Senate Democrats have had a sneaky good week

What you might have missed.

(The 2024 Senate map/NBC News)

My new book it out April 18! Buy it here!

Incumbents announcing that they are going to run again doesn’t draw much press attention. Dog bites man and all that.

But, just because the media doesn’t pay attention to these moves doesn’t mean they don’t matter. They do.

Witness decisions by two Senate Democrats this week.

First, on Monday Pennsylvania Sen. Bob Casey Jr. said he will be seeking a 4th term in 2024.

“There’s still more work to cut through the gridlock, stand up to powerful corporate special interests, and make the lives of hardworking Pennsylvanians a little bit easier,” Casey said in a statement announcing his move.

Then, on Wednesday, Wisconsin Sen. Tammy Baldwin announced that she, too, would be seeking reelection.

"I'm committed to making sure that working people, not just the big corporations and ultra-wealthy, have a fighter on their side,” she said in making the announcement. “With so much at stake, from families struggling with rising costs to a ban on reproductive freedom, Wisconsinites need someone who can fight and win.”

Now, neither of these decisions were unexpected. Both Casey and Baldwin are on the young end (for the Senate) and both had been actively raising money and doing the sorts of things one does when you are running for another term.

But, they are still a major boost for Democrats. For a few reasons:

1. Unless and until an incumbent announces a bid for reelection, it’s never a sure thing. There have been any number of instances over the years where an incumbent got cold feet and decided to reverse course and not run.

2. The 2024 Senate map is already really, really bad for Democrats. There are three states currently held by Democrats — West Virginia, Ohio and Montana — that Donald Trump carried in 2020. There are another handful — Arizona, Michigan, Nevada — where Joe Biden won but narrowly. (Pennsylvania and Wisconsin fit into that category.)

3. Open seats are ALWAYS more vulnerable than seats where incumbents are running. The power of incumbency is real. From money to campaign infrastructure to name identification, incumbents almost always have an advantage over, well, non-incumbents. Even damaged ones — and neither Casey nor Baldwin fits into that category.

To fully understand the impact of their decisions to run, you have to consider them through both a narrow and a broad lens.

Let’s start narrow.

Had either Baldwin or Casey NOT run, their seats would immediately jump up the vulnerability list.

While Casey won by 13 points in his last reelection race in 2018, Trump carried the state in 2016 and narrowly lost it to Biden in 2020. Ditto Baldwin. She won by 10 points in 2018 but just two years earlier Trump carried the state. And, in 2020, Biden beat Trump by 20,000 votes — out of more than 3 million cast — in Wisconsin.

Given those dynamics, open-seat races would be a major problem for Democrats in both states. That’s not to say they wouldn’t hold either or both seats. But it is to say that it would cost them a whole hell of a lot of money to do so — and it’s not certain even with all that money they would win. (More on the impact of that spending on the national map below.)

With both incumbents running, they are likely to raise and spend the vast majority of money disbursed on their races. And they are less likely to get themselves into a situation where they need the national party to ride to their rescue — financially speaking.

The power of incumbency is more than that though. Take Wisconsin. Republicans are actively recruiting Rep. Mike Gallagher to challenge Baldwin. Gallagher seems lukewarm on a bid. But, if Baldwin had not run? You can be CERTAIN that Gallagher would be in the race — and would be seen as perhaps a narrow favorite (depending on who Democrats could recruit).

Now, it’s of course possible that Gallagher runs anyway! But, he would start as an underdog to Baldwin — and would face the prospects of having to knock off a well funded and capable incumbent. Which is much less appetizing as a prospect for your political future.

Now, let’s go broad — and consider what all this means for the national Senate landscape.

Consider this first: There is a finite chunk of money that will be spent on Senate races in 2024. Meaning that if money is spent on one race, it necessarily won’t be spent on another. It’s a zero-sum game.

Had either Baldwin or Casey taken a pass, both of their seats would have required massive spending — by the Democratic Senate campaign arm and its affiliated super PACs — to hold.

With a map like the one Democrats are facing, that would have been a MAJOR problem. Because, no matter what happens over the next year, Democrats are going to have to spend heavily in West Virginia, Ohio, Montana, Nevada and Arizona — at a minimum.

To ALSO have to spend in Wisconsin and especially Pennsylvania — and its hugely pricey Philadelphia media market — would mean that other races, including the few places where Democrats are playing offense this year, would get short shrift.

Baldwin and Casey running then potentially saves the party from having to make VERY hard decisions about cutting off funding for some seats to try to save their own.¹

Decisions to run garner way less attention than decisions to retire. But as Baldwin and Casey showed this week, those decisions play just as central a role in determining which party will control the Senate in 2025.

Which makes this week a sneaky good one for Democrats.

1. That, of course, could still happen. But it’s less likely given the proven fundraising success of Casey and Baldwin.