The Cook Political Report Dec 13, 2013 _December House Overview: GOP Back on Track to Gain Seats_ (http://cookpolitical.com/story/6543)
If the Murray-Ryan budget deal amounts to a small lurch forward, the last few months' politics have sure felt like a roller-coaster ride. And, we aren't just talking about GOP Reps. _Trey Radel (FL-19)_ (http://cookpolitical.com/house/race/1598) or _Steve Stockman (TX-36)_ (http://cookpolitical.com/house/race/1916) . For the first sixteen days of October, the government shutdown generated conditions that felt a lot like 2006, with independent voters ready to vent their anger at Republicans. Soon thereafter, the roll-out of the Affordable Care Act generated an atmosphere that felt similar to 2010, when President Obama and Democrats got routed. As Charlie Cook _pointed out_ (http://cookpolitical.com/story/6530) , gyrations of this magnitude in short time spans are exceedingly rare. At the moment, the political environment appears to have come back down to earth. And, with the 2014 election back to looking more like a referendum on President Obama than House Republicans, we have updated our outlook to a GOP gain of zero to ten House seats. The candidate most symbolic of the times is Democratic Omaha Councilman Pete Festersen, who entered the race against weak GOP Rep. Lee Terry (NE-02) in the midst of the shutdown but dropped out this week. This shouldn't come as a shock: every cycle has a "gut check" time when candidates reevaluate the climate or their own capabilities, and many candidates who come storming out of the gate in off-years find they can't sustain their momentum. But for Democrats to have really built on their October progress, they would have needed 1) the promise of more Republican intransigence on continuing resolutions and debt ceilings, 2) more Republican retirements from marginal or semi-marginal districts, and 3) a raft of five to ten more "grade A" candidates in GOP-held districts. In the aftermath of the ACA's launch, none of the three have materialized. Towards the very end of the government shutdown, the _HuffPost Pollster average_ (http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/2014-national-house-race) of the congressional generic ballot showed Democrats peaking at roughly a 45 percent to 39 percent lead, approaching the point at which the House GOP majority might be in danger. Post-ACA roll-out, the latest average shows Republicans leading 40 percent to 37 percent, with many more undecided voters - a result that points towards small GOP gains. Many wondered whether Democrats' shutdown momentum could last an entire year, and it turns out it didn't even last a month. The slow-drip nature of the ACA roll-out means it is a more durable problem for Democrats, but odds are it won't be the electoral catastrophe it felt like last month. There are signs that President Obama's approval ratings have begun to stabilize, and that Democrats have hit their own nadir (much as the GOP did in October). One smart Democratic strategist takes solace and says "This is the low point. It is hard to imagine another scenario as bad for Democrats as what we just went through." The same strategist calls 2014 a "Net Zero" election, one in which voters don't want to reward either party. Fundamentally, midterm elections tend to be referendums on presidents, not Congress - unless Congress does something (like impeach a popular president, in 1998, or the recent shutdown) to steal the spotlight in a negative way. And if the House GOP were to pass the Murray-Ryan deal, it would show that House Speaker John Boehner and his lieutenants have gotten the "monkey off their back" and are on track to avert a similar spotlight in 2014. The problem for Democrats is, even a "net zero" or "neutral" election - one in which there is no real wind at either party's back or voters feel reluctant to vote for either party - is likely to produce small Republican gains in the House. We have introduced a new tool below to quantify the partisan "tilts" of past election cycles to demonstrate why this is the case. Our newest _House ratings_ (http://cookpolitical.com/house/charts/race-ratings) count 43 competitive races in 25 Democratic-held and 18 GOP-held seats. But of the 25 Democratic seats, 10 are in the Toss Up column. Of the 18 GOP seats, just three are in the Toss Up column. If the election were held today, Democrats would need to win 42 of these 43 competitive races to win the House, a virtually impossible task. Hot off the press today, Democracy Corps's _Battleground Survey_ (http://www.democracycorps.com/attachments/article/963/dcor%20bg%20graphs%20121213%20f inal.pdf) , a terrific partnership between Democratic pollster Stan Greenberg and Democratic strategist James Carville, corroborates our ratings. In the most competitive GOP-held seats, named Republican incumbents led generic Democratic challengers 47 percent to 42 percent. But in vulnerable Democratic seats, Democratic incumbents led on the ballot by just 43 percent to 42 percent. A Tale of Two Midterms: 2006 and 2010 The recent volatility in the political mood has generated a lot of questions in our inbox along the lines of "If Democrats have a great night in November 2014, what's the upper limit of seats they could gain?" Or, "If Democrats unravel and everything is going right for Republicans, what's the maximum number of seats they could pick up?" In the last several decades, the most successful midterm election for Democrats was the 2006 wave, and the most successful GOP midterm was the 2010 wave. Most would agree that a 2006-like year would be an absolute best-case scenario for Democrats in 2014, a 2010-like year would be their absolute worst-case scenario, and that next November is almost certain to be somewhere in between those two extremes. However, redistricting took place after these two elections. So is it possible to simulate would happen if a 2006 or 2010 environment were applied to today's district lines? Actually, we think so. Introducing the Cook Partisan "Tilt" Index One statistic others have used to quantify the size of waves is the National House Popular Vote. For example, in 2012, Democrats won 59.6 million votes for House, and Republicans won 58.2 million. The imperfection with this metric, however, is that there are many uncontested seats where there are either no votes counted for one party or no votes are counted at all. So we have devised a new way to measure the partisan "tilt" of any given election year. First, narrow the universe of House races down to those that featured candidates from both major parties (in the past six cycles, this number has ranged from 353 to 406). Then, measure how much better or worse the average Democratic candidate performed versus the "normal" partisan lean of his or her district, using our Partisan Voter Index of districts. For example, in a D+1 district, a "generic" Democratic candidate might expect to receive 51 percent of the two-party vote in a "neutral" year. But if the 2006 political environment "tilted" to Democrats by four points nationally, that Democrat might have received 55 percent of the vote. And, if the 2010 political environment "tilted" to Republicans by two points nationally, that candidate might only have taken 49 percent that year. We calculated the average partisan "tilt" of every contested House election for each cycle between 2002 and 2012, and this is what we found: "Tilt" by Year Average Two-Party Vote Share vs. Cook PVI in Contested* House Races, 2002-2012 Election Year Contested Seats* Average Party Share vs. PVI Dems Elected** GOP Elected 2002 353 1.06% More Republican 205 230 2004 370 0.45% More Democratic 203 232 2006 380 3.94% More Democratic 233 202 2008 377 5.21% More Democratic 257 178 2010 406 1.95% More Republican 193 242 2012 391 1.51% More Democratic 201 234 *Contested races are races in which both a Democrat and a Republican appeared on the ballot. **For 2002 and 2004, _Vermont_ (http://cookpolitical.com/state/VT/articles) Rep. Bernard Sanders (I) is counted as a Democrat. Two findings stand out to us: first, Democrats have performed, on average, significantly better in presidential elections than midterms, which supports the idea of _the GOP's midterm turnout advantage_ (http://cookpolitical.com/story/5776) . Second, even though 2012 featured a stronger Democratic "tilt" than both 2002 and 2004, Democrats won fewer seats under the new lines in 2012 than they did in either of those years. In fact, the closest thing to a "neutral" political environment in House races we have experienced in the last ten years was 2004, when Democrats performed less than half a point better than their districts' PVI on average. That year, they won 203 seats. But in 2012, Democratic candidates outperformed their PVI by 1.5 points, and Democrats won just 201 seats, illustrating the power of both Democratic clustering in cities and Republican gerrymandering. So, what would happen if the 2014 environment approximated that of 2006? Would Democrats gain the House? According to our "tilt" index, a 2006-style election would represent a swing of 2.43 points further in Democrats' direction from 2012 (1.51 to 3.94). So, assuming a uniform swing in House races from 2012, any Republicans who won with less than 52.43 percent of the vote in 2012 might therefore be "underwater" in 2014. Using this method, even 2006-like conditions would only net Democrats 12 seats, short of the 17 they need. To be sure, there is never a uniform swing in the House from election to election. But, there are about as many vulnerable Republicans who aren't on this list (such as Reps. Gary Miller and Steve Southerland) as there are Republicans who won close races last year and are no longer vulnerable (like Rep. Michele Bachmann). House Republicans Who Won with Less Than 52.4% of the Two-Party Vote in 2012 District Incumbent 2012 Two-Party Share Current Rating IL-13 Rodney Davis 50.18% Lean Republican MI-01 Dan Benishek 50.28% Lean Republican MN-06 Michele Bachmann 50.61% Solid Republican IN-02 Jackie Walorski 50.74% Lean Republican NY-27 Chris Collins 50.79% Solid Republican NE-02 Lee Terry 50.80% Likely Republican CO-06 Mike Coffman 51.09% Toss Up PA-12 Keith Rothfus 51.74% Solid Republican FL-10 Daniel Webster 51.74% Likely Republican NY-23 Thomas Reed 51.91% Lean Republican KY-06 Andy Barr 52.00% Likely Republican OH-16 Jim Renacci 52.05% Solid Republican Now, let's swing the pendulum in the other direction, and pretend 2014 is a lot like 2010. According to our "tilt" index, a 2010-style election would represent a swing of 3.46 points in Republicans' direction from 2012. There are 21 Democrats who won with less than 53.5 percent of the vote in 2012, so a "best-case" scenario for Republicans might produce a pickup of around 21 seats: House Democrats Who Won with Less Than 53.5% of the Two-Party Vote in 2012 District Incumbent 2012 Two-Party Share Current Rating NC-07 Mike McIntyre 50.10% Lean Democratic UT-04 Jim Matheson 50.16% Lean Democratic FL-18 Patrick Murphy 50.29% Toss Up AZ-02 Ron Barber 50.42% Toss Up MA-06 John Tierney 50.61% Lean Democratic IL-10 Brad Schneider 50.63% Toss Up NY-21 Bill Owens 51.00% Lean Democratic CA-52 Scott Peters 51.18% Toss Up CT-05 Elizabeth Esty 51.31% Likely Democratic CA-07 Ami Bera 51.68% Toss Up AZ-01 Ann Kirkpatrick 51.94% Toss Up NY-18 Sean Patrick Maloney 51.95% Lean Democratic NH-01 Carol Shea-Porter 51.96% Toss Up AZ-09 Kyrsten Sinema 52.20% Lean Democratic TX-23 Pete Gallego 52.48% Lean Democratic NY-01 Timothy Bishop 52.49% Lean Democratic NH-02 Ann Kuster 52.53% Lean Democratic CA-26 Julia Brownley 52.69% Lean Democratic CA-36 Raul Ruiz 52.94% Toss Up NY-25 Daniel Maffei 52.96% Likely Democratic IL-17 Cheri Bustos 53.28% Lean Democratic It's possible to simulate each party's seat share in the House under today's lines for every election since 2002. As it turns out, Democrats would need a monster wave like 2008 (a pro-Democratic turnout we have not seen in a recent midterm) to win a narrow majority. And, even if 2014 were a "neutral" election like 2004, Republicans would pick up about seven House seats: If Election 2014 Featured the Same Conditions of Election ________... Election Year Dem Estimate GOP Estimate Swing from 2012 2002 184 251 Republicans +17 2004 194 241 Republicans +7 2006 213 222 Democrats +12 2008 221 214 Democrats +20 2010 180 255 Republicans +21 2012 201 234 No Net Change The Bottom Line As long as the 2014 cycle doesn't take a drastic turn, the "best case scenario" for House Democrats next fall is probably a gain of 12 seats, and the "worst case scenario" is a loss of 21 seats. However, given the current map, even a return to a "neutral" political environment is likely to produce a small Republican gain. As such, we have updated our House outlook to reflect a GOP gain of between zero and ten seats. -- -- Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community <[email protected]> Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
