After the Elections Dems Should Push For Party Switchers

As their fortunes have improved dramatically over the past several weeks, the key question for Democrats is not so much whether they will score huge wins in both the House and Senate elections next month, but just how big their ultimate victories will be. What was once a pipe-dream now seems increasingly possible, with Democrats actually close to scoring a filibuster-proof 60 seats in the Senate if the current numbers nationwide and state-by-state hold. Similarly, in the House, a 20-seat gain appears fairly likely, and with much greater gains not far off.

Naturally, once the elections are over and Democrats have to get to work, a lot will be expected of them. They will be handed an electoral mandate, particularly assuming Obama wins, and Americans will expect Democrats to produce tangible results in some form or another. If Democrats fail to establish broad legislative agendas and follow through on them, their approval ratings will plummet and the will suffer in the 2010 midterms. This is especially true if the economy fails to improve on their watch.

The Republican side may lack these large responsibilities, but it will nonetheless deal with its own problems. Facing a deep minority status -- indeed, the GOP could be down to 40 seats in the Senate and below 170 in the House -- malaise will quickly set in. Sure, there will be finger-pointing immediately following the election, but soon thereafter, the GOP's now-thinned ranks will be likely be stunned and unable to figure out what to do next. It will take Republicans time to gain their bearings. Losing the majority for the first time in over a decade is one thing, but unlike in 2006, the situation will look increasingly hopeless given Obama's likely ascension to the White House and minority numbers that have not been so low in at least a generation. Heck, in 1974, Republicans still had Jerry Ford in the White House; this time, they will not be nearly as lucky.

We've discussed at length what direction(s) the GOP is likely to go in following a John McCain loss. This post is not really interested in that angle. Rather, I would like to highlight what will assuredly be very dark days for the Republican Party in Congress in the weeks and months following the election. This is important because it could present a good opportunity for Democrats if they are bold and shrewd enough to strike while the iron is hot.

Following November 4, whether it be before the end of the year, or soon after the new Congress is sworn in on January 3, Democratic leadership should strongly move to court a handful of the very few moderate Republicans and GOPers representing blue-leaning districts left in the body, and try to convince them to switch parties. If they can meet even limited success, the Democrats would boast their ranks even more, deal another devastating psychological blow to a group already reeling, and perhaps most importantly, further politically marginalize a GOP that will already be almost barren of moderates. While it would be tough -- simply because the pickings are so slim now -- it would be a brilliant move, and one I would wager that it would catch many Republicans off-guard.

Right off the bat, it is important to acknowledge that party-switching, and the process of facilitating a switch, are extremely complex matters, and switching is something that is not done haphazardly. It is life-changing decision, both politically and personally. By switching, you are turning your back on your friends and colleagues and going over to the other side, a side you have likely not only opposed on most everything, but have also taken some public shots at from time to time. Those men and women who were your closest friends are likely to be furious with such a decision, and many of them may never treat you the same way again. A switcher's life in Congress definitely changes forever.

To be sure, party-switching has happened many times in Congress over the years. For the most part, a great majority of party-switchers in the last few congresses -- Ralph Hall, Rodney Alexander, Virgil Goode, Ben Nighthorse Campbell, and Richard Shelby, to name a few -- have been Democrats that have become Republicans. The only Republican I can remember switching to caucus was Democrats was Senator Jim Jeffords in 2001 who became a moderate over disagreements with the Bush administration. So generally, at least in recent history, the Republicans have been more adept at enticing switchers, though this is mostly because they have been in the majority, as it is pointless for someone to switch from the majority to the minority.

There are of course complications that make party-switching difficult. First is the issue of seniority. A switching member will of course require that he or she keep their seniority. Generally, that is not a problem, but if a person is a ranking member on a committee or subcommittee, it defeats the purpose of switching. In other words, if a GOP member is right now the ranking minority member on a committee, he likely has as much power as a minority member can have. Going over to the majority certainly gives him more room to get things done, but not by that much, if at all in some cases. So, getting a more senior member to turn is much harder. This makes pure logical sense because a member who has been a part of a party for years and years is more settled and entrenched, in his friendships, beliefs, and base rhetoric, so they will be less likely to leave their comfort zone.

Second, are the personal connections. Simply put, some members of one side might be simply unpalatable to members of the other side. If there is a moderate Republican who might be a target for switching, he or she might be nixed if they have been particularly nasty to the other side over the years, have had a toxic relationship with any Democrats, or have certain political views which are just not acceptable in the caucus. These are specific issues which we can only know so much from news reports and anecdotes. Therefore, when I speculate on some names below, perhaps some or all of them will be unlikely to switch for precisely these reasons.

The pitch

The pitch itself to these Republicans is pretty straightforward. The Democratic leadership should meet to designate a list and a game plan, and then designate a Democratic member (or members) who is close to the targeted Republican. Whoever is picked to do this will approach the targeted Republican with the leadership's offer to switch parties.

There really is not much to say here, and the basic points that would be raised are obvious:

--Given the elections, Democrats will be holding an enormous majority (it is indeed possible we could see a breakdown like 266-169 if Dems were to win around 30 seats). It is unlikely that the Republicans will regain the majority for at least a decade, unless of course Obama or the party really screws up. Given the prospect of being in the minority so long, what Republican will want to sit through that, particularly one who is getting on in years?

--While most of these members will have survived the onslaughts of 2006 and 2008 where dozens of Republicans were ousted, many of them still sit in districts which lean either slightly Democratic or slightly Republican. Therefore, they will likely face tough races in the future, perhaps as early as the 2010 cycle when Democrats will be able to put together another big money advantage to try to take out the last remnants of the moderate Republicans.

--Simple plays on the members' sense of depression at the election losses. They will be down, and as such, more vulnerable to arguments that they should consider switching sides to join the majority.

The targets

Identifying members to target for potential switching is not difficult, though the list of moderates among the GOP's ranks is obviously going to be even smaller after November 4 than it is now. To recap, the following current GOP House members represent Democratic-leaning districts (according to the more recent Cook PVI ratings):

D+0: Tom Latham (IA-04).

D+1: Bill Young (FL-10); Vito Fossella (NY-13).

D+2: Heather Wilson (NM-01); Peter King (NY-03); Jim Gerlach (PA-06); Charlie Dent (PA-15); Dave Reichert (WA-08).

D+3: Jim Saxton (NJ-03); James Walsh (NY-25).

D+4: Mark Kirk (IL-10); Frank LoBiando (NJ-02).

D+5: Chris Shays (CT-4).

D+6:

D+7: Mike Castle (DE-AL).

D+8, 9, 10... None.

Several of these members are leaving this year: Fossella, Wilson, Saxton, and Walsh. Democrats should replace all of them, though the race in NJ-03 is currently a toss-up, and if the Republican does win he seat he obviously would not go into Congress and promptly switch parties.

The rest of the names are interesting. Forget Bill Young right away. He is the senior-most Republican in the House, having been elected in 1970. He's a former chair of the Appropriations Committee, and he is currently the ranking member on the defense subcommittee. He would zero reason to switch. While his seat is likely to flip when he decides to retire, that won't happen next year.

Also forget Peter King. Not only does he have a very socially conservative record, but he is also the ranking member on the Homeland Security Committee. He too would have little reason to switch. Democrats could appeal to him by saying that in 2011, with New York losing two House seats, his could be one of the first ones on the chopping block (indeed, the Democrats appear poised to win the State Senate this year, and with Democrats likely to win the currently-GOP-held seats in the 13th, 25th, and 29th districts, there may well be only three GOP reps in all of New York come next year in the 3rd, 23rd, and 26th districts). Still, I don't see him as a viable target. It just doesn't feel like a viable fit.

Ditto Mike Castle, who as ranking member on a subcommittee would likely not be able to get the chairmanship of the committee if he were to switch. As a result, he would not have a big reason to go over to the Democrats. Plus, despite now being the Republican representing the most Democratic district among his entire caucus, Castle is very popular back home and can almost certainly count on winning re-election every two years until he decides to retire. In other words, he does not face the same pressures as many of his colleagues. Putting pressure on him to move then would be tougher.

Chris Shays fall into a similar category. Shays is from liberal Connecticut, and his district is decidedly Democratic. Shays has some of the most moderate views in the GOP caucus today on a host of issues, and would appear to be a likely target for a switch. However, despite his moderation he is a pretty partisan guy, and has been a big Democratic critic at times. Plus, he is a staunch supporter of the war, and arguably one of its biggest cheerleaders left in Congress, if I can use the inexact (and admittedly partisan-tinged word). Finally, he is a senior Member of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee. Earlier this year, when Tom Davis announced his retirement, Shays reportedly approached Republican leadership and strongly asked for a guarantee that he would become ranking member to succeed Davis in the next Congress. He apparently told the leadership that if he was denied this guarantee, that he would retire, with the implicit but likely unsaid outcome that the seat would then permanently go to a Democrat. Therefore, having gotten this guarantee, Shays is slated to be ranking on a major committee, and so he too would have little reason to switch sides. If the GOP were to go back on its word next year, then it would be another story, but that won't happen. Plus, there is the small matter of Shays actually winning in his very tight re-election contest.

That leaves a small list of names that could be targeted. The first one, assuming he survives his own re-election, is Mark Kirk. Representing a wealthy, heavily Jewish district north of Chicago, it is questionable if Kirk will ever have be able to call himself completely safe in his district. Kirk has one of the most moderate records in the GOP caucus, and he would be less conservative than numerous current Democrats in the House. His most conservative positions are in foreign policy which is not a deal-breaker. He is on the Appropriations Committee, but I think that gaining a new seat via a switch would be a small price to pay for guaranteeing him a seat on approps. If he survives, Kirk may well believe that having weathered 2006 and then 2008 with Obama at the top of the ballot, he may be safe. It's a fair argument, but if I am him, I would at least explore switching. To be fair, though, I would be very surprised if Kirk wins next month, but we'll see.

Jim Gerlach and Charlie Dent would also have to be two top targets. Gerlach has come close to being knocked off several times, and while he has an easy race this year, he would likely be a perennial target on Democrats' electoral hit-lists going forward. Dent is much more conservative, and unlike Gerlach he has not faced tough races really, mostly because Democrats have not yet focused on him since he was elected in 2004. Still, he would likely become a top target in 2010 as one of the few remaining Republicans left in blue districts in the entire country.
Tom Latham is a name that would have to be considered, though he would be hard to pitch a switch to. While he is now in a marginal district (it was safer for him prior to 2002 redistricting), he has never faced a tough re-election fight. He is also pretty high up on approps. Finally, he is very conservative; he is not really a moderate when compared to nearly all of the Democratic caucus. Put together, he would be an unlikely one to switch, but the given his district, he would have at least some incentive to consider an olive branch. After all, this is a district Al Gore and John Kerry both got 48 percent in, and one I would bet Barack Obama will win.

Frank LoBiando is another interesting name. His district leans Democratic and is one Barack Obama will almost certainly win. Since being elected in 1994, LoBiando has never faced a serious challenge, and he has been a very low-key member. He is socially conservative, but he is actually quite moderate and in sync with many Democrats on environmental and labor issues. He is on Armed Services and Transportation and Infrastructure, but not high enough on either to claim a ranking member slot, therefore, he could probably be put on his same committees with his seniority intact without much trouble. Earlier this year, Democrats came close to recruiting a strong challenger to face him, Jeff Van Drew, but having just been elected to the state senate, Van Drew declined while not precluding a run in the future. Van Drew is from conservative Cape May County, and would be a very tough challenge for LoBiando in 2010, something I am sure the incumbent fears. Given the shape of the district, the fact that LoBiando is over 60, and the chances of facing a tough race in two years, I think he could be lobbied to switch sides.

Finally on the list is Dave Reichert of a district just east of Seattle. Currently, he is facing a very hard race, and even if he survives, he might never get an easy re-election. He is moderate on environmental issues, while conservative on social ones. Plus, his law and order views and background would actually fit in well in the Democratic caucus with fellow former sheriffs like Brad Ellsworth and Tim Holden. He has low seniority on homeland security, science, and t & i, and he is a pretty affable guy. He would seem to be a good target for a potential switch.

There also some Members in red-leaning districts that could be approached, namely: Steven LaTourrette (OH-14), Judy Biggert (IL-13), and Walter Jones (NC-03). LaTourrette is more moderate than most Republicans, and is also a pretty friendly guy. The problem with him is that he has a lot of seniority and is ranking member on a good t & i subcommittee. However, being from a swing district, he could face electoral problems going forward, especially if Democrats take control of the Ohio legislature in 2010; with Ohio losing two seats, his seat could merged with another district or targeted for extinction.

Biggert is also fairly moderate in her caucus and getting on in years. Finally, Jones is in an extremely conservative district -- R+15 -- but he has been one of the Iraq War's largest critics, and as a result he has fallen out of favor with some colleagues. He is also high on the Armed Services Committee ladder, but is not ranking on any subcommittee. However, given his partial party estrangement and the fact that the North Carolina delegation will likely by 8-to-5 Democratic next year, he could be given the impetus to switch.

Incidentally, Members like Mike Rogers (MI-08) and Pat Tiberi (OH-12), while representing fairly moderate districts, probably would not be good switching targets. Rogers has made too many enemies on the Democratic side, and Tiberi is simply too conservative. There are of course others just like them in the House GOP caucus. Look for the DCCC to have these two at the top of the 2010 offense hit-list, along with any of the above names (assuming they don't switch sides).

In sum, then, there is a healthy list of Republicans that Democrats could target to switch sides in the aftermath of the election.

Mark Kirk (assuming he survives past November)
Jim Gerlach
Charlie Dent
Tom Latham
Frank LoBiando
Dave Reichert (assumes he survives this election)
Steven LaTourrette
Judy Biggert
Walter Jones

I acknowledge these are slim pickings, and for the most part, these are pretty staunch Republicans. No one said this would be easy for Democrats. But the fact is that this is precisely the sort of thing that the Republicans did to Democrats to great effect when they held a seemingly untouchable majority. Heck, old Rodney Alexander switched parties literally right before the filing deadline in Louisiana in order to ensure that the Democrats could not run an opponent against him under his old line. The fact of the matter is that given what will be huge losses next month for Republicans, the iron will never be hotter fpr Democrats to possibly entice a few adversaries into their fold.

If Democrats can convince some of these Members to switch, perhaps en masse, it would be a devastating hit for the GOP, basically kicking them in the back while they are at their lowest point. Furthermore, it would also reinforce the argument that the Democratic Party is a big tent, capable of taking individuals with far differing viewpoints, while the GOP is filled just with staunch conservatives and ideologues. It would be a masterstroke. Again I realize that some of these members may never make a move, and others may just be unacceptable to segments of the Democratic caucus; I am assuming here that that is not so.

A quick word about the Senate. The reason I have not applied a similar analysis to the upper chamber is that come January, with the exception of the Maine twins Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins (assuming the latter wins, which is probable, even now), there may be absolutely no moderate Republicans left in the body. If Gordon Smith and Norm Coleman ended up losing (and right now, they are both behind), that will be it. Everyone else in the caucus will be between strongly conservative and overwhelmingly conservative -- no prospects for a switch. In terms of Snowe and Collins, it would be worth a try, but I would be very surprised if Democrats could get either of them, Collins especially, as she is ranking on the homeland security committee.