Posted on 11/08/2010 10:07:05 AM PST by SeekAndFind
To everyone's surprise, Nancy Pelosi wants to return as the Democrats' leader in the next Congress. But if she's hoping for a big Democratic year in 2012 that would give her the speaker's gavel back, she might want to look closer at Tuesday's results: Based on the breadth and scope of their losses, it is going be almost impossible for Democrats to retake the House in the next 10 years.
While Democrats’ historic loss of at least 61 seats (results are still pending in a handful of districts) can be traced to a diverse set of factors, the majority of the Democrats defeated were either elected to Republican-friendly seats in the wave elections of 2006 and 2008 or were long-term incumbents who represented heavily GOP districts. The seats in that latter category are likely gone for good, while many in the former are clustered in a handful of states where GOP state-level gains will ensure that they are fortified in next year’s redistricting trials, making them even more difficult for Democrats to take back than they were entering the '06 and '08 cycles.
The losses of Democrats like Rick Boucher (southwest Virginia coal country), Lincoln Davis (increasingly conservative central Tennessee), Chet Edwards (College Station, Texas), Jim Marshall (Macon, Ga.), Earl Pomeroy (North Dakota), Ike Skelton (the Ozarks) and Gene Taylor (Biloxi and Pascagoula, Miss.) are particularly painful for Democrats, given the treacherous political terrain they face in those districts. Democrats were incredibly lucky to hold these seats as long as they did, and they were able to because incumbents like Skelton (elected in 1976), Boucher (1982), Taylor (1989), and Edwards (1990) had adeptly burrowed themselves in. Democrats were always going to lose these seats when these representatives stepped down, but the tidal wave of 2010 washed them all away in one fell swoop.
Put another way, of the 20 most Republican-leaning House seats held by Democrats on Election Day, 17 of them fell. With Partisan Voting Index scores ranging from R+9 in Stephanie Herseth-Sandlin’s South Dakota at-large district to an unfathomable R+20 for Edwards’ Texas seat and Taylor’s south Mississippi district, it's a miracle Democrats held these seats for as long as they did. Altogether, Democrats dropped 25 seats this week with PVI ratings of R+6 or more. It’s difficult to envision the party winning many of these seats back in the short- or long-term future.
Looking at Tuesday’s results from another angle, around two-thirds of the seats Democrats lost were held by members elected in the '06 and '08 elections. With a small handful of exceptions, nearly all of these districts are Republican-leaning, though most not overwhelmingly so. They represented the spoils of Democrats’ own wave elections. As currently drawn, many of them could theoretically be competitive in 2012, but Republican state legislative and gubernatorial gains could help the GOP use the forthcoming redistricting to fortify many of them.
New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Florida, where approximately one-third of Democrats’ overall House losses occurred, are potentially prime targets for this. With Republicans winning back both the governorships and state legislative chambers in Ohio and Pennsylvania, they will have carte blanche to strengthen the lines of the seats Democrats just lost through 2020.
Republicans in Pennsylvania attempted to do this last decade, but they miscalculated and spread themselves too thin -- leaving several Republican members of Congress vulnerable in the Democratic tide of '06 and '08. Don’t expect to see the same mistake twice, though. Look for the new GOP map-drawers in Harrisburg to fortify the lines of the Erie County-based 3rd District and the suburban Philadelphia districts that Democrats Pat Murphy and Joe Sestak have represented. Even the traditionally Democratic Scranton district of 13-term veteran Paul Kanjorski might be altered in order to protect Lou Barletta, the Republican who ousted Kankorski this week. There's also the 12th District, where Democrat Mark Critz survived Tuesday's massacre; but with the state due to lose a House seat next year, expect Critz’s district to be carved up in short order.
Similarly, with Republicans now in full control in Ohio, the five seats Democrats just lost based around Cincinnati, Columbus and Canton, along with the seats in the east and southeast being given up by the vanquished Zack Space and Charlie Wilson, will be strengthened by the GOP to keep them in the party's column for the next decade. And with the census chopping off two Ohio districts, a couple more House Democrats will likely be in the cross hairs next year.
In New York, the situation is a bit different, as Democrat Andrew Cuomo was easily elected governor. But Democrats are in enormous peril of losing the state Senate, a development that would prevent them from imposing favorable lines that would help them reclaim the five districts they just lost (and maybe more -- Republicans lead incumbent Democrats in two outstanding races in the state). And while Florida's governorship and state legislature will remain in Republican hands, the passage of a state constitutional amendment that seeks to make it harder to draw partisan gerrymanders could be helpful to Democrats. But it's questionable whether it will drastically affect the current lines to their benefit. With the loss of four Democratic seats, the state delegation now sits at 19-to-6 in favor of Republicans. And even with Florida gaining two new seats next year, expect little turnover in the near future, as Republicans will seek to insulate their freshly-won seats.
Furthermore, Republican state legislative gains in Colorado, Indiana and Texas could also strengthen newly-won GOP seats -- this is especially true for two new GOP prizes in South Texas. In California, the passage of Proposition 20, which removes redistricting power from the Legislature and awards it to a nonpartisan commission, couldn't have come at a worse time for Democrats, with Jerry Brown winning the governorship this week.
It's just hard to see how Democrats will be able to score the broad gains they'll need to win back their House majority any time soon. It might just be another 12-year wait.
-- Mark Greenbaum is a freelance writer in Washington
while i’d like nothing more than to nail the coffin shut on the rats, let’s just take a deep breathe and relax...they were writing our obituary two years ago...
Maybe a premature sentiment. I’ll take a wait-and-see attitude.
Ditto. Two years is a political lifetime.
It isn’t the tactics or money but the ideology, stupid. The Democrats so far left today they aren’t going to win in most of the country for awhile.
Their breathtaking decision to all-out lie about almost everything after 9/11 (due to jealousy over a Repub president who was prosecuting the WOT correctly and was about to get public recognition for that) made the Dem-MSM axis more arrogant and audacious than perhaps anytime in US history.
The last couple of years was the climax of what had taken place in '68, when the far-left took over the Democratic party.
But now the public is onto them and won't be trusting them again anytime soon. If the Repubs go far enough (and I think they will) the public will soon be learning about how the Dems have lied for decades over things like Vietnam, Watergate, and more recently Global Warming, Bush, etc. They are in for some rough times, thank the Lord.
the tea party is the biggest threat to the dems because it bypasses the GOP in order to directly reach out to the people.
Others caution here is wise, but the article makes some great points. We won a combination of some of the longest held Dem seats that only stayed Dem because of the power maintained by their Dem reps. Skelton, etc were almost impossible to tumble, but they did, and those seats are in reliably GOP areas. Also seats that are strongly GOP went Dem in the 2006-2008 elections that literally should never go Dem. They are fairly safe seats unless it is a massively bad year for the GOP. Because those two elections were the most extreme in reaction to the wars, Bush unpopularity, and economic collapse, it is unlikely to see that level of backlash again any time soon. It will take really bad GOP President to have them swing.
That doesn’t mean we can’t lose a slew of other seats in a better Dem year, but a lot of these seats will be considered safe for the next 4-8 years at least.
How sad. NOT!
I wasn't surprised. Were you surpised?
I think that "everyone" should be limited to "everyone who didn't already know that Nancy is a narcissistic megalomaniac with delusions of grandeur."
It’s odd that the author would preface his column with any comment about nancy piglosi. Not only is she irrelevant, she’s insane. There’s nothing that she wants, needs, desires, anticipates, etc ad nauseam that registers in the real world.
As for the rest of it, it all hinges on how the pubbies comport themselves. If they revert to their old ways we’ll lose our advantage in 2012.
That's for sure.
In 1991, following the first Gulf War, Bush Sr. had about a 90% approval rating. The only reason that Clinton ended up getting the Democrat nomination is that none of the first tier Democrats wanted to run against Bush.
Bush's popularity plummeted until 1992, when Clinton got elected. Clinton won with only 43% of the vote thanks to Perot's third party candidacy, but Perot would not have been able to siphon off so many votes from Bush if Bush had retained even a fraction of his popularity.
Two years later, we have the 1994 elections, in which the Republicans win a complete repudiation of the Democrats at every level of government. After the 1994 election, no one thought that Clinton could get elected dog catcher in 1996.
Two years later, in 1996, Clinton gets re-elected. Again he needed Perot to do it, but this time Clinton almost got 50% of the vote.
Four years later, in 2000, Bush Jr. beat Clinton's anointed successor Algore, but got elected with under 50% of the popular vote. Following Bush's handling of 9/11 and its aftermath, Bush Jr.'s approval rating skyrocketed to about 90%.
Two years later, in 2004, Bush's approval rating had dropped, but he still managed to get re-elected with almost 51% of the popular vote. That may not sound like a big margin, but only three Democrats had EVER gotten elected president with over 51% of the popular vote: LBJ, FDR and Andrew Jackson (in 1832).
Two years later, in 2006, Bush's approval rating had plummeted and the Democrats took control of Congress. Two years after that, in 2008, 0bama got elected (against a very weak Republican nominee) with almost 53% of the popular vote, joining LBJ, FDR and Andrew Jackson as the only Democrats ever to do so.
That brings us up to 2008, when once again the Republicans have won a complete repudiation of the Democrats at every level of government.
The point of this little excursion through history is that politics is cyclical. Two years from now, the only thing that appears certain is that 0bama's approval rating will either be significantly higher or significantly lower than it is now.
The Democrats and the MSM arm of the Democrat party are not going to give up control of the Senate and the Presidency in 2012 without a long, expensive fight.
They said the same thing about Republicans after 2008.
There is an independent wing that is no fan of either party and simply votes to protest. It gave Obama and landslide and then took it away. The GOP needs to mollify the protest indies much better than the Democrats did when it was their turn.
A Dem takeover in 2012 is very possible. The Republicans simply have to be incompetent like they were in 2000-2006, and things could swing right back. Right now, voters are in a back-and-forth era of throwing out the current class of knuckleheads.
If the Supreme court does not throw out ZeroCare ALL the RATS are in for another beating. I believe however it will be overturned. The beating however will still happen in the Senate because the people will not have forgot how the RATS voted.
If the court says Obamacare is constitutional then people will become so mad that we will keep on winning elections until Federal Judges can be impeached and removed for dereliction of duty!
Since you mentioned the Senate, the rats will have very expensive fights in 2012 and 2014. They are defending most of the seats, IIRC, over 20 in each cycle, often in states traditionally favorable to conservatives, but they lost in the 2006 and 2008 waves.
Conservatives and Republican Victory
The Republican Party has a real chance, because of the unusually good composition of the 2012 and 2014 Senate elections, to acquire something that Republicans have never had before: a filibuster-proof Senate.
If the Tea Party Movement keeps going, the GOP might have a decent chance to reverse the Leviathan, IMHO.
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.