Say Anything Blog

Washington - Since 2000, both parties have gained Senate seats in the states they typically carry in presidential campaigns. But this political partitioning provides a clear advantage for Republicans because so many more states backed Bush in his bids for the presidency.

If Democrats only gain in their part of the map, "it's like saying, 'We're going to win more home games but never worry about road games,' " said Matthew Dowd, a political advisor to the Republican National Committee and senior strategist for Bush's reelection campaign. "They could have a great home record but never win a majority."
...
Twenty-nine states voted for Bush in 2000 and in 2004. Republicans now hold 44 of the 58 Senate seats in those so-called red states.
...
This distribution makes it virtually impossible for Democrats to regain a majority simply by defeating GOP senators from blue states, such as their two top targets for 2006 --� Rick Santorum in Pennsylvania and Lincoln Chafee in Rhode Island.

Whatever happens in those races, the Democrats' ability to win Republican-held Senate seats next year in red states such as Montana, Tennessee and Missouri --� and to defend their seats in red states such as Nebraska, Florida and North Dakota --� may reveal more about their long-term prospects of regaining a Senate majority.

Long-term GOP control of the Senate almost seems like a no-brainer when you break it down in those terms. You'd think it would be fairly easy to keep a good "at home" average for the GOP. If they could simply convince every "red" voter to vote GOP in red states, they would nearly hold a filibuster-proof majority! I've oft wondered why so many people "split" their ballots, vote GOP for President and Dem for Senate. It's never made much sense to me, especially as to why it seems to split in that direction more than the other way around (GOP for Senate and Dem for President). Anyone care to take a stab at it?