Posted on 04/17/2006 3:44:17 AM PDT by RWR8189
Will Democrats win control of the House in November? It's a question lots of people have been asking in Washington and around the country these days. It seems possible, certainly. Democrats only have to make a net gain of 15 seats to win a majority. But it's also true that, with the single and large exception of 1994, neither party has made a net gain of more than 10 House seats over the last 20 years.
I think there are two plausible hypotheses about how House elections work. If Hypothesis One applies, Democrats have a good chance at gaining a majority. If Hypothese Two applies, they don't.
Hypothesis One sees House elections as a referendum on the president and his party. If the president's job rating is above 50 percent, his party tends to suffer only narrow losses or even, as in 1934 and 1998 -- and almost in 1962 -- makes gains. If the president's job rating is significantly under 50 percent, his party tends to lose lots of seats.
The theory is plausible, and fits many election results over the years. Presidents Roosevelt, Kennedy and Clinton had high job ratings in 1934, 1962 and 1998. President Johnson in 1966, President Nixon in 1974, President Reagan in 1982 and President Clinton in 1994 had job ratings under 50 percent, and their parties all lost many seats in those years.
Currently, George W. Bush's job rating is hovering around 38 percent. Under Hypothesis One, Republicans should lose lots of House seats -- quite possibly more than the magic number of 15.
Hypothesis One was developed by political scientists and psephologists over many years. Hypothesis Two is one I developed myself, and it's based only on the elections of the last 10 years. In the five House elections from 1996 to 2004, there has been very little variation in the popular vote percentages for both parties. The Republican percentage of the popular vote for the House has fluctuated between 49 and 51 percent, the Democratic percentage between 46 and 48.5 percent.
This has been true despite great differences in the job ratings of the parties' leading figures. Republicans won pluralities of the popular vote for the House in 1996 and 1998, when Bill Clinton's job rating was high and the favorability ratings of the highly visible Newt Gingrich were very low. Clinton's job rating was high in 2000, too, but Republicans still won the popular vote 49 percent to 48 percent. In 2002, when George W. Bush's job rating was up around 70 percent, Republicans won 51 percent of the popular vote for the House. In 2004, when his job rating was around 50 percent, Republicans won 50 percent.
These numbers seem inconsistent with Hypothesis One. How to explain them? We have a highly polarized politics that divides us along cultural lines. Those cultural divisions tend to be more important to voters than their ratings of presidents' and parties' performance. The polarization is exacerbated by the fact that Bill Clinton and George W. Bush both happen to have personal characteristics -- I don't have to spell them out, do I? -- that people on the other side of the cultural divide absolutely loathe.
The slight uptick in Republican percentages in 2002 and 2004 can be explained by higher Republican turnout. Looking ahead to next November, there is reason to believe that the Republican base is turned off -- by high spending, by immigration -- and may not turn out as heavily. But if so, how much difference will that make?
Polls are not good predictors of turnout -- only elections are. Last week, we had a special election in the 50th district of California, whose Republican congressman resigned in disgrace and went to prison. In 2004, the 50th district voted 55 percent for George W. Bush and 44 percent for John Kerry. Last week, the district voted 53 percent for Republicans (there were 14 candidates, the winner among whom goes on to a June 6 runoff) and 45 percent for Democrats. There were only two of them, and the leader, Francine Busby, got 44 percent of the vote -- the same percentage as Kerry. That may be 1 percent higher when the last absentees are counted.
These results are inconsistent with Hypothesis One. They're consistent with Hypothesis Two. Republican turnout was down more than Democratic turnout, but only very slightly. Of course, things may change by November. But it looks like Hypothesis Two is still in force, and if so, Democrats will have a hard time winning control of the House.
In 1994, people were switching from the RAT party in droves because Slick Willie showed them what the commie RATS were all about. Some people don't like some of the things President Bush is doing, but they aren't going to join the commie RATS because of it.
Yeah... the intelligencia.
Republicans should be shouting it from the roof tops that it is the DEMOCRATS who are standing in the way of increasing oil productions. If they don't like higher gas prices, thank a Democrat!!
I am very unhappy with the Republican performance running our government. However, this ain't 1994. In 1994 the Republicans offered a vision and a promise (subsequently unkept) to change the way things were done in that cesspool knows as Washington, D.C. Fast forward to 2006. Everyone is just as dissatisfied with the Republican majority as they were with the Democratic majority in 1994. Difference, the Dems offer nothing and stand for nothing except policies that have proven to be failures over the past 75 years
Since Dingy Harry became majority leader they have not come up with one idea or policy or answer to any problem plaguing our nation. Rather they have engaged in an unceasing round of negativity towards virtually every official and non-official in the Bush Whitehouse.
This country was not built upon negativity. While we have gone through periods of prevailing negative feelings, these have the exception not the rule. Leaders who usher in an era of change generally are optimistic in their vision. Even Nixon, who seemed like a pretty down person, offered hope of ending the Vietnam War and making the government work.
Our current crop of Dems to coin a phrase, are nothing more than "Nattering nabobs of negativity." (Who said that?)
In short, until the Dems really stand for something, they will be out of power. All of the focus groups and think pieces by Dem consultants is not going to change that.
"Nattering nabobs of negativity."
Spiro Agnew
It seems whether the RATS win, we lose, if the GOP wins, we lose slower.
If GWB and the GOP wants to curry favor with voters, they should start working for the average man, and stop working for Habib in India, Jorge in Mexico, and Mohammed in the UAE.
Are you his minion?
Don't base ANYTHING on polls. Polls today are as accurate as Ouija Boards. They reflect ONLY what the people commissioning them want them to reflect.
Join in if you'd actually like to intelligently discuss numbers and the like, instead of reciting bitter talking points.
Interesting article a few weeks prior to the first quarter numbers coming out.
Good analysis. I was thinking along the same lines. In that 30 year time, many state legislatures and governorships went Republican, esp. those in the south, but also even in some Rust Belt states like PA. That gave the GOP the upper hand in redistricting. Couple that with the loss of population, i.e., congressional seats in the northern states and gains of population, cong. seats in the conservative trending south and you have what we see today.
There aren't that many swing seats left anymore. Most seats are either solidly DEM or solidly GOP. State legislatures designed them that way. And in those, the incumbent has the upper hand. The only real shifts seem to occur in the few swing districts where there is no incumbent running.
The axiom that "politics are local" usually holds sway. If people are happy enough with their Congressperson, they won't vote him/her out, no matter what they think of the President.
I think the GOP will hold the House.
Um is that like burying one's head in the sand so they can't see what is really going on? Should we also ignore the substantial polls quoted in the article (and those not quoted)?
By the way what has the GOP done with their majority in both houses and the President? Tax Reform? No. Social Security Reform? NO. Cut Spending? NO. Closed the Border? No. Outsourced Jobs? Yes. Iraq positive or negative? Undecided. Economy? Good for big business, bad for wage earners.
I think I would expect a little better report card come the end of the term and if it is not better, I would be worried about what the voters would do.
I predict less people voting straight tickets and more voting for individuals based on their individual stances. The two parties have become too similar. Immigration and its ties to jobs and our economy and taxes may well cast the deciding votes in 06 and 08 and the future of our country. What good are income tax cuts if they are taking them back with other higher costs and lower wages, resulting in a net loss to many? The people are not stupid, a little slow to catch on maybe but not stupid.
Exactly,
Taxes would go up, since the tax cuts are not permanent. The RATS would spend more on useless social programs. Social Security would NOT be reformed.
Partner, they suggest you change the wording a bit before reading from the talking points. Keep it in mind next time.
Now if you'll excuse this wage earner, I need to get in line for bread. :-D
On, and by the way, you can change "no" to "yes" after tax reform. This persecuted wage earner is keeping more of his money now, thank you very much.
No, it is reading Freeper comments as an informed consumer of commentary.
Should we also ignore the substantial polls quoted in the article (and those not quoted)?
Of course.
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.