Sabato's Crystal Ball

2010 House Results: A Portent of Increased Competition?

Rhodes Cook, Senior Columnist December 21st, 2010

Over the last generation a cottage industry has built up decrying the lack of competition in congressional elections. Not only have the House reelection rates been high, but so have the margins of victory. In each election from 1998 through 2008, no more than 15% of House winners were elected with less than 55% of the total vote in their district.

But there are signs that the era of such pro-incumbent results may be ebbing. In 2010, the level of competition in congressional elections spiked. The number of sub-55% winners (often described as “marginals”) jumped to 25% of the entire House, the highest percentage in any election since 1992. And this quantitative measurement does not include such high-profile races as those involving Democratic Reps. Alan Grayson of Florida and Chet Edwards of Texas, where the incumbents lost in a landslide.

Rather than an aberration, the 2010 results could very well portend the start of a new, more competitive era of House elections—one that could last at least as long as the economy remains sluggish, voters remain disgruntled, and Congress appears dysfunctional.

For much of the last few decades, there were compelling reasons for a dearth of competition in House races. Incumbents often possessed an array of advantages that their opponents could not match—namely, a sizable campaign chest, the perquisites of office (which often included “earmarks” for projects back home), and favorable district lines to run in courtesy of political allies in their home states.

But these incumbent advantages have been offset of late by other factors. Public esteem for members of Congress has withered as polarization and partisanship have come to define Capitol Hill.

As a consequence, the electorate has become increasingly untethered, swinging dramatically back and forth since 2006 – first in favor of the Democrats, then the Republicans.

As the force of the political winds have picked up, more and more congressional seats have become targets of opportunity for the party on the offensive.

And as the playing field has expanded, new sources of money have been found to fund many challengers who in the past would not have made it to the starting line.

A number of challengers have relied on relatively new technology, such as the internet, to raise the bulk of their money. Others have looked to the burgeoning number of lucrative independent expenditure groups to help make them financially competitive with well-heeled incumbents. The upshot: many House members who in the past could count on large war chests to scare away potential opposition have found in recent election cycles that money has not been as great a deterrent.

Chart 1. Return of the “Marginals”

Sources: The December 2009 issue of “The Rhodes Cook Letter” for the number of sub-55% House winners in elections from 1990 through 2008. For 2010, the number is based on a compilation by the author of official House results obtained from state election web sites.

Altogether, 108 House winners this year were elected with less than 55% of the vote. Sixty were Republicans, a number of whom were challengers who ousted Democratic incumbents. Forty-eight were Democrats, many of whom were sitting members who were barely able to withstand the GOP onslaught.

The list of Democratic marginals, in particular, was an eclectic group. At one end of the spectrum was a pair of narrow winners in 2009-10 special elections, Bill Owens of upstate New York and Mark Critz of southwest Pennsylvania. At the other end were veteran liberal Democrats, such as Barney Frank of Massachusetts, Dennis Kucinich of Ohio, and Lloyd Doggett of Texas, all of whom fell below 55% this fall in districts that were previously considered to be safely Democratic.

With Republicans on the offensive in 2010, their list of sub-55% winners was loaded with challengers and open-seat candidates. But the occasional incumbent could be spotted among the GOP marginals, including Joe “You Lie” Wilson of South Carolina, who for the second straight election retained his seat with less than 55% of the vote.

This year’s large class of marginal House winners could be found in abundance in all regions of the country, from 23 in the increasingly solid Republican South to 31 in the volatile Midwest. But arguably the largest cluster of competitive House seats lay in a band from the eastern tip of Long Island to Cincinnati, Ohio.

In the three states of New York, Ohio and Pennsylvania, nearly two dozen House victors were held to less than 55% of the vote. In New York alone, there were nine such winners, as Republicans trimmed what had been an almost laughable 27-2 deficit in the Empire State House delegation to 21-8.

Whether there is an even greater number of competitive races in 2012 could depend on the upcoming round of redistricting. The decennial line drawing has often shaken up the political landscape, producing new and uncertain terrain for incumbents to deal with. As such, the process can contribute to a sharp increase in the number of closely contested races, which was the case in the early 1990s. Then, the number of sub-55% winners nearly doubled from the pre-redistricting election of 1990 to the post-redistricting election of 1992.

But in the last round of redistricting a decade ago, the trend tended to be toward protecting incumbents of both parties, with the number of marginal House winners actually declining from 2000 to 2002.

What will be the modus operandi in congressional redistricting this time—incumbent protection or partisan line drawing? The latter would certainly represent the tenor of the times, underscored by the Republicans’ ability in last month’s voting to sharply increase their influence in state legislatures around the country.

Yet the betting is that regardless of redistricting, the volatile forces that shaped the political landscape in 2010 will not recede quickly. That may not be great for the country as a whole. But for those who want to see more competition in House elections, that is all to the good.

Chart 2. House Seats GOP Narrowly Won in 2010, Those Left on the Table

Source: Based on official returns for the 2010 general election from state election web sites.

Tweets of the Week

Larry J. Sabato, Director, U.Va. Center for Politics December 21st, 2010

8:41 AM Dec 17th: Disappointed that ‘best quotes of ‘10′ lists have left out: “The rent is too damn high.” An elegant, inarguable statement of fact.

9:28 AM Dec 17th: On paper Ds need to pick up +25 House seats to regain control in 2012. But this ignores effects of reapportionment/redistricting.

9:32 AM Dec 17th: Census #s (Tu) will show net gain from Blue to Red states. Big R gains in ‘10 mean Rs control redrawing 195 House districts to Ds 49.

9:38 AM Dec 17th: Complicated calculus, different in each state, but more weak Rs will be strengthened than weak Ds, more new R districts than D created.

9:39 AM Dec 17th: Conclusion: +25 D is a mirage.

11:34 AM Dec 19th: Of 8 Rs backing DADT, 6 predictable. Surprises: Ensign(NV) & Burr(NC). Ensign’s scandal partial explanation. Burr just reelected handily.

11:36 AM Dec 19th: 1st term: Burr down-the-line conservative. 2nd term, now more secure, will he stray from party line more often? Smart, thoughtful guy.

11:39 AM Dec 19th: Burr was consistently underestimated by Beltway cognoscenti in his ‘10 reelection race. Toss-up? Try landslide. Burr is one to watch.

11:41 AM Dec 19th: Redistricting: All a-quiver about 12/21 Census state nos. Details vital–but big-picture trends obvious. Same since 1960.

11:43 AM Dec 19th: POWER FLOWS: Frostbelt to Sunbelt. North to South & West. Cities & rural to suburbs & exurbs. Some very D Electoral Votes to very R EVs.

12:06 PM Dec 19th: LisaM and #DADT: 1st clear effect of write-in reelect. She is free to stray, within AK limits,may choose to run in ‘16 as Ind-R, skip prim.

12:46 PM Dec 19th: Post-#DADT: Will colleges now lift whatever restrictions on military recruiters remain? Time to restore this career to place of honor.

3:23 PM Dec 19th: Profile in Courage: Sen. Joe Manchin(D-WV) skips #DADT & #DREAM Act votes for WV Christmas party. Um, alienate both sides?

6:04 PM Dec 19th: On this day in 1843, Dickens’ “A Christmas Carol” was published in England. My favorite. Wish we could get more stingy ppl to read it.

6:14 PM Dec 19th: On 12/19/74 Nelson Rockefeller was sworn in as VP. Never in U.S. history was a VP ditched so quickly. Ford dropped him from R ticket 11/75.

6:55 PM Dec 19th: This lame-duck session got a leg transplant. Remarkable. Redefines what is possible in post-election Congress.

7:02 PM Dec 19th: R gains in Jan. part of equation. But old Congress ’saved up’ controversial issues to put them past election. New tradition for lame-duck?

11:24 AM Dec 20th: BAYOU HOUSE NOW GOP: Make that 21 state legislative bodies the GOP won in ’10. Party-switches put Rs in control of LA House.

The Gop Strategic Advantage

Bill Connelly, Guest Columnist December 16th, 2010

The measures of Republican success in the 2010 midterm are familiar. The GOP gained: (1) a House majority, with a net pickup of 63 seats, (2) six Senate seats leaving Democrats facing a more challenging Senate playing field in 2012 and 2014, (3) seven governorships, and (4) twenty legislative chambers, giving Republicans control of both legislative chambers in 25 states—an increase of 11. Republicans now control more state legislative seats than any time since 1928.

Republican gains include regional advances in the Midwest and Northeast, and important advances in ethnic diversity. Marco Rubio, Nikki Haley, Brian Sandoval, Susana Martinez, Allen West, and Tim Scott may soon become household names. More important, for the GOP, their minority recruits have proven appeal beyond so-called majority-minority House districts.

Perhaps the most remarked-upon newly won GOP state-level advantage involves legislative redistricting. Republicans will completely control line-drawing in over 40% of congressional seats, their greatest such advantage “in the modern era of redistricting” according to the National Conference of State Legislatures’ Tim Storey.

Yet two lesser-told tales of newfound GOP advantage are worth highlighting, one briefly, one at length.

First, recruiting is as important as redistricting in House races because candidate quality is critical. Since the New Deal, Democrats’ dominance in state legislatures provided them with impressive farm teams. In the 2010 midterm elections, however, Republicans gained over 680 new state legislative seats, significantly expanding their farm teams and shrinking Democrats’.

Second, the other lesser-told-tale involves the changed strategic playing field for the two parties; in particular, the advantage Republicans gain by failing to win a Senate majority. Having a House Republican majority, Senate Democratic majority, and a Democratic president in the White House, presents both parties and both branches with a more confusing than usual strategic calculus. Yet Republicans, ironically, may find an advantage precisely because they failed to win a Senate majority. To understand why, it helps to consider James Madison’s separation of powers.

At all times, both parties play electoral politics and pursue public policy on a complex constitutional playing field; one that precludes the clear-cut party roles enjoyed, for example, by British political parties. Historically, in the British parliamentary system the majority party is the government and the minority party is the loyal opposition. American parties do not enjoy the luxury of such clear-cut roles thanks to our complex separation of powers and bicameral system.

At any given time, neither Democrats nor Republicans are the government pure and simple; indeed, at all times both parties are both government and opposition. Consequently, bipartisan compromise and partisan confrontation are both appropriate legislative strategies—which explains why internal party factions constantly contend over legislative and electoral strategy. Managing this internal party factionalism is the Madisonian challenge facing leaders in both parties and both branches at all times. While American parties are constantly perplexed by what role to play, our separation of powers muddles this partisan calculus, especially during divided government. This constitutional conundrum has practical consequences.

American legislative party leaders must constantly choose between government vs. opposition, compromise vs. confrontation, or pursuing policy vs. playing politics. In popular parlance, this often takes the form of debates about bipartisanship and partisanship. Should a party be pragmatic or principled, adopt a moderate centrism or principled liberalism/conservatism, appeal to mainstream independent voters or the party base? Not all of these questions are identical, yet all are defined by the constitutional/institutional “government” or “opposition” conundrum. Ultimately, there is no simple right answer, thus explaining the endless internal party debates over legislative strategy.

Republicans in the 112th Congress, however, may find themselves at an advantage, again, ironically because they failed to win a Senate majority.

Not since just before the Civil War has a Democratic Senate been caught between a Republican House and a Democratic President. Under this relatively new partisan configuration, what are both parties and both branches to do?

House Republicans: Speaker-to-be Boehner seems to recognize the limits on his newfound majority. The strategic conundrum confronting Boehner may reinforce his pragmatic temperament and long experience as a committee chair. Appropriately modest in the election aftermath, Boehner abjured talk of “mandate.” In the 112th Congress, Speaker Boehner will be less inclined to engage in Newt-like “Congressional Government” overreach; he knows he cannot govern from Capitol Hill.

With a Democratic president and Senate, House Republicans—including newly energized Tea Party-charged freshmen—will likely be more willing to bide their time, seeking attainable accomplishments rather than “revolution.” Yet at the same time, the Senate backdrop and Obama veto will liberate House Republicans to appeal to their base, for example, by voting to “repeal and replace” Obamacare, secure in the knowledge that in the end they will not “own” the policy.

House Democrats: As the minority in the majoritarian House, House Democrats may have the least-favored position, albeit the simplest strategic calculus. Lacking responsibility, they are free to be irresponsible. Having lost half their moderate Blue Dog caucus in the 2010 election, House Democrats will be tempted to adopt a full-throated “bomb throwing” politics of opposition—as evidenced by their embrace of Nancy Pelosi as Minority Leader.

But the Pelosi-led Democrats are already finding themselves “orphaned” and frustrated by the willingness of President Obama, and even Senate Democrats, to work with Republicans. The debate over the Bush tax cut extension is only the beginning of their odd-man-out dilemma. Tensions between House Democrats and the president will parallel House GOP “permanent minority” frustrations under President Reagan and the first President Bush. Who knows, Pelosi may eventually be tempted to adopt Newt Gingrich’s lose-the-White-House-to-win-the-House 1992 strategy.

Senate Republicans: The Senate is perpetually caught between the House “rock” and the White House “hard place.” Because the Senate operates according to only two rules, “unanimous consent and exhaustion,” both the Senate majority and minority have leverage (a blessing and a curse!), hence both will be part of the government and part of the opposition.

While it may have been impolitic of Mitch McConnell to state the obvious—“The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president,”—it certainly helps that McConnell, unlike Bob Dole in 1996, is not personally seeking the presidency in 2012. With a Senate minority, Republicans can more comfortably focus on winning in 2012 rather than trying to govern the country from Capitol Hill. McConnell and Boehner will have a more cordial relationship than the 1990s Dole and Gingrich, in part because McConnell in the minority cannot be blamed for failing to bring House GOP initiatives to a vote. The pragmatic McConnell will also have his new junior Kentucky colleague, Tea Party-favorite Rand Paul, to remind him of the need to play the politics of opposition in appealing to their conservative base; McConnell, in turn, can cite Senate Republicans’ minority status to lower conservative base expectations.

Senate Democrats: The pugilistic Harry Reid, now short six Democratic votes, will find he increasingly needs to work with McConnell, though his liberal wing’s demands voiced in the Tuesday party lunches will pull him in the opposite direction. Like Pelosi, Reid will chafe when President Obama needs to work with Congressional Republicans, and Reid will find it difficult to keep his moderates in line when Obama is compromising with Republicans.

The President: Barack Obama will naturally want to protect all his party accomplished in the highly productive 111th Congress. Just as naturally, he will want to advance his and his party’s ambitions and agenda in the lead up to 2012. The first may require confrontation and the use of the veto. The second may require compromise.

Obama, too, will be constrained by divided government in the 112th Congress. With Harry Reid as Senate Majority Leader, President Obama cannot easily adopt the 1948 “give ‘em hell” Harry Truman do-nothing 80th Congress confrontational strategy. Nor will the President have the blessing of fellow Democrats to embrace the 1996 compromising Clinton triangulation strategy. Following passage of the 2010 health reform bill, Obama can hardly announce in the State of the Union Address that the “era of big government is over.”

In short, James Madison’s constitutional conundrum has put both parties in difficult straits. Ironically, however, Republicans may reap the rewards of not having gained a Senate majority. Certainly, the wide open 2012 GOP presidential field can breathe a collective sigh of relief that they are not likely to be defined, as Bob Dole was in 1996, by an obstreperous Gingrich-led House Republican revolution.

The Permanent Campaign: Finally, some worry today that politics never ends in America, that campaigning never fully gives way to governing. Since our elections never seem to allow one party to “form a government,” nor relegate the other party simply to “loyal opposition,” it may be fair to ask: is the “permanent campaign” a permanent feature of our separation of powers system? Since neither party is ever wholly the “government” or the “opposition,” maybe the constitutional separation of powers promotes the “permanent campaign”? Perhaps James Madison agrees that “politics is a good thing.”