Louisiana Democratic Senator John Breaux will make it official today that he will nto run for re—election next year. That means five open Senate seats in the South, all seats now held by Democrats. The seats are in North Carolina, South Carolina, Louisiana, Georgia, and Florida. The last three would almost certainly have been retained by the incumbents, had they chosen to run again.

Breaux's decisonto retire, and more importantly, his decison to finish out his term, will hurt the Democrats. During the recent runoff election for the Louisiana governorship, Breaux had hinted that he might retire early if the Democrat (Blanco) won the governor's race, thereby giving the new governor the ability to appoint his successor, who could then have the incumbency advantage of seeking—re—election to the seat in November, 2004. This clearly would have been an advantage in a state that is still competitive between the two parties,and where Democrats have  won several close statewide and Congressional races in the last two years. Unlike most of the rest of the South, Louisiana has a large white Catholic population, which has not turned as heavily to the Republicans as white Protestants have in the south in recent years. Add to this the second highest black population in the south (only Mississippi's is higher),and the Democrats are competitive statewide.

However, in a Presidential election year , with Bush likely to win the state, and now an open Senate seat, Republicans are probably slight favorites to win in Louisiana, as they are in North Carolina and Florida. In Georgia and South Carolina, the Republicans are clearly in the drivers' seat to pick up the seats, though it is hard to imagine electing a Republican in Georgia any better than retiring Senator Zell Miller.

Reply by Thomas 12 15 03

This brings a filibuster—proof Senate majority closer to reality. It is still a longshot, to be sure, but a nine seat pickup is no longer a ridiculous fantasy.

I wonder why Breaux decided to implicitly sabotage his own party's ability to hold onto his seat? Could it be that he is uncomfortable with the leftward drift of the party? I son't suppose he will ever tell us, but it certainly would be interesting to know

Posted by Richard 12 15 03