Rothenberg: Don't count on a Republican "snapback" in the House in 2008

[Nym90]

http://rothenbergpoliticalreport.blogspot.com/2007/02/can-republicans-count-on-house-snapback.html

Most surge elections, during which one party makes sweeping gains in the House of Representatives at the expense of the opposition, have been followed by a surge back toward the other party two years later.

Will the 2006 elections produce the same snapback, with substantial Republican gains, or can Democrats minimize their losses, securing their control of the House after next year’s presidential election?

The history of recent surges and snapbacks is pretty clear. In 1964, during the Democrats’ anti-Goldwater surge, Democrats knocked off 39 GOP incumbents and won eight Republican open seats. Two years later, the Republicans snapped back, defeating 39 Democratic incumbents.

The wave that accompanied Ronald Reagan’s presidential victory in 1980, which ousted 27 Democratic officeholders and secured 10 Democratic open seats for the GOP, beget 1982, when 22 GOP incumbents were bounced from office. And the wave against President Bill Clinton in 1994, which took down 34 Democratic House Members and turned a stunning 22 Democratic open seats red, produced 1996, when 18 GOP incumbents lost bids for re-election.

Snapbacks are not inevitable, of course. In the Watergate year of 1974, Democrats knocked off 36 Republican House Members seeking re-election and seized 13 GOP open seats, and two years later the parties lost almost equal numbers of incumbents (seven Democrats and five Republicans). Republican seats that went Democratic because of Watergate generally stayed that way for at least a couple of elections.

In November, Democrats knocked off 22 GOP incumbents and added eight Republican open seats. That means that the number of Republican incumbents defeated in their bids for re-election in 2006, while substantial, was below (and in some cases well below) the number of incumbents defeated in earlier waves.

In the three snapback elections mentioned above, the party that lost a large number of incumbents one year knocked off at least half as many of the opposition’s incumbents two years later. Sometimes the snapback was even stronger, as in 1964 and 1966, when equal numbers of incumbents lost in consecutive elections.

But none of the examples noted above is exactly replicated in the scenario for 2006 and 2008. Both the 1964 and 1980 waves occurred in presidential years, which meant that the snapbacks occurred during a midterm election. The 2006 wave occurred in a midterm year, and any snapback, if there is one, would take place in a presidential year.

One wave/snapback sequence — 1994 and 1996 — did occur in a midterm election, followed by a presidential year. But 1994 was Clinton’s first midterm election, while 2006 was President Bush’s second, and that’s a significant difference for many reasons. For instance, Clinton was able to run again and remake himself after only two years in office.

Moreover, the Iraq War was crucial in contributing to the formation of a Democratic wave in 2006, creating an environment that is unique in the recent history of surges.

The war could continue to pose problems for the Republicans in 2008, and if so, that would minimize the chances of a snapback. Even though Bush will not be on the ballot in 2008, he still could be a factor that undercuts the appeal of his party and enhances Democratic prospects up and down the ballot. If independents continue to reject the GOP, Republican candidates will have a hard time reclaiming districts that they lost last year.

The possibility of a GOP snapback also is minimized by the nature of the ’06 wave. Almost half of the districts that turned from Republican to Democratic are either competitive or Democratic-leaning, and as long as the freshman Democrats in those districts don’t stumble badly, history suggests that they will be difficult to dislodge.

Former Republican Congressmen Charles Bass (N.H.), Jeb Bradley (N.H.), Michael Fitzpatrick (Pa.), Gil Gutknecht (Minn.), Nancy Johnson (Conn.), Sue Kelly (N.Y.), Jim Leach (Iowa), Anne Northup (Ky.), Rob Simmons (Conn.) and Clay Shaw (Fla.) didn’t lose because they were terrible candidates. They lost because they were in marginal seats or in districts carried by Al Gore in 2000 and Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) in 2004. It will be very difficult (though obviously not impossible) for the GOP to retake those districts, even if former Members run again for their former seats.

It also seems unlikely that GOP open seats that went Democratic in November in Iowa, Colorado, New York and Arizona suddenly will snapback to the Republicans.

So where are snapbacks most likely?

Republican chances of reclaiming seats lost in 2006 undoubtedly are strongest in fundamentally Republican and conservative districts. That means that Democratic House freshmen such as Nancy Boyda (Kan.), Nick Lampson (Texas), Tim Mahoney (Fla.) and possibly Jerry McNerney (Calif.) are at greatest risk.

In addition, a couple of Democratic incumbents who almost lost despite the strong wind at their backs — Georgia Reps. John Barrow and Jim Marshall — surely have to consider themselves at considerable risk.

Obviously, the presidential contest will have a strong impact on the election year, as will the Democratic Congress’ performance, party fundraising, candidate recruitment and retirements. We won’t know for months which party will have the edge in House races in 2008, but it’s likely that divided government will make it difficult to oust incumbents — and that should improve Democrats’ chances of maintaining their House majority in next year’s elections.

[Adlai Stevenson]

I think that Bush as a factor in 2008 is underrated.  He will still be a strangehold on Republican Presidential and Congressional fortunes.  Many Republican incumbents will retire, creating open seat races that will probably be influenced by the Presidential race.  And obviously there will be a few vulnerable Democratic incumbents but I think we could come out of 2008 with another Democratic net gain.  I can't see the Republicans sufficiently recovering until 2010, and even that is after 2004, limiting their potential gains. 

[Mr.Phips]

I think that Bush as a factor in 2008 is underrated.  He will still be a strangehold on Republican Presidential and Congressional fortunes.  Many Republican incumbents will retire, creating open seat races that will probably be influenced by the Presidential race.  And obviously there will be a few vulnerable Democratic incumbents but I think we could come out of 2008 with another Democratic net gain.  I can't see the Republicans sufficiently recovering until 2010, and even that is after 2004, limiting their potential gains. 

They could recover in 2010 if a Democratic President is elected.

[SPC]

They will gain a net 11-15 seats in 2008. They will probably get ther majority back by 2010, dependeing on what people think of the 44th POTUS.

TX-22, FL-16, NH-1, OH-18, NC-11, IN-9, AZ-5, etc. will all be GOP gains in 2008. 

[Deano963]

They will gain a net 11-15 seats in 2008. They will probably get ther majority back by 2010, dependeing on what people think of the 44th POTUS.

TX-22, FL-16, NH-1, OH-18, NC-11, IN-9, AZ-8, etc. will all be GOP gains in 2008. 

LOL. TX-22 yes, IN-09 and FL-16 MAYBE, but I would bey you money right now that the rest of those will not flip.

And your 11-15 seat estimate is wildly optimistic considering President Bush/Iraq will likely be the #1 issue again in 2008.

[WalterMitty]

we are taking nh-01 back!

[minionofmidas]

They will gain a net 11-15 seats in 2008. They will probably get ther majority back by 2010, dependeing on what people think of the 44th POTUS.

TX-22, FL-16, NH-1, OH-18, NC-11, IN-9, AZ-8, etc. will all be GOP gains in 2008. 

LOL. TX-22 yes, IN-09 and FL-16 MAYBE, but I would bey you money right now that the rest of those will not flip.

I'd put that at FL-16 extremely likely, TX-22 highly likely, IN-09 possibly... but probably not. Just like NH 1. OH 18 is unlikely, AZ 8 is probably out of reach for quite a while. NC 11 depends on Shuler's record in Congress.

[SPC]

They will gain a net 11-15 seats in 2008. They will probably get ther majority back by 2010, dependeing on what people think of the 44th POTUS.

TX-22, FL-16, NH-1, OH-18, NC-11, IN-9, AZ-8, etc. will all be GOP gains in 2008. 

LOL. TX-22 yes, IN-09 and FL-16 MAYBE, but I would bey you money right now that the rest of those will not flip.

And your 11-15 seat estimate is wildly optimistic considering President Bush/Iraq will likely be the #1 issue again in 2008.

I figured those using the PVI rating according to Cook Political Report.

[Mr.Phips]

They will gain a net 11-15 seats in 2008. They will probably get ther majority back by 2010, dependeing on what people think of the 44th POTUS.

TX-22, FL-16, NH-1, OH-18, NC-11, IN-9, AZ-5, etc. will all be GOP gains in 2008. 

TX-22 and FL-16 are really the only ones that I see switching.  NH-01 is an increasing Democratic district and Bradley only served two terms and was never even that popular.  If a Democrat wins the Presidency in 2008, don't count on GOP gains in the House until 2010.

[Mr.Phips]

They will gain a net 11-15 seats in 2008. They will probably get ther majority back by 2010, dependeing on what people think of the 44th POTUS.

TX-22, FL-16, NH-1, OH-18, NC-11, IN-9, AZ-8, etc. will all be GOP gains in 2008. 

LOL. TX-22 yes, IN-09 and FL-16 MAYBE, but I would bey you money right now that the rest of those will not flip.

And your 11-15 seat estimate is wildly optimistic considering President Bush/Iraq will likely be the #1 issue again in 2008.

I figured those using the PVI rating according to Cook Political Report.

PVI is really not that good of an indicator of who will hold their seats.  If this was the case people like Jim Gerlach, Chris Shays, Heather Wilson, and Mark Kirk all would have lost.  There are a lot of districts that like divided government and will vote Republican at the Presidential level, but Democratic for Congress and local races.

[they don't love you like i love you]

TX-22 - Yeah, they'll take it back.
FL-16 - Very likely, though with Negron not running Mahoney's chances just went up a notch. I'm hoping for a brutal primary resulting in a far right winger winning.
NH-1 - Unlikely. I'm surprised so many people think Shea-Porter, the woman who pulled off the biggest upset of the election is a dead duck now, against the same guy who she beat despite all the odds he had in his favor. And Lynch will be on the ballot again, and landsliding.
OH-18 - Space will most likely do worse than he did in 2006 but as long as he campaigns on the right issues I'm confident he'll pull through.
NC-11 - Only if Shuler turns out to be WAY more socially liberal than he campaigned as, which looks very unlikely with his stem cell vote.
IN-9 - I'm pretty sure Sodrel's 2004 victory was a fluke. Hill should win most likely.
AZ-8 - Nope. Giffords probably has that seat as long as she wants it, which could be a very very long time.

[Adlai Stevenson]

TX-22 - Yeah, they'll take it back.
FL-16 - Very likely, though with Negron not running Mahoney's chances just went up a notch. I'm hoping for a brutal primary resulting in a far right winger winning.
NH-1 - Unlikely. I'm surprised so many people think Shea-Porter, the woman who pulled off the biggest upset of the election is a dead duck now, against the same guy who she beat despite all the odds he had in his favor. And Lynch will be on the ballot again, and landsliding.
OH-18 - Space will most likely do worse than he did in 2006 but as long as he campaigns on the right issues I'm confident he'll pull through.
NC-11 - Only if Shuler turns out to be WAY more socially liberal than he campaigned as, which looks very unlikely with his stem cell vote.
IN-9 - I'm pretty sure Sodrel's 2004 victory was a fluke. Hill should win most likely.
AZ-8 - Nope. Giffords probably has that seat as long as she wants it, which could be a very very long time.

Agreed.  People forget that FL-16 only voted Bush 54%-46% in 2004, Democrats hold districts with much heavier Bush margins than that.  I also believe AZ-8 will be loyal to Democrats and Giffords.  Although she will probably run for the Senate or Governor at some stage. 

[InsideTheBeltway]

Republicans should have a very good shot at PA-10.

[minionofmidas]

TX-22 - Yeah, they'll take it back.
FL-16 - Very likely, though with Negron not running Mahoney's chances just went up a notch. I'm hoping for a brutal primary resulting in a far right winger winning.
NH-1 - Unlikely. I'm surprised so many people think Shea-Porter, the woman who pulled off the biggest upset of the election is a dead duck now, against the same guy who she beat despite all the odds he had in his favor. And Lynch will be on the ballot again, and landsliding.
OH-18 - Space will most likely do worse than he did in 2006 but as long as he campaigns on the right issues I'm confident he'll pull through.
NC-11 - Only if Shuler turns out to be WAY more socially liberal than he campaigned as, which looks very unlikely with his stem cell vote.
IN-9 - I'm pretty sure Sodrel's 2004 victory was a fluke. Hill should win most likely.
AZ-8 - Nope. Giffords probably has that seat as long as she wants it, which could be a very very long time.

Agreed.  People forget that FL-16 only voted Bush 54%-46% in 2004, Democrats hold districts with much heavier Bush margins than that.

I'm going off the closeness of the 2006 result, which was fairly surprising. (And my reasoning for thinking Space safe for the time being is closely related. )
As to NH-1, I wasn't aware that Bradley will be allowed to run again. He won't win a rematch except in a generally much more Republican year (or if Shea-Porter turns out a very bad Representative.)

[they don't love you like i love you]

Yes, Bradley was a lackluster representative. I don't know anything about the GOP bench in the district though, or if they could do any better.

For FL-16, I think the Foley effect is overrated. The media made it clear votes for Foley would go to Foley, signs said so in the polling places, and Negron managed to get people to vote for Foley/him while still distancing himself from Foley with a good slogan (Punch Foley for Negron). It flipped mostly because it was an open seat in a bad GOP year. The GOP would've probably retained the seat if Foley had simply retired and Negron ran under his own name, but it would still be close. Also Bill Nelson no doubt carried the district, so it certainly can vote for a Democrat in a "normal" race (well ballot situation wise), which TX-22 probably can't. TX-22 probably would vote for Mark Foley over Lampson if Foley was on the ballot.

[Mr.Phips]

Yes, Bradley was a lackluster representative. I don't know anything about the GOP bench in the district though, or if they could do any better.

For FL-16, I think the Foley effect is overrated. The media made it clear votes for Foley would go to Foley, signs said so in the polling places, and Negron managed to get people to vote for Foley/him while still distancing himself from Foley with a good slogan (Punch Foley for Negron). It flipped mostly because it was an open seat in a bad GOP year. The GOP would've probably retained the seat if Foley had simply retired and Negron ran under his own name, but it would still be close. Also Bill Nelson no doubt carried the district, so it certainly can vote for a Democrat in a "normal" race (well ballot situation wise), which TX-22 probably can't. TX-22 probably would vote for Mark Foley over Lampson if Foley was on the ballot.

Everybody seems to forget that FL-16 is actually a very closely divided district.  Bush only got 53% here in 2004, just two points more than his national average.  Clinton carried it in 1996 as well.  If Mahoney keeps his moderate image, he can hold on.

[Wiz in Wis]

While I think TX-22 is gone, and I think that there are a number of Dems who could lose, such as FL-16, NH-1, and KS-2... there are just as many Reps who could lose too, such as Shays, Gerlach, Walsh, Kuhl, Porter (NV) and Wilson (NM)... so, looks to me like the Dems have the house barring some Republican wave.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Absent anything to shake the political landscape, I don't see the GOP regaining the House until 2010 as a result of buyer's remorse over the Democratic President or 2012 as a result of reapportionment/redistricting.

[Mr.Phips]

While I think TX-22 is gone, and I think that there are a number of Dems who could lose, such as FL-16, NH-1, and KS-2... there are just as many Reps who could lose too, such as Shays, Gerlach, Walsh, Kuhl, Porter (NV) and Wilson (NM)... so, looks to me like the Dems have the house barring some Republican wave.

There are a large number of Republicans who could lose in 2008.  Wilson in NM-01, Gerlach in PA-06, Shays in CT-04, Ferguson in NJ-07, Porter in NV-03, Pryce in OH-15, Chabot in OH-01, Roskam in IL-06, Kuhl in NY-29, Buchanan in FL-13, Drake in VA-02, Wolf in VA-10, Renzi in AZ-01, Hayes in NC-08, Kirk in IL-10, Knollenberg in MI-09, Walberg in MI-07, Reichart in WA-08 all come to mind if it is another good Democratic year.  

[Mr.Phips]

Absent anything to shake the political landscape, I don't see the GOP regaining the House until 2010 as a result of buyer's remorse over the Democratic President or 2012 as a result of reapportionment/redistricting.

If another Republican President is elected in 2008, I don't see the House turning over for even longer.  In that case, Dems would probably have control over most of redistricting and could create another 25 pickups in states like Michigan, Pennslyvania, California, Ohio and Virginia alone

[12th Doctor]

PA-4 is quite winnable... Hart went down because of Iraq and the bad GOP tide... the guy who is currently holding the seat could have been anyone.

[Mr.Phips]

PA-4 is quite winnable... Hart went down because of Iraq and the bad GOP tide... the guy who is currently holding the seat could have been anyone.

That district is pretty Democratic.  Hart was the first Republican to win there in God knows how long. 

[minionofmidas]

Everybody seems to forget that FL-16 is actually a very closely divided district. 

I'm not forgetting it. On the contrary, I think it's closely divided & highly polarized, with the Republicans having the upper hand.

[Democratic Hawk]

PA-4 is quite winnable... Hart went down because of Iraq and the bad GOP tide... the guy who is currently holding the seat could have been anyone.

That district is pretty Democratic.  Hart was the first Republican to win there in God knows how long. 

If Altmire proves to be a better fit for the district than Hart, he'll be re-elected come 2008

Dave

[Keystone Phil]

PA-4 is quite winnable... Hart went down because of Iraq and the bad GOP tide... the guy who is currently holding the seat could have been anyone.

That district is pretty Democratic.  Hart was the first Republican to win there in God knows how long. 

That's true but Altmire will have a lot of work to do.

Super, Hart went down because she didn't want to do anything. Iraq and the overall tide were big reasons but she would have won if she had worked for it. The national GOP was telling her that it would be tough and she ignored them. I remember she laughed off one of their polls that showed her slightly ahead. She insisted that she was up double digits.