Downward Spiral

After losing a total of 13 or 14 seats (depending on the outcome in Minnesota) in the nightmarish 2006 and 2008 Senate elections, Republicans must be fantasizing about 2012, when 24 Democratic and just nine Republican Senate seats will be up for grabs.

However, Republicans first have to get past the 2010 races that, at first glance, would appear to put the GOP at a disadvantage for a third straight cycle. What we do not know at this point is how President-elect Barack Obama's administration and agenda will fare in the next two years or what his job-approval ratings will be in the fall of 2010. What we do know, for the most part, is which Senate seats will be up. In the 34 races currently on tap, Republicans will have to defend 19 seats compared with 15 for Democrats. But that picture is growing increasingly complicated.

Of the 15 Democratic seats, it appears that two will be held by appointed incumbents who will be running for full terms. One will be in Illinois, where a proposal to hold a special election to succeed Obama seems off the table for the time being as the state Legislature pursues impeachment proceedings against Democratic Gov. Rod Blagojevich, who is accused of wanting to sell Obama's Senate seat to the highest bidder. The other seat will be in Colorado, where Sen. Ken Salazar is Obama's choice for Interior secretary.

There will also be two special elections in which appointed senators will seek to fill the remainder of Vice President-elect Joe Biden's term in Delaware and Secretary of State-designate Hillary Rodham Clinton's term in New York, bringing the number of Democratic-held seats up to 17.

Ultimately, not all of the appointed senators will find themselves in competitive races, but these 17 seats are all at more risk than they were a month ago. With potential retirements still unknown, one other very vulnerable Democratic seat is that held by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada, whose poll numbers are somewhat anemic.

On the GOP side of the ledger, three seats are in immediate danger: the open seat in Florida, where Sen. Mel Martinez is retiring, and the seats held by Sens. Jim Bunning in Kentucky and David Vitter in Louisiana. Sens. Christopher (Kit) Bond of Missouri, Judd Gregg of New Hampshire, George Voinovich of Ohio, and Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania could face difficult races if Democrats recruit the right challengers. Republicans could also see one or two other retirements that could produce competitive races.

The "micro" political forces argue for a tough year in 2010 for Republicans, but the "macro" view suggests a great deal of variability. In the 10 midterm elections since 1970, Vital Statistics on Congress reports that the president's party has seen outcomes ranging from net gains of a single Senate seat in 1970, 1982, and 2002 (measuring from election to election), a wash in 1998, to eight-seat losses in 1986 and 1994. The average was a net loss of 2.7 seats.

In other words, if the playing field is level and no national dynamics are in play, Democrats should pick up a few more seats, but it's hard to think that national dynamics won't be at work, one way or another. New presidents often make missteps, and their honeymoons can end quickly. If that happens this time, a few of the vulnerable Republican seats would likely become less so, and a few of the Democratic seats that appear relatively safe would come into play.

On the other hand, if Republicans are still 8 or 9 points behind in party affiliation, if their "brand" hasn't been repaired, and if they are still facing a competence gap -- an attribute they used to own -- this could be yet another very painful cycle for them.

So, for now, although watching Senate retirements, candidate recruiting, and fundraising is important, observers shouldn't minimize the factor of Obama's job-approval ratings. And we should scrutinize party identification even closer. These factors will determine whether senators of either party will have the wind in their faces or at their backs.