Since open seats have played a major role in determining the shape of the cycle, it would be good to take a look as to what shoes might still drop in the coming months.
On the Senate front, the only incumbent who might choose to retire for reasons unrelated to the prospect of a tough loss is 85-year old Dan Inouye, but as I discussed recently the Hawaii senator has certainly dropped no hints he might call it quits so Democrats seem safe. Meanwhile, Harry Reid and Blanche Lincoln are now both regularly fielding questions about whether they intend to stick to their re-election races given their dismal poll numbers; I find it hard to believe either would step aside, and unlike in Connecticut, Democrats have no obvious savior.
On the gubernatorial front, there are already so many open seats it’s tough to come up with any more incumbents who might choose not to run. The only one who might do so is David Paterson, though the New York Governor has looked determined not to leave the field to Andrew Cuomo. There has also been some minimal speculation that Chet Culver and Ted Strickland might retire rather than face the prospect of a loss, but it’s tough to see how Democrats could do better in Iowa given that their trouble come from Terry Branstad’s entry while Strickland’s woes are not pronounced enough for his retirement to make much sense.
That leaves us with House races, in which the number of additional open seats will be decisive in determining how serious a shot Republicans have of regaining the majority. Based on the past few cycles, we are unlikely to get that many more retirements in the coming months but there are many congressmen we should keep an eye on, namely Ike Skelton, Peter DeFazio, Paul Kanjorski, Tim Holden on the Democratic side, Bill Young on the Republican side.
In addition, Democrats like John Spratt and Collin Peterson have ruled out retiring but they are worth still tracking. Finally, surprise retirements are possible, though it is worth noting that most of the Democrats who recently called it quits - Berry, Snyder, Gordon - had at least been mentioned as potential retirees. [Update: I should add the 68-year old Rep. Bill Delahunt, who represents the most Republican district in Massachusetts and who is now being mentioned as a potential retiree.]
Fundraising totals often offer interesting clues as to which incumbents might not be looking to run for re-election. Now that we can parse through the 4th quarter totals, we can glean new hints. To be sure, a congressman raising little money does not mean they are planning to call it quits, nor do big fundraising hauls indicate that they will run again. But they can certainly point us in useful directions; Jodi Rell’s 3rd quarter report, for instance, foreshadowed her decision to retire.
The most eyebrow-raising number once again belongs to 79-year old Bill Young, the longest serving House Republican who represents a swing district and has not committed to seek a 21st term in 2010. Young raised just $750 in the fourth quarter; even lower than the $3,900 he raised in the third quarter. It’s not like Young is averse to soliciting funds, like John Hostettler or Vic Snyder. In 2007, he raised 5 times more than he has in 2009 - and he was not facing a competitive opponent as he is this cycle.
That said, state Senator Charlie Justice has not caught fire, which might encourage Young to think that he would not have to break much more of a sweat than he is used in his largely competition-free38 years in Congress. In early January, speculation mounted that Young was about to call it quits; the fact that he did not do so might also signal he is willing to press ahead.
Other Republicans who had been considered potential (albeit unlikely) retirees are Frank Wolf (VA-10) and Pat Tiberi (OH-12). The former reported raising more than $180,000 while Tiberi is trumpeting the $440,000 he raised in the fourth quarter. With Ohio’s filing deadline looming later in February, the time has come to strike him off our retirement watch. (Note that Tiberi is a rare House Republican to face a top-tier challenge next year.)
On the Democratic side, the number that is producing the most buzz is that of John Spratt (SC-05). While Spratt said in December he would seek another term, the $77,000 he raised in the fourth quarter don’t point to an incumbent who is seriously preparing for the hard fought race Spratt is sure to face; it is also far lower than what Spratt reported in previous cycles.
On the other hand, a number of Democratic incumbents whom the GOP has been ardently hoping will retire are proceeding like they are running. Most significant is 78-year old Ike Skelton’s $492,000, which certainly suggests he is taking his 2010 challenge very seriously. There is also no reason for Democrats to be alarmed at Baron Hill, who reported $251,000. (The filing deadline is looming.) Leonard Boswell (IA-03)’s $180,000 is a higher number than he did in the last three months of 2007 and Colin Peterson topped $100,000, which is not negligeable considering he is not facing a competitive race.
Interestingly: Rep. Marion Berry, who announced his retirement a month after the end of the fourth quarter, reported raising $73,000, which might have been a hint since that was less than he reported in 2007, a cycle in which he was entirely unopposed.
Taniel: I don’t think you can rule out Senator Byrd as a possible retiree if his health problems get to the point where he can no longer make it to crucial votes.
It would also give the Democrats a chance to showcase a possible replacement for the failing senator before the 2012 election.
Re: Byrd - Why would the Democrats rather have an open seat, or a quasi-open seat, THIS cycle as opposed to ‘12? Makes no sense. I suppose it’s possible ‘12 will be as bad or worse then this year for D’s, sorta like ‘80 was worse then ‘78 for Democrats and ‘08 was worse then ‘06 for Republicans, but it doesn’t seem likely and even if it is true, you can’t possibly know that. I’d rather take a shot at having it open in what might be a better year then having it when it’ll obviously be bad.
If Senator Byrd retired tomorrow, the governor of West Virginia would appoint a successor to fill out the remaining two years of Byrd’s term. There wouldn’t be any election until 2012 anyway. Fritz is correct that giving an appointee two years to prove theirself would potentially give that person a leg up in the 2012 election.
It was unfortunate that with the recent retirements/resignations in the Senate, for Obama, Biden, Clinton, and Salazar, two of the new appointees were never going to run again anyway, and the other two weren’t exactly the best picks. It was a waste and unfortunately at least two of those seats will probably be lost by the Dems this year. Only the NY seat has a good chance of staying in the party, and that is only because the NY Republican Party is in bad shape, at least for today. Coons has a shot in Delaware, but he will have to run a phenomenal campaign. Former GOP Sen. Roth, of Delaware, lost his last reelection contest when it turned on his age, versus the youth of his opponent. It was also in 2000, a good year for Dems in Delaware, where Al Gore polled far ahead of George Bush.
Gerard:
The appointment would only last till the next general election, which would be ‘10.
Further to Gerards comment Governor Manchin is term limited (2012) and might consider appointing himself Senator and then running for the November race. I don’t know for sure, but I assume there would be an open seat and race for Governor if that happened.
I did research my previous comment, but am now finding conflicting opinions. Apparently Byrd needs to wait until after November to retire, otherwise the governor would immediately appoint someone who would run in November for the last two years of the term. In today’s climate, a Dem running this November could have a hard time with it.
A bit of trivia here, if Pres. Obama, VP Biden (1st in line to succeed Obama), and Speaker Pelosi (2nd in line to succeed Obama), if all 3 of them died tomorrow, the next in line in the longest serving member of the majority party of the US Senate, that would be Senator Byrd. This law probably needs to be changed, say perhaps making the Senate Majority leader next in line after the Speaker.
I’m not advocating Senator Byrd immediately retire now; just that his health could force the issue.
In my opinion it is more important for the Democrats to have all hands available and healthy this year. After November they are likely to have only 54-58 Senators and whether they lose then or not is not as crucial as getting votes in 2010.
Besides if the lose in 2010 they get a chance to do it again in 2012.
A little off topic but there are reports tonight that Senator Shelby has put a group hold on all 70+ executive nominations until he gets a couple of pork projects for his state that have been rejected by the Pentagon. That’s not obstruction that’s blackmail. Reid is now talking about using recess appointments to get the administration staffed.
Fritz, pretty typical. Some Republicans talk of fiscal responsbility then they stop the legitimate appointment process by demanding federal spending on their pet projects. I await the condemnation of fiscal conservatives on this site, I may have a long wait.
I condemn it.
Me too.
Although it’s worth noting that Richard Shelby is a former Democrat who supported Bill Clinton and has never been particularly fiscally conservative, at least in relation to the rest of the caucus.
Of course, he’s more fiscally conservative then just about any Democrat in the Senate. But that’s not particularly hard given they’ve managed to quadruple the deficit in one year.
Cliff: I thought the talking point was triple the deficit? Has it changed?