An Analysis Of 2006 House Results
By horaceox Posted in 2006 | Spotlight Blogs — Comments (26) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Promoted by Adam C... This diary should be seen as an example of what a diary should be: well written, organized, and informative. Thank you Horaceox.
Overview
Obviously, last Tuesday wasn't a good night for Republicans. Right now, it looks like Republicans have lost 28 seats, pending a couple of recounts and the result of a runoff in a Republican-leaning new district in Southwest Texas. That has pretty much been covered by other blogs; for a full listing of key house results, check here.
What hasn't received much attention is what a weird night it was for Republicans. If you had told me two months ago that Sue Kelly, Jim Leach, Anne Northup and Bob Simmons would lose, while Chris Shays, Jim Gerlach, Heather Wilson, and Michelle Bachmann would win, I would have laughed at you, loudly and repeatedly. Some type of analysis is needed to explain these results.
Read on . . .
Pickups by type:
I think the best way to really get a handle on what happened in 2006 is to divide the Democratic pickups by type. As I look over the data and summarize it in Table I, I think there are 3 basic types of Democratic victories: Scandal districts, sleeping-incumbents districts, and vulnerable open seats. The only races that really fall outside of any of these categories are the three Indiana districts, CT-02 and KS-02. The Indiana districts all featured a horrible playing field for Republicans due to local issues, and solid, conservative Democratic opponents. CT-02 was not unexpected -- Bush received 44% of the vote here in 2004 and Simmons had never won with more than 54% of the vote. The Kansas district is a little harder to figure out. Ryun had run poorly in '04, his district had been made slightly more Democratic with the addition of the University of Kansas in '02, but this was a solid Republican district, and Boyda had better raise a lot of money for 2008 or hope for a bloody Republican primary. Even this might not be enough.
Of the 28 Republican districts picked up by Democrats, nine are districts whose shift can be attributed in large part due to scandal or other incumbent issues. Indeed, in two of these districts, the actual Republican candidate wasn't even on the ballot. Of these, Curt Weldon's district is probably the only one that Democrats stood a solid shot of picking up this year absent the incumbent's ethical problems; Taylor's district in North Carolina is another possibility, though the case for replacing Taylor would be much weaker absent his personal issues.
The next category are the "napping Republicans." These are Republicans who weren't really on many people's radar screens until fairly late in the campaign. Most non-partisan polling had shown these Republicans in good shape until the last month of the election, and it seems obvious that the reason that people like Jim Leach, Sue Kelly, and Melissa Hart lost while Chris Shays won is that the former incumbents didn't really ramp up their fundraising and GOTV efforts until it was too late. Many of these incumbents represented only marginally Republican districts, and thus really had no excuse for not preparing for what was to come. A similar phenomenon occurred in 1994, by the way, as people like David Price lost surprise re-election bids, while others like Bart Gordon and Bud Cramer hung on in races that were supposed to be much more difficult for them. This has important implications for Republicans that we will discuss later.
The interesting thing is that Democrats picked up these seats even as the national balloting was tightening. Clearly, polling showing Democrats with leads of over 20 points were gross exaggerations -- the final spread was about five points in Democrats' favor. It may well be that at one point the spread was that large (probably not), but that it was actually always somewhat closer, and that the final polls for Pew, WaPo, and Gallup were correct in picking up some last-minute close.
Finally, there are the open seats. Truth be told, I thought it was going to be much worse for Republicans in this category if Democrats took the House. I was actually shocked that Michelle Bachmann in MN-06 won by 8 in a year the House was lost. Republican wins in IL-06 and FL-13 were surprises in this environment. Still, looking at the numbers, it seems obvious that Republicans were in trouble in CO-07, IA-01, AZ-08 and NY-24 from the start and would have been in trouble irrespective of the national environment; WI-08 is a closer case, but in a normal year Republicans should have been able to win that race.
Where Do We Go From Here: 1946 or 1994?
The question then is, what about 2008? Will this Democratic Congress be a one-and-done aberration like the Republicans' big win in 1946, or will this be a fundamental shift like 1994?
My sense is that this is more likely to be 1946 than 1994, and that Republicans are in pretty good shape (all things considered) to take back the 15-or-so seats they need in 2008. Obviously a LOT could change between now and then, and a lot will depend on whom Republicans have at the top of the ballot (the main determinant of turnout). Remember, going into this cycle, it was fairly obvious that Republicans were going to lose seats. There have only been a three times in history where a party has gained seats or held steady in four elections in a row; Democrats from 1906-1912, Republicans from 1914-1920, and Democrats again from 1930-36. The difficulty for Republicans at the outset of this cycle is pretty clear: Republicans had already picked off most of the low-hanging Democratic fruit in the last 3 cycles. With little turnover in Congress since 1996, what was left were battle tested incumbents who were ready to represent their districts.
On the Republican side, however, there were a number of congressmen who had never faced a stiff challenge (eg Ryun) or hadn't faced one in years (eg Kelly). A large number of incumbents finished below 60% in 2004, while few Democrats did. The fact that Rahm Emanuel managed to keep retirements low (read: non-existent) in vulnerable House seats played a huge role in Democrats' ability to win big this year, by limiting Republican opportunities.
Thus, that Democrats made some gains this year is unsurprising. What about the size of the gains? This is more surprising, but not entirely surprising. Much is made of the fact that parties tend to get smacked in the sixth year of their Presidencies, (with the constant caveat of “except when they don't”), but that is more of an historical accident of timing than anything else. More importantly, almost all Presidents get nailed at least once. It can happen in the fourth year, with that President losing re-election or re-nomination. If not, it happens in the midterm. Consider the following losses, for Presidents whose tenure spanned at least two midterm elections:
1874 (Grant): 96 seats lost.
1894 (Cleveland): 116 seats lost (and lost re-election in the interim).
1906 (Roosevelt) : 28 seats lost.
1914 (Wilson): 59 seats lost.
1938 (Roosevelt): 71 seats lost.
1946 (Truman): 45 seats lost.
1950 (Truman): 29 seats lost.
1958 (Eisenhower): 48 seats lost.
1974 (Nixon (resigned two months prior to election)): 48 seats lost.
1982 (Reagan): 26 seats lost.
1994 (Clinton): 52 seats lost.
The reason for this is clear: All Presidents at some point overreach, back unpopular policies, are mired in scandal, or some combination of the above. This often happens in the sixth year, when a President becomes drunk with power after his re-election “mandate,” but not always. Regardless, Bush was clearly due for big losses, probably bigger than he received.
But what does this mean for 2008? First, only a small fraction of these elections truly represent repudiations of the existing alignment. Even 1994 wasn't in-and-of itself a re-aligning election; rather, the re-alignment was the inability of identifiably liberal Presidents to win election from 1968-2004, not the Republicans' eventual ability to capture a majority of the Congressional vote. What 1994 represented, and what I think this election represents, was a phenomenon we have observed over the past several decades: The death of ticket-splitting, except in extreme circumstances. Almost all of Republicans' victories in 1994 were in swing districts or districts carried by Bush I, but that were represented by a Democrat. Democrats' victories that weren't attributable to scandal this year also largely came in "swing" districts, eg districts won by Bush with less than 5% of the vote.
Moreover, I'm not clear what issue there has really been a re-alignment on. Democrats have improved the public's perception of them on national security issues, which is important. But I'm not seeing any evidence that the culture has really budged any on economic or social issues. Indeed the continued success of same-sex marriage, anti-affirmative-action, and Kelo-type initiatives makes me think that we are still in the same basic alignment in which we've been for decades. The narrow victories of stem cell initiatives and defeat of an anti-abortion law don't change my calculus -- we've known the public basically supports stem cell research and the basic right to an abortion for decades, with most of the movement being at the edges.
While a realignment is possible, it seems unlikely, and will take a couple more elections to know that. So to understand 2008, we look first at the Democrats. Only 9 incumbent Democrats won with under 60% of the vote. If I was one of those Democrats, I'd be especially worried going into 2008. In 1994, of the seven incumbent Republicans who won with less than 55% of the vote, six lost over the course of the next decade. One retired, and his district was eventually won by a Democrat. Interestingly, Julia Carson only won by 8 points, her worst showing to date. This validates polling showing her in trouble, and she may well lose if she chooses to run again in 2008.
Democrats are also likely to face some of the structural problems that Republicans faced in 1994. Many of their Freshman incumbents are inexperienced politicians, who have never won elective office. This leads to what I like to call "Martin Hoke" syndrome. Hoke was a local newscaster who defeated an ethically-challenged Democratic incumbent in 1992 in a relatively Democratic district. He then proceeded to make a number of boneheaded statements, such as referring, on mike, during a debate, to a fellow newscaster's "beeg-a breasts." He also commented to a newspaper about some of his fellow incoming classmates whom he thought were "hot" and whom he would date (Blanche Lambert and Maria Cantwell). He actually won in 1994, but lost to Dennis Kucinich in 1996. Wes Cooley (flipping off a camera), Jim Bunn (marrying a staffer), David Funderburk (DWI), Fred Heineman (commenting that his definition of upper class was people who made above $300K a year), Wes Cooley (flipping off a camera, among other things), all of these are members of the class of 1994 swept in under unusual circumstances, who were quickly relegated to the dustbin of history.
The Democrats probably have some of these. Normally I would write off Jim Leach's district or Jeb Bradley's district as gone forever. But one has to wonder about the people who replaced them. Bradley's district is at best a swing district -- one has to wonder how well it really will be represented well by an anti-war activist whose own election came as a surprise to her, or if this will be similar to Andrea Seastrand's brief stint representing a California swing district in 1994 (she lost to Walter Capps after making statements that California's earthquakes were God's punishment for sinfulness). Untested Democrats in IA-02, PA-08, PA-04, KY-03, NH1 & 2, NY-19 (my personal bet for a major gaffe), CA-11 (my other bet) and MN-01 are exactly the type of unlikely Congressmen who make the gaffes that make them “former” Congressmen quickly. Indeed, some are probably no better than even odds if the incumbent they defeated challenges them for a rematch in 2008, absent a complete debacle at the Presidential level for Republicans.
In addition, there are a number of Congressmen-elect who have become Congressmen-elect not because of their own prowess, but because of the weakness of their opponents. TX-22 (67% Bush), PA-10 (60% Bush), OH-18 (57% Bush), FL-16 (54% Bush), CA-11 (54% Bush), and AZ-05 (54% Bush) all have congressmen-elect that may even start off the year as underdogs for re-election. This is underscored by the narrow-ness of all of their victories (save OH-18) even in a bad Republican year against scandal-tarred incumbents. The only one I actually wouldn't be surprised to see in Congress in two years (some may take four years to lose if Dems win the White House in 2008) is Harry Mitchell in AZ-05.
The final challenge Democrats face is that they now represent all but six of the districts carried by Kerry by more than two points, and all but fifteen of the districts where Bush received at most 51% of the vote. They represent an astounding 29 districts carried by Bush with more than 6% of the vote, and 19 carried by Bush with more than 11% of the vote. FIFTY SIX members represent districts that went less than 51% for John Kerry. Some of these are freshmen from "scandal districts" I've described above. Others are conservative southern Democrats who voted against most Clinton Administration initiatives and survived in 1994, while others are members elected within the past few years of Republican reign.
The problem for these members is that they have never had to cast votes on identifiably liberal initiatives. Many have survived and flourished by casting occasional votes on Republican issues such as same-sex marriage, the war in Iraq, or tax cuts. They won't be getting these lifelines anymore. While I don't think Pelosi will veer off into cookoo-land (although left-leaning groups are already looking for their pound of flesh), it will be interesting to see how members in districts that went for Bush by 30 points fare if they vote on a tax increase, even for the "rich," or on domestic surveillance programs, or even a host of other issues on just the center-left agenda that could play poorly in 2008 in heavily Republican districts. Some of these members will likely find themselves surprised in 2008.
On the other hand, Democrats have probably picked up a number of districts that are theirs forever. It is hard to see, absent extraordinary circumstances, Republicans picking up CT-02, IA-01, FL-22, or PA-07 anytime soon. Similarly, quality challengers in NY-20, AZ-08, and in Indiana are in a good position to solidify their right-leaning districts.
On the Republican side, the main concern is retirements. In 1996, Democrats actually defeated enough incumbents and won enough open seats to take back the House. The problem was that many of their older members who represented heavily Republican constituencies saw the targets on their back and retired, leading to Republican pickups in their districts.
Fortunately for Republicans, there just isn’t that much exposure in Democratic districts. The only remaining districts where they would have a serious headache if the incumbent retired (Kerry carried by 3 or more) are NJ-04, IL-10, NY-25, NY-13, NY-03, and CT-04. The only one who is getting anywhere close to retiring is probably Peter King in NY-03. C.W. “Bill” Young in FL-10 will probably retire, he represents a swing district in Florida that could be a tough hold (D+1). Other than that, Republicans aren’t likely to face major problems from retirements, unless a candidate runs for higher office.
What about incumbents? Fortunately, most Republican incumbents have now been through one of the worst environments imaginable. Only two of the Democrats who won narrowly in 1994 lost in 1990s districts (Volkmer in ’96 and Minge in ’02). Most of the Republicans who won are now battle-tested, and unlikely to take their districts for granted. Barring a collapse in 2008, they should be in good shape to survive until 2012.
Almost every surge for a party is followed by a retreat -- the only real examples to the contrary are the Democrats’ wins in 1958 and 1974, where the surges were probably more of a return to the fundamental Democratic alignment than a true surge for the party. Right now, my money would be on just such a countersurge in 2008 (again, assuming Republicans don’t implode on the Presidential level).
A few other random thoughts:
A Blue Dog Renaissance?
I think the conservatism of the Freshman class of Democrats has been overstated somewhat. Part of the reason is that it formed part of the pre-election storyline, and if the incumbents who were “supposed” to lose had been the ones who lost, it would have been true. However, many of the "sure thing" wins never materialized, while several "out-of-the-blue" wins came about.
I count only eight Democrats that I think will likely join the "blue dog" caucus of moderately conservative Democrats: Mahoney in FL-16, Taylor in NC-11, Carney in PA-10, Lampson in TX-22, the Indiana Democrats, and maybe Boyda in KS-02. Three seem to fit the mold of Clinton-esque "New Democrats," moderate on economics and more liberal on social issues: Mitchell in AZ-05, Gillibrand in NY-20, and Giffords in AZ-08. A couple more -- O'Donnell in CO-07, Klein in FL-22, and Arcuri in NY-24 -- I really can't say, but my sense is that they are more in the "New Democrat" mold. That leaves fourteen members replacing Republicans who can probably be counted to be -- to use the modern euphemism -- "progressive" members. That's about half the Democrats' new class. Even that doesn't adequately explain the shift in the House -- being a blue dog usually means being pro-life, anti-gun control, anti-gay marriage, but it also means being somewhat left-of-center on economic issues, against NAFTA -- generally economic populists. The Democratic caucus hasn’t shifted much to the right; the big losers of that shifts are probably the 1990s-style “new” Democrats.
The 50-State Strategy Validated?
There is much crowing in the netroots about the power of the 50-State strategy, and the huge role that they and Chairman Dean supposedly played in the win. I'm not sure that's right. A large part of this is that the left netroots, unlike the right netroots, represents a battle for dominance within the party. I've noted this before, but most Republican bloggers are either former MSM-types, or libertarian law professors. Heck, even redstate is mostly run by experienced political pros -- many of them shut down at the end to go work on campaigns. The upshot of this is that there is a need for the left blogosphere to claim a large share of this victory, to complete their takeover of the party. And no, this isn’t meant as hyperbole; it is pretty clear that Kos and Bowers and Co. are playing for the future of the Democratic party as a whole, and are actively working to defeat the establishment that ran the party for most of the 90s and the early part of this decade.
Quite frankly, I don't think that Dean’s strategy of hiring organizers in Alaska or Alabama had much to do with this win. This may eventually bear fruit, but this election was mostly won for Democrats in swing or left-leaning districts. While it makes sense to try to get a candidate on the ballot in all 435 districts so that you can take advantage of a candidate who implodes (see “scandal districts” below), I don't think Democrats were really hurt because they couldn't find someone to run in AL-06 against Spence Bachus this time. Nor do I think that Republicans' failings were due to not challenging Juanita Millender-McDonald in Compton. In fact, I think I would be furious had Republicans dedicated significant money to contesting CA-37.
Indeed, I think this election actually shows the limitations of trying to contest seats in heavily partisan districts where an incumbent isn't in serious trouble. The only real victory for this strategy this cycle is Nancy Boyda in KS-02. And as I've always said, if you run this strategy, you will get the odd seat here and there. The problem is, this happens in a wave year without a concerted strategy -- witness again Heineman in Durham, NC. A quarter of Democrats' gains this cycle came in districts which Kerry had carried by 3 points or more in 2004, and nearly half came from districts that had voted for President Bush below his share of the national vote in 2004 -- nearly all of the districts that can't be chalked up to candidate-specific issues. Quite frankly, Dean and the netroots would have been better off sending more money to and getting more publicity for the opponents of Mark Kirk, Jim Walsh, and Jon Porter -- who represent districts that probably aren't coming back to Republicans if they lose -- than getting Scott Kleeb 45% of the vote in NE-03 or Maxine Moul 41% in NE-01. I remain skeptical of the 50-state strategy, and think that if you really want to know who deserves the glory, you need only read this article.
| Scandal | Late-Breaking | Open |
| AZ-05 (54%) | CT-05 (49%) | CO-07 (48%) |
| CA-11 (54%) | FL-22 (48%) | IA-01 (46%) |
| FL-16 (54%) | IA-02 (44%) | NY-24 (53%) |
| NY-20 (54%) | KY-03 (49%) | WI-08 (55%) |
| NC-11 (57%) | MN-01 (51%) | AZ-08 (53%) |
| OH-18 (57%) | NH-01 (51%) | |
| PA-07 (47%) | NH-02 (47%) | |
| PA-10 (60%) | NY-19 (54%) | |
| TX-22 (67%) | PA-04 (54%) | |
| PA-08 (48%) |
Cross-posted at http://www.myelectionanalysis.com
but I didn't see more than a 19-seat House loss, either.
The Blue Dogs will be where I focus. If the new and old ones stay together as a bloc, this would represent back to the future as they enter into alliances with Republicans on an array of issues.
Again, congrats on the analysis.
I took your mid-term loss numbers, plugged in the current R loss on CNN's website, and made this:
Enjoy,
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.
Watch the recent diaries list
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.
Thanks for the Barone impression. Good job. I'm feeling a wee bit better about 2008.
in the midst of an unpopular war, in the midst of the worst economy in the last 50 years, GWB had fewer looses in congress than 8 of those Presidents. How is this possilbe?
I did some research on this in response to Coulter's recent article and it seems like big swings in the House are become less frequent. They used to happen every 2-4 years and now seem to happen every 4-6 years. I'm not sure whether this is due to voter apathy or redistricting...
Also, I think it is important to keep in mind that some of the really huge swings occurred Democratic majorities that we really can't even imagine today. FDR lost something like 70 seats then lost another 40 and still had a majority in the House. When you control the House by a 330-120 margin, it is probably inevitable that swings are going to be bigger than when you control the House by a 225-200 margin.
In any event, this is certainly an interesting article. As a liberal, I've obviously got different ideas on what Democrats can manage to do in the next two years and how they go about doing it. But I think it is going to be interesting for all of us to see how it actually plays out.
I needed some serious analytic work and clear thinking to help overcome my funk about this thing. And I especially appreciated your comments about the 50-state strategy and the false wisdom of automatically contesting unwinnable districts. Clearly we need to look carefully and pick our battles carefully in that regard.
I'm also nominating this blog entry for the "Top 10 User Blogs Of The Year" here at RedState. Unfortunatly right now that's a nonexistant award, but I hope the Directors will think about establishing it. This one deserves entry in to that contest, and probably deserves to win.
I meant what I said and I said what I meant. An elephant's faithful 100 percent.
on 2006 anywhere on the web, and I've been reading a lot of them.
Well done. More, please?
Good numbers check, once again, and solid analysis.
I'm gonna pick on some things here (it's what I do - sorry), if only for the sake of an open post-mortem:
Evidence against the 50-state strat. is a bit weak. Outliers like AL-06 aren't really relevant. The point, as I understood it, was to drive up Dem turnout and give swingers an option where they normally wouldn't have one. Let's not forgot how the GOP got to the watershed of '94.
Looking around down here in Texas, I see some big-dog Repubs who took a dip from '04 (though a non-Bush ballot usually sees a slight GOP dip here), and from '02. Dems ran solid candidates in a number of 'hopeless' districts like TX-06 (Barton), TX-07 (Culberson), TX-10 (McCaul), 26 (Burgess), 31 (Carter), & 32 (Sessions)
to an
These are generally suburban/rural 'ring' districts, all redrawn in '03 to dilute urban Dem strongholds and secure them in perpetuity for the GOP. All but Sessions saw their #s drop precipitously from '04, but even more when compared to '02, the last non-Bush ballot here. Culberson in particular went from 89% (no D opp) in '02 to 64% on '04, to 59% this year.
Just entering a credible Dem candidate in TX-10 took 23 points off of McCaul's haul in '04 (down to 55% this year) while the Dem (Vietnam vet Ted Ankrum) picked up 40% on an anti-war, anti-big biz, economic populist platform. Carter lost 7 points from '04, again in a district drawn to protect him, and here vs. an anti-war, vet's mom in a district that includes Ft. Hood. Barton faced a young vet with a similar platform to Ankrum's, and lost 6 points from '04; down 10 points from '02. Sessions, who out-dueled incumbent Martin Frost in '04, ticked up by 2 points, but his opponent was a Dallas Clintonite (Will Pryor), and Sessiomns only took 56 to Pryor's 41.
Lamar Smith, a pretty well-liked Pub even in blue Central Texas, lost 12 points from '02 and 2 more from '04, even though his opponent managed 2% less than he did in '02.
And then there's the horror show that was Dallas County Tuesday night - dozens of GOP incumbents were sent off in the bloodiest purge in recent memory.
Of course, there was the problem of a rather unpopular GOP inc. guv at the top of the ticket, but KBH was there too, and we lost 24 points between her and Perry. The Texas DP proved it's incompetence once again as Bell couldn't make the sale to the Dem groups who threw their lot in with Strayhorn; had he done so, or had Strayhorn dropped out, he might have pulled the upset. Perry clocked in at just under 40%.
Although statewide the Dems are still dysfunctional, there are pockets of strength that are growing. The GOP lost 6 State house seats and came perilously close to a few more (though they held serve in the state Senate)but really none of the new Dems were TDP-schooled; these were mostly mavericks and home-grown locals. If the local strongholds and new blood manage to forge a more united statewide front next time and get some real money, the Texas GOP could have serious problems. If Bonilla loses his runoff (he pulled 49% while 6 Dems culled 48% in the special election), that puts the delegation at 19-13, only 3 away from an even split.
While these numbers are still overwhelmingly in Republican's favor, and some the shifts were part of a natural 'settling' in the redrawn districts, it's hard to ignore the trend. The problem will be in the suburbs, IMO: if the bluing trend continues there among middle-class folks and the Dems keep pushing the Vets and Tester-types, some of these districts are poised for upheaval... especially guys like Barton, Sessions, and Culberson, who have provided Dems ammo on ethics and 'big money' issues. Some of these older guys are looking politically old and 'out of shape' and another round of anti-incumbent fervor could put these seats in real jeopardy. You could almost make a case for real primary challenges if they cut it too close next time. A lack of fresh blood in the GOP is being widely perceived down here, but you have to wonder if the Party sees the potential problems or if they're just ho-humming thinking a general 60% is fine and dandy.
In any case, it wouldn't surprise me to see a serious Dem challenger vs. Cornyn in '08, especially if the D's nominate a palatable non-Hillary for Prez. At this point, so much depends on what happens in Iraq and between Bush and the Congress during '07 that it really is hard to say how '08 will go down.
Re: social issues and turnout
Some interesting numbers tell me we may have to change course here: In VA, we lost over 7 points between the marriage amendment and George Allen - meaning over 7% voted for the ban but also FOR a guy who opposed it. Similar results in Wisconsin (still not sure what to make of AZ). Turnout was solid across the board for us in the battlegrounds, but again we lost the swingers and squishies. With my libertarian bent, I will likely disagree with many here about tabling such issues and getting back to fiscal ones.
Also not that we came close to losing quite a few more seats, some where the Dems may not have even realized they were that close. They'll know next time.
etc...to keep in mind...
Cranky purist libs who may have sat home bitterly unable to pull a lever for a John Kerry in '04 also came out this time, thinking local and encouraged by the poll #s; latent Dems in the burbs and rural areas who had been left for dead were revived just by having a viable option. And with the swingers drifting back to the Dems in significant #s - that was the story this year, in a nutshell - we could be looking at more dogfights and more GOP losses in the next cycle. Regardless of one's definition of conservative/liberal/moderate, if the middle class doesn't see the GOP speaking to their concerns, they'll likely keep on walking away, and that's something we can't really afford at this fulcrum.
- Be nice or i'll slap you cross-eyed!
- Granny
I haven't seen a comparison of Texas, but I think somewhere on Redstate (or it may have been another blog) there was an analysis of the Bush/Kerry turnout numbers for each district/senate race and the vote totals for the various GOP/DNC candidates in Virginia. It was obvious that a lot of previous GOP voters stayed home. I think the scandals, frustration with the GOP in general (and a rightful frustration, I had said several times that the congress bugged me more than Bush, because the congress was spending and not really doing anything else), and I think you can toss in a frustration/desire for a new strategy for the war-with a few other things that may have kept people home or temporarily moved them to the D side of the aisle.
I think the Texas numbers prove my point. In a horrific national environment with horrific poll numbers for the Rep. Gov., Democrats can't get above 45% in any of these districts, and have to settle for a couple of House seats. That money was flushed down the toilet as far as I'm concerned.
The Dems will know how close they came in these other seats, but so will the Repubs, whom I suspect will be better prepared. I mean, in 1994 Republicans came close in places like Akron, but never came that close again. Our incumbents won't likely be caught napping.
I am, however, on board with you re the fiscal issues, but that is probably just my libertarian bent.
Which I meant to get to. i.e, the Dems may have maxed out this year on those seats I mentioned. I singled them out, though, because of their suburban character, and the fact that they were redrawn to add Dem votes and thus dilute their strength. Barton, Sessions, Culberson can afford to add Dem precincts and still be safe...BUT, the Dems seem to have made significant inroads in the burbs, especially among women. As we saw with the GOP and the suburban churches 15-20 years ago, word gets around. Getting your foot in the door/your message on people's lips is half the battle, and the Dems seem to be playing that end very wisely, both in terms of the kind of candidates they run and the issues they push. These new kids are staying away from abortion and gaymarriage, homing in on the Iraq uneasiness, talking up pocketbook issues and park-lover/health-n-safety environmentalism. They didn't offend many and got serious looks and respectful nods from many true Pubs.
The other problem that must be addressed here is the aging and intractability among the delegation. Guys like Barton have a lot of inertia to be sure, but these guys aren't getting any younger and their is a sense even among some of our brethren of some dry rot among this bunch. This perception has not helped candidate recruitment which was pitiful down here this year.
This is a natural problem with long-term incumbency, I suppose, but this is one of the things that led to the Dems demise hear 20+ years ago. We need fresh blood and not the opportunistic, power-lust kind. We need real, dedicated conservatives without records of pork-barreling and eye-brow raising ethical issues. I'm not advocating a housecleaning just yet, but let's start some gradual turnover while we still have these natural advantages, instead of waiting for these old guys to get run out on a rail later.
Be nice or i'll slap you cross-eyed!
- Granny
election until the last few weeks. I think Bass expected this year to be like all the other years, and be a mostly easy victory. Bass wasn't exactly king conservative (I admit I voted against him in every primary where I had the opportunity), but I don't think his seat is one the GOP can't win back, although they may not be able to get it back in '08. But a strong candidate could give the freshman congressman a run for his money.
The congress woman elected in the first disctrict I think came out of nowhere, but her seat is actually the more vulnerable one, because she is in general pretty left of what most NH voters look for-I think she won in a backlash vote more than because of anything she stood for. A good 1st district candidate in '08 can probably make a good case and win the seat.
I think complacency and in this state at least the war (the war is very unpopular in this state, and Hodes pretty much ran against the war as much as he ran against Bass-but he did a great job of putting Bass on Bush's coattails) had a lot to do with why Bass (a fairly popular congressman in NH) and Bradley lost last Tuesday.
Shouldn't that be Shuler, not Taylor?
It's a nitpick. This is tremendous work.
"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill
Once you guys get an editing function for us mere diarists, I'll be happy to fix it. :-)
Thanks for the props.
On every diary of yours, there's an edit link right up there near the top. It's been there since RS made the move from Scoop to Drupal.
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.
I guess the question for me is - do Bush's numbers represent the high water mark for a GOP presidential candidate, or are we capable of bigger numbers with another candidate, and, do we need a good presidential candidate in 2008? Is the presidential candidate really worth anything, or is incumbency worth more? And, how many of these are structurally coming back, and what is the power of incumbency worth to the new Dem reps?
We have Bush's numbers in 2004, but let's look at some of those districts and how the victor performed in 2004 (victor%/Bush%):
AZ 04: 60%/54% CT-05 60%/49% CO-07 55%/48%
CA-11 61%/54% FL-22 63%/48% IA-01 55%/46%
FL-16 68%/54% IA-02 59%/44% NY-24 57%/53%
NY-20 66%/54% KY-03 60%/49% WI-08 70%/55%
NC-11 55%/57% MN-01 60%/51% AZ-08 60%/54%
OH-18 66%/57% NH-01 63%/51%
PA-07 59%/47% NH-02 58%/47%
PA-10 93%/60% NY-19 67%/54%
TX-22 55%/67% PA-04 63%/54%
PA-08 56%/48%
The amazing thing from the 2004 numbers is how much these reps outperformed Bush. Amazingly, only two candidates in 2004 did not outpoll Bush in their district - Delay (TX-22) and Taylor (NC-11). Throwing out the essentially unopposed PA-10, the average outperformance was 8.6%. Does this all represent the power of incumbency, or some portion of it?
If we assume all of it, then let's add 8.6% to the D candidate in each of these district's total in 2004, and see what that gives us - well, it means only the TX-22 and PA-10 are dead locks to return to the GOP fold in 2008. I think it's unlikely that it's that much, but if it's half that, that means that we could reasonably expect to see NC-11, OH-18, and WI-08 return to the GOP. But, it would put these additional seats in play - all the scandal seats except PA-07, NY-19, PA-04, AZ-08. That's only 12. Looks to me like we're going to need to work hard to get good candidates, hope for a good presidential candidate, and work our butts off to regain the House in 2008. It's not our birthright, so we need to get out there and make it happen.
The Liberal's definition of torture: Anything that provides useful information from the enemy
I think it's a combination of incumbency and also ideological congruency with their own district.
Someone like Leach in IA-02 was a liberal GOPer who represents the most Democratic district in Iowa, but carried it on the strength of his independent reputation. Bush didn't play well there.
This makes some districts harder to win back than others. Lots of people made a big deal about how conservative a bunch of the Dem candidates are, like Shuler in NC-11. He might be tougher to beat since he'll represent his district better than a John Kerry style Dem would. Someone like Shea Porter in NH-01 might be easier to beat though even though the district was 6% less Republican in 2004 because she's a big lefty who isn't as in step with the average NH voter.
I don't know if we will win the house back in two years, but if we can recruit some of our people to run again who lost in close races and get decent challenges to a lot of these freshmen, we will give the Dems a run.
Don't you mean Shuler rather than Taylor for NC-11?
Re: I was actually shocked that Michelle Bachmann in MN-06 won by 8 in a year the House was lost. Republican wins in IL-06 and FL-13 were surprises in this environment.
FL-13 is still a bit iffy due to 18,000 weirdly missing votes in Sarasota. I guess it's not a real election without Flori-duh screwing up something!
Re: The problem for these members is that they have never had to cast votes on identifiably liberal initiatives.
And my guess is that Ms. Pelosi keeps anything truly incendiary from coming up for a vote, especially in the social issues department. So the blue dogs will still be safe (and who knows? they may still vote quite conservatively on social issues that do come up for a vote). Also, remember: the Iraq War is now unpopular and a vote against the war will not be seen as liberal. Likewise economic populism (or even outright economic nationalism) will not come across as liberal either. Some of these guys were in fact elected on such a platform by otherwise conservative voters who have had enough of layoffs, high gas prices and tax cuts that never seem to materialize in their won paychecks.
Very insightful and a good read. Thanks for that!
www.thearmchairpolitician.com