Elections 2004 - The U.S. Senate in the Balance

In terms of Colorado, Colorado is a great race. It is between the Democrat, Attorney General Ken Salazar. The Republican is a man named Pete Coors. You might be familiar with his product. It's beer. Mr. Coors does not lack for name identification. Everybody knows who Mr. Coors is. This is a very close race. Salazar is running as a moderate, but really, I think, Republicans have done a good job in showing he is really more aligned with Kerry in his positions than he is in the dead center, particularly on things like Iraq and the tax cuts. Salazar is a very, very attractive candidate for Democrats for a couple of reasons: One is that nine percent of Colorado's electorate -- these are eligible voters -- are Hispanic; and two, Ken Salazar is from a very rural area in the southwest part of the state, the San Luis Valley, where his family has been for about five generations as ranchers. Now, in most statewide races in Colorado, Democrats give up votes in that area of the state to Republicans. It's a very conservative area. What Democrats are hoping is that Salazar, because of his roots, appeals to voters down there and he gets more votes than the Democratic candidate would normally, and that will push him over the top, in this election.

Coors is running as a very traditional Republican. He is fairly conservative. Of course, Democrats have tried to link him very closely to everything that the Coors Beer Company has ever done, from their advertising and marketing to what they include in their employee benefits. This is the bane of running as a businessman. You are given responsibility for decisions you didn't make.

My understanding of the polling in this race right now is that Salazar is a little bit ahead. But one thing you have to understand about Colorado is that Republicans have an advantage in that state, overall, in voter registration. They have about 180,000 more voters than Democrats do. And the Kerry campaign has pulled out of the state as of yesterday. So it's hard to know what Democrats are going to be able to do to get as many voters out as they can. I think it's going to be very close. You know, at this point, you give a little tiny, tiny advantage to Salazar because he's ahead in most polls. He's led through much of this race but it's not over.

QUESTION: A follow-up. Michael Backfisch, Germany's Business Daily Handelsblatt.

You said there are no coattails between the Senate races and the presidential election, but is that really the case in Colorado? Don't we have something like a Salazar factor, considering the fact that the two, the brothers are actually in the race, one in the Senate race; the other one in the House race? And how far did Kerry manage to break into Republican terrain in an actually conservative state because the national polls aren't bad for Kerry right now?

MS. DUFFY: That's right. The party's polling would seem to indicate that President Bush is really solidifying a lead in Colorado, which would be why the Kerry campaign has pulled out. You know, they can't get the lead back.

Now, if Kerry made inroads in Colorado, it's going to be more among suburban voters. And, you know, these voters tend to be independent. They tend to split their tickets, you know, but that's really not a coattail. It's hard to have a coattail in a state if you lose that state. And as far as both Salazars being on the ballot together, that is true. Ken Salazar's brother, John, who still runs the family ranch in the San Luis Valley is running for an open seat in the House. He is favored at this point. So you would expect both Salazars to do quite well in that particular Congressional district, although I have to tell you that it makes some voters nervous. When you have family members on the ballot together, they view it as perhaps dynasty-building. But this is an area of the state where both are extremely well known, and I think that they probably will do fine.

And I just want to make one more comment about coattails. The last time we saw something that looked like coattails was in 1980, when Ronald Reagan defeated President Carter and Republicans picked up eight seats in the Senate. And these were seats they never expected to pick up at all, which led Bob Dole, who was then the majority leader in the Senate to say, "Well, if we'd known we would have done so well, we would have recruited better candidates." Because when these candidates were up for reelection in 1986, virtually all of them were defeated, so it's a double-edged sword, this whole principle.

QUESTION: Carreno, with El Universal of Mexico.

Just a follow-up question. Follow-up, in how many states of where there are Senate races has the Kerry campaign maintained presence or not? And the second, to what degree, given that there may or may not be coattails, to what degree are those senators, or these leaders in general, obliged or tied politically to the President if, let's say, for instance, Bush is elected, reelected. Would they go in a partisan way with him or they will be independent of him?

MS. DUFFY: Well, to answer your first question, in these nine competitive races, the only state that the Kerry campaign is very active in right now is Florida. Do they have a presence in states where there are Senate races that aren't very competitive? Yes. They are certainly in Pennsylvania, where Arlen Specter, the incumbent, is up for reelection and expected to win. They are in the state of Missouri where Republican Senator "Kit" Bond is up for reelection and expected to win, but aside from those, no, not really.

Let me see. Your other question, are they running with Bush? Yes, for the most part, Republican candidates, for open seats and incumbents -- yes?

QUESTION: I think I was asking more in terms of loyalty here, party loyalty to whatever candidate.

MS. DUFFY: Okay.

QUESTION: If those candidates feel any kind of loyalty, feel tied up, or they will declare independence once they are in the --

MS. DUFFY: Okay, well, then, I'm going to answer this question, your question, backwards if you don't mind.

The Democratic candidates in these competitive races are not running with Kerry. They are running as very independent candidates, very independent campaigns. Some have come out and publicly disagreed with him on any number of issues. You know, in Florida, the Democrat, Betty Castor, campaigned with Kerry last weekend, as did Ken Salazar in Colorado, but those are the exceptions more than the rule. As somebody said, well, at least we know that Kerry won't come to our states because they are not competitive. It makes it easy. So no, they're not.

Republicans, on the other hand, for the most part, are running with Bush. They will campaign with him. They campaign as, "I need to be in the Senate because I need to help the President with the war in Iraq, with his agenda." So you do see a difference in the parties and how they are campaigning with their presidential nominees this time.

QUESTION: Yes, hi, Maria with EFE News Services.

If you could comment, make general comments about electoral strategy for both campaigns, it would seem like they keep going back and forth between mobilizing their base and/or appealing to the swing voters. And so I was wondering, in this last stretch of the campaign before next week, what do you see happening to both campaigns given that they're going back and forth between the two strategies.

MS. DUFFY: Right. Well, I'm taking -- you're asking me a presidential question, not a Senate question?

QUESTION: Well, a voting question.

MS. DUFFY: Okay, because the answers are different.

Obviously, in the presidential race both parties have been out there registering and identifying their supporters. What they have been doing in the last ten days or so, and will continue to do until every poll is closed next Tuesday night, is go after the supporters they have already identified as their voters. A lot of these supporters are parts of their base. I think this is more true, particularly for Republicans, they seem to have been very committed to turning their base out in huge numbers this time.

You know, Democrats hope they appeal to some of these swing voters, but they're also going after their base. I mean, some of the things that unions are doing in some of these states, like Pennsylvania, is really incredible. It's a huge mobilization.

Now, Senate races are different because it depends what state you're running in. In some states, like Colorado, for example, Pete Coors can count on the presidential campaign's Get Out the Vote effort to help him. But in other states where they don't have as significant a presence, these campaigns are on their own.

Now, this is more true, obviously, for Democrats because Kerry isn't in most of these Senate-race states, so the candidates in South Carolina, North Carolina, Oklahoma, just to name some examples, are, in fact, on their own. They have to do their own programs. But in a state like Oklahoma, for example, which is very Republican, the Democrat can't win without getting these swing voters or these soft Republicans into his camp. So that's probably where his effort is aimed. But there is a different voter program for every Senate race, depending on the state, and its political demography.

QUESTION: Ken Karube from Jiji Press, Japan.

My question is, as regarding the specific state, Louisiana, can you show me yourself the Louisiana situation? So I mean, so is it important for us to observe the result of the Louisiana when we have to think about which party will prevail in Senate? Thank you.

MS. DUFFY: Yes. I will give you a quick history of Louisiana or a quick civics lesson on the way the people of Louisiana run their elections.

On November 2nd, Louisiana will actually hold a primary and not a general election. And all the candidates, regardless of what party they're in, run on one ballot. You vote for one candidate. Now, if a candidate gets more than 50 percent of the vote, the race is over, they're elected. If no candidate gets more than 50 percent of the vote, the two top candidates, regardless of what party they're in, go to a runoff election which, this year, will be held on December 4th.

Has this happened in Louisiana before? It sure has, in 2002 and in 2003. So, and it looks more likely than not that it will happen in 2004. There are five candidates on the ballot. You take three of them seriously. The sole Republican is a Congressman named David Vitter. He has a very formidable lead right now, but it's not 50 percent. He's at 46-47 percent. It would be quite an upset if he got that 50 percent. We don't think he can do it.
There are two Democrats to take seriously in this race: Congressman Chris John, who has the support of the National Party, and the State Treasurer, whose name is John Kennedy. Now, it's probably a good name to have if you want to run for office. And he's run a very good campaign. He and Chris John are very close. They're at, oh, about 20 percent apiece in the polls. We know David Vitter will be in the runoff. The question is, which of the two Democrats will make it into the runoff?

Here is the thing you've got to remember about runoff. Everything that happened before the runoff becomes irrelevant. These runoffs are impacted by national dynamics: Who controls the White House? Who controls the Senate will be very important. It will be an entirely different race. So while David Vitter may finish a very strong first place, you know, the runoff may be more of a struggle for him. You can't simply say, "Well, he got 47 percent, so he will have no trouble getting that other three percent."

Louisianans are a funny group of voters and he may have a lot of trouble getting that last three percent of the vote. I meant that only kindly. (Laughter.) To Margaret, who's from Louisiana, as is my (inaudible), Charlie Cook, so --

QUESTION: Thank you, two more questions. As you know better than us, there are two Hispanics looking for seats in the Senate. One is Mel Martinez in Florida, and the other one is Ken Salazar. The question is -- and it's an hypothetical one -- but given the past participation of Hispanics in presidential elections, how much would you expect that if Martinez or Salazar are elected to the Senate? I think that they will be the first Hispanic in almost a century in --

MS. DUFFY: Thirty years.

QUESTION: Sorry, 30 years in the Senate. But how much that could that reinvigorate the Hispanic vote in future election or future process? And the other one, the other question, beyond this reevaluating the strategy of being an obstructionist in the Senate, as you pointed in the case of Daschle, what is, or what could be the real political impact if Daschle lost his seat?

MS. DUFFY: Okay. To answer your first question, I think that having Mel Martinez and Ken Salazar running has already really energized the Hispanic community. I see it in their fundraising. You know, Bill Richardson's election as Governor of New Mexico in 2002 invigorated this community. So I think to have one or both of them in the Senate would be important for this community. It would probably encourage other Hispanic candidates step up the statewide races, none of that can be a bad thing.

And as far as the impact of defeating Daschle, well, Senator George Allen, who is Chairman of the National Republican Senate Committee, the committee charged with electing Republicans to the Senate, likes to say that beating Daschle would be like winning three seats, simply because of his leadership role. And I think the hope of Republicans is that if Democrats lost their party leader, they as a party might reconsider how they do business in the Senate. Now, I think that's a little bit of wishful thinking on some of their parts, but I do think that if Daschle were to lose it would have almost everything to do with his role as a national leader of the Democratic Party. One would think that Democrats would do a little bit of soul searching, but my advice to Republicans is, they haven't exactly been on their best behavior either and perhaps they need to do a little bit of soul searching.

QUESTION: Michael Backfisch, Germany's business daily Handelsblatt, again.

A presidential question regarding Ohio. In June-July, it seemed that Bush had the edge, a slight edge, even among voters who lost their jobs supporting him either on social values like abortion and anti-gay marriage, or because they supported the war against terror. Latest polls indicate that the balance might have tipped in favor of Kerry. And how far do the latest events in Iraq play into this final stretch, if you consider the explosives being stolen, the massacre at the beginning of the week and the latest Washington Post story that the cost for the war might be 70 billion more buck next year?

MS. DUFFY: Right. Well, I guess I read that story and my reaction was, "Well, duh." I mean, didn't they think the money would run out at some point? Of course they need more money. As for the events that have happened this week, I think all of them will have some weight on this race.

Think of this race as a very delicately balanced scale, and it doesn't take much to change the balance. Remember after the third debate, where Kerry had been ahead, but one comment about Vice President Cheney's daughter moved the scale.

So to see big events like these missing explosives, which this morning CNN claims weren't really missing because they were never there, or when the military went to get them in 2003 they couldn't find them, there's been a push back on that story. You know, as for the Monday events, you know, unfortunately, that may not have as great an impact as it would have had it been Americans.

But in terms of Ohio, no one knows where Ohio is going. Ohio may be the Florida of 2004. We may be up all night waiting for Ohio. They have some ballot problems. I think I read this morning, there are 122,000 duplicate registrations that they need to deal with. I mean, that's just the mechanics. But there are big issues in Ohio: The economy; there is a gay marriage amendment on the ballot, which should bring out conservatives. Who wins Ohio is anybody's call.

As I explained to somebody who tried to get me to call some of these things, I said, at this point, I have as much chance of getting this right as my nine-year-old niece. As, really, I do, as much chance.

QUESTION: (Inaudible).

MS. DUFFY: I haven't asked her yet (laughter), but I've been tasked to ask her on Sunday, and we're going to put our predictions in envelopes and we'll open them and see who was more accurate, the fourth-grader or me. (Laughter.)

MR. DENIG: We'll take the gentleman in the back.

QUESTION: I am Yunzhao Pan from Xinhua News Agency of China.

If the Republicans retain control of the Senate and the House, what impact would that have on the politics of the country in the next four years?

MS. DUFFY: Well, it's interesting. I think that that is going to be impacted by who sits in the White House.

You know, if Bush is reelected, the midterm elections in 2006, and yes, some of us are already thinking about them, will be what is known in politics as, "A-six-year-itch-election." This is, you know, people getting restless after they've had the same President for six years, and it generally hurts his party in Congress. We think that that would be very true in 2006, and Republicans may suffer some real losses in both the Senate and the House.

In terms of national policy, I think that if Republicans control all three branches again, you will see them emboldened to pick up some of the legislation that they tried to get through and didn't -- an energy bill, for example. They do run a risk of overstepping here, for being too aggressive in what they want. And that doesn't serve them well in the long haul. I think Republicans are looking at a very difficult four years, just politically, in terms of the party.

MR. DENIG: Jennifer, since you also track Governors’ races, could you please tell us where we are in the party split of Governships, what the outcome of races this year is likely to be, and what impact that might have on national politics?

MS. DUFFY: Sure. At this point, Republicans have an advantage in governorships. They hold 28 of the 50 to 22 for Democrats. We call this a baby cycle because there aren't that many governors' races up. There are 11: 6 Democrats, 5 Republicans. However, you'd be surprised to know that six of them are very competitive.

I want to make a general statement about governors' races. Since November of 2001, when New Jersey and Virginia held races, through 2003, when Mississippi, Louisiana, Kentucky held their gubernatorial races -- oh, plus there was that California recall race -- 25 governorships have changed parties. That's 42 races altogether, and of them 25 have changed parties. That's an astounding number in government. And of those 25, 12 seats went from Republican to Democrat and 11 seats went from Democrat to Republican. There were two seats held by Independents: One in Minnesota, with Jesse Ventura, and one in Maine, and the parties split them: Republicans took one; Democrats took one.

And we are seeing some things that don't make sense to use. For example, Hawaii, which hasn't had a Republican governor since they got statehood, now has a Republican governor. The state of Maryland, which hadn't had a Republican governor in years, has a Republican governor. In the state of Kansas, it had been a couple of decades since they'd seen a Democratic governor, and they have a Democratic governor. So you're seeing voters' desire for change, and the gubernatorial level is where they are exercising that desire for change.

So in this election, you know, what are we looking at? I didn't bring my cheat sheet. I'm sorry about that. I could have given you exactly what you have here, only for governors' races, but look at races in Montana, Indiana, Missouri -- those are seats that are very close -- as well as Utah, Washington state and New Hampshire. That's where the playing field is this time. And while everybody says, “oh, you know, Washington State will never elect a Republican governor,” I wouldn't be so sure this year. They may not vote for Bush and they may reelect a Democrat to the Senate, but there definitely seems to be some restlessness among voters at that level and the Republican has a real opportunity there.

MR. DENIG: Any final questions? No? Then I want to thank our briefer very much.

MS. DUFFY: Thank you. Thank you for having me.