Defining the 'Key' Races for 2006

A fascinating figure to watch... but not a "key" Senate race.

Some major differences between the Connecticut Democratic primary of 1970 and today.

The latest sad news about Buttons; how could we resist? 1919-2006

More information is coming in about how Ken Rudin went from camp counselor to corporate sellout.

Thirty-three years ago today, VP Spiro Agnew learns he is the target of a criminal investigation.

Q: After having perused your interactive election map, I have to ask you: What criterion do you use to determine whether or not a particular race is considered "key"? Apparently, it is only partly related to how close the race appears to be in the polls. For example, the Senate race in Maryland is listed as a key race, where the as-yet-to-be-determined Democratic candidate is favored over Republican candidate Michael Steele. But the governor's race in Maryland, deemed a toss-up, is not key. Further, not all the key races are ones in which an incumbent is stepping down, leaving an open seat. For example, the Senate race in Washington is considered key, even though incumbent Democrat Maria Cantwell is favored. And one race I would have thought was key is the Senate race in Connecticut, considering the heat over the primary.

So, a race that's close might be a key race, but not necessarily. A race for an open seat might be a key race, but not necessarily. A race in which an incumbent is in serious trouble (e.g. Montana Senate) can be a key race, but not necessarily (e.g. Connecticut). So, what additional criteria must a race meet to be deemed "key"? -- Gerry Hoffman, Edinboro, Pa.

A: These are good questions. Hopefully, I'll have good answers.

Regarding the battle for the Senate, I've defined as "key" races those states that could result in a switch in parties, such as Pennsylvania or Montana or Washington. It's not so much the polls; you correctly note that Cantwell is currently favored in Washington. It's about states that have the best chance at switching. (Florida, which initially had been on that list, was removed, given the implosion of the Katherine Harris candidacy.)

No matter what happens in next week's Connecticut primary, it is extremely unlikely that the seat could result in a Republican pickup. So while the nation, the world and (most important) this column are obsessed with Lieberman v. Lamont, it's not listed as a "key" race because, one way or the other, it will stay in Democratic hands come November.

Same with the Senate race in Hawaii. Whether or not Rep. Ed Case manages to topple Sen. Daniel Akaka in the Sept. 23 Democratic primary, when all is said and done, it will remain a Democratic seat. No "key" for Hawaii.

Similarly, it's interesting to watch Sen. Hillary Clinton go through the motions in New York on the way to a possible White House run two years hence. It will also be interesting to see how many votes her Democratic primary challenger, Jonathan Tasini, gets on Sept. 12. But the GOP is a complete non-factor in this Senate race, and so it's not considered "key."

Here, for the record, are the Senate races listed as "key" in NPR's interactive election map:

REPUBLICANS (6): Missouri (Jim Talent), Montana (Conrad Burns), Ohio (Mike DeWine), Pennsylvania (Rick Santorum), Rhode Island (Lincoln Chafee), Tennessee (open).

DEMOCRATS (4): Maryland (open), Minnesota (open), New Jersey (Robert Menendez), Washington (Maria Cantwell).

While some have suggested that Republican seats in Arizona (Jon Kyl) and Virginia (George Allen) belong on this list, I'm not so sure. By the same token, some have suggested we keep our eye on Democrats Ben Nelson (NE) and Debbie Stabenow (MI), and we will. But as of now, they are not on the list, either. (With three months to go, things can change.)

It's a different story for the gubernatorial races. There is far less national significance in the campaigns for governor than there is for congressional races, and so very few were listed as "key." (One caveat, of course, is redistricting. I got a letter a few months back from Jon Yuengling of West Norton, Pa., who wrote, "You said on Talk of the Nation that 'it does not matter to me who the governor of Idaho is...' It will matter who is governor when the census and redistricting take place in 2010." Jon is correct, but by and large it's the makeup of Congress, not the nation's governors, that is felt nationally.)

But your question made me realize that having two completely different sets of criteria for determining key races for Senate and governor makes no sense. If both the Maryland Senate and governor's races could switch parties, why not list both contests as key? And so, effective today, the list of states with "key" gubernatorial races will be expanded. Here they are, subject to change:

REPUBLICANS (12): Alaska (Frank Murkowski), Arkansas (open), California (Arnold Schwarzenegger), Colorado (open), Florida (open), Maryland (Robert Ehrlich), Massachusetts (open), Minnesota (Tim Pawlenty), Nevada (open), New York (open), Ohio (open), Rhode Island (Don Carcieri).

DEMOCRATS (7): Illinois (Rod Blagojevich), Iowa (open), Maine (John Baldacci), Michigan (Jennifer Granholm), Oregon (Ted Kulongoski), Pennsylvania (Ed Rendell), Wisconsin (Jim Doyle).

Q: With Montgomery County Executive Doug Duncan out of the Maryland gubernatorial race -- leaving Baltimore Mayor Martin O'Malley as the all-but-certain Democratic nominee --do you still feel (as you indicate in your interactive map) that the race against Republican Gov. Bob Ehrlich is a tossup? -- John Donahue, Baltimore, Md.

A: Yes, in the sense that it's just too close to call -- though I do think O'Malley has the edge at this point. The Democrats were spared a costly and lengthy primary battle when Duncan, citing clinical depression, pulled out of the race in June. But I always thought O'Malley was the stronger candidate. And in an overwhelmingly Democratic state, Ehrlich, the first GOP governor since Spiro Agnew in the 1960s, was always going to have to work hard to win, and that's still the case.

Q: You wrote in your July 12 column that you "don't see any scenario" by which Republican Alan Schlesinger wins the Connecticut Senate race. Why not? After all, did not some bloke named Lowell Weicker win back in 1970 as a result of a split in the opposition party? On a broader point, in a Lamont-Schlesinger-Lieberman scenario, I think it would be Lieberman who would stand the least chance of winning. He will either help split the Democratic vote (enabling Schlesinger to win) or the pro-Bush vote (ensuring a Lamont win). -- Nicholas Ohh, London, England

A: There's a big difference between the three-way Connecticut Senate race of 1970 and the prospective three-way race of today. Back then, the Democratic incumbent was crippled by ethics problems, having been censured by the full Senate three years earlier. With no chance at winning his party's nomination, Sen. Thomas Dodd decided to seek a third term as an independent. The Democratic nominee that year, the Rev. Joseph Duffey, was a strong peace candidate who took on the party establishment, led by the venerable John Bailey, and upset the organization's choice in the primary, winning the nomination with 44 percent of the vote. The party bigwigs never did much on Duffey's behalf, and a sizable number of loyal Dems stuck with Dodd. The Republican, a freshman congressman by the name of Lowell Weicker, was a moderate who had a united party behind him; both President Nixon and Vice President Agnew campaigned in the state on his behalf (how bizarre does that sound today?).

Alan Schlesinger, on the other hand, does not appear to be getting much national GOP support in his 2006 bid. A former six-term state representative (1981-92) and later, a mayor of Derby, Schlesinger has been the forgotten man of this campaign. No one I've spoken to envisions a scenario by which he sneaks into office via a split in the Democratic vote. And as for any role he might play in splitting the "pro-Bush vote" with Lieberman, and thus help electing Lamont, I don't think there's much of a pro-Bush vote these days in Connecticut to split.

Related stories in previous columns:

July 5: "Can Lieberman Survive the Primary?" Also: list of senators who were defeated in the primary in the past half-century.

June 28: "Lieberman, Lamont and the War." Also: list of unsuccessful Democratic VP candidates and what happened to them later in their career.

Q: Does Lincoln Chafee (R-RI) switch parties if the Democrats win the Senate? -- Allen Lampert, Philadelphia, Pa.

A: If the Democrats win control of the Senate, Chafee is probably one of the Republicans who will go down to defeat.

Q: We have recently come across an earlier column of yours in which you confess to being "the same Ken Rudin who wore a Mr. Peanut necklace and was a Color War General at Camp Lokanda back in the 1970s." We also know that you are one of the country’s top campaign experts, and are willing to bet you never thought that voting and Mr. Peanut, two things that are (or at least once were) 'close to your heart,' would be joined in perfect matrimony.

As a part of Planters 100th anniversary celebration, Mr. Peanut may get a makeover -- and it's up to America to decide. People have been voting, both online at Planters.com and in person during the nationwide Nutmobile tour, for a new accessory that will be unveiled in November. More than 111,000 people have voted on whether to add a new accessory -- bowtie, cufflinks, pocket-watch -- or the 'leave Mr. Peanut just the way he is' option. And we figured: Who better to talk about this than a man who donned a plastic Mr. Peanut decades ago when the pop-culture icon was just coming into his own? -- Heath Osburn, Senior Brand Manager at Planters, East Hanover, N.J.