Sen. Mark Kirk (IL) is liable to be among the most endangered Republicans as the 2016 cycle heats up.
Absent a handful of runoffs in the state of Louisiana, the 2014 cycle is, for all intents and purposes, over.
For Democrats, it will be comforting to put the 2014 midterm cycle in the rearview mirror. It is virtually impossible for Democrats to describe the cycle as anything less than a major disappointment. It was a cycle in which it was universally assumed, given the nature of the Senate map and the fact that the class of 2008 was a disproportionately Democratic class, that continued Democratic control of the U.S. Senate was going to be an uphill climb. The final outcome, however, was marginally worse than all but the most dire forecasts, with Republicans seizing every tossup race.
When all is said and done, absent a major upset (in the form of Democratic Sen. Mary Landrieu somehow holding onto her seat in Louisiana), the Democrats will have surrendered a total of nine Senate seats in the midterms, in addition to 13 seats in the U.S. House.
That not only makes 2014 a forgettable cycle, but it has real-world implications for 2016. When the consensus was that a Republican majority would wind up being comprised of 51-52 senators, that meant that Democrats would only need to pick off one to three seats in 2016 (depending, of course, on the presidential outcome). After the slightly larger-than-expected gains for the GOP, however, now the Democrats need to pick up at least four, and possibly five, Senate seats. Meanwhile, while the current series of House maps render a Democratic majority unlikely, the poor 2014 cycle means that Democrats now have gone from a rigorous hill to climb to a majority (17 seats) to a virtually insurmountable mountain (30 seats).
Still, major gains (and, yes, perhaps even a majority) are very possible in 2016. Follow past the fold to look at the best prospects for a Democratic congressional renaissance in the 2016 election cycle.
The U.S. Senate (Likely 2016 partisan divide—54 R/44 D/2 I)
The two Independent members of the Senate have decided to continue to caucus with the Democrats (in the case of Maine's Angus King, his decision to remain in the Democratic fold was far from a foregone conclusion). Therefore, for Democrats to reclaim the U.S. Senate majority, they need to either (a) pick up four seats and retain the presidency, or (b) pick up five seats and earn the majority regardless of the presidential outcome.
On first blush, it would seem that a four-to-five seat gain is possible, given that the class up for re-election is the class of 2010, which was (of course) an incredibly good year for the GOP. A fairly sizable chunk of that GOP Senate class was elected in 2010 with 60 percent of the vote or less—15 senators, in all.
However, upon closer inspection, it becomes clear that the outsized GOP gains in 2014 may have robbed the Democrats of a golden opportunity. A close look at the 2016 Senate lay of the land shows that the most genuine prospects for the Democrats can be found in a trio of freshman Republican senators. Trio. As in three. Which, under any circumstances, would leave the Democrats short of a majority.
At the top of that first-tier of vulnerable Republicans would have to be Illinois Sen. Mark Kirk. Kirk scored a narrow 48-46 victory in 2010 over Democratic state Treasurer Alexi Giannoulias, and is running for re-election in a state where Mitt Romney scored only 40.7 percent of the vote, and a Republican presidential hopeful hasn't carried the state since 1988. What's more, Kirk already has a legitimate Democratic rival mulling the race in the form of second-term Rep. Tammy Duckworth. Kirk's concern about a potential Duckworth candidacy is high enough that he offered a rather odd commentary warning Duckworth not to make the leap into the race. It felt a little more like false bravado than genuine confidence, and it certainly does not read like something that would dissuade Duckworth from a potential Senate bid.
Joining Kirk in that first tier of vulnerable Senate Republicans would be fellow midwesterner Ron Johnson of Wisconsin and Pennsylvania's Patrick Toomey. Both had fairly narrow 2010 victories (Toomey won by 2 points, Johnson by 5), and both are running for re-election in states where a Republican has not won since the 1980s. Interestingly, there is a non-zero chance that both Republican freshmen will face their 2010 rivals again, as both former Democratic Sen. Russ Feingold (Wisconsin) and former Democratic Rep. Joe Sestak (Pennsylvania) appear to be potentially keen on rematches.
The second tier is far less attractive to Democrats, and far more dependent on national events. For example, Florida and Ohio might glow brightly on the target list if Marco Rubio and Rob Portman decide to try to head to the other side of Washington, D.C., via presidential bids (Kentucky, too, perhaps, since Rand Paul is very likely to run, but the state is far less attractive). Meanwhile, Arizona and Indiana would go from no-go's to prospects if Senate Republican elders John McCain and Dan Coats head for the exits.
Absent retirements or presidential ambitions, the most attractive prospects for Democrats are probably in New Hampshire and North Carolina. New Hampshire is a state where Democrats have done pretty well in the past two presidential election cycles (2008/2012). Freshman Sen. Kelly Ayotte won by an outsized margin in 2010, however, and still polls fairly well after four years in office. But Democrats could, in theory, lure their incumbent governor, Maggie Hassan, into the race, which would make for a genuine horse race in the Granite State. In North Carolina, meanwhile, Sen. Richard Burr won rather easily in 2010 (55-43), but the state has a habit of being hyper-competitive in presidential turnout years. A potential complicating factor is the fact that the state's GOP governor, Pat McCrory, is likely to be in a coin-flip race with state Attorney General Roy Cooper. On the bright side, that could boost turnout and benefit whoever emerges as the Democratic suitor for Burr's seat. Potentially, however, it could also suck the oxygen out of the Senate race, as all eyes remain on the presidential and gubernatorial races.
Of course, the biggest potential complication for Democrats is the unspoken 800-pound gorilla in the cycle: vulnerable Democratic Senate seats. Even if Democrats were to somehow snare the majority of the five Senate seats described above, or get lucky with retirements and recruitment, that does not change the fundamental fact that there are multiple Democrats who could be endangered come November 2016. Thus, in the final analysis, the Senate landscape should be considerably less bleak for Democrats than the 2014 landscape. But anyone presuming a Democratic majority is inevitable post-2016 is almost assuredly being unduly optimistic, absent a total Republican catastrophe in 2016.
The U.S. House of Representatives (Likely 2016 partisan divide—247 R, 188 D)
A post-2016 Democratic majority in the U.S. House of Representatives was probably not in the cards, in any event. As has been written about extensively, the 2010 redistricting process left a map with only a smattering of truly competitive districts remaining. It also left, whether you are in the "evil gerrymandering" camp or the "Democrats clump together" camp (and, as I wrote about at the time, both arguments help to explain the current dynamics), a balance of power in the House that is unlikely to change in large movements.
Therefore, the 2014 shift of 13 seats to the GOP (given the likely outcome in the sole remaining uncalled races: AZ-02, LA-05, and LA-06) means that Republicans would have to lose 30 seats in order to lose the House majority post-2016.
That's highly unlikely. But, for what it is worth, it is not impossible. A total of nearly 60 Republicans won their election in early November with less than 60 percent of the vote. If the Democrats could somehow pick off the Republicans that won with 56 percent of the vote or less (and, of course, not lose any seats of their own), they'd reclaim that improbable majority. No one should see such an outcome as likely. But it is not a mathematical impossibility, and it would be fair to argue at the outset that the Democrats are considerably more likely to gain seats than lose them. The main question, at this point, is how many seats the Democrats can seize from the GOP.
Why such an optimistic look at the House landscape in 2016, even as I offered caution about the Senate landscape? For one thing, about the only good thing you can say about being on the receiving end of a wave election is that your rivals have no low-hanging fruit left to pick. Though there are some Democrats who are still in seats that certainly will be targeted, it is hard to think of a Democrat who looks terribly vulnerable on Day One.
On the GOP side, however, there are several districts that Democrats have to be convinced will be eminently more winnable in a larger presidential election turnout. Indeed, there are at least a couple of defeats that can be largely owed to midterm turnout woes.
The Class of 2014
Any discussion of targets for the next election cycle has to begin, as it nearly always does, with those candidates who are still touring their districts thanking those folks who earned them their trip to D.C. Freshmen members of Congress are typically atop the list of vulnerable members, and this forthcoming cycle is no different.
Leading the list, I would argue, are one returning member to the House and a pair of newcomers.
If asked to pick the single-most vulnerable member of the House, I would pick newly elected Republican Rep. Cresent Hardy of Nevada's 4th District. The district, created in the most recent round of redistricting when Nevada got a fourth seat, leaned heavily Democratic in a presidential turnout—Mitt Romney won just 43.7 of the vote. But Democratic support cratered in what was a historically pathetic Democratic turnout in Nevada this cycle (propelled by several reasons you will read about here today), and that handed Hardy a 49-46 win over freshman Democratic Rep. Steven Horsford. It's hard to conceive of Hardy, a modest fundraiser and a so-so candidate, being able to win when the turnout in his district more than doubles in 2016.
Also very much endangered are returning Republican Rep. Bob Dold (IL-10) and freshman Rep. Rod Blum (IA-01).
In Dold's case, the concern has to be the district. He now represents the least Republican district held by a Republican member of Congress—Mitt Romney got just 41.1 percent of the vote here. In a presidential year, with arguably the most-watched Senate race also atop the ticket? I'd be nervous if I were Dold.
Blum's problems are twofold. For one thing, he won narrowly (51-49) with Democrats on the ropes in Iowa in a way that they are rarely struggling. It is tempting to say that the Democrat here (state legislator Pat Murphy) got sucked into a "Braley undertow," and in a district where Obama beat Romney by double digits, that might be a fair assessment. In a complicating factor for Blum, an intriguing story in the sports pages earlier this month carried over to Blum, and in a way unlikely to make him look good. The curious story of NHL defenseman Jack Johnson, bankrupted by the financial management provided by his parents, ensnared Blum when it was reported that Johnson owed Blum nearly $2 million. This revealed, less than three weeks after Election Day, that Blum had a side business going as a predatory lender, making large loans at interest rates that just skirted the edge of Iowa's anti-usury laws. Whether that will stain the newly elected congressman remains to be seen.
Here are a handful of other Republican freshmen likely to be on any prospective list over at the DCCC, given the nature of their victories and the relatively weak Republican presidential performances there in 2012:
Martha McSally (AZ-02): (Uncalled, but McSally likely winner) Elected with 50.0 percent of the vote, Mitt Romney carried the district with 49.9 percent.
Carlos Curbelo (FL-26): Elected with 51.5 percent of the vote, Mitt Romney lost the district with 46.4 percent.
Mike Bost (IL-12): Elected with 52.7 percent of the vote, Mitt Romney lost the district with 48.2 percent.
David Young (IA-03): Elected with 52.9 percent of the vote, Mitt Romney lost the district with 47.2 percent.
Bruce Poliquin (ME-02): Elected with 47.1 percent of the vote, Mitt Romney lost the district with 44.4 percent.
Frank Guinta (NH-01): Elected with 51.8 percent of the vote, Mitt Romney lost the district with 48.6 percent.
John Katko (NY-24): Elected with 59.9 (!) percent of the vote, Mitt Romney lost the district with 41.1 percent.
Will Hurd (TX-23): Elected with 49.8 percent of the vote, Mitt Romney carried the district with 50.7 percent.
Potentially Attractive Veteran Prospects
There are also a handful of veteran Republicans in Congress who reside in districts that Democrats will undoubtedly see as opportunities to expand the map.
Three of those incumbents found themselves with serious challengers in 2014, but hung on either due to the nature of the wave election or depressed turnout in ethnically mixed districts. In the case of veteran Colorado Rep. Mike Coffman, it was the former. Colorado leaned a little red in 2014, and that propelled Coffman to a 9-point win over former Democratic state legislator Andrew Romanoff. But in a district carried by Barack Obama in 2012, and a presidential-year turnout in the cards, it is going to be tempting for Democrats to take another shot at defeating Coffman. In California, the issue at hand is Republicans running in heavily Latino districts where turnout is always an issue for Democrats. Both Jeff Denham (CA-10) and David Valadao (CA-21) have survived serious challengers over the past two cycles because of such vagaries in turnout, but the capacity for Democratic support there (Obama carried both districts, located in California's Central Valley) make them a pair of incumbents always up for discussion when the time comes around.
Then there are the Republicans who always seem to underperform just enough to make them attractive to a challenge, even if they seem to keep winning. On that list would be a pair of Michiganders: Dan Benishek (MI-01) and Tim Walberg (MI-07). It may just be that these guys will win in perpetuity with 54 percent of the vote or less, but the narrowness of their victories is going to make it more likely that someone in their districts will think that gap can be closed.
Incidentally, this initial look at some of the potential 2016 GOP prospects for defeat is not intended to be exhaustive. For one thing, obviously it doesn't factor in open seats. Democrats already got a potentially winnable open seat when veteran Republican Rep. Mike Fitzpatrick (PA-08) announced his decision to retire in 2016. For another, gaffes and the like always play a role. Would anybody have put Lee Terry (NE-02) and Steve Southerland (FL-02) atop the Democratic target list in the winter of 2012-2013?
Electoral politics, as we have learned, is a fluid thing. As it will be in 2016. Let this serve as an early offering of where, based on the election results in 2012 and 2014, Democrats might look to get back into the game come 100 weeks from now.
