It’s easy to believe that the good times will continue for the Democrats. The last two elections were debacles for Republicans in Congress; the GOP’s aggregate net loss in Congress was 51 seats. From a once clear majority in 1994, Republicans have been marginalized and now control fewer seats than at any time since 1992. However, this situation should raise alarms for Democrats. The election in1992 signaled the start of a Republican revival. Within two years, Republicans gained nearly 60 seats through elections plus the defection of five Democratic incumbents. They retained this majority for 12 long years. It would be dangerous for Democrats to now become complacent. There are potential parallels developing between 1994 and the coming elections in 2010. As the graph shows, the party of the president historically loses seats in the first midterm election after his inauguration.
There are striking parallels between 1994 and 2010: Democrats controlled the presidency and both houses in Congress; presidential coattails enabled Democrats to win seats in historically Republican districts. Consequently, Democrats have far fewer election targets in 2010 than Republicans, much as they did in 1994. Our analysis shows that there are as many as 60 potentially vulnerable Democrats in the House this cycle.
Since World War II, the party of a first-term president has lost an average of 24 seats in the first midterm election. Only twice over the past 74 years has an incumbent president’s party gained seats in the next midterm election. George W. Bush saw the Republican majority expand by eight seats in 2002, but that occurred largely because of his high popularity following 9/11. Although highly popular, Barack Obama’s job approval, approximately 60%, might not be high enough to avoid losses in the next election. Moreover, if the president’s popularity lags and the economic crises extends into 2010, history shows that the incumbent president’s party might lose more than 25 House seats. Without at least a modest turnaround in the economy over the next year the Democrats could be facing a significant loss of seats.
NCEC Anticipates Shifts in the Electorate That Could Hurt Democrats
Beyond the hurdles of history, Democrats will face a different electorate in 2010, as midterm electorates inevitably diverge from presidential election years on a large scale. White voters make up a larger share of the electorate in midterm elections, which could hurt Democrats in competitive districts. Despite President Obama’s 7% victory in the national popular vote, his success didn’t extend to white voters. In 2008, white voters supported John McCain by a 55–43 margin. The overall effect of this gap was lessened by high turnouts among minorities and young voters, but this may not be the case in 2010. In 2006, white voters accounted for 79% of the total vote as opposed to 74% in 2008. Similarly, young voters (18–29), Obama’s strongest age group, will likely turn out in far lower numbers next year. Voters aged 18–29 years made up just 12% of the overall vote in 2006. In 2008, this age group came out in strong numbers, accounting for 18% of the total vote.
Additionally, it is almost certain that African-American voters will be less energized without Barack Obama at the head of the ticket. In 2006, African Americans made up 10% of the overall electorate versus 13% in 2008. These likely changes in the electorate could be very damaging in competitive districts all over the country.
A Majority This Size Is Difficult to Maintain
The huge successes enjoyed by the Democrats in the last two election cycles were historic, but extending them for a third cycle would be an even greater anomaly. While not long ago, the last time Democrats gained seats in three consecutive elections (1996, 1998, and 2000) resulted in a much smaller net gain of 15 seats, far short of the 53 seats gained by Democrats between 2006 and 2008. The last time Democrats won more than 50 seats in three elections occurred in the Depression era, from 1930–1934. Obviously, the type of success the Democrats have enjoyed in the last two cycles is hard to sustain. The last time one party won more than 20 seats in two consecutive elections it sustained sizable losses in the next election.
This “regression to the mean” typically emerges when one party wins too many seats in districts that usually vote for the opposition party. The Democratic majority has been built on winning competitive districts in America ‘s suburban counties, which historically voted Republican. We know already that John McCain won 49 districts with Democratic incumbents, and Obama carried more than 30 additional Democratic districts that were won by George Bush in 2004. Any slight change in the political environment could put the Democratic majorities at risk. The race on the generic congressional ballot, which compares a generic Democratic candidate against a generic Republican candidate, already looks tighter than it did in recent years. The most recent polls have the generic Democratic candidate leading the generic Republican candidate by just one point. Since early 2006, the Democrats have generally enjoyed a double-digit lead on the generic ballot. Without the polarization caused by George W. Bush, Democrats will need to find other reasons to stay motivated. NCEC will be a forefront of the effort to maintain our majorities. The expertise that we provide helps when the wind is at our backs as it has been since 2006, but can play an even more crucial role when we are trying to protect our majority in close elections.
NCEC Sees Reasons for Optimism Remain
The 1994 parallel is far from full proof, as not every electoral indicator favors the Republicans. First, in 1994, 22 of the seats gained by Republicans stemmed from Democratic retirements in competitive districts. So far in this cycle, only one Democrat from a competitive district—New Hampshire Congressman Paul Hodes—has indicated that he will vacate his seat in 2010. Hodes is seeking the Senate seat in New Hampshire . However, it is too early in the cycle to draw any conclusions about future retirements. Conversely, speculation suggests that several Republican incumbents, frustrated by minority status, could retire between now and Election Day.
Second, Barack Obama is off to a far more auspicious beginning than Bill Clinton was in 1993. That assumption must be tempered by the unclear economic climate. A slip in Obama’s approval rating due to the continued problems in the economy could raise the likelihood of the Democrats losing a significant number of seats. As the graph shows, the incumbent president’s approval rating going into a midterm election can have a huge effect on his party’s fortunes. If President Obama can maintain an approval rating above 60 percent, he can help mitigate some of the potential losses.
Third, regional dynamics that are no longer in place today helped produce the Republican takeover in 1994. For example, about half of the districts lost by Democrats in 1994 were located in the South, in border states , or in the rural West. Republican success in these regions continued through the 2004 election, but those trends have waned and partially reversed since 2006. Presently there are far fewer Democratic targets in those regions for the Republicans to unseat.
Conversely, from a regional standpoint, the Republicans have sustained a meltdown in the East, with no immediate end in sight. With the loss of Chris Shays seat in Connecticut in 2008, the Republicans have zero seats in all of New England . They have also sustained further losses in the West, which is sure to gain seats after the next census. Evidence of a potential Republican comeback will be scrutinized in 2009 gubernatorial contests in both New Jersey and Virginia . Previously, these off year elections have been useful indicators for the mood of the electorate heading into the midterm campaign. In 2005, Democrats won the gubernatorial races in both these states, which served as a precursor to the huge gains seen by Democrats in 2006. No Republican has won a gubernatorial election in either state in the 21st century.