By Carl Weiser
Enquirer Washington Bureau

WASHINGTON - For Jerry Springer, once again a TV host and not a Senate candidate, "Take Me Back" and "Bitter Battles" are merely themes of upcoming shows.

For the Democratic Party, that's the crusade, for the next year and a half: a bitter battle - many experts say doomed - to take back the Senate.

Springer's announcement that he would not challenge GOP Sen. George Voinovich in Ohio next year was probably irrelevant to that overall quest, experts say.

In fact, Springer's news conference Wednesday in Columbus was less important than another session two days earlier in Columbia, S.C., where Democratic Sen. Ernest "Fritz" Hollings said he would not seek a seventh full term.

With or without Springer, Ohio wasn't on many experts' lists to change parties. Voinovich, a former two-term governor, is a popular incumbent in a state where Republicans hold every statewide office.

But with Hollings out, South Carolina is now pegged to go Republican. And that will make an already tough job for the Democrats even harder.

"In all probability, the Republicans will remain in control" of the Senate, said John Green, director of the Ray C. Bliss Institute of Applied Politics at the University of Akron.

The Senate, like the House and the White House, are under Republican control. But it's close. Republicans have 51 seats, the Democrats 48, plus one independent who aligns himself with the Democrats.

If Democrats could retake the Senate, that would mean more money for education and homeland security and a greater dedication to international diplomacy and multinational organizations such as NATO and the United Nations, said Mike Seigel, spokesman for the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee

With Democrats in control of the Senate committees, it also could mean investigations of the Bush administration. Democrats have been thwarted in their efforts to probe what they say were the administration's misleading statements leading up to the Iraq war.

In this election cycle, of the 34 Senate seats up for re-election, only 15 are expected to be competitive. And Bush won 13 of those 15 states in the 2000 election, including Ohio, Kentucky, and Indiana.

"This is a tough cycle for Democrats," said Jennifer Duffy, Senate analyst for the Cook Political Report. "They've got to fight this out on Bush's turf, essentially."

In addition, Democrats have been hit with two key retirements: Sen. Zell Miller in Georgia and now Hollings in South Carolina. Sen. Bob Graham, who is running for president, has indicated he may not seek re-election to his Senate seat.

"Open seats in the South are tough for Democrats to defend these days," Green said.

Republicans are facing their toughest races in Illinois, where one-term Sen. Peter Fitzgerald is retiring, and in Alaska with Sen. Lisa Murkowski.

Political observers differ on whether Democrats were helped or hurt by Springer's announcement Wednesday that he would not run for Senate. The only other announced Democrat is former U.S. House member and current state Sen. Eric Fingerhut.

With his fame and money, Springer could have helped at least make the Ohio race competitive, Duffy said, though he still would have faced long odds.

"I don't think Fingerhut's going to have the money to make it a race," she said.

Ohio Republican Party Chairman Bob Bennett said Springer's decision not to run means Voinovich and GOP supporters will avoid an expensive race. Voinovich would have beaten Springer, said Bennett, who added: "Probably the only difference is we'd have to spend about $20 million."

Others said Springer's departure helped the party overall.

"I think it's got to be a good thing," said Ross Baker, a Rutgers University expert on Congress. "I think it would lend itself to ridicule, and that's the last thing in the world the Democrats need."

"It probably helps the Democrats a little," said John J. Pitney Jr., a Claremont-McKenna College professor and author of The Art of Political Warfare.

"If Springer had won the Democratic nomination, Voinovich would have an even better chance of re-election than he does," he said. "It's just hard to conceive of how Jerry Springer could burnish the reputation of the Democratic Party."

Even the National Republican Senatorial Committee spokesman, Dan Allen, seemed to agree.

"We've said it before and we'll say it again: He was the Democrats' problem, a problem I guess that's going away for them," Allen said.

Democrats said Springer's exit had little if any impact on their drive to retake the Senate or win in Ohio.

"Regardless of Jerry Springer's decision, the facts on the ground in Ohio haven't changed," said Mike Siegel, Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee spokesman. He said Voinovich was little more than a "rubber stamp" for lousy economic policies costing the state thousands of jobs.

Contributing: Spencer Hunt, GNS Columbus.

Related story:
Editorial: Jerry Springer: Good choice