Seesaw Races Grip the Senate

Democrats and Republicans are racing toward another photo finish in the struggle for control of the U.S. Senate, as large national themes and distinctive local concerns have combined to produce virtual dead-heat races from New Hampshire to Colorado.

As the Nov. 5 elections near, the latest trends in the most closely watched contests have raised Democrats’ hopes of maintaining their tenuous one-seat Senate majority. But so many races are so evenly divided, and the underlying national environment remains so unsettled, that neither side can predict the outcome with any confidence.

In the seven races considered the most competitive, five remain too close to call: Republican-held seats in Colorado and New Hampshire, and Democrat-held seats in Missouri, Minnesota and South Dakota. Democrats are slightly favored to hold on to a seat in New Jersey and capture a GOP seat in Arkansas.

Republicans need a net gain of only one seat to win control of the Senate.

With so many races so tight, small changes in the national environment could loom large. Over the last six weeks, Republicans benefited from an increased focus on national security issues generated by the debate over a possible war with Iraq. But that advantage may have peaked too soon.

Even some GOP strategists worry that the campaign focus over the final two weeks may revert toward the economy -- and trigger the traditional voter inclination to punish the party holding the White House for hard times. “It would be better if the election was this Tuesday,” one top GOP strategist said.

Yet if the economy stands as the major threat to the GOP, offsetting factors are fueling Republican hopes of avoiding the Senate losses typical for the president’s party in midterm elections.

Geography is benefiting the GOP: Five of the seven races considered the most competitive are in states President Bush carried in 2000. Almost all of them are culturally conservative states where the national security arguments Republicans are stressing traditionally carry the most weight. And, despite the gloom about the economy, Democrats have failed to establish a consistent advantage in polls as the party better able to revive prosperity -- partly because so few Democratic candidates have offered a clear agenda for recovery.

“The economy is not a slam-dunk for Democrats,” Republican pollster Whit Ayres said.

In all, voters are selecting senators in 34 states this fall; Republicans are defending 20 seats, Democrats 14. The chamber is now divided among 50 Democrats, 49 Republicans and one independent.

Beyond the seven fiercely competitive races, Georgia also is being watched. Democrats remain confident about first-term Sen. Max Cleland, but Republicans believe Rep. Saxby Chambliss is gaining.

There are half a dozen more races where both sides are still within reach, but the party holding the seat has a clear advantage. These are open seats now held by retiring Republican incumbents in North and South Carolina, Texas and Tennessee, and contests featuring Democratic incumbents Tom Harkin in Iowa and Mary Landrieu in Louisiana.

The remaining seats seem safe for the party holding them.

The national backdrop for these contests is ambiguous and contradictory. On the one hand, Bush continues to enjoy stratospheric approval ratings; historically, when the president is so popular, his party benefits in midterm elections.

On the other hand, the public is displaying a level of anxiety about the economy and the country’s direction that usually signals trouble in congressional races for the party holding the White House.

In the latest CNN/USA Today/Gallup Organization Inc. survey, nearly three-fourths of Americans described the economy as poor or only fair. That was the bleakest assessment since October 1994 -- just before the Democrats suffered a landslide repudiation that swept control of the House and the Senate to the GOP.

No one on either side is predicting such a massive shift. The safest prediction is that the majority in the Senate will remain tenuous after November, with the majority party still holding only a narrow advantage.

For the most part, candidates from both parties have been cautious in developing their message and agenda.

Republicans have been aggressive on two fronts: defending Bush’s 2001 tax cut and challenging Democrats on issues revolving around national security. GOP nominees as diverse as Jim Talent in Missouri, Norm Coleman in Minnesota, Doug Forrester in New Jersey, John Cornyn in Texas, John R. Thune in South Dakota and Chambliss in Georgia are all trying to paint their Democratic opponents as soft on defense.

But on several issues, the Republicans have been unusually defensive. Most have tried to convince voters that they are just as eager to provide senior citizens with subsidies for prescription drugs as are Democrats. And with the notable exception of Lindsey O. Graham in South Carolina, almost all of the GOP candidates have tried to downplay their support for Bush’s proposal to allow workers to divert part of their Social Security payroll taxes into individual accounts they could invest in stocks and bonds.

If anything, Democrats have been campaigning from even more of a defensive crouch, especially in the states that Bush carried in 2000. Except for Sen. Paul Wellstone of Minnesota, all of the party’s candidates in the most competitive races supported Bush’s request for congressional authority to pursue military action against Iraq.

And, with exceptions such as Wellstone and Erskine Bowles in North Carolina, almost all Democratic challengers and incumbents in close races have indicated support for Bush’s tax cut -- which party leaders such as Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle of South Dakota have blamed for the resurgence of the federal deficit and linked to the economy’s sputtering performance.

This embrace of Bush has made it tougher for Republicans to paint Democrats as tax-and-spend liberals. But some Democratic strategists fret that support for the tax cut also has made it tougher for Democrats to effectively critique Bush’s economic record or develop a coherent alternative.

Indeed, Republicans take heart in the Democrats’ inability to establish any clear lead in polling on the economy. “What you’ve got is people who have confidence in the president’s leadership and they are not blaming this president, or even Republicans, for where the economy is,” said Kenneth Mehlman, White House director of political affairs.

Without a clear message on broad economic policy, Democratic candidates are focusing on more narrowly targeted issues. From liberals to centrists, the Democrats are pledging to oppose private accounts under Social Security, create a prescription drug benefit under Medicare and develop new protections for private pensions; some also say they’ll push to increase the minimum wage or provide tax breaks to make college more affordable.

The main message from Democrats in the closing days “will be that we know these are tight times and we have something real to offer you and your family in terms of financial security,” said Jim Jordan, executive director of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee.

Beyond all these calculations, most races also are being affected by specific local factors. These range from a heated debate over the federal response to a brutal drought in South Dakota, to controversy over Wellstone’s renouncing an earlier pledge to serve two terms, and the lingering controversy in New Jersey over Democratic Sen. Robert Torricelli’s abrupt withdrawal from the race.

Though other upsets could occur, here’s a snapshot look at the seven races both sides believe are most likely to determine Senate control. They are ranked in the order of likelihood that the seats may change hands.

ARKANSAS: Battered by negative publicity about his divorce and remarriage to a former aide, Republican Sen. Tim Hutchinson, a social conservative elected in 1996, is considered the incumbent most likely to lose his seat. Democratic Atty. Gen. Mark Pryor has portrayed himself as a centrist and populist, mixing promises to reach across party lines with pledges to confront pharmaceutical companies and increase education funding.

NEW HAMPSHIRE: Republicans thought the seat had moved safely into their column when Rep. John E. Sununu beat quirky incumbent Sen. Bob Smith in a primary last month. But the Democratic nominee, Gov. Jeanne Shaheen, has caught -- and, in some surveys, passed -- Sununu with a populist message that has attacked him for supporting private accounts under Social Security and accused him of cozying up to corporate tax cheats.

MISSOURI: Democratic Sen. Jean Carnahan was appointed to the seat after her husband, Mel, died in a plane crash just before the 2000 vote and still won more votes than the then-GOP incumbent, John Ashcroft. But she’s getting all she can handle from Talent. The two seem to be battling to a draw on issues; the key may be whether Carnahan can convincingly rebut charges she’s not up to the job.

SOUTH DAKOTA: Democratic Sen. Tim Johnson and Thune have engaged in the heavyweight title fight of the election year -- a 15-round struggle with relentless charges and countercharges from the candidates, heavy advertising by outside groups and inescapable national overtones. (At times it has seemed a proxy war between Bush and Daschle.) Democrats are optimistic about their turnout efforts, but this state leans strongly toward Republicans.

MINNESOTA: Democrats remain cautiously optimistic about Wellstone’s chances. But Republican Coleman, a former Democrat, was making inroads by questioning Wellstone’s defense record, even before the incumbent voted against the use of force in Iraq.

COLORADO: Sen. Wayne Allard hasn’t established much of a public identity in his first term. In polls over the last two years, he has almost always attracted less than 45% support -- an ominous sign for an incumbent. The state’s GOP inclination could still carry him past Democrat Tom Strickland, whom Allard beat in 1996. But “Republicans are as nervous as can be,” Denver pollster Floyd Ciruli said.

NEW JERSEY: Forrester had surged into the lead amid revulsion over Torricelli’s ethics problems. But when Torricelli withdrew in favor of former Sen. Frank R. Lautenberg, Forrester lost his principal argument. Lautenberg quickly went ahead in most surveys by portraying Forrester as too conservative for the state. The bad taste left by Torricelli’s departure has kept Forrester close, but the state’s strong Democratic lean is tilting the race toward Lautenberg.