Posing The Top 10 Political Questions For 2010

The more you look at the political questions for 2010 the more they all look like one question: Will President Obama and the Democrats continue to lose altitude from their 2006-08 highs and pay a price in the midterms?

History and current circumstances say yes. The president's party almost always loses ground in the midterms. Polls now point to big drops in the president's appeal and the effects of the recession look to be lingering — especially in the politically potent measure of joblessness.

All of which leads to an equally obvious follow up question: How big will that price be?

Trying to answer that one mega-query for the year pretty much gives you the Top 10 Political Questions for 2010. Let's take them from least hard to hardest.

1. Will the Democrats fall back from their current 60 seat majority in the Senate?

Yes. The retirement announcement of three-term Democratic Sen. Byron Dorgan in North Dakota this week all but guarantees a pick-up there for popular GOP Gov. John Hoeven. Also retiring is five-term veteran Chris Dodd, whose seat in Connecticut will be easier to defend.

But the Democrats also have three appointed placeholders stepping aside in 2010, and two more appointees struggling to win on their own. And three other established incumbents are surprisingly vulnerable. So their phenomenal record of losing no seats at all in 2006 or 2008 will not be repeated.

Yes, the Republicans have to defend six seats without incumbents, and four of those present real opportunities for Democrats. So Democrats' losses may be partially offset. But the net loss of even one seat means goodbye to the "filibuster-proof" majority, and less leverage for that squad of Democrats who've made hay by withholding "the 60th vote."

2. Will the Democrats lose their majority in the House?

No, but they could well lose about half of it. That would be 18 seats from the current 256-178 party breakdown. Historical norms indicate such a loss would be expected even under normal circumstances, and these are not normal times.

Economic and psychological damage from the recession are likely to weigh on the ruling party. And this particular majority is inflated by two cycles of remarkable Democratic gains across the regions.

The party now has all 22 seats in New England and 27 of 29 in New York state. Hard as that is to sustain, the Democrats have a bigger problem keeping recent gains in parts of the South and Midwest, especially where districts that voted for John McCain also elected a Democrat to Congress. There were 39 of these Democrats in 2008, and one, Parker Griffiths of Alabama, has already switched parties.

3. Will there be a Republican trend among the governors?

Yes, and it's likely to pull the parties even again.

A year ago the Democrats had a 30-20 edge in the statehouses. Recessions tend to be hard on governors, and even harder on the incumbent's party if the incumbent governor isn't running for re-election. We saw that in November 2009, with Jon Corzine's losing bid for re-election in New Jersey and the blowout defeat of non-incumbent Creigh Deeds in Virginia. But the 37 governors on the ballot in 2010 split almost evenly between the parties. So states where Republicans have the flag, including California, Florida and Nevada, could pose problems for them on defense.

Answering any of these first three questions depends largely on the next six, which get tougher.

4. How many incumbents will retire?

We already have 11 members of the current Senate leaving, and two dozen incumbents in the House have announced their intention to resign or retire or run for another office.

It's notable that for now, the retirements are almost evenly split in the Senate and 14-10 Republican in the House. Still, the GOP is not going to have trouble holding vacant seats in South Carolina or Georgia, while the Democrats will face a huge test in places like Tennessee, where it's losing House members John Tanner and Bart Gordon. These two cornerstones of the Blue Dog caucus would have held their districts (average vote for John McCain: 59%) again in 2010, but now they count as likely Republican pick-ups.

So far, the departure of centrist Democrats from the House has been a trickle. If it becomes a stream, it's a signal Democrats see a rout coming in November.

5. Will Republican infighting rob the party of a chance at bigger midterm gains?

Probably, although it may be hard to agree on just how much — even after the fact.

A narrow loss here and there may be difficult to pin on any one factor. If numerous challengers emerge to trouble GOP incumbents, or if third party or independent options arise on the right, the cost could be high.

More likely, the main restraint will be in states where the party loses a shot at a major office because of a divisive primary and its aftermath. Schism between establishment and populist elements could weaken the party's chances in Florida, Kentucky and New Hampshire, just to cite a few where the party ought to be able to hold a Senate seat, and in California, where Republicans would like to capture a Senate seat (and hold the governorship).

6. Are the Republicans really ready to mount a 1994-style push for big gains in the House?

Not yet. The National Republican Congressional Campaign is low on funds, in part because many GOP incumbents flush with re-election cash have been reluctant to share with needier colleagues or challenger candidates. This may reflect concern with potential primaries (see No. 5 above).

And neither House Republican Leader John Boehner nor his leadership team have yet developed a plan or media presence to rival that of Newt Gingrich and his cohort in 1994. In fairness, we did not see the "Contract with America" strategy emerge until the third quarter of 1994, either.

7. Will the Supreme Court overturn the current campaign finance regime?

We may know soon. The high court's next day for issuing decisions is Jan. 11, and the big case many expect to see come down is Citizens United v. FEC, a case involving an advocacy group's spending in opposition to Hillary Clinton's presidential candidacy. It challenges a key feature of the 2003 McCain-Feingold campaign finance law, and by extension, the longstanding ban on corporations contributing directly to campaigns.

If the court rules as many expect, campain finance law as we know it will be radically changed, and an influx of cash from businesses, unions and other interests could make the avalanche of ads we saw in 2008 seem like a campaign conducted in secret.

8. Will the grass-roots enthusiasm of the Tea Party movement in 2009 continue?

Who knows? There remains some mystery around the forces that coalesced in April to protest taxes and in August to protest the Democats' health care plans. Both organized and spontaneous, choreographed and chaotic, the outpouring of popular anger shook all who witnessed it. Subsequent gatherings in Washington and elsewhere have sounded similar themes but with less shock and awe. And it's not clear how the movement will manifest itself in the primaries and the campaign season, or whether it amounts to an influx of new voters in November 2010.

9. Will the grass-roots enthusiasm of the Obama forces in 2008 return?

Who knows? Impressed by the volunteer legions and prodigious fundraising of the Obama campagn in 2007 and 2008, some observers saw a post-Inauguration version of the apparatus moving public opinion and even the legislative process in the 111th Congress. It hasn't happened.

Maybe the Obama White House has been too conventional, too cozy with Wall Street and too slow to reverse the foreign policy of the Bush era. Or maybe the campaign phenomenon was just that — a drive to elect one charismatic figure that ended when it succeeded. If it could be revived, Democrats could hold their losses to a minimum in 2010. Otherwise, the pendulum swing and the economy will tell the tale.

And before we quit, one question about the next presidential race, because we just have to:

10. Which hopeful for 2012 will swing the biggest bat helping GOP candidates in 2010?

It's easy to make a batting order before the game, but you never know who'll come through in the clutch.

Start with Sarah Palin, the former governor of Alaska who remains in the media glare. She will surely lead the way in red states and rural areas, and right now seems sure to raise the most money for people.

Look to see a lot of Tim Pawlenty, who passed up a third term as governor of Minnesota to focus on his future. Right now he is mostly looking for name recognition.

Mitt Romney, former governor of Massachusetts, has the name but needs a new style, a new pitch and a new connection to the militant wing. Can he get that stumping for the further right? And will they want him?

Mike Huckabee, yet another former governor, now has to explain his generous treatment of convicts in Arkansas along with his tax increases. Can he do that while appearing on behalf of other people?

And can Newt Gingrich hit the hustings rhapsodizing about 1994 without reminding people of what happened after that?