If you haven't been following the interaction between Congress and the President lately, you haven't been missing much. When Vermont senator Jim Jeffords defected from the Republican Party almost a year ago, it thrust the political world into a deadlock. The Democrats in control of the Senate have stifled President Bush's agenda. Among the stalled pieces of key legislation are the Energy Bill, the Patients' Bill of Rights, the Economic Stimulus Plan (a stripped-down version of which was belatedly passed earlier this month) and the Farm Bill. In 2003, which promises to be one of the most politically contentious years in recent memory, you can expect the same thing with Social Security reform and the inclusion of a prescription-drug benefit in Medicare. If you don't think these issues will affect you and the people you care about, think again.
Of course, I may be painting too grim a picture. In many ways, this gridlock is exactly what our founders intended to have happen, and it appears that the American people prefer having one party controlling the White House and the other controlling Congress. However, rather than reaching compromises on crucial issues, both parties seem satisfied to cut off debate and simply wait until they are able to ram through their agendas after campaigning their way to dominant majorities. History indicates that in midterm elections the party in the White House loses seats in both houses of Congress. In this year's elections, Democrats can strengthen their control of the Senate while gaining a few House seats, possibly enough to retake the majority. Such a scenario would bring about a louder (if not more sophisticated) level of bickering, but in this unique year nothing is certain. President Bush is enormously popular all over the country, and if his poll numbers remain reasonably high, Republicans could be shielded from a major loss of seats and might even gain a few.
The Senate, with 50 Dems, 49 Reps and a left-leaning Indy, is very closely divided, and the numbers are not likely to change much as a result of the elections. However, even a net gain of a single seat for the Republicans throws the majority, including control of committees and the agenda, back into their hands. So with one-third of the Senate up for re-election, things should get interesting, right? Well, while it might seem that the Senate could make a major swing one way or the other, the difficulty of unseating a sitting senator cannot be overemphasized. In the last three election years combined, only 10 incumbents have been knocked off. Every year, fewer and fewer races are hotly contested, to the point that nearly half of the senators seeking reelection this year will not face a prominent challenger. On the flip side, no more than half a dozen are currently in serious danger of losing their seats. Democracy is great, isn't it?
Most of the experts will tell you that the Democrats are poised to gain a few seats. Out of the 30 senators running for reelection, 16 are Republicans and 14 are Democrats. In addition, all four open seats are being vacated by retiring Republicans. On paper, it would appear the Democrats have a huge advantage. However, when we break it down race by race, it looks more even because more Republicans are running in uncontested races than Democrats.
One of the closest Senate races will be right here in New Hampshire, where Republican Senator Bob Smith is facing opposition not only from Democratic Governor Jeanne Shaheen, but also from Rep. John Sununu, a House Republican running against him in the June 14 primary. Sununu is actually polling ahead of Smith and has picked up endorsements from two of Smith's colleagues in the Senate, Kit Bond of Missouri and Richard Shelby of Alabama. Polls indicate that Sununu would be the stronger opponent against Governor Shaheen in the general election. Stay tuned.
Two other races are intriguing because they involve Democratic incumbents in states that Bush carried in 2000. In Missouri and South Dakota, senators Jean Carnahan and Tim Johnson face opposition not only from strong, handpicked opponents (Reps. Jim Talent and John Thune, respectively), but also from the White House itself, which will use the President's popularity to raise money and win votes. It is unclear how much weight Bush will carry in these races and in others around the country, but his presence on the campaign trail is already making Democrats sweat.
The deciding factor in the battle for control of the Senate may very well be the Republicans' ability to retain the four seats being vacated in Texas, Tennessee and the Carolinas. They have recruited top-tier candidates for each seat, but defending an open seat is much harder than defending an incumbent. The Democrats have also come through with credible candidates and have a chance to take one or perhaps two of these spots, most likely North Carolina or Texas. Ironically, losing the four open seats may be less of a worry to Republicans than losing incumbent races in states like Maine and Oregon because the vacancies are all in strong Republican states. North Carolina will be the most watched race in the country, as the wife of former presidential candidate Bob Dole (and a former, albeit brief candidate herself), Elizabeth Dole, squares off against former Clinton White House Chief of Staff Erskine Bowles, provided Bowles defeats State Rep. Dan Blue in the primary.
So there's a bit of a taste of what to expect in November. It would be fun to break down all 34 races, but we don't have the space here to do it. It is far too early to make accurate predictions, but that won't stop me from trying. If Bush's approval ratings do not fall to, say, below 65 percent by November, the Republicans have a good chance to defy history this fall. Look for them to gain a seat or two in the Senate, which, if they retain their House majority, puts them back in full control of the legislative process come 2003.
