SOS
09-03-2006, 06:03 AM
sfgate
Democratic Congress no longer a long shot
Marc Sandalow, Washington Bureau Chief
Sunday, September 3, 2006
(09-03) 04:00 PDT Washington -- There are two competing storylines for the 2006 midterm elections.
Nine weeks before election day, Democrats are poised to make their biggest gains since the post-Watergate elections more than three decades ago.
Discontent over the war in Iraq, falling wages, corruption on Capitol Hill and President Bush's sinking popularity have led experts to forecast a perfect storm that will return Democrats to a majority in the House for the first time since 1994, and make San Francisco Rep. Nancy Pelosi the speaker.
The experts give Democrats a shot at winning control of the Senate, a possibility that was regarded as unthinkable when the summer began, and say the party's prospects of taking over more than half of the nation's governorships are near certain.
Yet even as they foresee the strongest Democratic election in a generation, these same prognosticators see sharp limits to the party's potential gains.
Unlike 1974, when Democrats picked up 49 House seats, or 1994, when Republicans won 52 House seats and regained the majority for the first time in half a century, the political system today has been fortified to withstand big partisan waves or demands for change.
Sophisticated redistricting, strengthened party loyalty and the advantages of incumbency are so powerful that even in a year when voters seem to be hollering for change, most strategists regard just 1 in 3 Senate seats and 1 in 8 House seats as being competitive.
And though phrases like "tidal wave'' and "Category 5 hurricane'' are being used to describe the Democratic surge, many analysts still consider control of Congress up for grabs, and predict that whichever party wins will govern with one of the narrowest majorities in history.
Sixty-five days before the Nov. 7 vote, the campaign is shaping up as a clash between a potent call for change and a system designed to prevent it.
"The Democratic upside is limited by the paucity of districts in play," said Stuart Rothenberg, editor of the nonpartisan Rothenberg Political Report, which handicaps every congressional race in the country.
"There are enough seats for Democrats to take control. But there are not a lot of seats" in play, Rothenberg said.
As the campaign season enters its prime, most analysts identify roughly between 25 and 50 truly competitive House seats, and anywhere from six to 12 competitive Senate seats.
The narrow political landscape means that much of the billion-plus dollars to be spent will be concentrated in a relatively small number of states and congressional districts -- most of them thousands of miles from the West Coast.
Of the 36 most competitive districts identified by analyst Charlie Cook, who publishes another nonpartisan political newsletter, 14 are in the New England states, New York, New Jersey or Pennsylvania. Another 12 are in the Midwest. In California, home to roughly 1 in 12 Americans, Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein is considered a lock for re-election, and only one of the state's 53 congressional districts -- the Central Valley district represented by Republican Richard Pombo -- is regarded as in play.
While Democrats have been crowing for months, it is only over the past few weeks that nonpartisan analysts have identified enough likely victories for Democrats to pick up the 15 House seats they need for a majority.
Rothenberg predicts Democrats will win between 15 and 20 additional seats. University of Virginia political scientist and congressional race handicapper Larry Sabato projects the party will pick up between 13 and 19 seats. Cook identifies 46 competitive seats -- 36 of which are held by Republicans -- and predicts: "Unless something dramatic happens before election day, Democrats will take control of the House.''
As a sign of the growing acceptance that Democrats are poised to win, the National Journal asked 75 GOP insiders last week to assign a number between zero (no chance) and 10 (virtual certainty) to the likelihood that Democrats will take over the House. The average score was 5.7.
"It's getting ugly and time's running out,'' commented one GOP respondent.
"It will take a near miracle to save the majority,'' said another.
Things are not as bleak for Republicans in the Senate, where Democrats must pick up six new seats for a majority. Polls suggest Democrats have a good shot at winning GOP seats in Pennsylvania, Montana, Ohio, Rhode Island and Missouri. But to win the majority, Democrats must win a sixth Republican seat in a less politically hospitable state such as Tennessee, Virginia or Arizona, as well as hold onto their own vulnerable seats in places like Minnesota and New Jersey.
The parity between parties in Congress reflects a divided electorate that dates back to the 2000 presidential election, which was decided by just over 500 votes in Florida.
Republicans have added to their majorities in each of the previous two elections, buttressed by concerns over national security brought on by the Sept. 11 attacks. But there are indications that the politics of terrorism will not help Republicans as they did in 2002 and 2004.
The public has turned against Bush and his war in Iraq. Americans are not as anxious about the prospect of another terrorist attack. And polls show the GOP's edge on national security, as high as 25 percentage points last year, has eroded to the point of near parity.
"The public is far past where it was in 2002 and 2004,'' said Allan Lichtman, a professor of political history at American University in Washington, D.C., who is running a longshot campaign for the Democratic Senate nomination in Maryland.
"I think they've seen the folly of the Bush administration, and the midterm elections are the last chance (the electorate) will ever have to express its frustration at George Bush," Lichtman said.
Democrats are trying to take advantage of Bush's unpopularity, rallying around a cry for a "new direction" as they try to nationalize the elections and play upon coast-to-coast discontent. Republicans are seeking to localize each race, distancing themselves from the sour national mood and arguing that district by district, they represent the better choice.
"Republicans have an opportunity to localize enough races to hold onto the House. Republicans still have a chance to change the election's trajectory. If they don't, they are going to lose the House," Rothenberg said.
The national poll numbers are dismal for Republicans. Bush's approval ratings are below 40 percent -- higher than they were a month ago, but significantly lower than where strategists say they must be to help his party. Pollsters who ask voters whether they believe the country is on the "right track" or the "wrong track" consistently find "wrong track" leading by a 2-to-1 margin, an ominous sign for the incumbent party.
Democrats outpoll Republicans by more than 10 percentage points when voters are asked which party they believe would do a better job running Congress. A Fox News poll conducted this week found just 24 percent of respondents approve of the job Congress is doing, compared with 61 percent who disapprove.
By nearly every measure, the Republican Party is in as bad if not worse shape than Democrats were in the fall of 1994 as they lost their majority.
Even when it comes to raising money, Republicans have far less of an advantage than usual. The latest numbers compiled by opensecrets.org showed Republicans having raised $454 million for House and Senate campaigns, compared with $434 million for Democrats.
Yet there are important differences in the composition of districts from the 1994 election. Congressional districts lean more strongly to one party or another. The number of House members serving in safe districts in which they won by comfortable margins was considerably smaller. In 1994, 53 House Democrats represented districts in which President Clinton had lost. By comparison, there are only 18 House Republicans who represent districts in which Bush lost.
"If a huge wave hits, the races all tend to go in one direction, so Democrats have an opportunity," Rothenberg said. "But Democrats don't have a huge margin of error."
Democratic Congress no longer a long shot
Marc Sandalow, Washington Bureau Chief
Sunday, September 3, 2006
(09-03) 04:00 PDT Washington -- There are two competing storylines for the 2006 midterm elections.
Nine weeks before election day, Democrats are poised to make their biggest gains since the post-Watergate elections more than three decades ago.
Discontent over the war in Iraq, falling wages, corruption on Capitol Hill and President Bush's sinking popularity have led experts to forecast a perfect storm that will return Democrats to a majority in the House for the first time since 1994, and make San Francisco Rep. Nancy Pelosi the speaker.
The experts give Democrats a shot at winning control of the Senate, a possibility that was regarded as unthinkable when the summer began, and say the party's prospects of taking over more than half of the nation's governorships are near certain.
Yet even as they foresee the strongest Democratic election in a generation, these same prognosticators see sharp limits to the party's potential gains.
Unlike 1974, when Democrats picked up 49 House seats, or 1994, when Republicans won 52 House seats and regained the majority for the first time in half a century, the political system today has been fortified to withstand big partisan waves or demands for change.
Sophisticated redistricting, strengthened party loyalty and the advantages of incumbency are so powerful that even in a year when voters seem to be hollering for change, most strategists regard just 1 in 3 Senate seats and 1 in 8 House seats as being competitive.
And though phrases like "tidal wave'' and "Category 5 hurricane'' are being used to describe the Democratic surge, many analysts still consider control of Congress up for grabs, and predict that whichever party wins will govern with one of the narrowest majorities in history.
Sixty-five days before the Nov. 7 vote, the campaign is shaping up as a clash between a potent call for change and a system designed to prevent it.
"The Democratic upside is limited by the paucity of districts in play," said Stuart Rothenberg, editor of the nonpartisan Rothenberg Political Report, which handicaps every congressional race in the country.
"There are enough seats for Democrats to take control. But there are not a lot of seats" in play, Rothenberg said.
As the campaign season enters its prime, most analysts identify roughly between 25 and 50 truly competitive House seats, and anywhere from six to 12 competitive Senate seats.
The narrow political landscape means that much of the billion-plus dollars to be spent will be concentrated in a relatively small number of states and congressional districts -- most of them thousands of miles from the West Coast.
Of the 36 most competitive districts identified by analyst Charlie Cook, who publishes another nonpartisan political newsletter, 14 are in the New England states, New York, New Jersey or Pennsylvania. Another 12 are in the Midwest. In California, home to roughly 1 in 12 Americans, Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein is considered a lock for re-election, and only one of the state's 53 congressional districts -- the Central Valley district represented by Republican Richard Pombo -- is regarded as in play.
While Democrats have been crowing for months, it is only over the past few weeks that nonpartisan analysts have identified enough likely victories for Democrats to pick up the 15 House seats they need for a majority.
Rothenberg predicts Democrats will win between 15 and 20 additional seats. University of Virginia political scientist and congressional race handicapper Larry Sabato projects the party will pick up between 13 and 19 seats. Cook identifies 46 competitive seats -- 36 of which are held by Republicans -- and predicts: "Unless something dramatic happens before election day, Democrats will take control of the House.''
As a sign of the growing acceptance that Democrats are poised to win, the National Journal asked 75 GOP insiders last week to assign a number between zero (no chance) and 10 (virtual certainty) to the likelihood that Democrats will take over the House. The average score was 5.7.
"It's getting ugly and time's running out,'' commented one GOP respondent.
"It will take a near miracle to save the majority,'' said another.
Things are not as bleak for Republicans in the Senate, where Democrats must pick up six new seats for a majority. Polls suggest Democrats have a good shot at winning GOP seats in Pennsylvania, Montana, Ohio, Rhode Island and Missouri. But to win the majority, Democrats must win a sixth Republican seat in a less politically hospitable state such as Tennessee, Virginia or Arizona, as well as hold onto their own vulnerable seats in places like Minnesota and New Jersey.
The parity between parties in Congress reflects a divided electorate that dates back to the 2000 presidential election, which was decided by just over 500 votes in Florida.
Republicans have added to their majorities in each of the previous two elections, buttressed by concerns over national security brought on by the Sept. 11 attacks. But there are indications that the politics of terrorism will not help Republicans as they did in 2002 and 2004.
The public has turned against Bush and his war in Iraq. Americans are not as anxious about the prospect of another terrorist attack. And polls show the GOP's edge on national security, as high as 25 percentage points last year, has eroded to the point of near parity.
"The public is far past where it was in 2002 and 2004,'' said Allan Lichtman, a professor of political history at American University in Washington, D.C., who is running a longshot campaign for the Democratic Senate nomination in Maryland.
"I think they've seen the folly of the Bush administration, and the midterm elections are the last chance (the electorate) will ever have to express its frustration at George Bush," Lichtman said.
Democrats are trying to take advantage of Bush's unpopularity, rallying around a cry for a "new direction" as they try to nationalize the elections and play upon coast-to-coast discontent. Republicans are seeking to localize each race, distancing themselves from the sour national mood and arguing that district by district, they represent the better choice.
"Republicans have an opportunity to localize enough races to hold onto the House. Republicans still have a chance to change the election's trajectory. If they don't, they are going to lose the House," Rothenberg said.
The national poll numbers are dismal for Republicans. Bush's approval ratings are below 40 percent -- higher than they were a month ago, but significantly lower than where strategists say they must be to help his party. Pollsters who ask voters whether they believe the country is on the "right track" or the "wrong track" consistently find "wrong track" leading by a 2-to-1 margin, an ominous sign for the incumbent party.
Democrats outpoll Republicans by more than 10 percentage points when voters are asked which party they believe would do a better job running Congress. A Fox News poll conducted this week found just 24 percent of respondents approve of the job Congress is doing, compared with 61 percent who disapprove.
By nearly every measure, the Republican Party is in as bad if not worse shape than Democrats were in the fall of 1994 as they lost their majority.
Even when it comes to raising money, Republicans have far less of an advantage than usual. The latest numbers compiled by opensecrets.org showed Republicans having raised $454 million for House and Senate campaigns, compared with $434 million for Democrats.
Yet there are important differences in the composition of districts from the 1994 election. Congressional districts lean more strongly to one party or another. The number of House members serving in safe districts in which they won by comfortable margins was considerably smaller. In 1994, 53 House Democrats represented districts in which President Clinton had lost. By comparison, there are only 18 House Republicans who represent districts in which Bush lost.
"If a huge wave hits, the races all tend to go in one direction, so Democrats have an opportunity," Rothenberg said. "But Democrats don't have a huge margin of error."