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.
Unless the GOP can get their act together, we might see a RAT majority. Too many are getting ticked with W and if the critters continue with their idiocy over illegals and gas prices and spending problems....
I think Democrats, not Republicans, are doing things sufficient to turn out the Republican base. Bottom line, we are fools to let the Dems take over.
I could see the Democrats make some gains, but take control of the House or Senate? I just can't see that happening.
Wishful thinking from the DNC's Virtual Campaigners. Read the above then try to rationalize why the Media polls all switched to polling anyone over 18 split 38-27-35 D-R-I. All this "Analysis" is based on Garbage polling. As Barone shows, it should be polling 40-40-20 with the 20 split leans R/Leans D. Classic Garbage in-Garbage out error.
But that right, it not about reality, it about the usual suspects spewing Howie Dean's latest Talking Points memo.
The Dems threw the book at this administration - constant propaganda. They even called a healthy economy the worst recession since Hoover.
The daily barage is taking hold.
If they don't win.....oh my ....we'll have to put up with that cr*p again. !!!
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1613957/posts The new 'Republicans vote on Wednesday' game (FR mentioned) Townhall.com ^ | April 12, 2006 | Dustin Hawkins Posted on 04/12/2006 1:07:47 PM PDT by Political Junkie Too
We’ve all seen the e-mail sent out days before an election: “Democrats vote on Tuesday, Republicans vote on Wednesday. Don’t forget to vote! Wink, wink.” Or vice versa. Republicans can be just as juvenile. Generally speaking, such “friendly reminders” are sent as a joke, which then may or may not actually trick a few people. Probably those who are tricked are better off not voting anyway, but that is another point altogether. (In case you haven’t voted recently, everyone votes on Tuesday.) But there seems to be a new “Republicans vote on Wednesday” taking form in time for the 2006 election. This effort targets grassroots conservatives known for their passionate views about issues who may be open to a grassroots voting rebellion. But the effort is being led, or at the very least aided, by liberals pretending to be grassroots conservatives, as opposed to actual grassroots conservatives themselves. [snip] But the pretend-conservative act is being carried onto a whole new playing field, one that has become wildly influential over the past few years and one that does not stand to be instantly recognized as a fake. That playing field is the blogosphere, which is then used in conjunction with massive e-mailings to “spread the word” (as one e-mailer insisted I do to my readers/e-mail list) to other conservatives. The concept is the same: the blog or e-mail claims, first, that the said writer has been a conservative for years and that they have “had it with Republicans.” (Excerpt) Read more at townhall.com ...
Did you even bother to read the article before posting that?
That can't be effectively done with an openly adversarial media. (Although I certainly admit the White House could make a better effort!)
Case in point. The White House came out with a coordinated, powerful defense of Rummy this past week. My brief visit to a couple of Sunday talking head shows, however, had the usual Dem talking points screaming for Rummy's head.
Michael Barone is one of the most brilliant analysts, I think. He is a walking encyclopedia of politics and electoral knowledge. I am encouraged by his analysis.
Someone with more time (reporter?) would have to do a district by district breakdown...
I see Joe/Jane six-pack voting their pocket-book, gas prices are out in front EVERY day....
He certainly knows his stuff.
You ever been elected or held federal office?
Have you ever been to Zimbabwe?
Barrone has been in EVERY voting district in the USA withing the last 9 months. He stated so on Brit Hume's show. He knows more than anyone else alive, what is and is not going on in home districts.
LLS
Barone offers some interesting analysis as always. But he is not making a definitive statement here. He's postulating on an election still a lifetime away.
He knows that too.
Besides the Republican party has lost its footing, spending and institutionalizing many of the bad aspects that existed for 40 years before them.
They need a good swift kick in the ass. It's only that the socialist Dems are not anywhere near a reasonable solution.
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.