Politics in our age is an exercise in free-floating disappointment, of varying levels of intensity, punctuated by the occasional surprise, sometimes mild, often unpleasant. The theory holds up no matter where you fall on the ideological spectrum, but the pattern is especially true for liberals and Democrats over the last generation; it's beginning marked by the election of Ronald Reagan and continuing through the re-election of George W. Bush, an event that's managed to take a prominent place on both the lists of surprises and disappointments.
It seems a fair bet to me that this campaign season is headed for records in the "Surprise" category. Who, at the beginning at of the year, would have thought that the Senate Democrat most in trouble would be Joe Lieberman, or that the most vulnerable Democratic seats would turn out to be in New Jersey and Maryland, while Red-State Dems like Ben and Bill Nelson in Nebraska and Florida respectively would be cruising toward re-election. Or that Kent Conrad in North Dakota would be without a competitive opponent in a state that Bush won by 28 percentage points both times. And the woman that Republicans had to beat if they wanted to stop her, Hillary Clinton, is ahead by more than 20 points in New York. (I've heard the theories: They don't want to beat her; she would be the best candidate for them to face in 2008. Whatever!)
Even in the face of strident predictions that Democrats will take control of the House, if that does happen, it will surprise a lot of people, not the least of whom will be Democrats themselves.
To me, it is one of the great ironies of the moment that Democrats have a better chance of taking control of the House than the Senate. Despite the tall order of having to defeat six GOP incumbents or win an open sat in the South, taking the Senate has seemed a more achievable goal than unseating the House GOP leadership, which seemed to be continually outmaneuvering Democrats over the last decade and a half -- whether it was Newt Gingrich or Dick Armey or Bob Walker or Bill Thomas or Tom Delay, Democrats always seemed to come up lacking.
The Democratic affliction of incoherence seemed especially chronic in the House, and especially fatal in House elections. I would have been willing to give 100-1 odds that Harry Reid would be majority leader of the Senate long before Nancy Pelosi came anywhere near the Speaker's gavel.
But things change, and it looks like I might have been wrong, which has happened once before. (I would have been willing to give better than 100-1 odds that Pluto would remain a planet; now I think Pluto should circumnavigate the Earth as an independent.)
But that aside, the number of scenarios which have moved from "unthinkable" to "possible" and then to "probable" continues to grow.
Exhibit A is, of course, unfolding in Virginia, where one new poll has Democrat Jim Webb ahead of incumbent George "Macaca" Allen by eight points. Most other polls have the race in a dead heat, but who thought of this contest as anything but a pro-forma re-election campaign for Allen on his way to the White House in 2008. Now, Allen is not only on the defensive, he looks like a loser. Every election cycle, challengers and opposition parties always trumpet that the people are in the mood for change: It's always a little bit true and always a lot of wishful thinking. But having George Allen in trouble in Virginia is a sure sign that people are rethinking their choices very carefully. Allen is a pure conservative, unapologetic and unyielding. He wears cowboy boots and was believed to be completely in sync with the conservative character of his state. He was governor and beat another popular former governor and two-term incumbent Senator Chuck Robb in 2000. To the extent that conservatives wanted uncompromising, confrontational leaders, disdainful of Democrats and liberals, George Allen was their guy, in much the same way that George W. Bush was their guy. But in changing their minds about George Bush, they may have changed their mind about George Allen, too, and may indeed be in a mood for change.
But if a Democratic senator from Virginia in 2007 would be off the charts on the surprise meter, it would be just as shocking to have a GOP senator from Maryland, where Republican Lt. Governor Michael Steele is making a credible run for the seat. While Maryland is a true blue state -- Kerry beat Bush by 13 points there --- it is ripe for an upset. It elected a Republican governor four years ago and both sitting Democratic senators, Paul Sarbanes and Barbara Mikulski, replaced Republican ones, John Glenn Beall Jr. and Charles Mathias respectively. And while the GOP has changed over time, Marylanders don't need brain transplant to vote Republican, and Michael Steel is running a smart, savvy campaign that it going to make it difficult for Congressman Ben Cardin, the Democratic nominee, to win.
First off is the race issue. Steele is black. The backbone of the Democratic Party in Maryland lies in Baltimore as well as Prince Georges and Montgomery counties in the Washington suburbs, jurisdictions with a significant black population. A lot of black Maryland Democrats told a pollster this year that they would be open to voting for Steele, and shaving off a few points in those Democratic strongholds is all that Steele would need to do hurt the Democrat and help himself.
Then there is his campaign, which has veered away from the usual strategy of emphasizing, over-emphasizing you might argue, the experience and competence of black candidates. Steele is running on almost entirely likeability and people like him. We could wake up in January to find Maryland with a Republican senator and the Senate itself with two black members.
Surprise, surprise!
Terence Samuel is a political writer in Washington, D.C.
If you enjoyed this article, subscribe to The American Prospect here.
Support independent media with a tax-deductible donation here.
