2006: A Status Quo Election

Real Clear Politics Blog ^ | November 28, 2005 | Jay Cost

[beyond the sea]

We have, rather, a geographically based system for choosing members of Congress, an institution that is divided from the rest of the government. This system insulates Congress from most swings in the national mood. This makes all the difference. When forecasting congressional elections, geography matters and the separation of power matters.

Better than mob rule ......... which is next.

[AntiGuv]

In other words, the argument here is that if the 2006 elections were held today, the GOP would hold Congress.

Of course they would. Only an idiot would dispute that argument, or need to have it proven to them.

The elections won't be held today.

[Forte Runningrock]

The alternative in 2006 is what?

People may not like the job they are working at either, but they don't quit unless something better comes along. But when it does, nothing is to say it won't be in the same company.

[G.Mason]

A very interesting article.

One of the very few I have read here that seems void of any particular political bent.

Thanks.

The four stages of life:

You believe in Santa
You don't believe in Santa
You are Santa
You look like Santa

[AntiGuv]

The point that I am getting at is that it's far too early to project what will happen in November 2006. The fact that the GOP would obviously hold the Congress today is irrelevant, because most of the challengers are relatively unknown or undeclared. If the 1994 elections had suddenly been held on 28 November 1993 the Dems would've held the Congress.

And you are right, the Dems right now aren't much of an alternative to anything. I would not be surprised if they flop again next year, but no one can say for sure yet. The GOP certainly isn't doing much to help itself..

I read the whole commentary and actually thought it was rather decent for the most part, except for one key factor that doesn't seem accounted for: the boost that 9/11 gave the GOP in the past two elections, and whether that's now run its course.

[wildwood]

i followed the horse race blog the night of the election; jay cost knew EXACTLY what was happening, unlike the news anchors. i remember even hearing michael barone making predictions and forecasts on stuff that was obviously in error, according to horseraceblog.com. jay, of course, was right on the money....a real smartie...

[Lancer_N3502A]

Democracy IS mob rule, which is why our Founding Fathers set up the United States as a Republic.

[ken5050]

Good Monday mornin'..FYI, very interesting article, though long, a must read..please ping the list...

[Just mythoughts]

"A few have been prepared to write the GOP’s 2006 obituary, interestingly enough, since Bush’s second inaugural."


This is so DEAD on, every liberal who gets a minute of face time sounds as though the last shovel of dirt was just dump on the GOP grave.

[Common Tator]

For instance, 1994 saw a GOP shift in the House of Representatives of 54 seats. Nationwide, the GOP increased its overall vote total by 5.7% (that is, the party as a whole increased its share of the entire congressional electorate by 5.7%). However, in 1966, the GOP increased its overall vote total by 6.3% and only collected 48 seats, failing to capture the House. In 1954, the GOP saw its vote total decline by 4.0%, but only lost 15 seats. In 1956 it increased its vote total by 2.1%, but failed to capture a single net seat. What does this imply? It implies that the correlation between vote changes and seat changes is not as strong as people would think, that a nationwide partisan swing is not enough to explain a swing in the control of Congress. What is necessary for Congress to switch hands is for the swing to be in the right place – or, more specifically, places where the incumbent is of the “wrong” party.

Control of the house is pretty simple. When the Republicans control a majority of state governments they Gerrymander a majority of states to elect a house majority.

From the 1940 redistricting of house districts through the 1980 redistricting Democrats had control of most state governments. But in 1990, and 2000 the Republicans were in control of a majority of states and those states were Gerrymandered to elect Republicans to the house.

Gerrymandering by Republicans results in a majority of districts having the ratio of Registered Republicans to Democrats of about 53 to 47. The Democratic districts will tend to be 60 to 70 percent Democratic. That is they group all the Democrats into a few districts and spread the Republicans over many to make most districts Republican.

It is Gerrymandering that keeps the house from changing hands with the popular vote. In 1984 the national totals showed there were more votes Republican house members than there were for Democratic House Members.. but the Democrats retained control of the house.The same will be true in 2006.

The Democrats will defending far more senate seats in 2006 than they did in 2004. They will have to win at least 6 seats currently held by Republicans. They are not likely to get that done.

The media was totally surprised by the 1994 results. But the real surprise was when the Republicans did not take the house in 1992. That was a Ross Perot situation that kept the 1990 Gerrymandering from working. But by 1994 Ross Perot was on the back burner and the 53 to 47 Republican advantage in most districts proved to be something that the Democrats could not overcome. They Democrats could not overcome it in 1996 when Clinton was a big winner.

They could not do it in 2000 when the presidential race was very very close. But the Gerrymandered House districts were not.

If the Democrats win control of majority of states in 2010 then the House could change hands in 2012. But if they do not, then the house would stay Republican until at least 2022.

[JohnEBoy]

I followed the horse race blog, also, during the 2004 election. What a relief it was to read his sober, state by state anslysis showing Bush with the (slight) upper hand throughout. All while the MSM was trying to manufacture a Kerry win. And on election day, he kept his head and said the early returns showing Kerry winning were fluff and to not be concerned. The guy is some kind of political science genius. I believe his analysis here will turn out to be just as correct.

[manwiththehands]

Where was this blog? This guy is smart. Does anyone remember who's tracking data Matt Drudge was using on his web site on election night last year? I remember going to bed that evening at 10 believing Bush was going to win - but just barely - and based solely upon what I was getting from Drudge.

[jmaroneps37]

On Labor Day I posted an essay describing the insurmountable problems the Democrats will face as the attempt to retake control of congress.
I think the very idea that the party with no ideas but surrendering in the war on terror, murdering innocent babies and queers ( their word not mine ) "marrying" each other can regain control in a country that self identifies 35/18 conservative to liberal is ridiculous.
My three month update of why they will not win anytime soon will be ready in a few days.

[Conservativegreatgrandma]

The alternative in 2006 is what?

You got it. And the RATS offer what solutions? I'm waiting to hear one. The only solution RATS have for anything is to tax the rich or to cut and run and that's not going to protect anyone from anything.

ANYONE voting RAT is voting for nothing. They're totally devoid of gray matter.

[.cnI redruM]

It's what they do until they get an agenda. There's 1 or 2 Steny Hoyers who are actually trying to articulate this agenda and do some heavy lifting. They are a minority. The rest of the Dems are a howling mob.

[Just mythoughts]

"It's what they do until they get an agenda. There's 1 or 2 Steny Hoyers who are actually trying to articulate this agenda and do some heavy lifting. They are a minority. The rest of the Dems are a howling mob."


I agree. I think this big production about troop withdrawal was foundation for what they have in mind. I think they had foreknowledge that there were already plans to bring troops home as the Iraqi military becomes trained, and they planned a preemptive strike in demanding a withdrawal based upon what they already knew would be happening.

I expect every time a soldier returns home they will have a big media production about their "withdrawal plans" brought said soldier home, and they may well get a few takers to praise their grand foresight.

The Republicans seemed to have a clue about their campaign 2006 so they made them cast a vote for "withdrawal".

Next year is about reclaiming the House of Representatives and liberals have NO power without control of the body where every tax dollar is raised and every dollar is spent.

[Wristpin]

The real question is

Do the american people hold the Dems accountable for undermining the troops during a time of war?

I'm detecting rumblings that they've gone too far.

[Just mythoughts]

"The real question is

Do the american people hold the Dems accountable for undermining the troops during a time of war?

I'm detecting rumblings that they've gone too far."


That is the question. Sure hope there is plenty of video of Code Pink at Walter Reed. The attempt to package Iraq as Vietnam continues on.

[.cnI redruM]

>>>>The Republicans seemed to have a clue about their campaign 2006 so they made them cast a vote for "withdrawal".

J. D. Hayworth was utterly disgusted with Congressman Murtha. It was the reaction a decent person would have to a pornographer.