Posted on 03/13/2006 4:18:01 PM PST by RWR8189
Twelve years ago, I was the first in the national press to write that the Republicans had a serious chance to win a majority of seats in the House. That article appeared in the issue of U.S. News that hit the newsstands on July 11, 1994, less than four months before the election.
That's how late it was in the cycle before anyone except Newt Gingrich and his acolytes took seriously the possibility that the Republicans would win control for the first time in 40 years.
In this cycle, many reporters have been contemplating the possibility that Democrats will take the House back this November. That's partly because most reporters are Democrats and find that result congenial. More importantly, Democrats can take control with a net gain of only 15 seats this year, while Republicans needed 40 in 1994 (and got 52). It's always easier to see how a party can gain 15 seats than 40 -- although 1994 was the only time in the past 20 years that any party gained more than 10.
Democrats' chances of taking those 15 seats are not very good -- if the voting patterns and political contours that have held steady since the 1995-96 budget showdown continue to prevail. Ordinarily in a decade we see a shift in these patterns. Some geographic regions or demographic groups move to one party or the other, or the whole electorate does.
But that hasn't happened in the past 10 years. In the five House elections starting in 1996, Republicans have won between 49 percent and 51 percent of the popular votes, Democrats between 46 percent and 48.5 percent of the popular votes. Nor have regional patterns changed much. From 1990 to 1996, the nation's largest metro areas became more Democratic, while rural areas and the South became more Republican.
Since then, things have stayed about the same. And this is regardless of whatever problems were facing party leaders like Bill Clinton, Gingrich and George W. Bush.
The redistricting that followed the 2000 census was based on those same voting patterns. That's why so many safe seats resulted from Republican gerrymanders in Florida, Pennsylvania, Michigan and Texas; Democratic gerrymanders in North Carolina and Maryland; and bipartisan incumbent-protection gerrymanders in New York, California, Illinois and Ohio. If the political contours should shift, as they did in the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s, then some seats designed to be safe will become marginal, and some will shift to the other side.
That's what Democrats hope is happening this year. Pollster Stanley Greenberg says his latest Democracy Corps poll shows Republican support falling sharply in the Deep South, in rural areas and among downscale men -- groups among which Republicans have had big leads. Such a change wouldn't affect many House races, because these groups are concentrated in districts that are very heavily Republican. But it could put another dozen or so Republican seats in play, over and above the dozen or so where Democrats are making strong challenges (Republicans are making strong challenges in about half a dozen Democratic seats).
In years when voters have shifted sharply to one party -- Democrats in 1974, Republicans in 1994 -- the winning parties captured only about half the seats they targeted. So even if the field of contested seats expands as Greenberg suggests, Democrats could take the House only if they picked off half their targets, while defending every one of their own contested seats. But few seats are captured without strong challenger candidates, and while Democratic recruiting has had some successes, it hasn't produced serious challengers in all these seats. Democrats have a chance to win the House, but it's far from a sure thing.
Of course, not all the factors have played out. At this point in the 1994 cycle, the Clinton healthcare plan had not yet collapsed, the Democrats had not yet embraced gun control and the Republicans had not yet rolled out their Contract With America. Will rural voters, however, cross with Bush and vote to install as speaker of the House a San Francisco Democrat?
Finally, the polls, whatever their bad news for Republicans, offer few clues about who's actually coming out to vote. In 2004, Republicans won because they did a better job turning out their party base than the Democrats did. They expanded the electorate and have a bigger reservoir of voters to draw on. My guess is that turnout, more than voter shifts, will determine who wins in 2006.
I wish I could vote "Chicago style", but then I have morals. My Father died in 2001, it took them three election cycles for them to finally get him off the rolls!
Btw, Bob Novak nailed the 1994 House finals.
Barone is a genius.
During CPAC 2005, I was waiting in line for him to autograph his latest book. I was about 8th in line. He asked every person in front of me, what state and county they were from. He then regaled them with the voting result from that county.
I was a bit embarrassed but told him anyway.He laughed and said, "You folks have a lot of work to do."
This year while walking through the exhibition hall,I ran into him again and asked if I could have my photo taken with him,he laughed and said sure but asked, "Have you ever been indicted, I don't want to ruin my reputation."
The Democrat reporters are unloading everything they have against Bush.
It's not going to work.
I agree. He's absolutely brilliant.
Future historians may someday grudgingly recall that at this point in the election cycle of '06 Osama Bin Laden had not yet been killed nor had we yet discovered large stockpiles of WMD in the Iraqi desert.
Me too. Bottom line of his comments was that he didn't believe that it was possible for the Dems to pick up more than 10 seats max.
Though he did indicate that it's still too early to say, really.
Good point. Pendulums do swing back the other way...
Just like it didn't work in 2004. I hope they stick to their strategy.
You can take what Barone says to the bank.
You betcha.
One important lesson iwas institional corruption, i.e. the House bank scandal.
While the Abramoff stink inflicted alot of Reps, it wasn't as widespread and institionalized as as the House bank scandal,
Barrone said (on Brits show tonight) dims chances are almost nil to win enough seats to take the house. His best case scenario for dims leaves them down 5 seats... and that was a stretch he said.
LLS
"Bottom line of his comments was that he didn't believe that it was possible for the Dems to pick up more than 10 seats max. Though he did indicate that it's still too early to say, really."
If he hadn't added the latter comment, I wouldn't consider him worth a read. Eight months away from an election is an eternity. Anyone here puffing about how they know 2006'll turn out now is spouting off.
Both our posts are correct. The article is a bit more optimistic in its context then Barrone's Special Report appearence. It was interesting to hear Barrone quote well respected political pollster Charlie Cook's analysis, that 21 GOP House seats and 11 Democrat House seats were up for grabs. He didn't mention that in the article. While Barrone didn't believe the Dems could win more then 10 of the 15 seats needed to retake control of Congress, its still early. Unless things change, at the very least the GOP will lose seats in the House this November. The polling trends are looking awful for the GOP.
Well, you have to admit they've been on a pretty good run. Hell, even the 27 Yankees lost games.
Rent a brain and haish your complaining. Let 'em think they can come down, spend lots of money, and win votes in the Deep South.
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.