Posted on 09/23/2006 2:43:32 PM PDT by RWR8189
I noted with interest the recent publication of a Research 2000 poll from Indiana's 2nd Congressional District. It showed Democratic challenger Joe Donnelly with an impressive 8% lead over 2-term representative Chris Chocola. Even more worrisome for Chocola is that Donnelly has hit 50%. What is more, several previous polls have given Donnelly a lead outside the margin of error.
The Indiana 02 race serves as an interesting contrast to what has been happening in many districts around the nation. Races that, perhaps in the Spring, seemed to be vulnerable for the Republicans are now appearing to be less vulnerable. I am thinking in particular of CA 10, KY 03, NV 03, NH 01, NH 02, NJ 07, NY 19, NY 20. There were either strong candidates in the mix, strong fundraisers in the mix, or weak incumbents in the mix to give the NRCC worries about these districts as late as Memorial Day. But, Democratic challenges have not really materialized in any of these places. What is surprising is that these districts are, at best, only marginally Republican. So, it is surprising to see these districts dematerialize for the Democrats. Back around Memorial Day, most of these were at the top of my watch list (well -- not CA 11 so much).
On the other hand, there were just as many downright conservative districts that seemed to be toss-ups back around Memorial Day. Of these I am thinking of IN 08, IN 09, KY 04, NC 11 and VA 02. Much like the aforementioned marginal districts, all of these featured one or two things that disadvantaged the Republican incumbent. Either he/she was new, not a very good candidate, saddled with ethical questions, facing a top tier challenger, etc. However, they were all districts in what really must be classified as heavily Republican turf. Off the top of my head, I believe Bush's average share of the two-party vote in these six districts was something like 59%.
Accordingly, one would expect that, if districts were going to fall off the map, it would be these districts. But these conservative districts really have not fallen away. They have stayed competitive. The Democrats, it seems, stand a better shot at taking out a Republican incumbent in a district that went 59% for Bush than they do in a district that went 52% for Bush.
And then there is IN 02. This was really on nobody's radar as of Memorial Day. And it seemed to have been off the radar for good reason. Chocola won his sophomore effort with 54% of the vote. Not terribly impressive for a second run, but not too shabby, either. Unlike somebody like John Hostettler in IN 08 or Charlie Bass in NH 02 -- he was not a quirky candidate. He ran a traditional, and traditionally funded, campaign. He spent $1.4 million, twice as much as his opponent, in 2004. A good show. His district is not the most Republican in Indiana, but Bush did win it in 2004 with 56% of the vote. The best news for Chocola seemed to have been that he drew the same challenger as 2004 -- Joe Donnelly, who has never held elective office. This, to me, was a sign that the Democrats were not successful in their recruitment endeavors for IN 02, if they tried at all (they probably did). A political neophyte who loses by 9% two years prior is not your "go to guy" to pick the seat back up.
But, in the Spring, Moveon.org moved in with ads against Chocola, and his numbers started to soften by the summer. And they have gotten softer. And softer. And then in mid-September, Research 2000 releases a poll that shows Chocola down by an eye-popping amount. And, Chocola only offered tepid protest.
IN 02, just like IN 08 and the rest of the aforementioned tight races, feature two important Republican advantages. First, incumbents are running for reelection in all locations; while these incumbents are relatively weak, none of them have any damning weaknesses (Charles Taylor in NC 11 comes the closest to that, but he wheathered ethical questions several cycles ago). None of them are Tom DeLay or Bob Ney weak. But they are also not Conrad Burns or Rick Santorum weak. Incumbency is still an advantage, not a liability, for them; though its boost will be muted in these districts because none of them have really built for themselves the "personal vote" that insulates so many others. What will be of more significant advantage in these districts is that they are all Republican in their partisan orientation. All of them, historically, vote for Republican presidential candidates at a larger percentage than the nation as a whole. This implies that, at the least, a strong plurality of voters in these districts are Republicans.
If Chocola was down 8 in a district that leans Democratic usually, it would be time to write him off. And the NRCC most certainly would. But, with a district that leans Republican, he can still expect at least some of the voters in the district to "come home" to him. Whether enough of them will is hard to say. Charlie Cook has IN 02 as a toss-up. Stu Rothenberg sees it leaning to Donnelly. Both of them could make strong arguments that ultimately would boil down to how much of Chocola's base is going to come back his way. At this point, the expectation that Republicans will come home in sufficient numbers is still nothing more than an expectation -- and so, minimally, you'd have to go with Mr. Cook.
This race, and this as yet unfulfilled expectation, gets to an interesting phenomenon about this election. It is strange that so many of the races identified as toss-up or even as leaning Democratic are actually in solidly conservative districts. It is also strange that the downgrading of races that seems to have taken place recently is in relatively moderate districts. This indicates to me some instability in the consensus estimate of vulnerable races. By the estimates of most analysts, we should expect the Democrats to get 20% up to even 40% of their seats from conservative districts. In 1994, the GOP picked only about 12% of their seats from districts that were as liberal as these were conservative.
Now -- of course -- this could just be the way things work out this time around. All of these incumbents in conservative districts have weaknesses. Some of them have significant weaknesses. If each of them has a non-zero chance of defeat, there is necessarily a non-zero chance that all of them could lose. However, it seems unlikely that such a large proportion of Democratic gains would come from these districts, given that we know that (a) people tend to vote their partisanship in congressional elections and (b) when they vote against their partisanship they tend to do so to support the incubment. In other words, we should not expect the GOP to lose such a large proportion of its seats in solidly Republican districts, but rather in marginally Republican districts and marginally Democratic districts. What I mean is that such hefty Democratic gains in Republican areas would violate the narrative of congressional elections. You'd eventually see somebody at some academic conference panel on the 06 elections start talking "realignment," which would be extremely peculiar as the House has never once been the first mover in a realignment. It tends to be the last.
What does this mean moving forward? Well -- if 30% of GOP loses do not happen in solidly Republican districts, if the final number is more like 12% -- one of two things would have occurred. (A) the Democrats, come October, start to fizzle out in these races as Republicans "come home" to Republican incumbents; ultimately, the Democrats pick up less than the consensus estimate. (B) The Republicans, come October, start to see a much more sizeable playing field, as Republicans in moderate districts start to abandon Republican incumbents just as is happening in these districts; ultimately, the Democrats pick up more seats than the consensus estimate. Those aforementioned races that are of late off the radar would come back on.
Simply stated, the fact that there are right now so many solidly conservative districts on the toss-up list is a sign either that Democratic strength is overstated or understated.
I feel bad but ... that was my first thought as well.
I used to buy a skim milk and chocolate drink called Chocola in the early 70s after a hard afternoon of delivering newpapers. I think it was even bottled in my hometown of Indianapolis.
Chocolas' district includes South Bend, IN, which was a dem lock for years due to the old unions there.
I voted for Chocola the last time I was legally able to do it. Good Republican!...............FRegards
Yes, but don't "count" Chocola out just yet.
Chocola...that takes me back.
I think Boo Berry is the one to beat...
This article really doesn't come to any conclusions. Just says Chocola might win, or he might not. We already knew that. ;)
It is puzzling and infuriating that so many good Republicans in districts that went heavily for Bush seem to be leaning Dem. All we can hope is that polls are wrong. Either that or a lot of people are just too stupid to vote. If Chocola can't win then I don't have a lot of optimism about Republicans holding the House.
..Let Hear it for the whole Hoosier Delegation (The Good Republican ones anyway ;)). I live in the 6th, but I really hope that Chacola, Hostettler, Soderelsp?, and especially Pence win their seats again..! ALL GOOD CONSERVATIVES That deserve to be reelected, and need to staty in the (R) column, (I hate) those Moveon.org PUKES that try to spend money from CA-NY-MASS in MY STATE; ;) I have a feeling that Many other hoosiers fell the same way I do! It will back-fire on moveon.org, g. soros, howard deaniac-screamiac..we Will WIN ALL of those districts..but we must become involved (CALLING ALL HOOSIERS TO ACTION..To SAVE OUR FRIENDS IN CONG.), volunteer your TIME, MONEY, INFLUENCE FOR OUR IN-DELEGATION FRIENDS ;)!! PLEASE.
Count Chocula cereal... is it really forty years, now?
Uh...why is Count Chocula depicted with only one long upper canine, rather than with the usual two?
Otherwise, he could do a Red Cross blood drive commercial:
"Eet loooks like tomato juice, BUT.. eet shure doesn't taste like tomato juice!!"
;^)
Cost is usually worth reading. In this piece, however, he was talking to hear himself talk. This is a "profound" as saying : "This cycle will be close!" No foolin'! We are not a 60/40 conservative country. We are probably just what Bush got, 53/47. That means EVERY race will be close.
I'm predicting right now that 2016 will be a "close election" AND the most important election in American history.
Cost is allowed an off day and this was one of them.
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.