Order in the House?
I had a brush with greatness yesterday -- a roundtable luncheon with Rep. Paul Ryan, and a seat two chairs down from Peter Robinson.
Afterwards, Peter and I got into a conversation about the House possibly going Democratic in 2012. Apparently, smart and powerful sorts are telling Peter to be concerned . . . very concerned.
I don't think the GOP holding on to the House (current balance: 242R, 192D, 1 vacancy) is a sure thing. But I am curious as to how the math of a Democratic takeover would work. So I did a little digging.
Here's Charlie Cook's chart of competitive House races.
You'll notice: two Republicans seats are "lean Democratic" and four Democratic seats are "lean Republican".
Cook rates 7 Democratic seats and 10 Republican seats as "toss-ups".
That's not exactly the stuff of a gavel-transfer -- not unless Democrats hold on to everything they have and run wild in the 17 "lean Republican" districts currently held by GOP incumbents.
As you'll see in the chart, those 17 seats are, for the most part, in "purple" swing states where Obama's numbers have tanked during his annus horribilis -- and, even if he finds his footings, Obama's numbers won't return to the same highly high-water of 2008, when he was campaigning as a hypothetical rather than an incumbent defending a problematic record.
Here's another way to look at the House: presidential coat-tails, in the last two incumbent presidential elections.
Bill Clinton earned a second term in 1996 (31 states, 379 electoral votes, but only 49.2% of the vote -- Perot taking 8.4%). His party picked up only 9 seats. Nationally, House Democrats ran 1% behind their President.
In 2004, George Bush had a narrower re-election than Clinton: 31 states, 286 electoral votes, 50.7% of the vote). The House GOP seat added only three seats to its majority, with Republican candidates running 1.5% behind Bush.
Even in Ronald Reagan's 49-state wipeout back in 1984, House Republicans gained only 16 seats. Further proof of Reagan's greatness: House Republicans ran a full 12% behind the Gipper's 58.8% landslide.
It seems to me that Nancy Pelosi would have to figure a way a way to sweep those those districts that got caught up in the anti-war/anti-Bush/pro-Obama surges of 2006 and 2008.
Meanwhile, her party's standard-bearer will be running as a populist -- with an "us vs. them" theme that might get more desperate if his poll numbers don't begin to budge. And what would sound more desperate than Obama, come October 2012, trying to lure independents into the scary thought that he's the only standing between them and a complete Tea Party revolution in D.C.?
Translation: Obama won't be campaigning in purple swing districts as an ambassador of a larger movement, or talking about the great things he'll do in 2013 with a Democratic-run Congress.
Instead, I fully expect him to throw congressional Democrats under the bus by talking openly of a Republican House and a Republican Senate.
So much for Madame Minority Leader's dreams . . .
Absent the realization of a catastrophically inept Republican president ticket, can you create a scenario that has the House going Democratic in 2012?
- Comment (9)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (0)
Comments :
Re: Order in the House?
There is a better chance that the Republicans will end up with 60 seats in the Senate than that the Democrats will retake the House this time around. I do not know who told Peter Robinson to be very worried. He must have been smoking something.
Sep '10
Re: Order in the House?
You are assuming that the races will be two party races. The Tea Party may well run candidates against establishment Republicans. I think the GOP is making a mistake by taking the Tea Party for granted. While running a 3rd party candidate for President is a monumental task, running a third candidate in in congressional districts is not. Voters are every bit as fed up with establishment Republicans as they are with Obama and the Democrats.
Re: Order in the House?
I do not think that, in 2012, there will be more than a handful of third-party runs. If in 2013, the Republicans go squishy -- as, of course, they may -- all bets are off. Where the Tea Party may makes its mark is in the primaries for 2012.
Apr '11
Re: Order in the House?
I think your scenario only applies to the case where Dems put up fake Tea Party candidates. I anticipate Republicans to be well supported by the Tea Party. Despite the bluster, the House has been behaving pretty well according to TP standards, so there's no sense in rocking the boat. There might be a few races where it matters, but I don't think it will tip the balance.
Dec '10
Re: Order in the House?
"Absent the realization of a catastrophically inept Republican president ticket, can you create a scenario that has the House going Democratic in 2012?"
Fraud, on the sort of brazen scale we see in south Florida, or as Minnesota saw in Franken's "victory", coupled with massive unrest. That is the plan, the lawyers are lined up, and George Soros' "SOS" (Secretaries of State) plan is already in place. Only massive turnout by good people will overwhelm the opportunities for fraud. Pretending all is well will not achieve that.
Professor Rahe, you may want to go back and listen to Barone and Barbour in last week's podcast. I don't think either were smoking, but I could be mistaken.
Apr '11
Re: Order in the House?
Absent the realization of a catastrophically inept Republican president ticket, can you create a scenario that has the House going Democratic in 2012?
Yes. Republican complacency, leading to a number of surprise upsets.
Re: Order in the House?
CJ caught it: What I was describing to Bill Whalen yesterday was indeed last week's podcast with Haley Barbour, former chairman of the Republican National Committee, former chairman of the Republican Governors' Association, and sitting chief executive of the great state of Mississippi, and Michael Barone, the wisest and most knowledgeable political journalist in the country.
Haley and Michael were making, basically, two points:
1) Over the last several presidential elections, ticket-splitting has declined. Should Obama, who will have at least $1 billion to spend, and who--let's face it--may face a weak GOP opponent--should Obama get re-elected, he may pull a lot of Democrats into the House.
2) This isn't likely--but it's a lot more likely that people suppose. Haley in particular said the he sensed real complacency among Republicans about the House. And Haley has been in politics long to enough to hate complacency.
May '11
Re: Order in the House?
I believe a much more threatening aspect is the plight of the unions. This is an "Absolutely Must Win" for them especially the public sector unions. They are going to pull out all stops to make sure that the Senate remains (D) and the House returns to (D). They can live without Pres. Obama but they are in a world of hurt if the House remains(R) and the Senate goes (R) as well, more so if the Senate goes 60+ (R).
May '10
Re: Order in the House?
Folks, don't forget we'll see redistricting in 2012. The GOP will have a built-in advantage they didn't have in the 2010 election. The Cook Report admits its estimates are especially spongy because of that:
How big is that advantage? I'm not sure, but it's got to be more than 10 seats, right?