Not a Wave Election

This wasn’t a wave election. It has all the appearances of a wave election, as Republicans picked up 64 House seats and 6 Senate seats. They still may add to that total. To some that sounds like a wave, but it turns out it’s a bit like the tide going out. Going into the election the Democrats held 46 seats R+4 or greater. In contrast Republicans held 5 seats D+4 or greater. Democrats won 21 of those since 2006 and a great many of the other were in Republican districts with a long time Democratic incumbent. When you win as many Republican seats as the Democrats did, that’s a wave. When a wave comes in, the tide will eventually take the water out. Many of these seats were only winnable in years where the Democratic electorate was up, the Republican turnout was low, and they won independents. Such conditions don’t keep happening.

Republicans picked up only one seat D+4 or greater and that seat is D+4. There are a D+5 and a D+6 seat undecided, but that’s it. The Republicans lost only 3 seats Tuesday. All 3 were in their most Democratic electorates. They now hold 3 seats D+4 or greater, with the possibility of 2 more. Democrats still hold 9 such Republican seats. Even after this monumental shift Democrats still retain 3 times the Republican districts that Republicans have of theirs.


Had this been a true wave election Republicans would’ve captured seats like Rhode Island-1, Maine-1, Pennsylvania-13, and Missouri-5. All they did was reclaim seats they lost and claim Republican leaning seats from long time Democratic incumbents who mostly had never drawn a decent opponent. Jim Oberstar’s defeat may have been shocking, but Obama got 53% of the vote there. That’s what Obama got nationally. Of course, the Republicans likely needed and got the increased enthusiasm and the Democratic help to defeat candidates who, despite being in Republican leaning districts, had held on for years.

This is good news/bad news for Republicans. On the one hand they missed out on districts they could only win in a Republican year. They likely won’t get another shot at districts like Arizona-7. On the other hand, they got Republican leaning districts where a Democratic incumbent had beaten them back again and again. They might never have won them otherwise. These districts should be easy to defend in a neutral year. The best districts to get are ones you can hold for years, not lose in the next election. Republican wins in Louisiana-2 and Hawaii-1 were more ego boosting than anything else. They couldn’t defend them even this year.

Republicans didn’t win a Massachusetts seat, which was disappointing after Scott Brown took 6 of them, but with redistricting looming the Democrats would’ve gerrymandered the district away from them for the next election. As of now there are only two states with a Democratic controlled legislature and governor, Illinois and New York. And the Illinois gubernatorial race is still up in the air. That makes the gains in those two seats subject to gerrymandering, That may make those seats most vulnerable in 2012.

This is a disappointing for the Democrats. They weren’t able to hold onto many of the Republican leaning seats. There is usually a power to incumbency, so they’d like to have a few more in Heath Shuler’s spot. The Republican wins in swing districts could be lasting, as the Republicans will most likely be favored in them next time.

Republicans had around 230 seats each session during their time in the majority and there are 234 Republican leaning districts. Barring another anti-Republican backlash the GOP will retain the majority next time. I think they’ll lose seats and end up around 230-235 after 2012.