Can the Democrats Recapture the Senate?

By Jacob V. Lamar Jr

For 20 years the Democrats had controlled the U.S. Senate. Through Democratic and Republican presidencies, wars and scandals, riots and recessions, Democratic Senators maintained a majority in the "World's Greatest Deliberative Body." Then came the 1980 election-night massacre, when the heartland liberals, the George McGoverns and Frank Churches and Birch Bayhs, were sent packing by a band of upstart Republicans, most of them quite conservative and many undistinguished, who rode into office on Ronald Reagan's flowing coattails. The Democrats lost the majority that night. This year, with that G.O.P. class of 1980 up for re-election for the first time, the Democrats are seeking revenge, and control.

The magic number is four. If Senate Democrats can pick up that many seats in this year's elections, they will overturn the G.O.P.'s 53-to-47 majority. For both parties, this means war. "Never has a Democratic victory been more urgently needed," exhort letters from the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee. "We're in the fight of our lives!" exclaim letters from the Republican Presidential Task Force. The White House too is signaling red alert. "For this Administration's next two years," says Reagan's political adviser Mitch Daniels, "nothing approaches control of the Senate in importance."

The rhetoric may be overheated, but the stakes are indeed high. Of 34 Senate seats up for grabs, Republicans now hold 22. No fewer than 15 belong to members of the class of '80, many of them inexperienced politicians who won by slender margins. While most of their seats are fairly secure, a highly vulnerable half a dozen or so have been specially targeted by the Democrats. If the Democrats cannot reclaim a majority this year, with only twelve of their seats on the line, the Republicans will have an excellent chance to cement control in 1988, when fewer G.O.P. Senators will face re-election.

For Republicans, holding on to the majority could help protect the Reagan Revolution from paralysis for another two years, giving the party momentum as it heads into the '88 sweepstakes. Democrats would interpret a Republican defeat in the Senate as a sign of the public's dissatisfaction with Reagan's policies. An intransigent Democratic majority could thwart the Administration's legislative agenda, turning the President into a genuine lame duck and perhaps stealing some of the thunder from the Republicans in the contest to succeed Reagan.

This ferocious battle for Senate dominance occurs at a time when Americans are paying less attention to party affiliation. A recent survey conducted for TIME by Yankelovich Clancy Shulman found that when Americans step into the voting booth, 61% of them switch between parties. This tendency may be accentuated by the fact that local concerns weigh far more heavily than national issues in this year's congressional races. Says Democratic Media Consultant Robert Squier: "It's almost as if the states have seceded from the national parties."

Part of the reason for these "de-nationalized" races is that no major dilemmas are confronting the U.S. and galvanizing the electorate, no Viet Nam or Watergate, no nationwide economic bust or crisis of confidence. The lack of broad national themes might also explain why many politicians, hungry for hot issues, have exploited the war against drug abuse, farm woes or local concerns.

In some races, even when the candidates are polar opposites ideologically, the public seems ambivalent. Take Colorado, where Democratic Congressman Tim Wirth and Republican Congressman Ken Kramer are fighting to succeed retiring Democratic Senator Gary Hart. Wirth is pro-choice, Kramer is antiabortion. Wirth supports South African sanctions and the Equal Rights Amendment; Kramer ( opposes them. Kramer is all for Star Wars and school prayer; Wirth is opposed to both. "One of us is right, and one of us doesn't belong in the U.S. Senate," says Kramer. "The choice should be clear." To Colorado voters, it is not. The candidates are in a virtual dead heat, and public passions on the issues do not seem high.

Instead, personal character seems to be the key. The President's telegenic charisma and the growing role of TV in politics may have combined to make personality a major factor in the 1986 races. "Voters are focusing on the candidates' characters to a much greater extent than in the last three elections," wrote Pollster Peter Hart in a recent memorandum to the Democratic Party leadership. Candidates across the country, in speeches and TV commercials, are spurting an unusually large volume of venom at one another's characters. In several races, charges of mendacity, dereliction of duty and lack of integrity have been polluting the political landscape since early summer.

Hoping to secure his legacy in the home stretch of his presidency, Reagan has been on the stump again, touting Republican Senate candidates in tight races around the country. "It's a make-or-break election," warned the President at a California rally, which "will determine if everything we've worked for, everything we've struggled and sweated for, is to be given a chance or to be undermined by people who oppose everything we believe in." At stop after stop, the master campaigner asks audiences to "win just one more for the Gipper."

Many Democrats are not particularly bothered to see Reagan out on the campaign trail, since current polls, including the TIME survey, show that pleas from the President make no difference in how most Americans vote. "The Republicans are trying to Reaganize these races," says David Johnson, executive director of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee. "It's a risky strategy." Counters a White House aide: "We are working on the margins here. We are looking for that one voter in 20 or so who can be moved our way because the President is so popular."

In some states, Reagan's support clearly helps. In North Carolina, Republican James Broyhill, a twelve-term Congressman who was appointed to succeed John East after the Senator died last summer, has taken the lead over his Democratic challenger, Terry Sanford, a venerated former Governor. Both candidates are somewhat bland campaigners, but Reagan's popularity gives Broyhill the edge. At each stop, Broyhill stresses the state's healthy economy and his ties to the President. "If there was no Ronald Reagan," notes Oxford Mayor Allie Ellington, "Broyhill would have a tough time. But the Reagan wave is very high here."

Much of the South is still reeling from busts in the oil industry and agriculture, and the Reagan Administration's economic policies have done little to help the situation. Yet the President remains immensely popular throughout the region, and many Southerners blame the Washington establishment and Democratic statehouses for the South's financial troubles.

The appeal of the Reagan message has no doubt helped the Southern branch of the class of '80, ultraconservative Republicans with unremarkable first-term records, like Mack Mattingly of Georgia and Jeremiah Denton of Alabama. The latest polls show Mattingly leading his underfunded liberal rival, Congressman Wyche Fowler, by 18 points. The factious and disorganized Democratic Party in Alabama has been unable to help Congressman Richard Shelby wage an effective attack; he trails Denton by nearly 25 points.

Reagan's helping hand might be needed most in Florida, where some polls show Republican Paula Hawkins, also first elected in 1980, trailing Democratic Governor Bob Graham by 10 to 13 points. The President has already visited the state on her behalf once, and one of Hawkins' campaign commercials shows her conferring with Reagan on the White House portico. Hawkins has played up the "character issue" in her campaign, even trying to gain political capital from painful back surgery last spring that forced her to wear a neck brace. In one of her TV spots, Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole extols Hawkins' courage: "It will take more than a back operation to stop her." The candidate is presenting herself as a caring politician, highlighting her work for abused and missing children and the elderly.

Hawkins has the misfortune of being up against Florida's beloved Governor Graham, a gung-ho campaigner who makes Ronald Reagan look like a melancholiac. He pumps palms and kisses babies with good-ole-boy abandon. He dresses in Cuban garb and struts down the streets of Little Havana handing out cigars and autographed photos. And, yes, he even sings his own campaign song: "You've got a friend in Bob Graham/ Let's send him to Washington and make Florida No. 1 . . . Bob Graham is a cracker/ Be a Graham cracker backer."

In Florida, the drug war is an omnipresent fact of life, so naturally Graham and Hawkins are vocal hard-liners on halting the narcotics trade. Otherwise, Graham is, ideologically, all over the map. But his views appeal to Florida's diverse populace: he is for contra aid and a tough immigration policy, while also supporting affirmative action and increased health services.

The Reaganauts are also keeping a close eye on Nevada. With the President's old pal Senator Paul Laxalt retiring after two terms, the White House wants to make sure that the seat remains Republican. Nevada is Reagan country. White- haired, pink-cheeked Republican Contender Jim Santini, a former Democratic Congressman, has made good use of commercials that feature the President saying he needs Santini in the Senate. A shrewd, backslapping veteran pol, Santini has tried to depict his opponent, Democratic Congressman Harry Reid, as that Republican bogeyman, a "Tip O'Neill liberal." Reid depicts himself as a fighter against Big Business and the "Washington power brokers." A blond, soft-spoken Mormon, Reid has tried to peg Santini as a turncoat and a pawn of the Establishment. But he has refrained from criticizing Reagan or bringing up the subject of Senate control. "It wouldn't sell well in Nevada," he explains. Reid even displays an autographed photo of himself and the President on his office wall. Reid and Santini are running virtually neck and neck.

In Pennsylvania, the candidates have followed the opposite game plan. There Reagan is far less popular. The unemployment rate has been running above the national average -- over 11% in some depressed industrial areas of the state. On the stump, Arlen Specter, a relatively moderate class of '80 member, rarely mentions Reagan and never discusses Republican control of the Senate. "That argument works more to my detriment than to my benefit," says he.

Observers feel that Specter could be upset by Underdog Congressman Bob Edgar, who trailed his foe by about 18 points in a recent poll. An unabashed liberal who would increase social spending and reduce military appropriations by scrapping the MX missile and Star Wars, Edgar, a Methodist minister who combines a genteel manner with tough rhetoric, attacks the President and the Senator in the same breath. "Ronald Reagan wanted to take away your Social Security benefits back in 1981," he tells a group of senior citizens. "I was outraged . . . But Arlen Specter thought it was a good idea."

In the heartland, where right-wing candidates knocked so many liberal Senators into political oblivion in 1980, there is but one real election issue this year: the farm crisis. Class of '80 members who are favored to win -- Wisconsin's Robert Kasten, Iowa's Charles Grassley, Indiana's Dan Quayle, Oklahoma's Don Nickles -- have tried to distance themselves from Reagan's farm policies. But their colleague, James Abdnor of South Dakota, fumbled the farm issue and subsequently found himself fighting an uphill battle for re- election.

Abdnor's rival is Democratic Congressman Tom Daschle, a boy-next-door charmer who has relentlessly criticized the incumbent for claiming that farmers should "sell below cost for a while" and for supporting Reagan's ineffective 1985 farm bill. In one of his more rousing speeches, Daschle harks back to 1980, when, he says, "Ronald Reagan and Jim Abdnor asked, 'Are you better off today?' " In 1986, Daschle declares, "we have the opportunity to ask that question again. If you're better off, you better vote Republican. If not, you better vote for a change."

An awkward and uninspiring orator, Abdnor has avoided tying himself to the President, emphasizing instead his disagreements with Administration figures like David Stockman. Though South Dakota's Republicans slightly outnumber Democrats, Abdnor trails Daschle by six to ten points in the latest polls.

Two other first-term Republicans in the farm belt have found themselves in dead-even races. Idaho's flamboyant Steve Symms, who has taken heat for the state's economic decline as well as his reputation for a fast-paced life- style, is being challenged by Democratic Governor John Evans, a folksy moderate. In North Dakota, Senator Mark Andrews blew a 12-point lead over Democratic Tax Commissioner Kent Conrad when he erroneously claimed that grain prices had been rising and took credit for the nonexistent increase. In Missouri, the acrimonious race between former Republican Governor Christopher ("Kit") Bond and Democratic Lieutenant Governor Harriett Woods to succeed Democratic Senator Thomas Eagleton is still too close to call.

Only in California is a Democratic incumbent facing serious opposition. Three-term Senator Alan Cranston would seem an endangered species in the Golden State. He is an ardent liberal in an increasingly Republican state; he is a gaunt-looking 72-year-old in a state that worships youth. And he is opposed by Republican Congressman Ed Zschau, 46, a clean-cut moderate who made a fortune as an electronics entrepreneur in Silicon Valley.

But the cagey old pro maintains an edge, leading Zschau by 15 points in some polls, though a third of the voters remain undecided. Cranston has put his rival on the defensive, grilling pancakes at public appearances while denouncing Zschau's "flip-flops" on issues ranging from Saudi arms sales to environmental legislation. The Republican has recently become more aggressive, attacking Cranston's opposition to the death penalty and accusing him of being soft on international terrorism and indifferent to the drug problem.

Despite all the sound and fury over Senate control, a few politicians and pundits wonder whether a Democratic majority would really make such a tremendous difference. "The stakes in November are not all that high," says Democratic Senator Patrick Leahy of Vermont. "After all, Reagan has passed most of his major legislation. All this heavy talk about who gets to run the Senate is overblown."

There would not, for example, be a pronounced change in the conduct of most major Senate committees if the Democrats won the chairmanships by gaining control. In many cases, the current ranking Democrat on a committee is ideologically simpatico with the present Republican chairman. On the Budget Committee, Florida Democrat Lawton Chiles has generally agreed with New Mexico Republican Pete Domenici. Both have criticized the President's budget proposals over the years. A Democratic majority would give the President a little bit more of a fight on domestic spending cuts and probably increase the chance of a tax hike to battle the deficit -- but with the deficit out of control, a revenue increase would probably be inevitable no matter which party ruled the Senate.

On the Armed Services Committee, Georgia Democrat Sam Nunn and Arizona Republican Barry Goldwater have both been sympathetic to a strong defense while casting a skeptical eye on major weapons programs and collaborating on reforming the Pentagon power structure. A dovish Democrat, Rhode Island's Claiborne Pell would replace Indiana's competent Richard Lugar as head of the Foreign Relations Committee. The combination of Nunn and Pell as committee chairmen might increase pressure on President Reagan to pursue arms control more aggressively.

The greatest change would occur on the Judiciary Committee, where either Ted ! Kennedy or (if Kennedy opted for chairmanship of the Labor and Human Resources Committee instead) Dela- ware's Joe Biden would replace South Carolina's Strom Thurmond. Even under Republican leadership, Reagan has run into forceful opposition from the panel. In his last two years in office, Reagan will have the opportunity to appoint perhaps 150 federal judges and may be able to fill one or two more Supreme Court openings. A Democratic majority could prevent the President from seeing to it that the Reagan Revolution would flourish in America's courts. All in all, the specific changes would be small, but their cumulative effect on the mood of Capitol Hill and the terms of debate on national issues could be significant. A switch in Senate control, says Norman Ornstein, a congressional scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, "will mean a bigger headache for the President, more fires to put out, less ability to counter whatever the Democratic House does to dominate the agenda."

At the moment, the Democrats look as if they have a good shot at eking out a majority. Three of their seats are being vacated by retiring incumbents and are very vulnerable: Louisiana (Russell Long), Missouri (Thomas Eagleton) and Colorado (Gary Hart). But two Republican seats are endangered because of retirements: Nevada (Paul Laxalt) and Maryland (Charles Mathias). And the G.O.P. is fielding highly vulnerable freshmen in six states: South Dakota, Florida, Pennsylvania, Idaho, North Dakota and Washington. Though the tide can shift quickly, depending on world events and voter whims, the magic number of four seems, at the moment, to be within reach.

CHART: TEXT NOT AVAILABLE

With reporting by Laurence I. Barrett/Washington, with other bureaus