Posted on 01/19/2002 2:53:00 PM PST by Torie
I have been checking out the redistricting game in each state, and have come up with some overall numbers. At this point, I don't think absent surprising Court intervention that they will change much. It looks like the GOP has lost 5 seats from the safe column, but there are an additional 16 toss up seats arising from redistricting or retirement. I have come up with 6 quite vulnerable incumbents, 3 from each party. So, absent a clear national tide towards the Dems, if they win everything within reach, they will gain 8 seats and have a House majority of 2. The existing GOP margin is 7 (including Ralph Hall, who said he will vote of GOP control if his vote is needed). The net "expected" GOP gain is 3 seats. Their max gain is 14.
Michael Barone said he expects there to be 20 to 40 competitive seat this fall. I come up with 22 so far that I think will truly be competitive. One of the wonders of demographics and gerrymandering is that at this point, there are very, very few competitive districts indeed.
Here is the Chart:
GOP Tossup Net Exp GOP Change
Arizona 1
Colorado 1
Conn -1 1
Florida 2
Georgia -2 1
Indiana -1 1
Iowa -1 1
Kansas 1
Maryland -2 1
Michigan 2
Minnosota 1
Miss -1 1
Nevada 1
New Hamp -1 1
New Mex -1 1
New York -1
NC -1 1
Okla -1
Penn 2
Tenn -1 1
Texas 2 1
Utah 1
Totals -5 16 3 (16/2 - 5)
Incumbents
GOP Dem
Larson 1
Simmons 1
Hostettler 1
Baldwin 1
Israel 1
Capito 1 0
Any corrections or comments are of course welcome. I may have missed some stuff. And Florida is still a bit of a guess.That's a tough one to call there. That used to be solid dem, then one of the most conservative GOP members, Coburn won there three times. I believe it's very social conservative, but economically liberal. I'd say it's Macomb County on Sterioids. My guess is that if he votes fairly conservative in social issues and if nothing else, stays away on guns and abortion, he wins.
I'd add another incumbent in trouble - Matheson in Utah.
I expect the GOP to lose more than the average number due to the fallout of the 2000 election debacle combined with lackluster growth in GDP. The natural tendency of voters to go for more nanny-state largess during anxious economic times combined with international insecurity will result in a larger than average loss for the party in power.
Thus I expect a loss of 20 seats in the House and 4 seats in the Senate, creating divided government and ironically increasing the prospects for Bush's re-election in 2004. shs galveston tx
Given the small number of competitive seats, that would represent a considerable Democrat tide, of the type we have not seen in quite awhile. Historical numbers are meaningless in this gerrymandered and highly partisan era. They are fewer swing voters than there have been in some time. Plus, the partisan perferences go down ballot far more than they used to. Voting for a guy of the other party locally because he is a nice guy is done far less now.
I counted him as a redistricting casualty. His body shows up next to Utah as GOP +1.
I expect the GOP to lose more than the average number due to the fallout of the 2000 election debacle combined with lackluster growth in GDP. The natural tendency of voters to go for more nanny-state largess during anxious economic times combined with international insecurity will result in a larger than average loss for the party in power.The GOP wins for the very reasons you state the opposite result: 1) "the 2000 election debacle"; 2) "anxious economic times"; and 3) "international insecurity."
Since none of the above can be blamed upon the GOP (no matter how much the DNC tries), it all adds up to voter discontent with the status quo: the Democratic Party.
Bush has marvelously distanced himself from the above, but so has Hastert & Co. Since ain't nobody heard of Lott since May, the Dems can't run against him. Hate to dissapoint ya, but Dubya gets a mid-term gain in both houses.
What is the Watson seat?
Thus the lower the turnout, the more pronounced the effects of GetOutTheVote efforts. The higher the turnout, the greater the prospects for the out-of-power party.
It is difficult to imagine that there will not be a strong national issue imprinting itself on this years election. The war and the economy will likely dominate the discussion.
Is this belief a leap of faith, or actually based on some hard data based on looking at the new maps?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.