It’s unrealistic to think Democrats might subject Chris Dodd to the same treatment Republicans reserved for Jim Bunning. While the Connecticut Senator looks just as embattled, he is a central figure in the Democratic establishment and a 5-term incumbent who holds a prestigious committee chairmanship, once served as the DNC Chairman and has many close friends in the Senate. In short: Don’t expect Harry Reid or DSCC officials to make it explicitly clear they are hoping Dodd to retire, to undermine his fundraising efforts and to openly shop around for primary competitors.
And yet, Dodd’s standing is now so damaged that he can no longer escape calls for his retirement.
Just yesterday, a Rasmussen poll found Dodd trailing Rob Simmons by a massive 48% to 35%: he was also behind two other Republicans, albeit by lesser margins: 44% to 38% against Linda McMahon, 40% to 39% against Peter Schiff. The only positive spin Democrats can draw from these numbers is that Dodd’s ability to stay afloat against McMahon isn’t only due to a difference of name recognition between her and Simmons but rather to the former’s higher unfavorability ratings (McMahon is at 40-35, Simmons at 48-30). In other words, Dodd will be more or less endangered depending on the outcome of the GOP primary - but he will be highly vulnerable under any scenario.
The simple fact that the party would be better off if he wasn’t on the ballot is now impossible to deny, and it is increasingly part of the conversation. In fact, a reporter for the first time asked the senator this week-end whether party leaders had urged him to step down, to which Dodd responded he hadn’t direct conversations to that effect. Needless to say, that he even has to answer such questions demonstrates how tricky his re-election campaign has become: Once the possibility that an incumbent might retire, the pressure only mounts, the press is more insistent and donors grow reluctant to get involved.
In Bunning’s words, the expectation that an incumbent will end up retiring is a “self-fulfilling prophecy.” As I said above, Dodd is in a better position than Bunning because Democratic leaders are unlikely to take proactive action to ensnare him the way the NRSC cornered the Kentucky senator in the spring. That means Dodd should be able to fundraise enough that he will not have to drop out if he does not want to - not to mention that he does not face primary pressure, unlike Bunning who had to deal with Secretary of State Grayson’s exploratory committee.
Rather than to Jim Bunning, the most appropriate comparison perhaps links Dodd to Jon Corzine: As soon as the New Jersey Governor launched his re-election campaign, it was clear that his dismal approval ratings could help the GOP score an improbable victory in a Democratic state - and it was hard to dispute the fact that the party would have been better off with another contender. During the summer of 2009, there were a lot of rumors that Democrats were looking to push Corzine off of the ballot to replace him with someone like Dick Codey or Cory Booker; in fact, Codey said after the election that he had been approached by White House officials who wanted to gauge his openness to such a switcheroo.
Yet, Corzine did not lose all hope he could pull it off, and he was too respected in Democratic circles for the establishment to shun him out as they are now seemingly doing with Paterson and as Republicans did with Bunning. The rest, of course, is history. Will the New Jersey precedent make Democrats more aggressive in dealing with Dodd?
Complicating matters for Democrats is that Dodd seems to share Corzine’s confidence that he can improve his standing, most notably by using his position in the Banking Committee to be tough on Wall Street and by claiming credit for the 111th Congress’s accomplishment. Yet, in the absence of serious financial regulations how seriously will his efforts be taken? Significantly damaged by the controversy over the advantages he received when he took out a mortgage and by his proximity to banking interests, he will find it all the more hard to overcome those narratives in the midst of an economic crisis; and even if he manages to recover a bit, he’ll still have to deal with the cycle’s pro-GOP bent: CT is a blue state but it’s also competitive enough it could easily be submerged by a red wave.
Another thing that doesn’t line up with the Bunning example is that Bunning ultimately was pressured out because he couldn’t raise money. Dodd doesn’t have that problem.
Also, you fail to mention Thomas Dodd. Thomas Dodd’s fate has haunted Chris since he was 26 years old. He sees his election as his father’s vindication. He’s said as much a number of times. For him to tuck tail and leave under an ethical cloud, to him, would besmerch his father’s memory.
Dodd will leave one of two ways: when he’s voted out, or when he’s carried out feet first. He’s not Jim Bunning, or even Jon Corzine, who was open to the idea. He’ll die first because to him he’d be besmirching the memory of his father.
Taniel - you may find this link interesting. It is on a different subject to this post. It is Cal Cunningham being interveiew by realclearpolitics.com
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/12/09/interview_with_cal_cunningham_99478.html
He is certainly hitting the ground running and looks like he will eclipse Elaine Marshall.
Just mentioning it as you have made several posts about the DSCC still trying to find someone other than Marshall.
Is it too much to ask one of these endangered Democrats to just do the right thing?
This isn’t like Chet Culver’s position in Iowa. If he steps down, we have no other candidate likely to do better against Terry Branstad. In contrast, we would be able to stop worrying about CT-Sen if Dodd would just accept that he had a pretty good ride for 30 years and it’s time to give someone else a chance now.
If there is one silver lining for the Democrats in comparison with Bunning, it’s that Dodd isn’t nearly as cantankerous and mean-spirited as the Republican.
So perhaps he will be more receptive to peer pressure and more willing to retire for another position in the Obama administration.
A post in the Obama administration? That would be outstanding!
Maybe he can replace Geitner!
Unfortunately for Dodd, I don’t think Obama is that suicidal. He may not want to lose his Senate seat, but he’d rather Dodd go down then endanger his own re-election.
Ouch:
http://www.politico.com/blogs/scorecard/1209/Kasich_48_Strickland_39.html?showall
If this keeps up, this will be my impression of the D’s universe after 2010:
http://img-nex.theonering.net/images/ttt_promo/flooded_isengard_big.jpg
Maybe the Dems should start to think about Bunning-ing Strickland.
What good would that do? Who do they have in Ohio that is clearly more popular? Jerry Springer? (I actually respect Springer, he’s a highly intelligent man, strangely given the nature of his show. I’d much prefer him then that dogmatic idiot Sherrod Brown.)
I’m serious, I don’t think they have anybody who’d be clearly more popular.
Yeah, appointing Dodd to an ambassadorship or as head of the Peace Corps (posts mentioned repeatedly as possibilities) will endanger Obama’s reelection.
What a joke poster!
No, appointing Dodd head of the Peace Corps or a low level Ambassadorship.
But why the hell would Dodd step down for that? It’s like offering to take Bill Gates to Burger King and buy him a Whopper. Not much of an incentive for someone in his position.
Cliff you seem much more partisan today.
That LOTR’s image was very apt for the GOP in 2006 and 2008, with you now having only 40 senators. This includes two senators regularly derided by your own side as RINO’s (the ladies from Maine) probably doesn`t put you in the best position to be smug.
At worst the Democrats lose perhaps 2 senators and have a mere 58.
Panos said - If there is one silver lining for the Democrats in comparison with Bunning, it’s that Dodd isn’t nearly as cantankerous and mean-spirited as the Republican.
So perhaps he will be more receptive to peer pressure and more willing to retire for another position in the Obama administration.
This doesn`t follow because Bunning did retire. Although I agree nearly anyone seems less cantankerous than Bunning.
Alison,
I hope you’re right, but the DEMs are likely to lose CT , DE, CO, AR, and NV as things stand now. Normally IL would be an easy hold, but with a fired up conservative base, the corruption of Blagojavich and Gianoullias’(spelling?) family’s banking ties, it could go too, leaving the DEMs with 54. Specter’s opportunism has really turned off PA voters so that seat could go too. Also, I wouldn’t be surprised if Lieberman tries to caucus with the GOP since that would be the only way he has a prayer of being reelected in 2012.
Alison –
Dems will lose a MINIMUM of four Senate seats and Repubs none:
AR, CO, PA, CT
The only seat in which Democrats have a less than 50% chance of holding would be CT, and that is assuming Dodd is the nominee. His situtation is so bad that I doubt his personal standing would improve even if the national enviroment for Democrats improved in next year. AR, CO, PA, as well as NV would be much better for the Democrats if the ecnomny for example picked up, Harry Reid in Nevada most so. CO and PA are not as endangered considering the current times but would be pretty safe in improved conditions. AR would depend on how much conservative Dems and indepedents keep on despising Lincoln if the enviroment improves.
Assuming that Biden gets in DE then the race is a toss-up no matter what, unless Obama’s approval rating are equal to those of Bush’s 2008 numbers. The same thing in Ilinois, except that race is more likely to stay Democratic because Illinois is more liberal than Delaware and Mark Kirk, while a strong candidate, isn’t nearly as strong as Castle in DE.
Therefore the prediction that Dems are going to lose any minimum amount of seats is false at this point, with the possible exception of CT if Dodd is the nominee. The 2010 elections are still about a year away and alot could still change.
I tend to agree that at the moment Democrats would be very happy to take a 2-seat loss. Most toss-up Senate seats do tend to fall towards the same party, though, so as Jaxx says, as long as the GOP doesn’t put seats away, it can’t be guaranteed many pick-ups. But the inverse is also true: Democrats have so many vulnerable seats at the moment that a slight GOP breeze could lead to very big losses.
On another subject: Guy, that interview you linked to did not dissipate my skepticism as to what’s happening in North Carolina. Cunningham sounded like he was preparing to run a cautious, rather centrist campaign which leads me to wonder how he is planning to take on Marshall; we’ll have to wait and see how much money he can raise with the DSCC’s help, and how he chooses to frame his campaign.
It is definitely too early to make decisions on these races. The problem with Dodd and Reid are not only related to the national economy, although that certainly factors in. They both have “ethics” type problems. How can Dodd be asked to step down, but not Reid and Lincoln? Lincoln’s problems actually seem the worst, in one sense, because she has made herself out to be indecisive and unsure, particularly in regards to the healthcare debate. She even spent an evening at the White House with President Obama and in the end voted accordingly. She and fellow Arkansas Senator Pryor have similar records, he voted with his fellow Democrats 86% of the time in the 110th Congress and Lincoln was at 89%. Pryor is actually more conservative by nature but has been voting for healthcare reform. Whatever qualms he has with it have been behind the scenes. Lieutenant Governor Halter is actually more liberal than Lincoln and polls better than she does. (He might run against her in a primary.) Dodd and Reid will be portrayed as corrupt by their opponents, but will they be able to convince voters that they are effective in these tough times? A better national economy can only help any candidate, but I don’t think it’s likely that all 3 of these Senators will be re-elected.
Taniel - I agree he will run a more centrist race. Probably makes good tactical sense if he gets to the GE. He will also have his military service which will serve him well against Burr who, as with most politicans have not served.
Patrican - we will see if your solid, cast iron opinion of a minimum net loss of 4 holds true.
Guy - As Taniel said, much depends how how strong the wind is blowing in the GOP’s favor. It could be two or a total bloodbath. For now I’ll stick strongly to my pick of four losers.
That LOTR’s image was very apt for the GOP in 2006 and 2008, with you now having only 40 senators.
Who’s disagreeing with that? I’m merely saying payback is a bitch.
First of all, I can hardly see Jane Norton beating Andy Romanoff.
Or Sestak losing to Specter.
And hopefully Bill Halter will topple Lincoln.
BTW, Gerard, where do you get that Lincoln is more liberal? She was when she was in the House, but since 2004, Pryor always has seemed more mainstream. And voting record has little to do with ideology.
And you’re joking if you don’t think (at the very least) MO and KY are 50-50 at the moment.
Sorry, I meant voting record percent, not just voting record.
Hi Maurice,
The National Journal does composite scores each year on how members of Congress vote. In 2008, Blanche Lincoln is 32nd most liberal, Mark Pryor is 44th most liberal, and there are only 5 Democrats less liberal than Pryor, (or more conservative), than he is. He is also a member of “The Family”, a far right wing “religious” group, whose members also include, SC Gov. Sanford, Sen. Ensign, Sen. Coburn and so on.
I am not sure if you were commenting to me about MO and KY, because I don’t recall mentioning them in a while, but certainly you are right that they could go either way. I have a bad feeling that they are more likely to go to the Republicans given the horrible national climate.
Payback is a bitch, just that the magnitude of the payback is different. The GOP lost at 15 senators and 54 congressmen in 2 cycles. Not even you would think the GOP would gain back all those in 2010 and 2012. So enjoy your small payback and I will let you continue to wet you pants at that idea :-)
They say that Dodd doesn’t have a challenger in the primary - that’s funny, because he does. It’s more than a little disappointing to see journalists continue to not do their homework.
http://polltracker.talkingpointsmemo.com/candidates/merrick-alpert
http://www.MerrickForaChange.com
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YbXd5uOaW54
Here are three links; can you tell me whether or not Dodd has a challenger in the primary?
Alpert jumped 10 points against Dodd in 2 months, despite having a fraction of his name recognition.
Not even you would think the GOP would gain back all those in 2010 and 2012.
It’s hardly impossible. I think we’ll pick up north of 25 seats in ‘10, possibly well north, in the House, and will gain 4-5 seats in the Senate. There will be a LOT of vulnerable D Senators up in ‘12. If Obama is tanking, I wouldn’t be surprised at all for a lot of them to go with him.
But ‘12 is a long way off.
I agree 2012 is a long way off but even if the GOP gain 5 seats in 2010 in the senate for them to gain 10 in one go (2012) is a very tall order. Especially if Obama runs again and wins then his coat tails will help. If he is popular (and by definition he would be if re-elected).
One thing to keep in midn with the 2012 predictions is re-districting. It won’t be a net gain for Republicans like many think. While the new seats will end up in Republican controlled states (TX, the south, southwest) the lost seats will be those from states where Dems control (Northeast). So realistically what will happen is the few Repubs in the NE will be forced out and replaced with TX Repubs. It wont be as big a gain as some Republican’s think, especially Texas where I think new seats will end up 2 Dem 2 Repub
Especially if Obama runs again and wins then his coat tails will help. If he is popular (and by definition he would be if re-elected).
Well DUH. They won’t likely make many, if any, gains if Obama runs again and is popular. But that’s sort of like saying “If GM’s stock goes up, we’ll make lots of money investing in their stock.” The problem is you don’t know if the stock is going up or down for sure at any given time.
even if the GOP gain 5 seats in 2010 in the senate for them to gain 10 in one go (2012) is a very tall order.
Well, for one thing, they don’t need to gain 15 to take control, they only need to gain 11, or 10 if Obama loses.
And even if they did have to pick up 15 in 2 cycles, it’s far from impossible. Republicans gained 11 in ‘80, 10 in ‘94. The D’s picked up 15 in 2 cycles between ‘06 and ‘08.
Gaining 5 in ‘08 is far from impossible, and as for 2012? Webb, Tester, McCaskill, Brown and both Nelsons, are certainly going to face strong contests, and this is assuming they all run again, (I think it’s entirely possible one or both Nelsons will retire). It’s entirely possible that Jeff Bingaman, Kent Conrad or Herb Kohl will chose to retire, and even if they don’t, a strong challenge isn’t out of the question (particularly if certain candidates from each state get in). I wouldn’t rule out a strong challenge to Amy Klochabar or Debbie Stabenow either (especially Stabenow, Klochabar’s a lot smarter and her state hasn’t imploded.)