Senate more like likely than House to flip in November?
- From: "Halcombe" <halcombe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 3 May 2006 15:04:08 -0700
http://nationaljournal.com/todd.htm
ON THE TRAIL
The Senate's The Bellwether
By Chuck Todd, NationalJournal.com
© National Journal Group Inc.
Wednesday, May 3, 2006
One of the more interesting debates developing in professional and
amateur handicapping circles alike is over which chamber is more
vulnerable to a Democratic takeover -- the House or the Senate.
Actually, there isn't much to debate until we tell people where we
stand on the issue. Then a debate ensues.
Apparently, we hold the minority view that the Senate is more
vulnerable than the House. And since this is the week we're due to
update the Senate rankings, we figured it was as good of a time as any
to state our case as to why we think the Senate goes before the House.
Put another way, we can't figure out how the House would flip unless
the Senate does, too, but we can picture the Senate flipping before the
House. Here's why:
As longtime fans of this column know, this is the fifth cycle we've
ranked Senate races based on their potential to switch control from one
party to the other. We started this in the '98 cycle, and with the help
of amazing editors, have created a rankings monster.
This week we went back to the last four columns we wrote during each
election cycle to see how the final 11 or 12 "in play" Senate seats
fell. What's interesting about all four cycles is that one party did
distinctly better than the other each time:
* In 1998, nine of the races were arguably "too close to call" one
week before Election Day: They were Nos. 3 through 11 in the final
October column of that year, as the first two were no-brainer flips.
Democrats won seven of those nine. And even though the net gain for the
party was zero, considering the Lewinsky-tinged atmosphere that cycle,
not losing seats was a big deal. There were very real predictions at
one point that summer that the Republicans could get to 60 seats.
* In 2000, there were 10 races still "too close to call" in our
book: They were Nos. 3 through 12 in our last October column then, and
like 1998, the first two races in our rankings were the no-brainer
flips. Democrats won eight of the 10, thanks mostly to a surprising
Election Day surge for Democrats up and down the ballot. Remember that
whole Al-Gore-won-the-popular-vote thing?
* In 2002, there were 11 seats in play going into the election:
They were ranked No. 1 through 11 in our final October column, as even
the No. 1 seat wasn't a slam dunk (or so we thought). Republicans won
eight of the 11 in a remarkable night for the GOP, as they gained seats
even while holding the White House -- something Bill Clinton and Ronald
Reagan couldn't accomplish.
* In 2004, there were nine seats still in play that final week;
they were ranked No. 3 through 11 in our final pre-election column, and
the first two flips were no-brainers. Republicans won eight of the
nine.
Notice a pattern? The bottom line is that Senate races are very
susceptible to national breezes. A wind was blowing in one party's
direction in all four of the previous election cycles, and it made a
big difference in determining which party won the lion's share of the
competitive Senate seats. Assuming the pattern we've picked up on
holds, no more than 12 seats will be in play going into the final
weekend of the cycle. And the odds are the top-ranked race in our final
rankings will be considered a no-brainer by that time.
For the sake of this argument, Democrats can consider one seat theirs
before any votes are cast. So now the party needs to net five seats out
of the races we've ranked 2 through 13 in order to gain control. There
are six Republican seats in that group, and if Democrats have a good
election night (i.e., just a breeze), it's likely they'll win nine of
these 12 races. And that would net them, at the worst, another three
seats for a four-seat gain. For those wondering, that's the number many
handicappers are tossing around right now when pressed about an "all
things being equal" election scenario.
Now, in our previous four election examples, there was one that sticks
out to us -- 2004. It was the one election cycle where one party was a
decisive winner on election night. The breeze in the GOP's direction
became an Election-Day gust. Notice that Republicans almost ran the
table under that strong Republican turnout scenario. How likely is it
that the Democrats will have a very strong wind blowing in their
direction if President Bush's job ratings remain as far in the toilet
as they are now?
And then there's this fantastic statistic, unearthed by Jay Cost over
at RealClearPolitics.com, that ever since direct elections for the
Senate began, the House has never switched hands without the Senate
either switching to the same party or staying in the hands of the
successful party. Cost explained:
The seven times the House has switched, the Senate has also
switched. Not only does the Senate switch more frequently, it always
switches with the House. A switch in the Senate, therefore, seems to be
a necessary, but insufficient, condition for a switch in the House.
Conversely, a switch in the House is a sufficient, but not necessary,
condition for a switch in the Senate. In other words, when the House
has switched, the Senate has always followed; however, when the Senate
has switched, the House has not necessarily followed. Thus,
historically speaking, two scenarios are possible: the Senate alone
changes or both the House and the Senate change.
Of course, Cost isn't someone who's arguing that either the House or
the Senate will switch; in fact, he believes the GOP will hold onto
both. His column was mainly an attempt to debunk the myth that the
House is more vulnerable than the Senate. We're trying to bolster that
argument.
It would be historically shocking if the House switches hands and the
Senate doesn't. But forget statistics for a minute and let's remind
ourselves of a few things:
* It's easier for a Senate race to be nationalized. The media
coverage of Senate races increases every cycle, but the same can't be
said for House races. Media polls are done constantly for statewide
races, creating the aura of competition and feeding the notion that the
"message" a voter wants to send should be sent at the top of the
ticket.
* It's easier to localize a House race. While we're not one to
argue that somehow the environment is going to be completely localized
on the House level, at the very least it is easier to insert a local
issue into a House race debate.
* The National Republican Congressional Committee has a history of
saving incumbents. They've already done it this cycle with their adept
move at getting Rep. Tom DeLay, R-Texas, to remove himself from the
equation.
* The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee has an apparent
operational advantage over the National Republican Senatorial
Committee. Financially, the DSCC is in better shape than the NRSC, but
that's not the case on the House side where the Republicans have a
deeper well of donors to tap into. While the House Democrats have done
well to keep up, the NRCC has proven in cycles past to be a fundraising
juggernaut.
Bottom line: if you asked us to place a $100 wager on the house of
Congress we believe would flip first, we'd not only place our money on
the Senate, we'd probably ask if we could increase the amount of the
wager.
Trail Droppings
· Is All Well For Blackwell? For months, one of the five or six race
predictions we've been expressing the most confidence in is the Ohio
governor's race. Between anti-Bush feelings and anti-Bob Taft (R)
feelings, the race seems(ed) like a shoo-in for the pro-gun Democratic
Rep. Ted Strickland, no matter who he faces in the general. But,
frankly, we're getting a bit nervous about that prediction as we're
running into more and more smart Ohio natives who tell us we're nuts
for under-selling Republican Ken Blackwell. These folks argue that
Blackwell has the ability to excite the base and potentially steal some
normally Democratic-voting African-Americans because of the way he
works black churches. Plus, despite having an "R" next to his name,
Blackwell's been running an anti-establishment campaign, so he may come
across more of a "change" candidate than one might otherwise expect.
We'll see. We're still not convinced, but we certainly plan to
re-examine the state now that Blackwell is officially the nominee and
see if he can connect, and, more importantly, see if he can keep up
financially.
· Where's Murkowski? Sunday's "Face"-off between Democratic Sen.
Maria Cantwell and GOP Sen. Lisa Murkowski on "Face the Nation" got us
wondering why the Republican Senate Caucus doesn't put Murkowski out
there more on a national setting. Of all the Republican women in the
Senate, Murkowski strikes us as the one who could really sell well in
every part of the country. She may have gotten into the Senate via
nepotism, but there's something about her that makes us think she could
achieve more. Perhaps the best thing Murkowski could hope for is a
permanent retirement by her father, Gov. Frank Murkowski, and then the
reminders of how she obtained her seat would diminish. And that would
allow her to continue to develop her own persona. Bottom line: the
Republicans ought to give her more face time; it could only do the
party good.
-- Chuck Todd is a NationalJournal.com contributing editor and editor
in chief of The Hotline. His e-mail address is
ctodd@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
.
- Prev by Date: Re: Axis Of Idiocy
- Next by Date: Let's Kill the Messenger Who Brings Bad News
- Previous by thread: Still paying too much for fuel? It is our own fault.
- Next by thread: Let's Kill the Messenger Who Brings Bad News
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
