Both Parties View ’86 Senate Races as Pivotal

WASHINGTON —  “My colleagues tell me you can’t be lucky twice,” says Sen. John Heinz of Pennsylvania. Heinz chaired the Republican Senate Campaign Committee when his party stunned the political world by taking control of the Senate in 1980, and he now holds the same post for the critical 1986 election.

In fact, neither Republicans nor Democrats are trusting luck when it comes to the 1986 struggle for the Senate, which Republicans now control by a slim 53-47 margin. Needing only a net gain of four seats to take control, the Democrats are greatly encouraged by the 1986 electoral arithmetic: Of the 34 Senate seats that will be at risk next November, Republicans now occupy 22.

Both sides regard this confrontation as a political watershed that could shape prospects for the rest of President Reagan’s second term, influence the choice of his successor in 1988 and give one party or the other a significant advantage far into the political future.

Future Makeup of Court

The outcome of the 1986 Senate elections could even shape the future composition of the Supreme Court and thus influence decisions on some of the country’s most controversial public policy questions.

Thus, although Election Day is still more than a year away, strategists in both parties started preparing for the battle months ago. They have been building multimillion-dollar campaign treasuries, scouting for attractive challengers for seats held by the opposition and trying to bolster the resolve of their own incumbents where veterans have grown weary of the political fray.

‘Setback to Reagan’

“Were we to lose the Republican majority, it would be a tremendous setback to President Reagan,” Heinz says. “From the standpoint of his being able to pursue his policies both domestically and internationally, I believe it would be a politically fatal attack of lame duck-itis.”

The significance of the Senate competition goes beyond the Reagan years. The outcome likely will give the successful party an important symbolic boost in the 1988 contest for the White House and help to determine what sort of record the Republicans will present to the country in that election.

“If we lose the Senate in 1986, it’s going to be hard to win the presidency in 1988, no matter who our candidate is,” says Ronald Kaufman, director of the Fund for America’s Future, Vice President George Bush’s political action committee.

Conversely, “If we can win the Senate back, we can gain our confidence back,” says Democrat Richard Moe, who served as chief of staff to former Vice President Walter F. Mondale and who is now an adviser to the Democratic Senate Campaign Committee. “If we get control of the Senate, it will force us to come to grips with the issues, and that will give the party sharper focus for the 1988 campaign.”

In addition to the good they might be able to do for themselves, Democrats could use a Senate majority to cause the GOP considerable harm. Control of the Senate’s committees would allow Democrats to bottle up Reagan’s legislative proposals, launch muckraking investigations of Administration operations and block presidential nominations.

Candidates for High Court

Among those nominations could be candidates for the Supreme Court, where a change in the philosophical outlook of persons occupying even one or two seats could make a profound difference in the future direction of the court.

Recalling the result of the big Democratic Senate gains in the 1958 election, when Dwight D. Eisenhower was in the White House, Eisenhower biographer Stephen Ambrose says a 1986 Democratic victory would produce “a stalemate in domestic affairs, which was the case in Ike’s last two years.”

In the 1958 Senate election, the numbers were similar to those in 1986. Republicans occupied 21 of the 34 seats at stake, and the Democrats that year took 13 seats away from the Republicans, a result that Democrats consider a favorable omen for next year’s test.

On the other hand, Democrats realize that, if they fail to take advantage of the opportunity created for them by the 1986 mathematics of Senate seat rotation, they will suffer a severe blow to their already battered prestige.

Democratic Strength

“This election will be seen as a measure of Democratic Party strength in the period between 1984 and 1988,” says Maine Sen. George J. Mitchell, chairman of the Democratic Senate Campaign Committee. If Democrats fall short of their goal of recapturing the Senate, Mitchell acknowledges, they will be perceived as “a party still in decline.”

Along with the numbers, Democrats also have in their favor the so-called “six-year-itch” tradition. This is the tendency for voters to reject the party of a two-term Administration during the second-term congressional elections, as exemplified by the losses suffered by Eisenhower and the Republicans in 1958, Lyndon B. Johnson and the Democrats in 1966 and Gerald R. Ford and the Republicans in 1974.

So far, however, what the Democrats seem to lack as they gear up for 1986 is the sort of compelling national issue that the out-party exploited to turn the voters against the incumbent party in those earlier six-year-itch elections. In 1958, the country was hard hit by a recession; in 1966, Americans were bitterly divided by Vietnam and worried about inflation; and in 1974, the campaign was dominated by still-fresh recollections of Watergate and severe economic decline.

Presidential Popularity

“When you go back and look at the six-year-itch elections, I think what you find is a loss of presidential popularity and a general mood that there’s time to change directions,” says Tom Griscom, executive director of the Republican Senate Campaign Committee. “But right now, what you see is a President whose popularity is still holding and people feeling that they’re satisfied with the direction they’re going. There’s no mood to turn things upside down.”

Democrats claim that widespread electoral discontent is just around the corner. “There is increasing recognition in the country of the Administration’s failure to address the budget deficit and the trade imbalance and the consequent effect on employment in this country,” Mitchell says.

Indeed, the polls show rising public concern about the budget deficit and widespread support for protectionist measures opposed by the Reagan Administration. However, opinion analysts say that the budget and trade deficits are abstractions, lacking the immediacy and political potency of such issues as unemployment and inflation.

Trade of Little Concern

“The budget deficit exists as a major issue only when there is no other issue,” Democratic pollster Paul Maslin says. And a recent Los Angeles Times Poll that showed a majority of voters favoring protectionist measures nevertheless indicated that the trade deficit was low on voters’ list of economic worries.

“As long as the economy remains healthy, trade will not be a cutting issue,” Heinz contends.

Many politicians believe that the trade issue’s main impact will be felt locally, not nationally, in areas where jobs have been lost as a result of cheap imports. But they point out that Republican officeholders can blunt this issue for the Democrats, as many already have done, by deviating from the Administration’s staunch free-trade position and supporting remedial legislation.

Similarly, Republican senators facing reelection in the Farm Belt, which is now probably the nation’s most economically stressed region, have been striving to establish their independence on farm policy.

‘We Are Concerned’

GOP strategist Griscom, referring to such Republican Farm Belt senators as Iowa’s Charles E. Grassley and North Dakota’s Mark Andrews, said: “What we’re finding is that they have clearly put some distance between themselves and the Administration. I think they are trying to say: ‘We are concerned about the problem.’ ”

“I think what’s happened so far is that many people who came in on Reagan’s coattails in 1980 are trying to distance themselves from Reagan,” Democratic National Chairman Paul G. Kirk Jr. complains. But such maneuvering is a common tactic in American politics, practiced by both parties. And it often succeeds unless resentment against an incumbent President is so deep that it automatically carries over to his party’s candidates.

But polling data thus far indicates that public attitudes toward Reagan are far removed from such negativism. And, while Democrats argue that the President’s high popularity ratings are politically irrelevant, opinion analysts contend that these figures reflect a public mood of relative satisfaction with economic conditions and low anxiety about international tensions.

A State-by-State Battle

“We can’t nationalize this election as long as the economy is reasonably good and Reagan is talking to (Soviet leader Mikhail S.) Gorbachev,” says one Democratic pollster who does not want to be identified. “We need for something bad to happen to the economy.”

In the absence of any such overriding cause for national concern, Democrats must plan on waging their battle for the Senate on a state-by-state basis and be thankful at least that the still popular Reagan is not on the ballot himself. “In a non-presidential year, 34 individual candidates can tailor their candidacies to the need of their constituencies,” Mitchell says. “It doesn’t make any difference to a voter in Florida what arguments are being made to a voter in Idaho.”

Unfortunately for the Democrats, many of their challengers are likely to be at a disadvantage in getting their arguments across because of the GOP incumbents’ financial superiority--in large part because of the Republicans’ high-powered, direct-mail fund-raising operation. “We’re still in the Pleistocene Era in direct mail,” says David Johnson, executive director of the Democratic campaign committee.

GOP Campaign Funds

The GOP Senate campaign committee plans to raise enough funds to give the maximum contribution permitted under the law to each of its candidates, a total of $11.5 million. By contrast, the Democratic committee expects only to be able to give about half of that, or $6 million, to its candidates.

Their financial handicap makes it all the more necessary for Democrats to find strong challengers for the many Republican targets they have to shoot at. Since spring, Montana Sen. Max Baucus, in charge of recruiting Democratic challengers, and other Democratic senators have been meeting with potential candidates, trying to persuade them to enter the competition.

“Some are interested in getting on certain Senate committees,” Baucus says of the potential challengers. “Some need help about raising money and some want to know what it’s like living in Washington.”

And some turn a deaf ear to the entreaties of Baucus and his colleagues. “Those guys are mainly interested in getting back control of the Senate so they can get to be chairman of their committees,” says Arizona Gov. Bruce Babbitt, who turned down the opportunity to run for the Senate seat in his state that will be vacated next year by Republican Barry Goldwater.

Eye on Bigger Things

For his part, Babbitt is thought to have his eye on bigger things. He is sizing up the possibility of running for President in 1988.

But a number of well-known Democratic politicians have all but formally announced that they will enter Senate races, and it is in their states that Democratic hopes for gains now are strongest. These are Florida, where Gov. Bob Graham is expected to challenge Paula Hawkins; Idaho, where Gov. John V. Evans is preparing to run against Steven D. Symms; and South Dakota, where Rep. Thomas A. Daschle is being counted on to oppose James Abdnor.

Democrats also hear opportunity knocking as a result of the retirements of Republican Sens. Paul Laxalt of Nevada, John P. East of North Carolina and Charles McC. Mathias Jr. of Maryland. They consider their prospects particularly good in Maryland, because they have a big lead in registered voters and because Republicans may have difficulty finding a strong candidate to replace Mathias.

In a number of other states, including Alabama, Georgia, New York, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Washington and Wisconsin, Democrats contend that Republicans are vulnerable. But Democratic prospects there depend on the political strength of their nominees.

Likely Contenders

Among the likely possibilities who would make strong contenders are former congressman and former Transportation Secretary Brock Adams to challenge incumbent Slade Gorton in Washington, and Rep. James R. Jones to run against Don Nickles in Oklahoma.

To help defend their hold on the Senate, Republicans are counting on taking away some seats now held by the Democrats. They are particularly optimistic about two states in which Democrats have decided not to run for reelection: Louisiana, where Russell B. Long is retiring and Rep. W. Henson Moore is expected to be the GOP candidate, and Missouri, where Thomas F. Eagleton is stepping down and former Republican Gov. Christopher S. Bond is making plans to run.

The GOP also is targeting several Democratic incumbents it considers vulnerable--including Alan Cranston in California, Ernest F. Hollings in South Carolina and Patrick J. Leahy in Vermont, where Republicans hope that former Gov. Richard A. Snelling will be their candidate.

As hard-pressed as they will be next year in the Senate, Republicans can take comfort from the knowledge that the political arithmetic will not be this challenging again, at least in the foreseeable future. In 1988 only 14 Republican Senate seats will be at risk to 19 for the Democrats and in 1990 the split will be almost even--17 Republicans and 16 Democrats.