Cook: Republicans Will Stay In Charge
Charlie Cook, one of the big dogs in the world of political analysis, has his 2006 overview up, and it’s worth reading in its entirety. For those of you with short attention spans, though, I’ll do you a favor and cut to the chase.
The Senate:
…Even if one assumes that Republicans are going to have a very bad election year in 2006, the odds are still quite high that they will maintain a majority in the Senate, albeit with a diminished margin. It appears today that Democrats will pick up two to four seats, which would leave Republicans with 51, 52 or 53 seats instead of the 55 seats they hold now.
The House:
A…likely result is that Democrats end up with a net gain of between four and nine seats, roughly cutting the Republican margin in half in this midterm election campaign.
Let’s hope he’s right. Interestingly, Kos (who calls Cook a “huge big factor in the DC conventional wisdom” – wow, not just big, but huge big! No wonder he’s getting interviewed by Newsweek!) agrees:
This actually sounds about right. While a huge wave could bring us control of at least one chamber in 2006, the odds are against it. Chances are we’ll gain roughly as many seats as Cook says in the House and Senate, positioning us nicely for a 2008 takeover.
Sure, Markos, it’s all positioning; you guys have been positioning yourself nicely since 1996, haven’t you?…Still, give Markos credit for at least being somewhat realistic – just read the comments to see delusion in all its morbid glory…
Yes, well, they spend a lot of time over there hoping against hope that conventional wisdom is wrong. Maybe they don’t like the “conventional” part because they’re such rebels, or maybe it’s the “wisdom” thing that throws them. In any event, Atrios said pretty much the same thing about the Alito confirmation–oh please, let “conventional wisdom” be wrong!
mission statement of republicans in congress:
TO GET RE-ELECTED!
mission statement of democrats in congress:
TO GET RE-ELECTED!
that is a huge difference.
if you can’t see the difference then you’re the one that is clueless.
that’s why the party of louielouie never votes for an incumbent. that’s my little insignificant part.
am i a bitter little cynical man?
ubetcha.
louielouie, you’ve got your own party now? Are you going to be sharing the platform with us?…
I’m Australian, so I’m not huge big on the process of American elections, but dosn’t the incumbent party almost always lose a few seats in mid term elections? As I understand it, the last mid term was a comparative abberation with the republuicans picking up a few instead of losing a little ground like everybody expected.
Not huge big on the process, eh? That’s good…yeah, you’re absolutely right. It is normal for a bit of a swing. However, the Dems are hoping for more than a blip, but a giant shift that puts them back in power, and the Abramoff scandal is just another in a long line of events that have been said to be the tipping point…
2006 Predictions
Mark Coffey has a post up on Charlie Cook’s predictions for 2006. Before I read Cooke’s assessment I have to continue to support my prediction that the Reps will pick up 1-3 senate seats this year, further defying historic trends as they …
I think the Abramoff scandal does have the potential to cause a much larger realignment in Congress than would otherwise be the case. The one thing which will dislodge incumbents is (real or apparent) corruption — so if, for example, there are twenty Congressmen who were linked to Abramoff, there may be twenty formerly safe seats which are now up for grabs –
That would be true if people actually cared when their own congressman (congressperson?) was involved in corruption. Usually, a constituent’s response to something like this goes along the lines of …”boy, that Congress, what a bunch of crooks, liars and thieves. But my guy…hey, he’s doing allright by me.”
We’ll see if the electorate deems this business as usual, or something indeed significantly different.
I’m under the general impression that Republicans will gain a seat or two in the Senate and probably lose a little ground in the House. Senate elections are, after all, much easier to analyze, being that there aren’t nearly as many. And in the Senate, there are more Democrats up for re-election than Republicans, and more Democrats in red states than Republicans in blue. I don’t have the list of candidates right in front of me, but the only Republican I remember thinking was in trouble was Rick Santorum. There were at least a couple of Democratic seats that could switch sides though.
Aaron, some are saying Lincoln Chafee could be in trouble in Rhode Island…thanks for the comments…
I was looking at the comments and intrigued to see Kos arguing with Armando, with Kos being more pessimistic and saying he was burned by 2002 and 2004. You know Armando is off his rocker when Kos comes off as the voice of reason compared with him.
The Abramoff stuff has the potential to throw a monkey wrench into everything, but I don’t think it’s because of the potential of indictments. Americans are used to discovering politicians have their hand in the cookie jar, and from what we’ve been hearing, it looks like this is a bipartisan mess, so I don’t think that will have a huge impact (except in those sirectly affected districts).
The sleeper effect may be retirements. A fair number of incumbents may escape indictment, but may also know it was a near thing, and decide it’s time to schlep off into the sunset, the way many incumbents did in 1992 and 1994. Incumbency is everything in these races, and if there’s a whole bunch of open seats, I think the Democrats will be smiling.
Re: the Dems chances in the Senate in 2008.
It should be noted that in 2008 the Republicans will be defending far more seats (23, I think) than in this cycle (just 16). Unless the Republicans nominate a very popular candidate with significant coattails, a few senate seat losses in ’08 are probably very likely — even if they win the white house (remember 2000). If the Democrats manage to pick up 3-4 senate seats, they will be well positioned to take over in 2008, at least temporarily. In order to keep the Senate out of reach for the Democrats, the Republicans will need to break even in this election cycle, which will be very difficult with Santorum and Chafee looking as vunerable as they currently do.
I’m from PA, and I can assure you that the Democrats will pick up my state. I believe they will pick up Ohio and Montana as well. Burns is now the most unpopular Senator. If you haven’t checked out the local news from Montana, they are hammering him on his votes and ties to Abramoff.
If your looking for another site with election predictions, check http://electionpredictions.blogspot.com . That is my site, and I have a race rating for all Senate, House, and Governorships for 2006.
Thanks, Tom, we political junkies are always looking for a fix; best of luck and drop by anytime…
Tom: I seem to recall an article on Real Clear Politics that had Burn’s approval rating (46%) as the lowest of any current US Senator.
Still, a 46% approval rating only leaves you vunerable if you are from a fairly competitive state, or a state dominated by the other party. Given that Burn’s party is very strong in Montana (although Democratic incumbents do manage to get re-elected), I suspect a fair number of Republicans who don’t like him will pull the lever for him anyway and put him over the top.
I live in California, and I’ve watched this dynamic in reverse on numerous occasions. In 2002, Davis’s support from Democratic voters put him over the top, despite a 25% approval rating (he got thrown out in a recall, but that’s another story), and in 1998 Boxer was re-elected to the US Senate with an approval rating lower than Burns’s current total.