History favors Democrats in Congress races

Washington Times ^ | 09/05/2006 | Donald Lambro

[SirLinksalot]

History favors Democrats in Congress races

By Donald Lambro THE WASHINGTON TIMES

The race for Congress and the nation's governorships bolted from the Labor Day starting gate yesterday, with voter-preference polls tightening between the parties in an election that both sides said will be even closer by November.

Historically, the party that holds the White House usually loses seats in Congress in a second term, and campaign strategists in both parties expected Democrats to make gains in the House and Senate -- while two top election forecasters predicted they will win 15 or more seats that will give them majority control of the House.

If "the political climate remains as it is today -- a very big 'if' -- Republicans will likely lose the House and their dominance of the nation's governorships, but hang on to the Senate by a thread," veteran analyst Charlie Cook said last week in his National Journal report.

Analyst Stuart Rothenberg predicted that Democrats would gain between 15 and 20 additional House seats, "which would translate to between 218 and 223 seats -- and a majority -- in the next House."

But Republican officials said the generic party-preference polls that have showed the Democrats leading were skewed and that they would hold on to the House.

"I think the national generic polls are irrelevant. House races come down to a choice between two people on the ballot, and we've successfully made that happen in the last three election cycles," said Carl Forti, chief spokesman for the National Republican Congressional Committee.

[johnny7]

The history of the past five years... demands that they be denied.

[RexBeach]

Tradesports.com shows GOP chances of hanging onto control of the House dropping quite a lot over the weekend.

The Senate, according to the website, still appears likely to remain under Republican control.

[FlipWilson]

Well, I am not shocked that Tradesports dropped this weekend. Labor Day is the real start of campaign season. Thus, this was the last weekend the MSM could beat the "the election has already been won by the democrats" drum. Believe me, that drum was relentless. The MSM's theme was not "are the dems going to win" but "what are the dems going to do once they have won?"

[Non-Sequitur]

If "the political climate remains as it is today -- a very big 'if' --

I would agree with that statement.

[RexBeach]

You are quite right.

Merely reporting what the website is saying.

[KC_Conspirator]

If "the political climate remains as it is today -- a very big 'if' -- Republicans will likely lose the House and their dominance of the nation's governorships, but hang on to the Senate by a thread," veteran analyst Charlie Cook said last week in his National Journal report.

Nonsense. The GOP will hold he house. Its the statewide races where election fraud can steal elections that makes senate and state candidates vulnerable.

[tobyhill]

"But Republican officials said the generic party-preference polls that have showed the Democrats leading were skewed and that they would hold on to the House."

It's fairly skewed when these MSM/Rat endorsed pollsters oversample Rats by 8-14 points and true Independents by 10-25 points. The MSM pulls this stunt every election year. They'll show the Republicans down by 10-20 points, depending on the poll, in an attempt to convince people that they don't stand a chance and then around the last will tighten the numbers so if they turn out wrong they won't completely lose their credibility. The MSM will be touting out people claiming to be Republican but "so frustrated" with the party that they are voting Rat but in reality they were voting Rats anyway.

[MNJohnnie]

Yeah Cookie said the same think in 2002 and 2004. Everything always is suppose to be in the Dems favor. Same argument was made in 2002.

Problem for the Democrats is to win their candidates have to campaign. As soon as they open their mouths most of them remind Voters why they loath the Democrats.

I suspect as usual it will be a incumbent friendly year with people like Charlie Cook and Lambro trying desperately to spin why they got their forecasting completely wrong.

[brownsfan]

Here are two things that are going to hurt the republicans in November. These are merely observations:

#1 - An oilman is in the White House. Gas prices went up, with dire predictions of $4-$5/gal gas. The republicans appear to have trouble on their hands in the mid-terms and *poof* gas is $2.40/gal here and they're not talking about $2/gal gas soon.

#2 - The Iranians were said to have a surprise for us on 8/22. Then again on 8/31. The fact that nothing happened will be played up as fear mongering by the right.

I know that gas pricing is complex. I know that world events are unpredictable. I'm just telling you what the "average" voter is likely looking at in making his/her decision. One of the things saving the republicans is that the democrats still show themselves to be weak on security. That may not be enough. November could be very bumpy.

[frogjerk]

I suspect as usual it will be a incumbent friendly year with people like Charlie Cook and Lambro trying desperately to spin why they got their forecasting completely wrong.

And don't forget this:

[MNJohnnie]

Absurd hysteric Know Nothing nonsense. 1st Gas prices RISING is suppose to hurt the GOP now dropping gas prices is suppose to hurt them?

That is the most absurd sort of wishful thinking from the Democrat Virtual Campaigners I have ever heard.

[SirLinksalot]

Just FYI,

Even a conservative site like THE AMERICAN THINKER's Political correspondent believes that a Democratic takeover of the house looks likely. See here :

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=5828

---

Will the Democrats Take the House? It Might Happen
September 5th, 2006



It is a lot harder to reliably forecast the likelihood of a change in control for the House than for the Senate. There are 435 House races, and roughly 65 of them are drawing some degree of competitive attention this year, far more than in prior cycles.

There are few independent polls that have been released on the competitive House races. Democratic challengers have raised substantial sums in many races, and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee has as much cash on hand as the Republican Congressional Campaign Committee. The RNC has much more cash on hand than the DNC (4 times as much), but the Democratic Senate Committee has almost twice as much cash on hand as the Republican Senate Committee. Among all 3 national committees in total, the GOP holds only a modest cash on hand advantage.

With a much greater number of Republican than Democratic seats in both Houses that are at risk of changing hands, the GOP’s advantage may not be enough for all the candidates who need it.

The Senate

The Senate has only 33 races this cycle, and the Democrats need to pick up 6 seats to gain control. Given that 18 of the 33 seats this year are Democrat-held seats, at one time, this was considered likely to be a good year for GOP pickups. No more.

The Democrats did a better job recruiting challengers, and the political environment is, quite obviously, not favorable to Republicans this year, with the President’s approval rating still south of 40%. How the Democrats can gain control of the Senate is pretty straightforward: they need to hold their most vulnerable seats (ranked by vulnerability) in New Jersey, Maryland, Washington, Minnesota and Michigan, and then win the needed six from among Pennsylvania, Ohio, Montana, Rhode Island, Missouri, Virginia and Tennessee, and possibly Arizona or Nevada (also ranked from most vulnerable to least).

At the moment, three seats are indicating a possible change in control: Pennsylvania, Ohio and Montana are leaning towards the Democrats, for a net gain of 3 seats. Rhode Island (if Chafee is the Republican nominee), Maryland (if Mfume is the Democratic nominee) and New Jersey, are tossups. The Republican candidates hold narrow leads in Missouri, Virginia and Tennessee.

There is also the wild card faint possibility of Joe Lieberman getting re-elected as an independent in Connecticut and choosing not to caucus with his former Party, which has effectively abandoned him. The Democrat leads in Ohio, Pennsylvania and Montana are all in the 3 to 6 point range, and are hardly conclusive at this stage. As I have been saying all year, it is unlikely the Democrats will gain control of the Senate, but likely they will pick up several seats.

The House

In the House, Democrats need to pick up a net of 15 seats to gain control. For several months, many of the leading political analysts expressed deep skepticism about the Democrats’ ability to do that, and could not foresee where the likely pickups might occur. That is no longer the case. I have reviewed the latest analyses by Larry Sabato, Stuart Rothenberg, Charles Cook, Robert Novak, and blogger Chris Bowers of MyDD.com. All were completed in the last week, and there is remarkable consistency both in identifying the races where a seat could turn over and in noting how few opportunities exist for the Republicans to pick up a Democrat-held seat. In fact, in only one race, do any of the analysts rate any Republican challenger as either ahead or even. That is the 8th district in Illinois, where Dave McSweeney is challenging Democrat Melissa Bean. And even here, the consensus view is still a narrow Bean lead.

At the moment, there are 232 Republican held seats in the Congress. In the 2004 Presidential election, George Bush beat John Kerry in 255 of the 435 Congressional districts. So there are many more Democrats in Congress in districts where Bush won, than Republicans holding seats in districts where Kerry won (more than twice as many in fact). This would suggest many more opportunities exist for Republicans to pick up seats than Democrats. But again, this year, the political environment is so nasty for the GOP that the opportunities for seat changes seem to be virtually all on one side. In fact, it is possible that the GOP could win more Democratic held Senate seats than Democrat-held House seats this year.

The analysts have been raising their estimates of the likely number of seats the Democrats will pick up in recent reports. Sabato is now forecasting a Democrat gain of 12 to 15 seats, Cook thinks Democrats will pick up seats in the mid-teens. Rothenberg sees a 15-20 seat Democrat gain. Novak is forecasting a 14 seat or larger gain for the Democrats, and Bowers a 12-19 seat gain. So all the analysts are in the same general prediction range, right around the point where the House turns over majority control to the Democrats. Nobody is saying that the 15 seat pickup is locked in, but rather that it is there for the taking.

Summing the forecasts into a consensus view

To make some sense of the five reports, I attempted to lay them out side by side to see where they agree and disagree on individual races. I used a simple point system to come up with a consensus view for the five forecasts.

If an analyst thinks the Republicans are likely to win a seat, that is a +2. If the analyst thinks the seat is leaning to the Republicans, that is a +1. If a seat is a tossup, that is a zero. If a seat is leaning to the Democrats, that is a -1. If a seat is likely to go to the Democrats, that is a -2. In general, a seat that is leaning might be associated with up to a 5 or 6 point lead in a race, slightly larger than a poll’s stated margin or error.

On the whole, Sabato and Cook are more reluctant to call a race as leaning, and more likely to call a race a tossup than Rothenberg, Novak or Bowers. Sabato has the Democrats ahead in two GOP held seats, and shows 14 other GOP-held seats as tossups. He calls Illinois 8 a Democrat-held tossup seat. Cook has the Democrats ahead in one GOP-held race, and calls 18 other GOP-held seats tossups. Rothenberg has the Democrats ahead in 7 GOP-held seats, and calls 10 other GOP-held seats tossups. Novak has McSweeney ahead in Illinois 8, and has Democrats ahead in 15 GOP-held seats (11 of which he calls toss-ups leaning Democratic). Bowers has the Democrats ahead in 9 GOP-held seats, 5 of which he calls leaning tossups, and has 7 other GOP held seats as pure tossups.

After running the numbers for all five analysts, the consensus view is that nine seats held by Republicans are viewed as leaning to the Democrats, and one, Tom DeLay’s old seat (Texas 22), is seen as likely to switch to the Democrats. This last forecast seems pretty reliable since Republicans will have to write in their nominee in this district.

Contested GOP seats

The 9 seats that are leaning to the Democrats (with the Bush 2004 vote percentage in parenthesis) are as follows:

Arizona 8 (open seat), 53%

Colorado 7 (open seat), 48%

Connecticut 4 (Chris Shays’ seat), 46%

Iowa 1 (open seat), 46%

Indiana 8 (John Hostettler’s seat), 53%

Indiana 9 (Mike Sodrel’s seat), 59%

Kentucky 4 (Geoff Davis’ seat), 63%

Pennsylvania 6 (Jim Gerlach’s seat), 48%

North Carolina 11 (Charles Taylor’s seat), 57%

Even among the 9 seats, several are very close to breakeven using my point system (and some analysts have the Republicans ahead in North Carolina 11 and Connecticut 4). Only Indiana 9, Pennsylvania 6, Arizona 8, and Iowa 1 have some degree of consensus that they are leaning Democratic, and even in these races, one or more of the analysts thinks the race is a tossup.

Two Republican held seats come out exactly even in the consensus view:

Connecticut 2 (Rob Simmons), 44%,

Indiana 2 (Chris Chocola), 56%.

Fifteen Republican-held seats are seen as leaning to the Republicans, some very narrowly (especially the first 7 seats below). These include:

Florida 22 (Clay Shaw’s seat), 48%

Wisconsin 8 (open seat), 55%

New Mexico 1 (Heather Wilson’s seat), 48%

Ohio 18 (open seat, formerly Bob Ney’s), 57%

Illinois 6 (open seat), 53%

Virginia 2 (Thelma Drake’s seat), 58%

Ohio 1 (Steve Chabot’s seat), 51%

Minnesota 6 (open seat), 57%

Connecticut 5 (Nancy Johnson’s seat), 49%

New York 24 (open seat), 48%

Pennsylvania 7 (Curt Weldon’s seat), 47%

Pennsylvania 8 (Mike Fitzpatrick’s seat), 48%

Pennsylvania 10 (Don Sherwood’s seat), 60%

Arizona 5 (J.D. Hayworth’s seat), 54%

Ohio 15 (Deborah Pryce’s seat), 50%

Finally, 12 Republican-held seats are viewed as likely to stay Republican, though they remain competitive. If there is a big Democratic wave, some of these seats could fall to the Democrats as well.

Washington 8 (Dave Reichert’s seat), 48%

Colorado 4 (Marilyn Musgrave’s seat), 58%

Florida 13 (open seat), 56%

Nevada 3 (John Porter’s seat), 50%

New York 20 (John Sweeney’s seat), 54%

New Hampshire 2 (Charles Bass’ seat), 47%

California 11 (Richard Pombo’s seat), 53%

New York 29 (Randy Kuhl’s seat), 56%

Kentucky 3 (Anne Northrup’s seat), 51%

Texas 23 (Henry Bonilla’s seat), (new district)

Florida 9 (open seat), 57%

New Jersey 7 (Mike Ferguson’s seat), 53%

In total, the Republican-held seats that are either leaning to the Democrats or tossups number 12. Add to this, the 15 Republican seats that are considered to be leaning to the Republicans, and you get to 27 very vulnerable GOP-held seats. Including only the 7 leaning Republican seats that are narrowly leaning to the GOP, one comes up with 19 top targets for the Democrats where they are ahead or about even.

Can the Democrats snatch 15 of the 19 or 15 of the 27? It is certainly possible. Nine of the 27 best targets for the Democrats are open seats, which are much more prone historically to turn over to the other party, and in another 10 districts the Bush percentage in 2004 was 51% or lower. Among the next 12 vulnerable GOP held seats, one is an open seat, and in 4 others the Bush percentage was 51% or less in 2004.

Other than Texas 22, there is no seat among any of the other top 26 Republican-held seats that are being targeted by the Democrats that could not potentially be held by the GOP. It is, however, highly unlikely that such a scenario will play out. If the President’s approval rating remains where it is today and the Democrats win just half of the 26 very vulnerable GOP held seats, plus Texas 22, the Democrats will wind up right around where they need to be, just one seat short of a majority.

Contested Democrat seats

If the Republicans want to make a Democratic takeover of the House more difficult, they need to put some Democratic held seats on their side of the board. The consensus of the five analysts, is that they are unlikely to accomplish this. Other than Illinois 8, (56% Bush), where the race is viewed as very tight by all but Chris Bowers, the other two Democratic held seats that are viewed as leaning Democratic are:

West Virginia 1 (Alan Mollohan’s seat, 58%

Georgia 12 (John Barrow’ seat) (new district).

Seven other Democrat-held seats are viewed as competitive, though likely to remain Democratic. These include:

Georgia 8 (Jim Marshall’s seat), new district

Iowa 3 (Leonard Boswell’s seat), 50%

Louisiana 3 (Charles Melancon’s seat), 58%

Ohio 6 (open seat), 51%

South Carolina 5 (John Spratt’s seat), 57%

Texas 17 (Chet Edwards’ seat), 70%

Vermont (at large open seat), 39%

Could the GOP steal one of the Southern seats or Vermont? Maybe, but I would not bet on their picking off a handful. In the two Georgia seats, the incumbents are running in new districts,which adds a bit of uncertainty to their races. That is also the case with Henry Bonilla, Republican in Texas 23, who will run in a less Republican district than in 2004).

The Republican problem in defending the House in 2006 is evident in the lists above. 39 Republican-held seats are considered as in play, and at best 10 Democratic held seats. From now until Election Day, the GOP will be playing defense. As the Chicago Bears have shown all too often, that is usually not enough to win.

[brownsfan]

"That is the most absurd sort of wishful thinking from the Democrat Virtual Campaigners I have ever heard."

Ok. Whatever works for you. I'm going with what I heard in picnics in my neck of the woods.

And the polls are reflecting....?

[lonestar67]

I disagree.

Gas has dropped more than 50 cents a gallon across the nation. There is considerable and open discussion of gas going below 2$. That would be a catastrophic blow to the "bad economy" mantra of dems and media. It was already unsustainable with 4% GDP growth and 4.7 unemployment numbers.

It think the weeks of Iran will only underscore that the Europeans and UN are moral frauds incapable of keeping promises. This will underscore US hegemony good arguments by conservatives.

I think we will now begin to see 'conserative politicians are traitors' stories between now and the election. This will be an effort to confirm hoax polling showing Republicans 'behind.'

[jveritas]

Very weak analysis in pint 1 and 2.

Regarding your point 1 the lower the gas prices the better it is for the Republicans, I do not know how did you come with this conspiracy theory f yours, people do not think that way.

Regarding your point 2, I was not aware of many people talking about this August 22nd Iran surprise and definitely not the President or Republicans in Congress. Again your are creating another conspiracy theory and the American people do not think that way.

[AmishDude]

I noticed a lot of carbon-copy stories this weekend about how the Democrats were going to sweep to victory. This, after Republicans started jumping in the polls, particularly on the generic ballot question.

[no dems]

If "the political climate remains as it is today -- a very big 'if' --

63 days is an eternity in politics. There could be an October surprise from Karl Rove or a 9/11/06 surprise from the Islamofascists.

[AmishDude]

Unfortunately, in politics gas prices only increase. The only exception to this will be if prices dip below $2 at any point.

[tobyhill]

15 BILLION BARRELS of oil found in deepest drilling yet, Gulf Of Mexico. If Rats are voted in, finds like this will be obsolete because the environmental wacko wing of their party will shut down any prospect of recovering it.

[longtermmemmory]

This is from candidate school 101. seriously, they teach this to candidates.

Look for a trend and claim it as your own. No matter how far back you have to go.

Thus the "trend" of the last 20 years can be ignored and you can reach back to the stone age.

[brownsfan]

"I disagree. "

You may be right. I'm just repeating some of the stuff I heard over the long weekend. Some of it was by people I know wouldn't vote republican ever. But it was discussed as if the ideas had merit. I kind of stayed out of the way.

I know the pocketbook overrules the conspiracy nuts. So, I'm not sure what effect gas prices will really have on the election.

I did hear a fair amount of talk about Iran and the deadlines, more than I thought I would. I expect the MSM to crank up the fearmonger angle, but I did mention that the democrats, even to the democrats I talked to, still look weak on security.

[longtermmemmory]

I bet if we look to 2000 and 2002 and 2004 we can find the word for word exact same articles.

I bet some plagerism is involved

[FreedomPoster]

The "average" voter was probably unaware about 8/22, and if he is, probably does not associate it with Republicans.

[brownsfan]

"The "average" voter was probably unaware about 8/22, and if he is, probably does not associate it with Republicans."

I'm not sure. I do know the fear monger angle was thrown about, but that's not new. And certainly doesn't have to be tied to 8/22.

[xp38]

The future is unwritten

[reformedliberal]

Just IMO, but when I hear the donks saying over and over "We are not safe" and "Bush has made us less safe". I consider that fear-mongering.

Gas is down $.40 in my area and it is harvest time. It is possible that the combination of the drop and the timing will lower food prices, somewhat. That is a budget item every housewife is keenly aware of and if it is lower, it will help the perception of a good economy.

What I have overheard, heard directly and am told others are hearing is total outrage over the Plame incident....and this from people I am amazed even understood what was going on. I suspect that many, many people are very aware of the DBM lies, fauxtography and manufactured outrage from the left.

While I know no one who is actually going to change their vote,on either side, I am hearing more and more anecdotes about older donks who are going to vote security. I have heard credible information that there are people who should vote donk (teachers and bureaucrats) who privately are confiding to health and mental health professionals that they are very stressed because of the foiled terror plots and the "convert or die" threats. These folks will be silent in their job places for obvious reasons, but may vote GOP in some races or stay home.

Finally: in the stories about how Hillary is being offered the House leadership position by her party if she withdraws from any POTUS run, was the statement that she "could then run in 2012." This has shocked me, because she would not run against an incumbent donk. IF this is a true report, it can only mean that the donks know they will lose the 2008 General Election. I have trouble believing people would vote for a divided government after the last 6 years of donk obstructionism. Therefore, it could be that the donks know very well they will not gain control of the House this year.

YMMV

[brownsfan]

YMMV?

What's that?

Thanks for the reply. It's surprising to hear folks out your way know, and understand the Plame case. Never came up here. Totally washed away, like it didn't happen.
I suspect you're right, that dems never admit to other dems that they'll vote republican, but in the booth, they have to do what they think will keep them safe. Democrats will keep no one safe.

[FreedomPoster]

YMMV = Your Mileage May Vary

In this context, a general disclaimer that conditions may be different in your experience.

[tobyhill]

The Plame fiasco is just another nail in the MSM's coffin. It was barely two months ago news sources like Chrissy Matthew's Noballs was celebrating the "guaranteed" indictment of Rove only for them to lose any credibility they may have had left and people know the Rats and MSM go hand and hand.

[CzarNicky]

Tradesports.com shows GOP chances of hanging onto control of the House dropping quite a lot over the weekend.

Sounds like easy money.

[italianquaker]

We will pick up seats in the senate for one, the house races are local and most will stay with the incumbents and remember that chi def that won the super bowl
the gop will be doing the super bowl shuffle

[iopscusa]

I don't trust the idiot polls, I don't trust the MSM and I certainly don't trust the Leftist/Demo-rats and most of the Libertarians. In the end, the economy is great, the borders are terrible but we have taken the fight to the Islamo-Fascists in spite of the nay-sayers and half-brights. The obstructions and Lies (Plame) of the Demo-rats certainly don't engender a lot of confidence that they have any ideas and they certainly have no plan to win this war....I just hope that my fellow American voters are in the same frame of mind when they are in the booth.

[Welike ike]

Rex, Tradesports is the same betting site that had Bush at 20% chance to win on Election day 2004, and also had Obrador as a lock to win the Mexican elections. A amateur site dominated by Emotional investors.

[Welike ike]

KC damn straight. Great Observation. House races are local, and the GOP does not have any Incumbents in inner cities anyways.

[GregH]

They were similar things in 02,04 and their predictions for 06 are over the top. It is pretty hard to see Dems controlling the senate. Republicans have a strong grasp on House seats , most incumbents have knowledge of local politics and would probably be reelected, the number of really competitive seats are not that much.

[Welike ike]

SirLink, just Remember in 2004 the Publisher of the American Thinker endorsed John Kerry!!!! and your tag line is misleading. It still shows the GOP losing only 11 Seats. I am tired of defeatists posting misleading articles about the House races. This is all based on Summer polling that will tighten in the fall.

[Welike ike]

I agree. Sirlink this is all rehashed garbage from 2002 and 2004. These morons think that 3 GOP incumbents will lose in RED STATE Indiana. What a farce.

1. Baron Hill is pro gay marriage.
2. Donnelly is a trial Lawyer
3. Ellsworth the Sherriff, had a 14 year old witness assasinated in a murder trial.

these are the issue that swing elections, not Beltway forecasting.