Guest Slot: Lewis Baston on the US Mid-Terms
August 22nd, 2006
-
Will 10% poll margins be enough for the Democrats?
It is always election season in the United States. Every second November sees either a Presidential election or important midterm elections that determine control of Congress and other political offices across the country. Currently, the Republicans run both houses of Congress, but the outcome in November 2006 seems in doubt given the unpopularity both of President Bush and Congress. If the Democrats win one or both houses, the implications for the Bush administration are serious.
The Republicans have controlled the House of Representatives since 1994, but never with a comfortable majority. The Democrats currently need a net pick-up of 15 seats in a 435-member House to win control. On the face of it, this should be easy. President Bush’s approval ratings are in the tank, more or less everywhere.
In ‘generic’ polls as to which party voters would prefer to see in control, double-digit majorities are choosing the Democrats. The Democrats seem highly motivated and have recruited some strong candidates. But despite all this, most commentators think the chances of a change in control are only evens or worse.
There are remarkably few truly competitive House districts, so gaining a net 15 out of perhaps 25 vulnerable Republican seats would be a strong showing. There are several reasons for this. One is gerrymandering. In several large states – Ohio, Texas and Pennsylvania – Republicans have drawn the boundaries for blatant party advantage. In others such as California there have been bipartisan ‘incumbent protection plans’ to minimise the number of marginal seats.
-
It is quite possible for the Democrats to poll more votes, as they have several times since 1994, but win fewer seats – they need a 5-7 per cent lead nationally to win control.
Winning the Senate, where the Republicans have 55-45 majority is perhaps even tougher. The Democrats need six net gains in order to win control. This is possible, but quite a stretch.
It would be surprising if the highly conservative (and homophobic) Senator Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania survived against Democratic challenger Bob Casey. Conrad Burns of Montana is also very endangered by links with corrupt lobbyists and his own foot-in-mouth tendency.
Three other Republican Senators are lagging in the polls at the moment – John Chafee in Rhode Island (easily the most anti-Bush state – the net Presidential approval rating is -54), Jim Talent in Missouri and Mike DeWine in Ohio. The Republicans have narrow leads in a number of other races, including Nevada, Tennessee and now Virginia, where James Webb, once Reagan’s Navy Secretary, has been gaining ground on tarnished Republican golden boy George Allen. There are currently no Democratic incumbents behind in the polls, although the most endangered seats seem to be in Maryland, New Jersey and Michigan.
The picture may be complicated a little by Independents – Bernie Sanders of Vermont would vote with the Democrats, while if Joe Lieberman defeats the official Democrat Ned Lamont in Connecticut his voting behaviour would be less predictable. It might all come down to which side of the aisle Lieberman chooses.
It is tempting to follow the conventional wisdom and look for modest Democrat gains in both houses in November, without control switching in either. The Iowa electronic markets give the Democrats about a 50 per cent chance for the House but only about 20 per cent for the Senate.
But in the past midterm elections have often seen a strong trend, with most of the close races ending up on the same side and a change in the political atmosphere. In 1986 the Democrats gained the Senate surprisingly easily; in 1994 few anticipated the size of the Republican sweep; in 1998 the Democrats’ resilience delivered a verdict on the attempted impeachment of President Clinton. In 2002 the midterms gave encouragement to the Bush administration.
The 2006 results could be a long way from the conventional wisdom on either side. So far, 2006 looks like a Democratic year, and brave punters may find that there is good value in a bet on the Republicans losing both houses.
Lewis Baston is research officer of the Electoral Reform Society and co-author
of several books on elections.
MessageSpace Advertising
“while if Joe Lieberman defeats the official Democrat Ned Lamont in Connecticut ”
Are there any polls on this race?
Is Virginia a good bet after Allen negative TV coverage/press last week?
Good article Lewis . How often are the congress seats and boundaries reviewed and when is the next review due . I am a little surprised that noone has used the US legal system to challenge the clear geerymandering that goes on over there although I realise that both Democrats and Republicans will see an advantage in having many safe seats and few marginals .
This is a great article. Hadn’t realised how difficult it would be for the Dems to take control of Congress. Ah well.
3: Bizzarely, the US legal system has been used to create some of the gerrymandered seats in ethnic areas!
3) The next set of boundary reviews are due after the 2010 Census
Whilst in theory the Dems need 15 gains or so, 95% of all Congressional seats are incumbent re-elected (even the super marginal ones!)
Andrea, the last one I saw gave Liberman a 13 point advantage.
The best bet for polls in America is a site called http://www.realclearpolitics.com. Hope this helps.
3 - I am a little surprised that noone has used the US legal system to challenge the clear geerymandering that goes on over there
They have, in Texas, and they lost.
It’s Lincoln Chafee, not John Chafee (his late father and predecessor in the Senate).
7.Thanks Commentator.
I’d think Liebermann will, if elected, work with the Democrats, and after a short pause they’ll forgive him. He’s worked with most of them harmoniously all his political life: the insurgency was from the grass routes, not his colleagues.
If it makes the difference for control of the Senate, the pause will be around one nanosecond.
Thanks for this interesting and instructive article, Lewis. Not sure I would want to bet on this market though.
Interesting that Bush in particular seems himself as a promoter of democracy when the US electoral process is so spectacularly corrupt.
13. Also that he was elected to the Presidency despite having fewer votes than Gore received in 2000, and ultimately won by a majority of one (in the Supreme Court).
Are any of the players for the next presidentials up for election this time, and if so, what are their prospects?
8 What were the grounds for saying gerrymandering was lawful ?
15 - (paraphrasing) that the constitution puts the boundary decisions in the hands of the state legislature, and they aren’t constrained to be “fair” with it. However, from precedents in other cases, the 14th Amendment does impose strict scrutiny on any districting that denies people the equal protection of the law on racial grounds.
I think you also mean Minnesota rather than Michigan as the third competitive Democratic seat.
The Lieberman/Lamont race is proving rather more divisive than Nick Palmer’s post might imply. Some prominent Democrats including John Kerry are already throwing him anchors; furthermore Lieberman himself is demonstrating that the core of his support is essentially Republican - which will reduce his support with wavering moderate Democrats. Compounding this, the Connecticut Republican’s are all but embracing him as their unofficial candidate, throwing their official one under the bus. This one will go to the wire, but whoever wins I think Lieberman will have permanently burnt his bridges with some of his colleagues.
Don’t forget that there are three competitive republican house seats in CT and the Democrats desperately need to win them. Lieberman is not helping.
16 The 14th has been used to create districts that particularly enfranchise Latino or African American voters… I can’t remember which city it is in, but there is a crab shaped district that takes in more or less only African American voters and since black voters tend to vote 80-90% for the Democrats, hey presto!
18 - there are several like that in various states.
15 Vieth- Jubelirer is the biggest case I know of on gerrymandering. The Supreme Court ruled that it was a political issue not a question of policy. The reform institute has a good site with all the relevant links if you are interested. http://www.reforminstitute.org/cgi-data/issues/files/13.shtml
7 - Commentator - more recent ones have it rather closer. Lieberman leads Lamont by 5ish.
Andy I believe that poll was Ramussen and only sampled 500 likely voters, making the swing too wild (Ramussen did poorly in the Presidentials IIRC).
A voting system where the votes are counted in private electronically with software that nobody can check or verify. A flawed voting system open to corruption, according to the Whitehouse’s own investigative committee. Electonic voting machines provided by Republican supporting businesses, one of which promised to deliver Bush the last election. A bogeyman living in a cave who even Bush admitted helped him win the 2004 election. Bush won more votes than those even registered to vote in one precinct in Ohio.
Do opinion polls matter?
1 - It’s too early for polls to be meaningful in that race. It has only been weeks since the primary and Lieberman’s campaign hasn’t really got going yet.
I suspect Lamont will end up getting pretty much all the Democrat vote though, and most leading Democrats, even those that supported Lieberman in the Primary, are now backing Lamont. He would then only need to win a chunk of the Independent vote to win.
The Democrat gerrymander of California, organised by Congressman Burton was legendary.
As for Presidential elections who did win in 1960? It is now accepted that Nixon had the election stolen in both Illinois and Texas.
Remembering the way the Mayor Daley behaved in 1960 when he porsonally “carried” Illinois, there was more than a touch of irony when his son cried wolf at the Bush victories.
Incidentally the Democratic machine in Illinois had so corrupted the Congressional Districts that in 1968, following a Court order, the state was a single giant district, until court ordered boundaries came into force.
Lets not get too snooty in Europe - it is pretty good bet that teh French in Maastricht was subject to creative counting.
Sorry all - it was in 1964 that Illinois had the Congressional District problem. I have just looked it up in “The Making of the President”
Illinois has some oddly shaped Congressional districts:
http://psephos.adam-carr.net/countries/u/usa/congress/il12004.shtml
http://psephos.adam-carr.net/countries/u/usa/congress/il22004.shtml
8 The most recent two polls were: 45-43-6 and 44-42-3, Lieberman-Lamont-Schlesinger, from Rasmussen and American Research Group, respectively. MoEs 4 and 3.5. Rasmussen way overpredicted Republican support in 2000 but was much improved in 2004.
Sorry, 21.
18 - Anna. True but the majority African American districts are generally created by Republicans, the idea being that if you load up one district with Democrat minded African Americans, the remaining districts in the area can be made safely Republican.
17 - “Lieberman is not helping.” Well you could argue that CT Democrat Primary voters are not helping win those 3 districts by dumping a popular Senator and now having to divert resources to campaigning for a Senate seat that would have been a foregone conclusion. Lieberman has already been endorsed by Republican congressman Chris Shays (4th district CT) and will likely be endorsed by Nancy Johnson and Rob Simmons as well.
27. I like Number 17 boundaries!
24 “and most leading Democrats, even those that supported Lieberman in the Primary, are now backing Lamont.”
They are formally endorsing lamont that’s true. There is an element of going through the motions though, and except for the likes of John Kerry who has his own agendas will not be especially aggressive in going after Lieberman. Put it this way I would expect Hillary and Chris Dodd to spend a lot more time campaigning in Pennsylvania against Santorum than in Connecticut against Lieberman.
31: Surely the fact that Lieberman votes with the Republicans and is now being endorsed by them shows that the Democrats were right to dump him?
The latest polls show a vey close race in Connecticut
http://www.mydd.com/
34 Mark With the exception of Iraq related votes , he doesn’t actually vote with the Republicans much at all. He has a 0% rating from the Right to Life people, an 8% rating from the American Conservative Union etc etc. He voted against Justice Alito’s nomination. The difference is he doesn’t appear to start from the premise that all Republicans are evil mad bigots to be opposed at every turn and gives the impression of having made thoughtful votes on issues where reasonable people might disagree. This idea that Lieberman is a closet Republican is bogus imho, but appears to have some currency in Bush hating circles…..
Does anyone know what the state of play is like in Washington state, because I relatives that live there?
I would be very surprised if Joseph Lieberman were defeated in Connecticut, and for all the puff and bluster, even more so if control of either Chamber of Congress changes hands.
30 - You are completely wrong in that. It is a Supreme Court decision to create majoirty black districts effectively to ensure black representation.
If you want to look at weird boundaries go no further than New York (the Democrats have controlled the state lower house for decades)The 8th Ditrict starts on Lower Manhattan, travelling up the west side to include Chelsea and the Theatre District, it then drops into Brooklyn, covering the immediate waterfront before moving into the centre of Brooklyn, going throug Borough Park and ending up on Brighton Beach and Coney Island. This creates one of teh most Jewish Districts in the US!
For those of you who know New York a B, D or F train from the Theatre District to Coney Island is quite a hike. - a similar distance of going from Leicester Square to Uxbridge.
Many of the most convoluted districts in the south originate from the one party Democrat legislatures.
I must say the re-writingof US electral history by europeans who do not know or understand the issues can make discussion pretty surreal.
It should not be forgotten that as recently as Eisenhower era it was almost impossible to get a Republican on the ballot in the deep south.
Texas did not return a Republican Senator between re-construction and the 1960 special election caused by LBJ becoming Veep.
Latest Lamont-Lieberman Poll
http://americanresearchgroup.com/ctsenate/
One of the key races this cycle looks to be the open senate seat in Tennessee where Rep Harold Ford, a moderate black democrat, is running an effective campaign against former Republican Mayor Bob Corker. In previous years democrats have found it very hard to win open seats in the south.
In 2004, Republicans swept the South — winning five open seats there (North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Louisiana and Florida). Two years earlier, Republicans won open Senate seats in North Carolina, South Carolina, Texas and Tennessee. The last time a Democrat won an open seat in the South was in 2000.
If Democrats have a chance of winning back the senate they will need to win this race as well as the one in Virginia where a recent poll showed George Allan floundering http://politicalwire.com/archives/2006/08/22/in_virginia_another_poll_shows_allens_lead_cut.html.
It may also demonstrate that the democrats are starting to be competitive again in the south in time for the 2008 Presidential Race.
36. He voted against Alito… but for cloture on the decision, which was really the Democrats’ only chance to stop the nomination. (They needed only 40 votes to stop cloture, but 50 to stop the appointment itself once cloture passed.)
39. Yes and no. It is important to remember that racial gerrymanders rarely affect parties. The only Republican-held district in NYC is on Staten Island, so gerrymandering some districts to have high black populations and elect black politicians is not as bad as things such as Pennsylvania or Texas, where the representation is far askew from how those states actually voted (even in Congressional elections, where the Democrats won more votes than Republicans in 2004 in Pennsylvania and 1/3 of the seats).
39 Pot & kettle. Apologies I should have been clearer that I was referring to the kind of districts Anna had mentioned. The VRA requires districts to not dilute minority voting power. In some areas the Republican response has been to concentrate it, thus complying with the act, but protecting Republicans.
The Wall St Journal had a piece on this recently
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110008505
42 Ben - Fair point on the cloture. Although that wasn’t just Lieberman - almost half the Senate Democrats voted for cloture on the nomination - it passed 72-25
44 Indeed there was zero chance of stopping Alito. Polls for his confirmation were overwhelmingly in favour and he was supremely qualified.
One of the difficulties for us in the UK is that we do not appreciate how weak the party machines are in the US compared to the UK. In many races, you will never see a reference to the party on election ads, billboards or yard signs. When I observed the 2004 Mississippi race, both big party gubernatorial candidates simply used a “conservative” catchline.
Where party affiliation is less pronounced, the qualities resources (and dare I say it, the policies) of individual candidates matter much more - hence the power of incumbancy. Equally, the coattails of popular US Presidents don’t tend to be that long.
Beware looking at this through a UK perspective.
Ben at 42 makes an interesting point. New York 13 is Republican. It covers all of Staten Island end extends across the narrows to take in Bay Ridge (the neighbourhood where Saturday Night Fever was set) and Bensonhurst. Along with Staten Island all are heavily Italian Catholic neighbourhoods.
The VRA was originally targeted at southern Democrats who would build districts by diluting black neighbourhoods.
We must beware of looking at the US through a UK perspective.
Thanks for all the comments.
US redistricting is a complex issue. As has been stated, gerrymandering for political reasons has been permitted by the courts as long as it does not interfere with ethnic representation. This strikes me as bizarre and based on a flawed theory of representation that starts with the state rather than the citizen (there is no absolute right to vote). Redistricting is supposed to be every 10 years after the census, but states are apparently permitted (after the Texas case) to do it between censuses for no real reason. The Texas case was appalling, involving crooked financing and the abuse of state power.
The attitude in the US to ethnic representation seems to be a strange attempt to get a proportional outcome (on this dimension at least) from a non-proportional system.
The current distortion of the votes/ seats relationship is largely because of the Republican gerrymanders in the states I named. If the Republicans hold the House despite polling clearly fewer votes, why shouldn’t Democrats carry out special redistrictings in the states they control? That’s the logical outcome of permitting gerrymandering. More logical would be a set of national standards.
14: Virginia - Webb was only 3 points behind Allen last I saw. This race hasn’t yet attracted much funding from the central Dem party but should do so now. Also, some polls since I wrote the piece have shown the Republican leading in Missouri and the Democrat leading in Tennessee.
17: I did mean Michigan. The Minnesota Senate polls have been trending D while those in MI look competitive.
37: Washington State. There’s a Senate race here where Maria Cantwell (D, first elected in 2000) is defending the seat. She seems to be pulling ahead in the polls, although if the climate were to change it would be competitive again. As you might know, the race for Governor was very tight in 2004 and after a rocky start Christine Gregoire’s (D) approval seems to be rising - she faces election in 2008. There are two seriously contested House seats - the 5th (Spokane) and 8th (Seattle suburbs), both R-held and top tier D targets.
48 - Apologies - I hadn’t realised that MI-Sen was becoming competitive. Even so, surprised if Stabenow loses. On the other hand MO-Sen looks like one of the closest races of the cycle. McCaskill and Talent have been locked together within the MoE for months. One poll favours one; the next the other. Webb is interesting as he looks capable of putting VA-Sen in play - this could be the magic sixth seat in a Dem wave.
Unlike AHM above I think a wave could be in the offing, given there seems to be a real anti-incumbent atmosphere developing. I do think the Dem’s will take the house, but less convinced about the senate. That could end up 50/50.
28 - Rasmussen is widely suspected of favouring Republican numbers. even in 2004 I think his polling was consistently more R-favourable up until the final days when it fell into line and IIRC ended up being the most accurate of all.
With regard to the House, TX-22 should be interesting. This is the former seat of Tom DeLay (the former House Majority Leader who has been indicted), and due to successful legal maneuverings on the part of the Texas Democrats, DeLay’s name on the ballot cannot be replaced with another Republican due to the fact that DeLay had already won the primary before he decided to resign from Congress and not seek re-election, and it is too close to the general election for the Republican party machine to be legally allowed to substitute his name.
What he can do, and has now, is withdraw from the ballot. That means that the Democratic nominee is the only one of the big two parties offically on the ballot. Instead, the Republicans have selected an unofficial write-in candidate. Ordinarily, a non-controversial Republican candidate would win the district easily, but due to the nature of the race this time, who knows?
My call on Lieberman is that when (rather than if) he is returned to the Senate he will caucus with the Democrats. Additionally, Lincoln Chafee presents much the same problems for the GOP. However, it is a factor that needs to be looked at and taken into account and cannot by any means be written off or ignored.
51. I don’t believe he can actually withdraw from the ballot. What he can do is not campaign and throw his support behind a write-in candidate.
48. No poll has shown Michigan closer than 7%. That’s not competitive.
Thanks Lewis. I’ve just emailed Betfair to ask for a market. If a few other people email we might get one.
You say there are strong nationwide trends in recent elections, so small Democrat gains might be less likely than the average pundit claims. Presumably you need more than three of the last four polls - more polls or more detail on each - for us to be able to rely on that.
There’s so much wrong with US democracy! If it were just the gerrymandering it wouldn’t be so bad. But there’s the broadcast media all in republican hands and the massive power of wealth to be remembered as well. And there’s the low turnout - admittedly with the exception of the last Presidential, although even then it wasn’t that high.
The low turnout must be at least partially a consequence of the gerrymandering. If 95% of districts are not competitive, then 95% of districts suffer from the “my vote won’t make any difference” syndrome.