’ve not seen a great deal of speculation on; who’s on Blago’s list of potential replacements?), but Illinois is a fairly reliable Democratic state. The most notable prospect is if Huckabee decides to take a run at Lincoln in Arkansas. But then, who knows who’ll screw up in the next two years?