By Stuart Rothenberg - The Rothenberg Political Report
Sometimes you can almost hear the conventional wisdom and expectations shift even when they are based on faulty premises.
Ive heard dozens of times over the past few months that large Democratic losses in the House were inevitable this year because of sweeping Democratic victories in 2006 and 2008.
Indeed on Mondays edition of MSNBCs Morning Joe" host Joe Scarborough a former GOP Congressman from Florida echoed that point asserting that a realignment" in the House was inevitable this year even if unemployment were at 4 percent.
The reality is quite different. When I first started talking to Republican and Democratic insiders in December 2008 none of them believed that anything was inevitable" in November 2010.
Throughout the winter of 2008-2009 and the spring of 2009 strategists for both parties acknowledged that midterms were usually challenging for the party holding the White House.
Democrats noted that the combination of Republican retirements Democratic incumbency and financial advantages and new Democratic opportunities resulting from demographic changes during the decade and stronger recruiting in GOP seats previously neglected would keep their net losses low probably in the single digits.
After losing 51 House seats over two disastrous election cycles Republicans knew they had plenty of opportunities and held on to the hope that long-term trends would create a favorable climate for their resurgence. But they expressed concerns about the damage to their partys brand and were deflated when in late March an upstate New York special election was won by a Democrat.
In May 2009 my newsletter the Rothenberg Political Report noted that small Republican gains would seem the most likely outcome" of the midterms adding that the House is not at risk in next years elections."
No wonder GOP prospects were so limited. President Barack Obamas job approval in an April 2009 NBC News/Wall Street Journal survey stood at 61 percent approve/30 percent disapprove and equal percentages of respondents (43 percent) said the country was headed in the right direction versus on the wrong track a dramatic improvement from the previous November.
But while Democrats initially talked about keeping their losses to fewer than 10 seats somewhere during the summer that number grew to a dozen and then to 15 seats.
In mid-September I wrote in the Rothenberg Political Report that prospective GOP gains ranged from only a handful of seats to a couple of dozen or more depending on how things develop over the next year." This much wider range reflected deteriorating national conditions for Democrats Obamas sliding approval numbers declining right direction/wrong track results and a worsening in the Democratic Partys image.
My point in resurrecting all these numbers and projections is that it was not always inevitable that Republicans would make large House gains no matter what you may read and hear now.
Yes House midterm election losses by the presidents party have often been substantial as in 2006 1994 1982 1974 1966 and 1958. But at other times the presidents party hasnt done nearly so poorly with either small gains or losses of fewer than 15 seats in 2002 1998 1990 1978 and 1934.
Indeed as many of us have repeatedly noted the presidents party has gained seats in two of the past three midterm elections.
Lets be clear about where we all would be if unemployment were actually at 4 percent right now.
Most of the hand-wringing about jobs and the economy would be gone stronger employment numbers would mean a more vibrant economy (which almost certainly would mean higher federal and state revenues and lower deficits) and polling undoubtedly would show the president with better numbers Congress with a higher approval rating and the Democratic Party more popular than it is now.
Because of that the huge enthusiasm gap that now exists and is likely to fuel GOP gains in November would be much smaller or nonexistent.
All of that would likely mean far smaller Democratic losses in the fall. Nobody but nobody would be talking about the inevitability of huge Republican House gains (or the possible loss of the House) if that were the case.
Actions indeed do have consequences. In this case the combination of an aggressive Democratic agenda a weak jobs recovery and a large deficit has created a political environment very different from the one 18 months ago when Democrats won a special election in New Yorks open 20th district by demonizing Republicans for waffling on then opposing Obamas economic stimulus plan.
Its very difficult to imagine Republican gains in the House of fewer than two dozen seats and my own newsletter after going race by race recently placed likely GOP gains in the range of 28 to 33 seats if not higher.
The House surely is at great risk and anyone who asserts that Democrats are certain to maintain their majority after November is simply not worth listening to on the subject. The trajectory of this election cycle is clear. But dont delude yourself. It didnt have to be this way.
By Stuart Rothenberg - The Rothenberg Political Report
Sometimes you can almost hear the conventional wisdom and expectations shift even when they are based on faulty premises.
Ive heard dozens of times over the past few months that large Democratic losses in the House were inevitable this year because of sweeping Democratic victories in 2006 and 2008.
Indeed on Mondays edition of MSNBCs Morning Joe" host Joe Scarborough a former GOP Congressman from Florida echoed that point asserting that a realignment" in the House was inevitable this year even if unemployment were at 4 percent.
The reality is quite different. When I first started talking to Republican and Democratic insiders in December 2008 none of them believed that anything was inevitable" in November 2010.
Throughout the winter of 2008-2009 and the spring of 2009 strategists for both parties acknowledged that midterms were usually challenging for the party holding the White House.
Democrats noted that the combination of Republican retirements Democratic incumbency and financial advantages and new Democratic opportunities resulting from demographic changes during the decade and stronger recruiting in GOP seats previously neglected would keep their net losses low probably in the single digits.
After losing 51 House seats over two disastrous election cycles Republicans knew they had plenty of opportunities and held on to the hope that long-term trends would create a favorable climate for their resurgence. But they expressed concerns about the damage to their partys brand and were deflated when in late March an upstate New York special election was won by a Democrat.
In May 2009 my newsletter the Rothenberg Political Report noted that small Republican gains would seem the most likely outcome" of the midterms adding that the House is not at risk in next years elections."
No wonder GOP prospects were so limited. President Barack Obamas job approval in an April 2009 NBC News/Wall Street Journal survey stood at 61 percent approve/30 percent disapprove and equal percentages of respondents (43 percent) said the country was headed in the right direction versus on the wrong track a dramatic improvement from the previous November.
But while Democrats initially talked about keeping their losses to fewer than 10 seats somewhere during the summer that number grew to a dozen and then to 15 seats.
In mid-September I wrote in the Rothenberg Political Report that prospective GOP gains ranged from only a handful of seats to a couple of dozen or more depending on how things develop over the next year." This much wider range reflected deteriorating national conditions for Democrats Obamas sliding approval numbers declining right direction/wrong track results and a worsening in the Democratic Partys image.
My point in resurrecting all these numbers and projections is that it was not always inevitable that Republicans would make large House gains no matter what you may read and hear now.
Yes House midterm election losses by the presidents party have often been substantial as in 2006 1994 1982 1974 1966 and 1958. But at other times the presidents party hasnt done nearly so poorly with either small gains or losses of fewer than 15 seats in 2002 1998 1990 1978 and 1934.
Indeed as many of us have repeatedly noted the presidents party has gained seats in two of the past three midterm elections.
Lets be clear about where we all would be if unemployment were actually at 4 percent right now.
Most of the hand-wringing about jobs and the economy would be gone stronger employment numbers would mean a more vibrant economy (which almost certainly would mean higher federal and state revenues and lower deficits) and polling undoubtedly would show the president with better numbers Congress with a higher approval rating and the Democratic Party more popular than it is now.
Because of that the huge enthusiasm gap that now exists and is likely to fuel GOP gains in November would be much smaller or nonexistent.
All of that would likely mean far smaller Democratic losses in the fall. Nobody but nobody would be talking about the inevitability of huge Republican House gains (or the possible loss of the House) if that were the case.
Actions indeed do have consequences. In this case the combination of an aggressive Democratic agenda a weak jobs recovery and a large deficit has created a political environment very different from the one 18 months ago when Democrats won a special election in New Yorks open 20th district by demonizing Republicans for waffling on then opposing Obamas economic stimulus plan.
Its very difficult to imagine Republican gains in the House of fewer than two dozen seats and my own newsletter after going race by race recently placed likely GOP gains in the range of 28 to 33 seats if not higher.
The House surely is at great risk and anyone who asserts that Democrats are certain to maintain their majority after November is simply not worth listening to on the subject. The trajectory of this election cycle is clear. But dont delude yourself. It didnt have to be this way.
