Need House Dems Expect a Blowback in 2008?
by Jonathan Singer, Mon Mar 05, 2007 at 09:48:06 AM EST
In the current issue of CQ Weekly, reporter Greg Giroux takes a look at all of the landslide House elections since 1964 to see if historical trends provide evidence to the concern by some on this side of the aisle that the Democratic freshmen who won in 2006 are susceptible to defeat in 2008. To illustrate his point -- "that freshman classes have generally proved themselves to be politically resilient after the 'wave' of elections in the past half-century" -- Giroux put together a nice little bar graph, which I have supplemented and slightly reformatted into the two charts below to not only account for the reelection records of freshmen in past landslide or sea change elections but also include data on how the parties of those freshmen fared two years after their major victories.
Midterm Landslides| Landslide Cycle | Blowback Cycle? | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Year | Seat Change | Freshmen | Year | Seat Change | Freshmen Losers |
| 1966 | R+47 | 59 | 1968 | R+4 | 1 |
| 1974 | D+49 | 75 | 1976 | D+2 | 2 |
| 1982 | D+27 | 57 | 1984 | R+14 | 4 |
| 1994 | R+54 | 73 | 1996 | D+9 | 12 |
| 2006 | D+31 | 42 | 2008 | ? | ? |
| Average Excluding 2006 | +44.25 | 66 | Average Excluding 2008 | -4.25 (10%) | 4.75 (7%) |
Presidential Election Year Landslides
| Landslide Cycle | Blowback Cycle? | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Year | Seat Change | Freshmen | Year | Seat Change | Freshmen Losers |
| 1964 | D+36 | 71 | 1966 | R+47 | 26 |
| 1980 | R+34 | 52 | 1982 | D+26 | 13 |
| Average | +35 | 61.5 | Average | -36.5 (104%) | 19.5 (32%) |
As you can see from the provided charts, parties that pick up large numbers of seats during presidential elections appear fairly susceptible to a large loss of seats two years later, with parties on average actually losing more seats two years later than they gained during the initial landslide. What's more, in these instances, about a third of the freshmen who were carried to victory by the coattails of their party's presidential nominee went on to lose two years later.
But when we look at landslides in the House that occur during midterm elections, as happened last fall, it appears that the party gaining seats is significantly more immune to large losses of seats in the chamber two years later. On average, the winning party has lost just under 10 percent of the seats they previously gained, half of the time actually posting small increases rather than decreases in their numbers two years after their big win. Likewise, just about 7 percent of freshman carried into office on their party's coattails during a midterm election tended to lose two years later during the subsequent election.
History is certainly not a predictor of future outcomes, and the Democrats should not rely on these numbers, merely assuming that they are bound to hold on to the House following the 2008 elections no matter what. What's more, in elections prior to 1964, which Giroux does not examine, the record is more mixed; in 1960 Democrats lost about 43 percent of their 49-seat gain of two years earlier, in 1956 Democrats gained two seats on top of their 19-seat pickup in 1954, and in 1948 Republicans lost their entire 55-seat gain of 1946 -- and then some. That all said, if we were to extend the trend over the last several decades to 2008, Democrats might expect to post a net loss of about three seats with just about three freshmen losing -- numbers not nearly enough for the Republicans as they attempt to retake the House in 2008.
Tags: Democrats, House 2008 (all tags)
-----------
myDD - skin
-----------
16 Comments