Academics predict DEM
‘wave’ election: predictions
range from medium to high
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/23/AR2006102301074.html
McClatchy’s
Steve Thomma reports that the Senate will be
50-50 http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/15835439.htm
The trouble
with this McClatchy NBC poll is not their MoE (margin of error) of 4 points,
but that they surveyed by land phones, not
cell phones, and many more young registered voters have just cell
phones these days, an issue that caused some confusion in 2004 polling.
We’ve seen an abundance of data analysis about the negative drag the Iraq
war and the unbalanced economy (Inequality
without Growth, Pain without Gain, economist Dean Baker) and loss of
credibility/integrity have reaped on the incumbent party, but here’s something else
from the USA Today/CNN poll 102406
to think about especially in light of the US tipping the 300 million mark:
“Redistricting. Pitney, a former GOP congressional aide,
says districts mapped after the 2000 Census to protect GOP incumbents are
changing and in some cases becoming less Republican. "We're seeing demographic shifts that are
bringing formerly safe GOP seats into reach for the Democrats," he says.
Robert Lang, a demographer at Virginia Tech's Metropolitan Institute,
says new, far-flung mobility patterns mean the population and politics of a congressional district can shift "over half a decade, what would seem like the blink of an
eye." Many inner suburbs become more Democratic as Republicans move to
outer suburbs. That has helped put into play seats such as the one held by Rep.
Deborah Pryce, R-Ohio, near Columbus.” http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-10-24-election-poll-cover_x.htm
As backstory on this review, Rothenberg did not join in the early
predictions of a ‘Blue wave’. This article first appeared in Roll Call Oct. 24th.
How High the Wave? Don’t Just Think 1994; Think 1974, 1958, 1982
By Stuart Rothenberg, Rothenberg Political
Report, Oct. 26, 2006
With only a couple of weeks until Election Day, we know there will be a
Democratic wave on Nov. 7. And we can be fairly certain that by historical
standards it will be high - possibly very high. But we still don’t know how
many Republicans once considered safe will be swept out of office.
The national political environment currently is worse than it was in 1994, when
the Democrats lost 52 House seats, eight Senate seats and 10 governorships, and
when Republicans won GOP control of the House for the first time in decades.
You heard me right: It’s worse this year than it was in 1994, when voters were
dissatisfied with the first two years of the Bill Clinton presidency.
President Bush’s approval ratings are worse than Clinton’s were - Bush’s are in
the upper 30s, while Clinton’s were in the mid-to-upper 40s - and the 16
percent approval rating for Congress in the latest NBC News/Wall Street Journal
poll ranks far below where Congress stood prior to the 1994 midterms (24
percent).
Similarly, the generic ballot in the NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll was much
closer back in ’94, when Republicans held a 5-point edge right before the
elections. Now, there’s a 15-point Democratic advantage.
Moreover, the problems hounding Republican Congressional candidates - which
range from a second midterm election (as compared to a less dangerous first
midterm in the Clinton administration) to House scandals to an unpopular war -
are far more challenging than anything Democratic Congressional candidates
faced in 1994.
If you are looking for a midterm election year that is comparable to 2006, you
need to move beyond 1994 to include other recent "wave" midterms,
particularly 1974, 1958 and 1982. In 1974 and 1958, the president’s party, in
each case the Republicans, lost 48 seats. In 1982, Republicans lost 26.
Each of these elections holds a lesson for anyone trying to understand what is
likely to happen in House races on Nov. 7.
Ø The 1994
midterm was about Clinton - particularly the Clinton health care plan, gays in
the military and his perceived liberalism.
Ø In 1982, the
election was about Ronald Reagan and "his recession."
Ø In 1974, the
election was about Richard Nixon and Watergate, and then-President Gerald Ford’s
September pardon of the disgraced former president. To some extent, it also was
about a party that too frequently seemed to defend and shield Nixon.
Ø And the 1958
election was about a farm recession and dissatisfaction with the Eisenhower
administration in a part of the country that made up a big chunk of the GOP’s
base.
I don’t count 1966 as a midterm
wave, although Democrats lost 47 seats in the House while holding the White
House. Rather, that midterm was a rebound election, coming two years after the
GOP’s disastrous 1964 presidential election. Given that, the past four true midterm wave elections saw the
victorious party winning 52, 48, 48 and 26 seats, suggesting a reasonable range
for success for Democrats this year.
Given that the political environment right now is worse for
Republicans than at any time since 1974 - and that Republicans hold 232 House
seats, which is far, far above their level in any of the four previous cycles -
their vulnerability is great.
Of course, it matters where a party starts, since an
overextended party (that is, one holding lots of seats that ought to belong to
the opposition) inevitably has more seats at risk, while one that holds
relatively few districts has fewer to lose.
The GOP’s 48-seat loss in 1974 was stunning because the party started the
election holding fewer than 200 seats. In 1982, Republicans lost 26 seats
starting at roughly the same point.
While the GOP isn’t overextended now, its 15-seat majority suggests
it is now near the upper limit of its "normal" range. It holds a
few Democratic seats, and Democrats hold a few Republican seats, but most
districts are represented by the "correct" party. Still, with
Republicans holding 232 seats in the House, the party has plenty of districts
to lose.
So where does this leave us? With the national environment being as it is - and given the
last round of redistricting, which limits possible Democratic gains - Republicans
probably are at risk to lose as few as 45 seats and as many as 60 seats, based
on historical results. Given how the national mood compares to previous wave
years and to the GOP’s 15-seat House majority, Democratic gains almost
certainly would fall to the upper end of that range.
The paucity of competitive districts limits Republican risk, but
how much? Unfortunately, I don’t have an answer. But if
redistricting cuts that kind of wave by half, Democrats would gain between 22
and 30 seats next month. And if the new districts slice Democratic gains by a
smaller but still significant one-third, Democrats would pick up from 30 to 45
seats.
Dangerously big waves can be very strong and very unpredictable. They can bring
widespread destruction and chaos. Republicans now must hope that this year’s
midterm wave isn’t as bad as national poll numbers suggest it could be, because
those national numbers suggest a truly historic tidal wave.
