Today, a half year before the midterm elections, the Democrats' chance of retaining their majority in the US Senate rests with women--the ones who are running, and the ones who either will or won't vote. Let's parse the details.
I say "retaining their majority" instead of "retaining control" because, owing to the undemocratic rules of that putatively august body, being "in control" of the Senate requires a party to have 60 of the 100 seats, a "filibuster-proof " majority. A majority in the 51-59 range means the august body is reduced to a roiling and churning mass of bloviating stasis. Currently the Democrats hold 55 seats, which explains the bloviation quotient. The Republicans think the election might boost them from 45 to 51, but, since it's certain that neither party will have more than 59, it hardly matters. Nevertheless we shall continue with the analysis.
The Republicans are optimistic largely because the electoral map favors their side. A senate term is six years, and since six years ago there was a Democratic landslide, there are this cycle several Democrats up for re-election in red-hued states: Montana, North Carolina, and Louisiana come to mind. Two of the three Democrats attempting to hold serve in these states are women--Kay Hagan in North Carolina and Mary Landrieu in Louisiana. Moreover, in the purplish New Hampshire, another Democratic woman, Jeanne Shaheen, is also facing the voters. In another development, the Dems' outlook has lately brightened on account of polls suggesting they have two surprisingly strong female challengers in states no one thought would be competetive--Georgia, where Michelle Nunn is seeking the seat left vacant by the retirement of Republican Saxby Chambliss, and Kentucky, where Alison Lundergan Grimes (pictured) is challenging the Republican leader in the Senate, Mitch McConnell. Nunn is the daughter of former US Senator Sam Nunn, who, years ago, when asked whether he had any political advice for fellow Georgian Newt Gingrich, replied: "I'd advise him to keep a higher percentage of his thoughts unexpressed." Maybe it's too much to hope for, but I think it'd be fun to hear this year's crop of Republican men give expression again to their buried thoughts on such subjects as contraception and sexual assault. It might lift the blue team, which is increasingly the girl team, over the top. I say it's probably too much to hope for, but Mike Huckabee has shown he's not afraid to dip his toe in that Stupid Pool. Maybe it's the start of the next generation of outrageous pronouncements from fellows who, with a straight face, assert they belong to "the party of Lincoln."
It's not a secret that Republicans do poorly with women. If only men could vote, Romney would be president: he won the male vote, 52-45, but, among women, it was Obama in a landslide. If you look into it a little more closely, it turns out that Democrats receive approximately 100% of the votes cast by nonwhite women. Among white women, they are the overwhelming favorite of the younger set and of the unmarried set; with older, white women who are married to idiots--not so much. All this relates to how people vote. A different, and possibly more important, question concerns whether they vote. The electorate in midterm elections has been, compared to the one that elects the president, smaller, older, richer, whiter, and male-er. It's not a secret who this favors. (And it's not a secret, either, why Republicans purport to be horrified--horrified!--by the hordes of illegal voters who in years devisible by four descend upon polling places and, impersonating real Americans, register their opinion.) An unanswered question is whether all these young women lurking in the nether regions of the lists of likely voters will turn out to cast ballots for the woman at the top of the ticket.
