Larry Sabato: Dems May Win 23-30 House Seats; GOP Facing Possible "Shutout"
Larry Sabato's latest predictions are in, and they're extraordinary. He's predicting a Dem pickup of 23-30 House seats, and five or six in the Senate. But here's what may be the most interesting part: Sabato thinks it's possible that the GOP may not take a single House seat, Senate seat, or governorship from Dems. In other words, he thinks a complete shutout of the GOP may be in the offing. More from Sabato after the jump.
Five days out, let's rephrase the question this way: when's the last time a major political party has failed to capture a single House seat, Senate seat, or governorship of the opposing party in a federal election year?We bet it's never happened before, and it certainly hasn't happened in the post-World War II era. After all, even when a party suffers miserable net losses, it usually picks up at least several consolation prizes in the form of open seat pickups or an against-the-tide incumbent defeat.
Yet look at our 2006 predictions: at this moment, the Crystal Ball cannot identify a single election for Senate, House or Governor in which a Republican is likely to succeed a Democrat in office. Just imagine how devastating an absolute shutout would be in the eyes of history if this proves to be true!
Sure, we could easily be fooled by more than a few outcomes in this regard on Election Night, and we would probably place the odds of this historical unlikelihood's occurrence at no better than 50/50. But the very notion such a scenario is within the realm of possibilities is a testament to the lopsidedness of this year's theaters of battle.
If little changes between now and Tuesday, there remains little question that the GOP is headed towards devastating losses. And though candidates continue to stress various issues, only one has truly come to define our politics this year: war. Future historians may well look back on this wave election as "The Iraq Midterm," much we look back on the 1966 and 1974 elections as "The Vietnam Midterm" and "The Watergate Midterm" respectively.
A "shutout" of the GOP in the "Iraq midterm." Has a nice ring to it. Can it really happen, though? Sabato seems to think so. His full rundown here.
In another sense, it has an overwhelmingly depressing ring to it.
Ah, well, better to have accountability served on Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld et al late than never.
A vote for the Democrats is a vote to save the lives of American soldiers.
November 2, 2006 10:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
So now you've defined Republican success as any race in which they do defeat a Democrat that night.
As there's likely to be at least one if not several, you're giving them a gift here.
November 2, 2006 10:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
Assuming it happens, Howard Dean should get up and say...
"Mr. President, this is what a REAL mandate looks like!"
November 2, 2006 11:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, that worked out so well for Newt Gingrich.
November 2, 2006 11:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
This needed to happen two years ago when it would have limited the damage of Bush's first term. But at least it's a start.
November 2, 2006 11:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well how much of this is due to Iraq and how much of this is due to the GOP's abandoning the center, West and NorthEast and how much is due to the shifting demographics?
The Dems would be able to run against Social Security privatization, reckless spending, the budget, Terri Shiavo(sp?), things that the "Independents" care about.
9/11 and Iraq were like steriods for the GOP during 2002 and 2004 and gave the pundits and GOP a false sense of their own strengths.
November 2, 2006 11:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
While it is nice to dream about a shutout as the people's mandate or a referendum on the G.O.P., I am inclined to think it is a result of effective gerrymandering.
November 2, 2006 11:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
That's a good point. I was reading a Michael Barone piece yesterday in which he noted in passing that in the panic of 1873, the Republicans lost almost 90 seats in the House (and it was a smaller House then!) That's the kind of systemic upheaval that both parties have colluded in making next to impossible through efficient carving-out of their respective safe districts.
November 2, 2006 11:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
I honestly don't think the Dems are going to pull off a change in either the House or the Senate.
Voter supression is at an all time high, new tactics in disenfranchisement is being worked out, and 90% of all voting is monitored by electronic systems.
I really think this is the new "math" that Karl Rove spoke of. Normally I'm not a conspiracy theorist, but I'm really truly worried about Nov 7.
Check out my comment on today's Midterm Roundup for more.
~~~~~~~~~~~
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur.
Come visit PROJECT: Lucidity.
November 2, 2006 12:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
No matter what happens next Tuesday the Republicans will spin it negatively for the Democrats. That's their schtick; it's that same mentality that's turning so many people (including Independents) off to them. Hot air and cold calculated actions. In the end its constructed to benefit them, and not the average person.
Since we are members of the Reality-Based community, we might as well face that now.
Most Republicans don't have a humble bone in their body.
November 2, 2006 12:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's the war. The independents are deserting the Republicans. And it's all about the war. Support for the president's execution of the war effort is in the 20s.
November 2, 2006 12:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Of course, if Dems do take a sweep, or even re-take majority, they will have their work cut out for them. It will be only too easy for Repubs to muddy the waters on who is responsible for the disaster in Iraq heading into the 2008 elections.
November 2, 2006 12:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
A comfortable margin in the House and tight Republican control in the Senate would be just about ideal leading to 2008. Also, to put Bush's feet to the fire on Social Security, since it's tops on his domestic plans next year. Gives Dems time to delay or block any significant change from as is, and time for our side to shape a position that will benefit most if not all potential candidates in '08. God knows what's to be done about Medicare, but a case for universal health care is a good position to "discuss" nationally as well.
BTW, I really think McCain will flame out at some point, possibly sooner than later, so it would behoove Dems - notably the left - to consider the probability it will be Romney. The left, distasteful as it may seem, should buddy up to the idea of supporting a center candidate that will be less than a thrill. Hillary should be majority leader, she would be fantastic. Possibly Bayh and someone as yet unconsidered. Obama is a wild card. If he runs however, he may be just the ticket -so to speak.
November 2, 2006 12:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, redistricting has been shown not to be as all-powerful as many claim. It's mostly about money. You can make heavily skewed races competetive by putting a lot of money in them. It's not uncommon for a GOP congressperson to be continually elected in a Dem district (see CT). Redistricting/gerrymandering sounds like a good boogeyman, but a good look at AZ's independently drawn lines shows that this may not be as big as people think. Also, Senators and Governors have nothing to do with gerrymandering yet they have pretty high reelection rates as well. No pro-redistricing people ever bring that up.
November 2, 2006 3:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
It would probably be a good idea to lay off of the "Dems are gonna wipe the floor with 'em" predictions, if you actually want the Dems to win. That energy needs to go into encouraging turnout, whereas predictions like this will do the opposite.
November 2, 2006 3:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think it's much more than the war. Bush and the GOP were still on track to win in 2005. Then Katrina came and exposed their failures and they have been on a continual and dramatic decline since. The Dems dominate the GOP on essentially every issue. The GOP has been able to push the tough guy "we'll take care of you" persona, but Katrina turned that on its head. Now everything is viewed through the lens of incompetence. The war is a big issue, but it is a symptom of a much bigger problem. Without Katrina, we probably wouldn't be talking about waves or shoutouts (no pun intended).
I think "Heckuva job, Brownie" is as big a factor as the war. Everytime Bush gives Cheney and Rumsfeld his full support it just drives the incompetence and cluelessness narrative deeper and deeper.
November 2, 2006 3:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
The environment in which Nancy Pelosi takes up her speakership will also include the opening of Scooter Libby's trial, a trial that may well include Cheney and members of the White House Staff being called to the stand to take the oath, and answer direct questions. I've just finished reading Sidney Blumenthal's book -- "How Bush Rules" which went to the printers last May -- and he has convinced me that many in the Bush inner circle have much to fear at the hands of Fitzgerald in a Federal Court setting. If Pelosi is able to push the house into businesslike mode -- perhaps working a standard 5 day workweek for a change -- and standing up well structured oversight hearings that in a sense, riff off the Libby trial, I suspect many voters will feel better. Dealing with Iraq in the end really depends on driving home the lies on which the invasion was sold, and the total lack of planning for the aftermath of the invasion. Only then can we continue to build the coalition for 2008 --- 2006 is a downpayment.
November 2, 2006 3:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm back to beating my seemingly very dead horse, but we've got to do some serious work on our system of government.
It's simply ludicrous that as a result of a recent election 44 Senate seat were won by Dems who were elected by 59.6 million people while 55 Senate seats were won by Repubs who were elected by 57.6 million people.
Then there's gerrymandering. Presently, 85% of House Districts are Republican safe.
Question? Can voting machines get viruses?
November 2, 2006 4:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
J. McCutchen
32 Seats?
Ruy Teixeira has a must read final election survey post up.
Fascinating regression modeling of the relationship of Generic Ballot to outcomes....Pew study showing massive moves to Dems among independents and key voter groups where the GOP used to dominate....What about all the hype about GOP GOTV - 72 Hours of Microtargeted Terror? Fuggit about it. You can't turn out a vote that isn't there to begin with....and much more
November 2, 2006 5:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
"85% of House Districts are Republican safe."
Um... then shouldn't 85% of the House be Republicans?
November 2, 2006 5:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
J. McCutchen
The War..the War...the War
Not Katrina, not Foley, not corruption, not do nothing rubber stamp congress, not social security, not taxes, not job insecurity, not health care....
9/11 followed by Iraq made Bush and Iraq is breaking him.
This is not to say that Katrina etc are irrelevant. The Iraq narrative of incompetence lies, failure, crony capitalism is found in most of these other concerns.
Katrina got the electorate to pay attention to BushWar failures and if you'll recall, it forced Bush to cancel his annual 911 terror show. Similarly, Foley also disrupted Bush agenda control. This year he began his terror offensive a month earlier and hoped to carry that forward with Patriot Act, military tribunals, wiretaps etc through to Nov. 7. In each instance, Iraq was there, old reliable, a sure loser.
Dance with what brung ya - (Texas Coach Darrell Royal or Bear Bryant?) The princess turned into a frog and the coach a pumpkin.
But in each case, Iraq got the electorate to stop listening to
November 2, 2006 6:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
J. McCutchen
In the NyT poll(?) Iraq not only tops the most important issue list but it beats #2 4 to 1
November 2, 2006 6:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Teixeira quotes Mark Mellman's article "72 hours to Victory? Maybe Not" in The Hill. I agree with Mellman that the Republican's "Voter Vault" and the "72 Hour Project" is not going to save the GOP if a big Wave is aimed their direction. And it does look like a big wave.
True their GOTV is not going to make up for a 5 or 10 percent loss, but a good GOTV program could get a 2-4 percent gain, which is cream in a tight race. With 25-30 House races considered tossups where polls show the difference between candidates is within the margin of error, GOTV is still important. If GOTV is not important then why do parties sink so much money into field operations?
Wins in many of these races will likely be by plurality not majority vote. And some races may be decided by just a few thousand votes. We've seen a number of very close races in recent years.
November 2, 2006 11:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Republicans gerrymandered Texas in mid-decade through redistricting and the Supreme Court said it was legal. Now it's open season. In a state where the legislature has control of redistricting and one party controls both legislative houses and the governorship, they can gerrymander to increase seats for their party. Both parties will be using that to their advantage.
November 2, 2006 11:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
The backstory of statehouse elections will be important. As will any reports of voting problems. I'd like to see an effort to end gerrymandering and standardize federal elections. Blue-sky?
Oh, and if the Dems do take the House, then I want to see a period of Republican Rules. That's to say, shut the House minority out of conference reports, block amendments, and stick the GOP in basement offices. Going into January with the presumption that Republicans will play nice if you give them the chance is a recipe for disaster. If you're handed power, you have to use it.
November 3, 2006 12:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
Good points, especially regarding gubernatorial and senate races - I did not mean to imply that these were affected.
Regarding the role of gerrymandering, could you not also look at it from the perspective that more funding needs to be dedicated precisely because the demographics are purposefully skewed? This, in turn, makes dollars spent more of a deciding factor. I've not taken a hard look at Arizona, but my understanding is that races are simply more competitive there because they have reformed the redistricting policy.
I believe also that incumbency is one of the greatest predictors of election success. Incumbents not only have deeper pockets and chances for redistricting, they also benefit from general awareness, a policy record and better relationships.
November 3, 2006 6:50 AM | Reply | Permalink