Could 2006 Be Another 1994?

[Sam Spade]

I feel like a lot of comments made right now in this thread lack the relevance of historical analysis, so I'll give a little with a recent example to back up the theory.

To Democrats:  Watch the CA-50 district closely.  It is a good example of a district the Democrats need to win in order to win back the House.

Challengers to House incumbents or House seats usually form three distinctive types:  First-tier challengers, second-tier challengers, and long shots.  First-tier challengers are usually top-notch candidates against incumbents in weak party-leaning or tossup CDs; second-tier candidates usually comprise of weaker challengers in these same CDs; third-tier candidates comprise everything else.

Historically, the number of first-tier challengers from each party who actually win House seats is no greater than 50%.  There is almost no election in modern times where this number is greater; if I'm wrong about one election, please let me know and I'll clarify the comment.

Rahm Emanuel, at present, is designating 21 seats as having first-tier Democratic challengers from a recent Washington Post article.  More conservative estimates place this number at 15 seats, so we can roughly place 15-20 seats in this category, depending on preference.

The Republicans have roughly 3-5 seats, depending on who you talk to, that fit this category.

So, all in all, the maximum Democratic gain we could see from first-tier seats would be roughly 7-10 seats, in my estimation.  It is also probable that the Republicans will pick up one or two House seats from their 3-5 first-tier seats, so we can factor this in.

Looking at long-shots, it is very rare that a long shot wins.  Jack Brooks in 1994 was a good example of this type, but in House elections, there are rarely more than 1-3 of these even in 1994-like years.

This means that, almost without a doubt in my mind, the Democrats will probably have to pick up somwhere in the range of 5-7 second tier seats in order to take back the House.  Depending on who you talk to, there are roughly 30-40 (sometimes 50) of these seats at present.

This is where CA-50 comes in.  It is one of these seats.  You have a former incumbent, who bowed out due to scandal in a CD that has swung Dem over the past 5-10 years, so that it has become a marginal 55%-45% GOP on balance.  In order for the Democrats to win back the House, they have to be successful in seats like this, seats which don't form the top tier of challengers, but rather the second tier.

It is a good test for exactly how strong this Democratic momentum could be or could not be come November.  It's not the perfect test, but it's a good first step.

[Sam Spade]

Gerrymandering.

Most of the Democrats who were defeated in 1994 were moderates.

If 1994 happens this year, the same thing will occur.  Just the way it normally happens.

[Sam Spade]

Well, I'm just wondering if it might be, but there is one major concern in my books. Let's say that there is a uniform 5% swing from GOP to Dem (compared with 2004), how many GOP congressmen would go down and how many INCUMBENTS would go down? If what I have heard is true, the answers will be less than 50 and zero for the second one.

Well, in a certain sense, you're asking the best case scenario.  The problem is, that this never happens.  There are certain incumbents in danger CDs whose support will hold on and others who won't.  Also, the simple fact of being incumbents makes them stronger than they would otherwise.  The GOP has done a fairly good job of keeping those incumbents in marginal CDs this year, but still some are still vulnerable.  Keep in mind, also, that scandal could affect other incumbents that are not within this window.

Anyway, I saw this posted on another site by a poster I respect greatly on these matters.  If you compare the Congressional partisan index (this is what Charlie Cook uses to gauge House races) from 1992/1996 and the one from 2000/2004 against the seats won in 1994 and the seats that are seriously in contention in 2006, you come up with this fact:

If the Democrats were to achieve a reverse 1994, a respective mirror of those results, they would gain somewhere in the range of 18-24 seats in the House.