Fight to Control Senate Lacks Focus : No National Theme Has Arisen to Influence State Races

Fighting hard in Missouri for a seat in the U.S. Senate, Democratic candidate Harriett Woods has used a tough TV commercial, linking her Republican opponent, Christopher S. Bond, to farm foreclosures. But delighted GOP strategists insist that the commercial backfired, making Woods seem “shrill and strident.”

In the Nevada Senate race, prominent national Republicans have been going all-out to aid their candidate, Jim Santini, leading his probable Democratic foe, U.S. Rep. Harry Reid, to liken himself to “David taking on Goliath.” And, Reid adds: “We all know who won that battle.”

In the tight Senate contest in Idaho, both parties are pondering the impact of a ballot measure to overturn the state’s right-to-work law. A heavy turnout of union supporters for repeal of the law, it is reasoned, could tip the balance against GOP incumbent Steven D. Symms in favor of the challenger, Democratic Gov. John V. Evans.

If the items in this Senate campaign sampler seem unrelated odds and ends, that’s just the point.

National Significance

Although the outcome of the 1986 Senate campaign is freighted with profound national significance, even after a summer with the candidates on the hustings it so far lacks a unifying national theme.

Such a theme might yet emerge in the final two months if economic conditions worsen--a prospect raised by recent indications of problems with the economy. But professionals in both parties agree that this concern has yet to take on a cutting edge across the country.

In the meantime, it appears that the electorate’s decision on the Senate will be shaped by a miscellaneous assortment of circumstances, personalities and tactics that have as much in common as cabbages and kings.

“This is the way it’s been from the beginning,” says David Johnson, director of the Democratic Senate campaign committee. “It’s just state by state by state.”

The results appear certain to provide a classic example of the whole adding up to far more than the sum of its parts, in terms of national politics.

If the Republicans can manage to maintain their hold on the Senate, even though they have 22 seats at risk in the election against only 12 for the Democrats, they will be able to lay claim to a new lease on their hopes for partisan realignment.

For the Democrats, who now have 47 Senate seats to 53 for the GOP, seizing the Senate majority they lost in 1980 would once again put them in charge of that body’s powerful committees, allow them to dominate Capitol Hill in the last two years of President Reagan’s White House tenure and help them lay the groundwork for recapturing the presidency in 1988.

Little Change in House

The Senate campaign is the centerpiece of the 1986 election, politicians in both parties agree, because little in the way of significant change can be expected from the balloting for the House of Representatives. The prospect that the Democrats, who now control the House by a 252-180 margin, with three vacancies, will retain control is considered about as certain as anything ever gets in politics.

The only real question about the House elections has to do with the extent of Democratic gains. And, as Democratic leaders are quick to point out, despite the Reagan landslide in 1984, the Democrats suffered only relatively light losses in the House. Therefore, they have less room for improvement and expect only relatively light gains in November--on the order of a dozen or so seats.

The domination of the election by the struggle for the Senate gives Republican strategists cause for concern. In the contest for the House and the nation’s governorships, “we are going to have a favorable outcome” in November, says Mitchell E. Daniels Jr., the top White House political operator, who predicts only modest Republican losses in the House, along with significant gains in the 36 governor races on the November ballot.

“On the other hand,” Daniels says, “if we only wind up with 49 Senate seats (and lose control to the Democrats), that will transcend everything else in the election.”

If they should win 50 seats to 50 for the Democrats, the Republicans would be assured of continued control because Vice President George Bush would be able to cast tie-breaking votes. “It all comes down to that 50th seat,” Daniels says. “I think we’re going to win it, but it’s not in the bag.”

‘6-Year-Itch Elections’

Republicans are mindful of the results of the last few “six-year itch” elections--in which the party controlling the White House has suffered heavy losses in elections midway through the second presidential term. But they contend that economic conditions are much healthier now than they were during the severe slumps that set the stage for such severe defeats in the past.

“Yes, we are uneasy,” Daniels says in the face of recent statistics indicating that the economy has failed to keep pace with some of the Administration’s rosy forecasts. “But what matters to me is how the public looks at things.”

There is some evidence of increasing public concern. A recent Gallup survey attributes an apparent increase in voter support for Democratic congressional candidates to worry about the economy. However, in rebuttal, Republicans cite a University of Michigan survey showing that, in the second quarter of 1986, consumer confidence reached its highest level in 40 years.

Republican strategists dismiss the notion that the shift of a few percentage points in some arcane economic indicator would have meaningful political impact as long as the familiar barometers seem to be favorable. “Unless inflation or unemployment goes wild, the economy is a non-issue” on a national basis, says Tom Griscom, director of the Republican Senate campaign committee.

Limited Prosperity

Democrats contend that the current relative prosperity is limited to the East and West coasts while the states between, which depend on farming, energy and mining for their economic vitality, are ailing. But Republicans point out that, even in such troubled areas, a number of their Senate candidates are thriving. They cite Sens. Charles E. Grassley of Iowa and Bob Dole of Kansas, whose reelections are more or less taken for granted, and Oklahoma Sen. Don Nickles, who so far is running well ahead of Democratic Rep. James R. Jones.

With the Democrats needing a net gain of four seats for a Senate majority, the attention of political professionals focuses on 10 states--six held by Republicans and four by Democrats--where the races now seem closest.

Here are the Republican-held Senate seats that are the Democrats’ chief targets, rated roughly in descending order of vulnerability:

Maryland--The retirement of Republican Sen. Charles McC. Mathias Jr. has given the Democrats what appears to be their easiest opportunity for a gain in this heavily Democratic state. Rep. Barbara A. Mikulski leads Rep. Michael D. Barnes in the Sept. 9 primary contest for the Democratic nomination. Party-switcher Linda Chavez, a former Democrat and former Reagan White House aide, will be the Republican candidate.

Florida--Popular Democratic Gov. Bob Graham has built up a lead in the polls against Sen. Paula Hawkins, the Republican incumbent. Democrats point out that this is a case in which economic good news works to their advantage because Floridians tend to credit their prosperity to Graham. Hawkins’ candidacy has suffered because she was earlier sidelined by an illness.

South Dakota--This is the Farm Belt state where Democrats have their best chance of scoring a gain--because of the troubled economy and the popularity of their challenger, Rep. Thomas A. Daschle. Incumbent Republican James Abdnor appears to have damaged his cause by remarking at a campaign debate that farmers needed to sell their crops below cost to compete in export markets.

Nevada--Republican candidate Santini, a former Democrat, was the choice of retiring Sen. Paul Laxalt, and he has the support of another fellow Nevadan, Republican National Chairman Frank J. Fahrenkopf Jr. But their decision to back Santini for the nomination caused resentment among some Republicans, and Democratic Rep. Reid is trying to keep Nevadan irritation at Washington interference alive in the general election.

Idaho--This state’s economy rests on three legs--agriculture, timber and mining--all of which are sagging, causing serious problems for incumbent Symms, who narrowly won in 1980 on Reagan’s coattails. The Democratic candidate, Gov. Evans, has so far used his own popularity to take advantage of Symms’ weakness in a contest that ultimately may be decided by only a few thousand votes.

North Carolina--At first this was an open seat, because of the planned retirement of Republican Sen. John P. East. But the slot was filled after East’s suicide earlier this year by the appointment of Republican Rep. James T. Broyhill, who gained a boost from his new-found incumbency and a recent visit by Reagan. But Democrats contend that their candidate, former Gov. Terry Sanford, is leading and, with Reagan not on the ballot to mobilize conservative support, will hold onto enough of his margin to win.

Republican hopes of holding their Senate majority are based on the belief that they will take some seats now held by the Democrats to offset losses in their own ranks. They contend that their best chances are in California--where, so far, their nominee, Rep. Ed Zschau, has been kept on the defensive by Democratic incumbent Alan Cranston--and in three other states where Democratic incumbents are retiring.

Here is a brief look at the contests for those three other seats:

Missouri--Former Republican Gov. Bond now leads Democratic Lt. Gov. Woods in the race for the seat of Democratic Sen. Thomas F. Eagleton. Woods’ campaign has been hurt by internal dissension brought to a head by the controversial commercial that dramatized Bond’s opposition to a moratorium on farm foreclosures. Woods fired her media consultant, and her pollster quit, but Democrats say she still has a chance to recover.

Louisiana--Republican Rep. W. Henson Moore leads in the polls against Democratic Rep. John B. Breaux and 12 other candidates, all of whom will compete in a nonpartisan primary on Sept. 27. It appears likely there will be a runoff on Election Day, Nov. 4, probably pitting Moore against Breaux. Moore has a substantial advantage in fund raising, but the state has not sent a Republican to the Senate since Reconstruction.

Colorado--Democratic Rep. Timothy E. Wirth had an early lead in the contest to replace Democratic incumbent Gary Hart. But Republicans say Wirth is too liberal for the state and Rep. Ken Kramer, helped by a surprisingly strong showing at the state party nominating convention, appears to have narrowed Wirth’s lead.

Although these states appear to be the major battlegrounds now, contests in several other states are likely to become closer as Election Day nears. Democrats are hopeful of closing in on Republican incumbents in Pennsylvania, Georgia, North Dakota, Oklahoma and Washington; Republicans believe they have a chance to take away the Democratic Senate seat in Vermont.

Democrats Lack Money

As usual, many Democratic candidates, particularly the challengers, will be at a financial disadvantage. The national GOP Senate campaign committee expects to reach the maximum allowable by the law in direct contributions to each of its 34 candidates, a total of just more than $12 million, in addition to providing indirect benefits from its costly national polling and research.

The Democratic campaign group expects to be able to give only $5 million to $5.5 million to its candidates around the country.