There is a genuine misunderstanding of how congressional elections work among a lot of people who are paid a lot of money to understand them. Jim Kessler is Vice President for policy at Third Way. It’s a progressive “think” tank. He’s comparing the Democrats current situation with Reagan and the Republicans in 1982. Reagan held all the Republican Senate seats and lost only 26 House seats. Surely, Obama would take that result.
He would, if that were actually the result of that election.
The House
When discussing party gains and losses, people think it’s like going to Vegas. Start out with $1,000. Win some. Lose some. If you end up with a $1,000 you’re doing fine. In the House the Democrats aren’t starting with 255 seats. They’re starting with 0, same as the Republicans. They have to compete with the GOP for all 435 congressional districts and don’t start with a bankroll of 100 seats.
The assumption that’s made by counting the Democrats as having 255 seats is that it’s their seat to lose. There are 234 Republican skewing districts and 192 Democratic districts based on Cook PVI. That means that in a year with equal enthusiasm and an equal split of independents the Republicans will win 234 seats and some of the 9 even seats. If Democratic enthusiasm is up, you can add 2-3 points to their candidate. If Republican enthusiasm is down, you can add another 2-3 points. If the Democrat beats the Republican by 9 points with independents, you can add another 3 points.
There are, of course, candidates who transcend PVI and election swing. John Kerry and Barack Obama got roughly the same percentage of votes in MA-2, 3, 5, 6, and 10. Martha Coakley did 15-17 points worse than them in the districts. Yet this fall, the Democrats in each district will vary widely in their performances. Individual congressmen and aspects of a race can change a Republican PVI into a Democratic seat.
In 2004, Republicans held a 38-7 lead among R +1- R +4 districts. By 2008 Democrats actually had them beat 28-17 in those districts. High Democratic enthusiasm, low Republican enthusiasm, and an edge with independents enabled the Democrats to flip 21 of these seats. While these were Republican seats in the previous congresses, on election day they were no longer Republican seats. The enthusiasm/independent factors turned out an electorate that favored the Democrats. Just because A Democrat won them the last time doesn’t make them Democratic seats. Republican going from low enthusiasm to average enthusiasm or a slight skew in independents likely turns the seat back. In anything less than perfect conditions, the Democrat is the underdog even if he’s an incumbent.
In 1982 things were different. Most of the south went Democratic, regardless of the electorate’s Presidential preference. Between 1938 and 1994 the Democrats averaged 254 seats and the median was 258. In a Republican year they’d still lead 234-201 and in a Democratic one 283-152. In an average year the Democrats would have 242-262 seats.
After the Republicans picked up 35 seats in 1980, the breakdown was Democrats 242/Republicans 193. Had Congress gone back to equilibrium, the Democrats would’ve picked up 12-16 seats. Instead they got 27. They ended up with 269 seats, the 6th best showing for Democrats in this period. Exclude the Watergate years it was 3rd best.
Between 1994 and 2006 the Democrats averaged 207 seats. If you add in 2006 and 2008, their average jumps to 216. If the Republicans do 14 districts better than average, then they’ll lead anywhere from 233-202 to 242-193. That’s a net loss of 53-62 seats, above what even the most optimistic Republican is forecasting.
The one things that could save the Democrats is that 2008 showed the middle has shifted back to close to the 254-258 that it was in the 1938-1994 period. All the polling and Republican wins in places like the Massachusetts and New Jersey suggest that it hasn’t. All indications are that the Republicans should exceed whatever the new median is. The Democrats hope it isn’t like 1982.
The House is a lost cause for the Democrats. I’d put it at 85% that the Republicans will win control of it and if it’s as bad as 1982, they could be at their lowest level since 1946.
Senate
Like the House, the Senate can be swayed by environment, but unlike the House you’re not starting 0-0. So, while the Republicans led 54-45 in seats in 1982, they only had 13 up for election, compared to 19 Democratic. So they went in with a 41-26 lead.
To look at the 13 Republican seats that were up, you have to the previous Class I Senate election in 1976. This was the post-Watergate and the Republicans lost 7 of the 11 seats they had, but picked up 7 of the 21 Democratic seats. Utah and Wyoming were two pick-ups. Neither state has elected a Democrat since then. Among the other victors were Richard Lugar, John Danforth, John Heinz, Lowell Weicker, William Roth, and John Chafee, a who’s who among major Republican senators. The Republicans won 11 of their 13 seats, but even with the who’s who running no Republican Senate candidate, incumbent or challenger, got 60% of the vote. The Democrats exceeded 60% in 13 of their 20 wins.
If there’s a major imbalance in seats up for election, the party with significantly less seats retains all or almost all of them. The Republican 85% winning percentage was actually below normal for a party with 13 seats or fewer. The Democrats, on the other hand, have 19 seats up for election this year. The 1982 Republicans had 2 open seats and 11 incumbents. The 2010 Democrats have 7 open seats and 12 incumbents. The additional 6 seats, and 5 open ones, make the Democrats far more likely for losses than the Republicans in 1982.
Reagan got lucky that he had such strong candidates as Republicans went 9-2 in races decided by 8 points or less. If Obama were to get so lucky, he’d keep the losses to 3-5. Yet he’s starting with only 40 seats, less than Reagan’s 41. The ball could, conceivably, bounce his way in the senate. I could easily foresee a Democratic 53-47 or 54-46 advantage being as likely as 50-50 or Republicans at 51-49.
No comments:
Post a Comment