2006 Mid-Term Update: Democrats Have Twenty-Point Lead Over GOP

[Sam Spade]

I think Sam Spade wrote up some sort of calculation proving that figure he gave, although I don't know where it isnow.

The number is a total gain of 18-24 to reach an equivalent of 1994 in 2006 elections, but it is based on the situation and the calculated odds that occur in "wave elections" of the sort that occurred in 1994.  Weighted into this is the number of presently held GOP seats that averaged an under 50% Bush vote cumulative mean in 2000 and 2004, as well as the number of open seats and their probabilities.  The GOP has 9 open seats (8 minus CA-50) where Bush scored under 59% in 2004, for example.

I did a long numbers analysis on this (with comparison to 1994 numbers), but I don't feel like repeating myself.  It's somewhere back in the Congressional elections thread.  Keep in mind I was ready to throw about 10 more seats into toss-up and say that a Democratic takeover of the House was more likely if Busby had won CA-50.  That didn't happen, so I'm stuck where I am.

Basically, as far as I can figure at present, there will probably be roughly 10 Democratic seats in play and about 35 Republican seats in play.  In order for the Democrats to win back the House, they need 25 of these.  28-34 would equal a 1994 in my mind (there have been worse election though in "wave elections").  Keep in mind that in 1994, most political pundits by September had roughly 100 seats in play.  Republicans ended +53 with a couple that weren't on the list then.

[Sam Spade]

I looked at the 2004 results and was surprised by about an equal number of 'close" seats that the Democrats won; a stronger coattail effect, the GOP would have gained about 15 seats.  My guess is that there are about, at most 18 GOP seats in play, maximum.

Can anybody give me a list of open seats?

My current guess is that there will be about 10 seat GOP loss; I don't know the open seats, however.

It will be more than 18 seats, unless the current dynamic changes.

Here are the thirty-five GOP seats that are presently on the top of my list, to give examples of what I think the 35 seats I say will be up for grabs for the GOP are. (most will be on here, some will change with time, of course).

I have 29 seats as Lean Dem/Toss-up/Lean Rep and 6 seats as Likely Rep.  The first are top-tier for now, Likely Rep. is second-tier.

I have removed CA-50 from the list now, for obvious reasons.  Open seats have *.

Lean Dem.
1. (IA-01) Nussle*
2. (CO-07) Beauprez*
3. (AZ-08) Kolbe*
4. (PA-06) Gerlach

Toss-up
5. (OH-18) Ney
6. (NM-01) Wilson
7. (NY-24) Boehlert*
8. (IN-09) Sodrel
9. (CT-02) Simmons
10. (IN-08) Hostettler
11. (CT-04) Shays
12. (WI-08) Green*

Lean Rep

13. (WA-08) Reichert
14. (FL-22) Shaw
15. (MN-06) Kennedy*
16. (PA-08) Fitzpatrick
17. (NC-11) Taylor
18. (OH-15) Pryce
19. (IL-06) Hyde*
20. (AZ-05) Hayworth
21. (KY-04) Davis
22. (OH-01) Chabot
23. (PA-07) Weldon
24. (IN-02) Chocola
25. (NY-20) Sweeney
26. (WY-AL) Cubin
27. (PA-10) Sherwood
28. (CA-11) Pombo
29. (TX-22) DeLay*

Likely Rep.

30. (NH-02) Bass
31. (VA-02) Drake
32. (CO-04) Musgrave
33. (FL-13) Harris*
34. (NY-25) Walsh
35. (FL-09) Bilirakis*

This covers all the GOP open seats with Bush 59% or lower except for NV-02 and adds DeLay to the mix, who may be removed depending on who, or if, the GOP nominates to his spot.

[Sam Spade]

Gerrymandering reduces the effectiveness of this.

Oh, quit acting like Democrats have never used gerrymandering to their own advantage. Both parties do it when they have power so quit acting like it's such a big deal.

Texas is the best proof of this example. 

Actually, some people here are forgetting that race-based gerrymandering has had just about as much effect as partisan-based gerrymandering has.

[Sam Spade]

A number of those will win re-election easily.  Ney will be re-elected.

Which ones will be re-elected easily?

Ney has been under the threat of indictment from Abramoff for quite a while and is scandal-tainted.  If he is indicted, he doesn't win because indicted incumbents almost never win.

I will grant you that Joe Sulzer losing in the primary to Zach Space did help a bit; it's the main reason why it's at toss-up for me and not lean Dem.

[Sam Spade]

Fitzpatrick's not going down in PA-8.

The democrats in PA 8 are darn near incompetent

I agree with you historically, but if a "wave election" appears, and that's what the Democrats want, Fitz will be in that dangerous Lean Rep. category naturally.  His seat is too marginal and his opponent right now has too much money and decent quality for me to ignore.

Remember, at this point in the campaign, here are the main issues I'm dealing with on the list (not in order):

1.  Overall macro dynamic - Obviously this favors Democrats at this moment, by how much is the question.

2.  Overall partisan lean - this is measured as Bush 2000/2004 numbers weighted against the mean.  Since there were no "major" third-parties in either of these elections, the numbers are fairly nice clean (unlike 1992 and 1996)).  Marginal districts are put higher up on the list for obvious reasons.

3.  Open seats - Again, sort of obvious.

4.  Scandal-tainted incumbents - On the Rep. side, this encompasses Ney, Pombo, Sherwood and DeLay, would he have run again.  On the Dem. side, this encompasses Mollohan.

5.  Strength of incumbent - Often measured by long-term (elected in 2002 or earlier) incumbents who underperform the Presidential numbers or the partisan lean of the CD.  Examples of this include Cubin on the Rep. side and Boswell on the Dem. side.

6.  Strength of challenger - Is he a state senator or restauranteur?  Having organization helps, as well as name recognition.

7.  Fundraising prowess of challenger - Sort of self-explanatory.  With House incumbents typically having major money advantages, being able to fundraise makes you competitive, if the CD is decently marginal or open.

The one big thing I've left off the list, because we don't know it yet in most cases, is how the challenger appears on TV.  This goes into strength of challnger and can often turn a competitive race into a non-competitive one and vice versa.