State of the House
By Karl-Thomas Musselman
Two years ago, Congressional elections went very badly for Democrats as we lost seats thanks to a lack of message, spine, and money. Bush was King (in more than one way) and he led his party to victory. No one ever thought that in 2004 we would be where we are today. Kerry even or ahead in the polls, the Democratic Party flush with funds, and a base that is energized.
What may be even more stunning are stories like this where the topic is how Democratic leaders are saying how it's possible, possible to win back the House or come damn close to it. Who would have thunk it, eh?
How does the 1994 math look ten years later? Democrats see 33 seats across the country as competitive -- far less than the 68 in play in 1994, but then the Dems only need a net gain of 11 to win back the House. That means winning one out of every three competitive races -- easier, perhaps, than the one out of every 1.8 Gingrich's Republicans had to win in 1994.
Money is a second indicator encouraging Hoyer's optimism. Republicans have always raised truckloads more cash than Democrats in past elections. But for April, May and June of this year, House Democrats surged and by June 30, the Democratic campaign organization for the House had $18.5 million on hand compared with $20.2 million in GOP coffers -- a far narrower Republican cash-on-hand advantage of than in the past.
Also, the polls are looking better for Democrats. John Kerry has managed to survive the spring and summer barrage of GOP attack ads while President Bush's numbers have been sinking. But the polls to which congressional leaders in Washington pay more attention are the "generic" ones, where voters are asked whether they'll vote for a Republican or a Democrat in congressional races.
By early August 1994, Republicans had overtaken the Democrats in the generic polls and were leading by about two percentage points. In June and July of 2004, Democrats have had anywhere from a 6- to a 15-point advantage, depending on the poll.
Isn't it nice?
Posted by Karl-Thomas Musselman at August 7, 2004 12:09 AM
| TrackBack
I'm not quite so optimistic. I see competitive districts, but I also more GOP districts, thanks to Texas redistricting. Our local Democrat, Chet Edwards is gonna be lucky to keep his seat, so I'm kinda viewing the election sthrough that prism.
Having said that, I'm very optimistic of a retake of the Senate.
I hate to be the one to throw cold water (again), but CNN's analysis sounds fishy:
Democrats see 33 seats across the country as competitive -- far less than the 68 in play in 1994, but then the Dems only need a net gain of 11 to win back the House. That means winning one out of every three competitive races....
Huh? Dems only win to need 11 of 33 competitive races to retake the House? That only works if every competitive race is currently held by a Republican.
I'm not sure of the partisan makeup of those 33 races, but it's reasonable to assume they're about even, like the House as a whole. If it's currently 16R-15D, we'd have to get to 5R-26D to pick up those 11 seats and retake control. That means winning better than 1 of every 1.3 competitive races - a far steeper climb than the GOP had in '94.
To be precise, the situation isn't quite that bad, since if we get anywhere near 1 in 1.3 in those 33 races, there'll undoubtedly be several upsets in other races which would help push us over the top. But it'd still take a Democratic landslide the likes of which we haven't seen since '64.
It could happen, but I wouldn't bet the house on it (no pun intended).
