Election Forecasts Favor Republican Gains in Midterm

/PRNewswire/ -- In the weeks leading up to the 2010 midterm elections, five forecasters or teams of forecasters offer models and predictions for the House in the most recent issue (October 2010) of PS: Political Science and Politics, a journal of the American Political Science Association. The models offer a broad consensus that the Republicans will make substantial gains in the House, although there is not a consensus over how large those gains will be. A 30-seat spread between the low and high end of the seat change forecast range exists, with two forecasters giving an edge to Democrats maintaining their control of the House and three forecasters anticipating Republicans retaking the chamber.

James Campbell of the University at Buffalo, SUNY, presents a "seats in trouble" model for his forecast. The model is based on the Cook Political Report's district-by-district assessment of the status of House races. He finds that the more seats a party has that are rated as toss-ups or worse before Labor Day, the more seats they actually lose in November. His model combines Cook's expert handicapping of districts with national variables such as presidential approval and the number of seats a party holds going into the election. Campbell's model combines the in-depth analysis of the Cook Report with the rigorous historical analysis of national statistical models. Based on his model, he forecasts that Democrats will lose 51 or 52 seats, allowing the Republicans to regain a majority.

Models created by Alan Abramowitz (Emory) and Joseph Bafumi (Dartmouth), Robert S. Erikson (Columbia), and Christopher Wlezien (Temple) corroborate the prediction of steep Democratic losses. Abramowitz uses the generic ballot and presidential approval to measure the national political climate, estimating that Republicans will gain 43 seats in the House. He further offers a forecast for the Senate, predicting a Republican gain of four seats. Bafumi, Erikson, and Wlezien give the Republicans a 79% chance of retaking the House, forecasting a 229 Republican to 206 Democratic split of seats, but they note that there is a wide dispersion of possible outcomes, and that seemingly minor variation in the national vote can have major consequences for the distribution of seats.

In contrast, the forecast by Michael Lewis-Beck (University of Iowa) and Charles Tien (Hunter College and CUNY) and the forecast by Alfred Cuzan (West Florida University) both predict that the Democrats are likely to maintain their control of the House. Lewis-Beck and Tien rely on established voting behavior theory in the formulation of their model and estimate a Democratic loss of only 22 seats, allowing the party to retain their majority. Cuzan uses a structural model relying on national-level variables and election outcomes as far back as 1914 to forecast Democratic losses of 27 to 30 seats, staving off Republican attempts to retake control. However, this model leaves a one in three or four chance that the Democrats will lose at least 40 seats, reducing them to a minority status.

Stepping beyond the collection of congressional predictions is Carl Klarner's (Indiana State University) forecast of state legislative elections. He calls attention to the 43 state legislative elections that will be held this November, noting that many of the winners will have the responsibility for drawing new district lines based on the 2010 census. According to his model, Republicans will gain control of 11 legislative chambers, leaving them with a total of 46 of 98 partisan chambers, and the Midwest is shaping up to be a battleground of note.

Primaries held in a number of states in mid-September offer a taste of how hotly contested the midterm elections in November are likely to be. Whether Democrats or Republicans ultimately assume control of the House, Campbell notes that this majority is likely to be much narrower than the current Democratic majority, which may present a roadblock to the Obama administration's legislative agenda and will quite probably make control of the House a real question again in 2012.

Ex-White House Spokesman Robert Weiner Asks, 'If There Were Reagan Democrats in the '80s, Why Can't There be Obama Republicans Now?' Roll Call Op-ed

/PRNewswire/ -- Ex-White House spokesman Robert Weiner, and policy analysts Jonathan Battaglia and Noah Merksamer, are asking, "If there were Reagan Democrats in the '80s, why can't there be Obama Republicans now?"

In an op-ed in today's Roll Call, they assert that "In today's politics, bipartisanship seems like a distant memory. It was not always like this.

"Until the 1990s, we had consensus by issue, not by party -- fierce opposition and strong support, but not based primarily on party lines." Weiner traces the history of large minority votes on historic issues as contentious as today's -- Social Security, Medicare, Civil Rights, and show their contrast to almost no minority votes on recent budgets, tax cuts, health care, the economy, and financial reform.

"In 1935, 92 percent of Congress voted for the Social Security Act, including 81 Republicans in the House. There were dissenters -- Rep. Daniel Reed (R-N.Y.) said that with Social Security, Americans would 'feel the lash of a dictator.' Sen. Daniel Hastings (R-Del.) declared that Social Security would 'end progress.' Yet the measure passed 77-6 in the Senate, 382-33 in the House.

"The Civil Rights Act of 1964 did away with segregation. 70 percent voted 'aye,' including 136 Republicans in the House and 21 in the Senate. Republicans and Southern Democrats crossed party lines on both sides of the issue -- they were voting on the issue, not the party regimen.

"When Congress was debating Medicare in 1965, Sen. Carl Curtis (R-Neb.) called the program 'brazen socialism' -- sound familiar? Yet 72 percent of Congress supported Medicare's creation, including 70 Republicans in the House.

"Under former Speaker Tip O'Neill (D), the Reagan tax cuts passed in 1981 with 48 Democrats supporting it. In addition, O'Neill and Rep. Claude Pepper (D-Fla.) were able to keep Congress from slashing Social Security benefits amid President Reagan's cuts in domestic spending. Reagan and House Republicans were part of governing with bipartisanship.

"In contrast, last year's health care reform did not receive a single Republican vote in the House or Senate on final passage. Despite the bill's use of private insurance, no public option, no Medicare buy-in and 160 Republican amendments in the bill such as tax breaks for 95 percent of small businesses, the minority would not give the Democrats a vote. Democrats weren't flawless -- they let partisanship get in the way of including medical malpractice reform, despite Obama's public support for it. Regardless, in the past, a bill with such broad-based compromises would have received 30 to 100 Republican House votes on passage and 10 to 30 in the Senate.

"Only three Republicans in the Senate voted for Wall Street reform in July, despite the financial meltdown, and despite broad minority participation in the drafting.

"This recent unwillingness to compromise began in 1994, with the rise of former Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) and the Contract With America. Majority Whip Tom DeLay (R-Texas) earned the nickname 'The Hammer' because he punished those who did not support George W. Bush. The leadership triumvirate of DeLay, Gingrich and Majority Leader Dick Armey (R-Texas) would not allow Republican Congressmen to vote against the party only on major issues -- exactly the time to express one's conscience."

Weiner, Battaglia, and Merksamer conclude by asking, "If there were Reagan Democrats in the '80s, why can't there be Obama Republicans now?"