Democrats Face The Most Unfavorable Congressional Map In 100 Years

In legislative special elections Democrats are vastly outrunning President Clinton’s performance last November.  They even have done better in Congressional special elections.  But, even so, it might not be enough to overcome the record setting bias of the US Senate map.  Indeed, the US Senate map has never been so tilted toward the GOP since the direct election of Senators in 1913.

Consider this fun fact.  If, “Democrats were to win every single 2018 House and Senate race for seats representing places that Hillary Clinton won or that Trump won by less than 3 percentage points — a pretty good midterm by historical standards — they could still fall short of the House majority and lose five Senate seats.”  Yes, that is how bad it is for the party out of power.

There are a number of reasons for this.  Part of it has to due with the nature of Congressional districts: gerrymandering and Democrats clustering in urban areas have helped move the median seat to the right of the nation.  Then some of it just has to do with bad timing.  Democrats had a stellar year in 2006 and had a great year considering the map in 2012.  But, due to this, Democrats have to defend 25 of their 48 seats compared to the GOP’s 8 out of 52.  Worse, many of the seats Democrats are defending have trended rightward and showed their true leanings last November.

The larger trend here should significantly alarm Democrats.  Democrats have made significant inroads in California and NY State; liberal states with massive urban centers giving the party a huge popular vote edge in the Presidential contest.  They’ve even made inroads in red Texas due to urban centers.  But, NY and CA only elect 4 Senators (out of 100) and Texas still has a massive GOP edge in statewide contests.

Meanwhile, the GOP’s edge in rural states like West Virginia, Iowa, North and South Dakota, Arkansas, Louisiana and Montana, has grown exponentially.  Due to the nature of the Senate- these small states wield significant power.

Contrary to the cries of many Democrats, GOP gerrymandering has had little to do with the pro-GOP bias in Congress.  For example, in 2008, under lines drawn by many Democrats, the average Democrat won their House seat by 4.4 points compared to the President’s 7.3 percent victory.  That’s an almost 3 percent bias towards the GOP.

Fast-forward to today and the bias is even worse.  Trump lost the national popular vote by 2.1 percent.  Yet, the average Republican won their House seat by 3.4 percent and Senate seat by 3.6 percent.  That’s a “yuge” gap.  In fact, it’s the widest Senate gap in a century and the largest in a half century (except for 2012) for the House.

There is a fairly easy way to quantify this.  In 1980, there were 18 states that were five points more Democratic at the Presidential level than the nation.  There were 18 states likewise more Republican than the nation with 14 states in between.  Assuming all things being equal, all either had to do was win their friendly states Senate seats and 15 of the 28 Senate contests in the swing states.

Today, Republicans don’t even need to come close to do that.  Fifty-two Senate seats are in states where Republicans won the popular vote for President by five points more than the national result (at least R+2.9).  There are only 28 seats in states where the margin was at least 5 points more Democratic, and only 20 seats in swing states.  And Republicans own several of these swing state seats making the Democratic climb even steeper.

The national political climate, the GOP Senate’s dysfunction and its minimal 52 seat majority make the chamber look competitive.  But a deeper look reveals Democrats hold far more seats in red territory than the GOP in blue states.  The GOP does not hold a single seat in the 14 states that are more Democratic than the nation.  Meanwhile, Democrats hold six seats in states more Republican than the nation.  These Democrats have unique and individual brands but they have largely behaved the same as their liberal colleagues in opposing Trump.  Can they outrun that?

This has repercussions beyond just electoral politics.  Consider, in 2010 Democrats need sixty votes from all Democratic Senators, including 13 from states Obama lost in 2008.  It only took the Iraq War, Hurricane Katrina, a once in a generation political candidate and the strength of individual Senatorial candidates to acquire those sixty seats.  And, oh yes, a razor thin margin in Minnesota and an old GOP Senator in Pennsylvania flipping his allegiance.

It’s hard to see such events occurring today.  But, if the GOP wanted to acquire sixty seats all they would need to do is win all sixty seats in Trump states.  It’s unlikely this uniformity would happen but it showcases just how uphill the Democratic climb is to simply regain the majority in the chamber.

Democrats probably cannot count on a sixty seat majority for a generation or more.  Meanwhile, due to the elimination of the judicial filibuster, lower courts can be filled with conservative jurists without a single, Democratic vote needed.  Even if Democrats win the White House in 2020, they will likely see their preferred nominees blocked and compromise candidates be the only candidates to get through.

This is not even mentioning the Supreme Court.  The increasing polarization of the parties and the public has filtered in the courts (see Merrick Garland circa 2016).  As a result, the GOP could get one or two more jurists on the Court under Trump and then simply hunker down and wait out a Democratic President by using their majority to block his/her nominee/s.

Finally, even if Democrats win the House along with 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue the Senate would likely kill or modify many of their ideas.  Progressive legislation the base is agitating for would likely never see the light of day.  That is what the Democratic Party faces today and if it stops them from having a success 2018 the party will also be locked out of power in the states and Congress for another decade.

 

The Democrats Climb To Take The House Is Still Steep

Talk to a lot of political operatives and election handicappers and a general narrative emerges.  The GOP House majority is in jeopardy.  Ironically, many of these same individuals a mere few months ago were saying the GOP majority was safe due to redistricting and natural voter clustering.

Quite a 180, eh?  It’s hard to blame them.  They are taking their cues from polls like Quinnipiac (released last week) which showed Democrats ahead 54-38 percent on the question of which party voters would like to see control Congress.

Ed Kilgore, a long-time Democratic analysts (notably wrong about both 2014 and 2016, said of the poll, “A new poll shows the kind of numbers that if they become common could definitely portend not just a ‘wave’ but a veritable tsunami. Quinnipiac’s latest national poll mainly drew attention for showing some really terrible assessments of Donald Trump. But its congressional generic ballot was a shocker.  Quinnipiac stated the poll was five points better for Democrats than it was for Republicans at their high-water mark in 2013.

It’s not impossible Democrats can take control of the House.  Writing for the Washington Examiner back in February, Michael Barone stated the 24 seats Democrats need to gain a majority is not an impossible number.  Swings in 2006 and 2010 featured many more seats switching hands.  However, the increased level of partisanship makes these gains harder to achieve.

So, clearly such gains are not impossible to achieve.  Proponents of an emerging wave point to the generic ballot numbers and Trump’s popularity.  On the generic ballot question, Democrats lead by about six points 18 months out.  Republicans had a similar lead in October, 2010.

But, here’s the thing.  The generic ballot question has often overestimated Democratic support.  For example, in 2006, Democrats garnered 52.3 percent of the House vote while Republicans got a meager 44 percent and change.  Yet, the Realclearpolitics average of polls on the eve of the election showed Democrats with an 11.5 percent lead.  Last year, the same bias emerged, though to a much lesser extent.  The final generic ballot had Republicans up by a .1 percent.  They won by about a point.  So, the generic ballot question has tended to overestimate Democrats success than Republicans.

Geography is also an important factor here (as is redistricting).  Republicans won the popular vote by about 6 percent in 2010.  They won 63 new seats.  Along with their gains in the states they set about ensuring they had a durable majority via redistricting.  As a result, Democrats will need a bigger margin than Republicans in 2010 to gain a majority.

This is a factor a lot of analysts missed in 2010.  Republicans, even without redistricting, are better distributed across the country and that means Democrats start at a natural disadvantage.  It is why a Clinton popular vote victory of 2 million votes results in losing a majority of House districts and a 306-232 Electoral College loss.

Put by somebody else, “The way district lines are currently drawn benefits Republicans by distributing GOP voters more efficiently than Democratic voters. So, all else being equal, we would probably expect Republicans to win more seats than Trump’s approval rating alone indicates,” Harrey Enten notes at FiveThirtyEight.com.

Before 2010, all Democrats needed to do was win the popular vote to take the House.  But, after 2010, when Republicans locked in their gains, the party’s efforts became tougher.  Doing some quick math, and building off the Daily Kos’s median seat district average, to win 24 seats Democrats might need as much as a 9 percent victory nationally to marginally take the House.

We can see if this analysis holds water by doing a simple analysis.  In 2006, Democrats won the House vote by 7.9 percent popular vote margin which translated into a 7.2 percent margin in the number of seats won (233-202).  In 2010, when Republicans won by 6.7 percent they held 11 percent more seats than Democrats (keep in mind these elections were fought under old lines.).  But fast forward to 2016 and a Republican win of a single percent led to them winning a whopping 55.4 percent of all seats.

Again, doing some quick math here, that means a GOP win of a single percent last year led to the GOP garnering an 11 percent advantage in the number of seats won.  Democrats would need a minimum of a six point victory nationally (all things being equal) to take the House as a result.

Historically, we have seen quite an influx of wave elections.  Supposedly, enthusiasm in these elections made the difference (or lack thereof).  So Democrats crashing town halls should matter right?  Well, anecdotally, if that were the case, then many party higher-ups would not be worried the party is failing to create a compelling message to draw back working class Millennials and older voters.

There are systemic disadvantages the party is facing.  Even in a wave election, no more than 10 to 15 percent of all House seats are really in play.  Splashing cold water on the idea dozens of seats can be in play even in a bad cycle for the incumbent party are these startling numbers from Ballotpedia.   In 2016, “380 of the 393 House incumbents seeking re-election won, resulting in an incumbency rate of 96.7%. The average margin of victory in U.S. House races was 37.1 percent.”   In 2014, the last midterm election, “[t]he average margin of victory was 35.8 percent in 2014, slightly higher than the average margin in 2012 of 31.8 percent,” Ballotpedia reported.  Further, 2014 saw only 49 out of 435 races were decided by margins of ten percent or less. while a whopping 318 seats were decided by 20 points or more.

Adding to the disadvantage Democrats face is the fact only 35 districts voted for the President of one party and a Congressional member of another.  There are 23 Clinton/GOP districts and 12 Trump/Democratic districts in America.  This means Democrats would need to hold all their Trump seats, flip every Clinton/GOP district and find another true red district to flip.  It is possible this could occur but the odds are against it.

We are long past the period when Democrats could flip dozens of Bush districts like they did in 2006.  Indeed, that year, Democrats won three districts that reelected Bush with over 60 percent of the vote (mostly in the South where Democrats are all but extinct).

Heading into 2006, 18 Republicans occupied seats in districts carried by John Kerry in 2004, and Democrats had to defend 42 of their own seats in districts carried by George W. Bush. Even so, Democrats were able to win back control of the House, making a net gain of 31 seats. In addition to winning 10 of the 18 Republican seats in districts carried by Kerry in 2004, Democrats won 20 Republican seats in districts carried by Bush and won an open seat previously held by then-Representative Bernie Sanders.  They even captured three districts in which Bush won at least 60 percent of the vote.  Of course, one also should not forget flipping seats costs money.

The RNC and NRCC are sitting on piles of dough.  Meanwhile, the DCCC and DNC are shadows of their former selves after relying so heavily on Clinton to fill their coffers.  For example, the RNC raised $9.6 million in April and had $41.4 million on hand while the DNC raised $4.7 million, had $8.8 million in the bank, but spent more than it raised.

All the above said, Trump’s weak approval ratings give Democrats hope.  If he keeps dropping his party may fracture and Democrats might be able to pick up the pieces.  Uh huh, does that not sound at all similar to 2016 when pollsters thought Trump had no shot with over 60 percent of voters disliking the candidate?

Trump’s approval started out at about 44 approving and 44 disapproving.  As of now, he sits around 40 percent for a drop of about four percent.  Even considering those strongly approving have dropped few voters have moved from approving to disapproving.  But consider that Obama, the last President to compare against, started out with 63 percent approval and 20 disapproving.  By the time of the midterms in 2010, he was underwater by four percent meaning his approval dropped by a whopping 25 percent.

The idea Trump is an albatross around Republican Congressional candidates necks has already been tested.  For example, while Democrats argue Kansas was about Trump the GOP candidate embraced Trump when polling showed the race neck and neck.  He won by seven points.  More recently, in Montana, Republican Greg Gianforte embraced Trump at virtually every turn and won by six points (outperforming his internal polling).

Democrats and pundits point to GA-6 as a bellwether for 2018.  But so much money has poured into the race is it really?  Right now, Democrats seem to lack the cash to turn all the suburban, red leaning districts like GA-6, into competitive contests.  Even if Democrats flip the district, the prohibitive cost of doing so would mean they would never be able to do something similar in 23 other districts.

Finally, there is one other factor to be considered.  Democratic weakness with the working class.  It is where the bulk of Trump’s support originated and continues to be found.  This is where the Democrats lack of a message matters.  Endlessly bashing trump while failing to put forth ideas that appeal to voters is not a recipe for a wave.

Democratic weaknesses with this voting group are compounded by the fact they are very efficiently distributed in many swing districts across the country.  As a result, many formerly Democratic districts such as in IA, MN, PA and OH, which could help anchor a Democratic majority, are out of reach for the party meaning they have to stretch their gains to even have a shot at controlling the House.

Therein lies the rub.  Democrats certainly cannot retake the House if they run 35 points behind with this group like they did in 2016.  Indeed, they may not even be able to take the House if they do as well with this group as they did in the wave election of 2006 (losing by 10 points).  Democrats did not even come close to this number in their best election in the last decade (2012).

These are formidable obstacles to overcome even in the best possible cycle for a political party.  If Democrats struggle in 2018, not only will they fail to have leverage in Congress, but in the states Republicans will likely remain strong and draw in another “safe” majority until 2030 (though keep in mind the “safe” GOP majority created by redistricting is now in “trouble”).  If Democrats don’ get the wave they expect in 2018, they could find themselves locked out of power for many years to come.

Moderate Wing of GOP Flexes Clout

Over the past several years the conservative wing of the GOP has flexed its considerable clout.  From Sequestration to the Fiscal Cliff to the Government Shutdown to pushing out Speaker Boehner, conservative members have pushed their party to take a hard right stance on many, many issues.

With control of all levers of government they are not letting up.  The so called Freedom Caucus, a group of about 30 conservative lawmakers, killed the first version of the AHCA when they decided  the bill did not repeal and replace Obamacare.

Depending on how you look at it, the revised AHCA is a victory for the Freedom Caucus and its power.  The only reason the bill came back up was because Paul Ryan and President Trump gave into many of the Caucus’s demands.  Most significantly, the new bill would let states opt out of many of the ACA’s most significant requirements.

But, this caused another headache for leadership and reflected the power of a rising group of Republicans, the Centrist/Moderate wing of the party.  When leadership gave into Freedom Caucus demands they lost a dozen fence sitting moderates.  The bill was unacceptable to members who wanted to protect the least fortunate.

As a result, leadership and conservatives had to huddle with moderates to carve out concessions for a number of them (including $8 billion in new funding to support coverage for people with preexisting conditions).  If the House was just the teaser for moderates power, the Senate is where they will determine the future of the law.

The bill is still more conservative than not.  Medicaid Expansion is repealed in two years (unless states can fund it), mandatory coverage for preexisting conditions is gone and moderates could only get a billion dollar slush fund in concession.  That said, moderates made sure states had to apply for a waiver to opt out of the ACA’s essential coverage requirements and they also were instrumental in passing the law.  Moderate Republicans are not fans of the law, but they made sure their voices were heard in the process.  Ultimately, they might have shaved some of the roughest edges off the law for the Senate.

Moderates did not just show clout on healthcare recently.  On the budget deal, moderates took the lead in negotiations and eliminated poison pills out of the final package.  They sidelined contentious issues like cuts to HUD and building a border wall and instead focused on increased spending for the military and border security.  Quietly, moderate leadership told the White House a lot of what they wanted to do to Sanctuary Cities and Planned Parenthood could be done administratively.

Moderates might have had their biggest success on Trump’s Religious Liberty Executive Order.  The initial draft of the bill would have allowed organizations to “discriminate” (according to some) in hiring and other decisions based on sexual orientation.  The EO released last Thursday simply makes it easier for religious institutions to engage in political activity (hint, they already do).

Already, in the Senate moderates are flexing their power.  As soon as the AHCA passed in the House word spread the Senate would not vote on the House bill.  Instead, a working group which has been in contact with House Leadership is crafting their own plan.  This is not surprising considering statewide races in which Senators run are a different beast than smaller and more homogeneous Congressional districts.

Moderate concerns over the bill in the Senate reflect those of moderates in the House.  Repealing Medicaid Expansion might cut off insurance access to those who are 138 percent or below the poverty line.  That is huge because more than half of the people that did not have coverage before the ACA fell below that income level.  While a majority of those still without insurance today are young and healthy, fully 30 percent have ongoing medical issues.  Repealing Medicaid Expansion would only make it tougher for them to gain access to care, let alone insurance.

The uninsured are largely poor and young.  Gaps in the law and court decisions have removed coverage requirements for millions of individuals.  For example, millions reside in states that have not expanded Medicaid (my home state of Idaho being one).  Additionally, the Supreme Court’s decision in 2012 to let states decide to expand Medicaid left millions in limbo and threw out the stick arm of the law.

This is not even including the millions who remain uninsured even with the ACA.  Of course, the government says a majority can afford coverage (20 percent out of 29 million) but I doubt the government really knows what affordable is to a single guy living on $25K a year in a city.

Considering these factors, it is not surprising to see why moderates in the House and several GOP Senators balk at the House bill.  By cutting back federal involvement in health insurance so sharply millions will likely lose coverage.  It is easy to see why members would be concerned.

There is also the electoral component.  The Daily Kos, the liberal cheer-leading arm, led off with a piece the other day about how so many moderates were endangered voting for the law.  Of the Republicans sitting in Clinton districts, 14 voted yes to 9 who voted no.  In fact, more Republicans sitting in Trump districts (11) voted no than Republicans in Clinton districts.  Considering the impacts of this bill it is little wonder why liberals are cheering.

But, moderates might have/will save the day for their party.  By changing the House bill the Senate might give the GOP a fighting chance to argue the bill does in some form protect the least fortunate.  Additionally, the Senate crafting a different and revised version might be just enough to allow the party to win over more of the public and piece together a conservative/moderate majority in the House/Senate on the piece of legislation.

Time will tell, but right now moderates are increasingly showing their clout on healthcare and other issues.  Who says centrism* is dead?

Note: Centrism today is a lot different from past electoral cycles.

 

 

Democrats Are Losing the Senate: Will Big House Gains Follow

Recent polls have shown Democrats are losing the Senate.  Sure-fire seats such as Wisconsin have suddenly become competitive, Ohio and Florida continue to tilt red and Kelly Ayotte in New Hampshire and Joe Heck in Nevada have established slim edges.  Missouri continues to be neck and neck but Democrats are now losing Indiana and North Carolina continues to be just out of reach.  The only state Democrats seem to have gained in is Pennsylvania (though the most recent poll found a tied contest).

Trump’s recent gains in the polls can largely be attributed to GOP resurgence down-ballot as well as a renewed GOP focus from endangered incumbents focusing on being a check on Clinton.  Democrats had largely hoped to take the Senate this cycle but they were also gunning heavily for the House.

Democrats regaining 30 seats and capturing the House was always a stretch but retaking some Democratic leaning and swing districts was always a possibility.  With Trump on the ticket Democratic hopes have risen and fallen.  Every time Clinton has commanded a substantial lead they have seen favorable internal polling (like early to mid-October).

But as the race has hit the home-stretch Democrats may be starting to realize they may not only lose the Senate but gain at most a dozen House seats.  There are multiple reasons for this and only a few are Democrats faults.

One is recruiting.  Early on Democrats failed to recruit strong challengers in suburban/rural districts in Pennsylvania and Ohio.  While Democrats believe some of their weaker, late recruits are showing strength at the end the odds are good Democrats will leave these seats on the table beyond 2016.

The biggest Democratic fault was having Clinton be their standardbearer.  It is true you could say the same of Republicans and Trump but whereas Republicans have gone to great lengths to distance themselves from Trump, many Democrats have embraced Clinton.  As a result, endangered Republicans can run as a check on Clinton.

As I mentioned before, not all the reasons for Democratic struggles are theirs.  The strength of many GOP incumbents, outside spending and demographics have hindered their efforts.

GOP incumbent strength has allowed many top-tier seats at the start of the cycle (FL-26, IA-1, IA-3, PA-8, VA-10 etc.) to remain barn-burners.  Democrats should be dominating these kinds of districts in liberal Eastern Iowa, suburban Pennsylvania, Democratic heavy Southern Florida and the Virginia suburbs.  Instead, at best their candidates are tied with GOP incumbents even with favorable turnout projections built into their internal polls.

Republicans have benefited strongly from outside spending.  While many conservative outlets and donors have not donated to Trump they have spent millions supporting Congressional GOP candidates.  It has helped many Republicans have built up their war chests in anticipation of tough reelections.  Additionally, the money Paul Ryan has raised for his party numbers in the millions.  If anything, Ryan is Boehner on steroids for raising money to protect his majority.

Lastly, demographics have actually hindered more than helped Democrats in their quest for seats in the House.  Sure, they can play in heavily Hispanic districts in CA and FL and suburban districts in MN, PA and VA.  But the Obama leaning, rural and white districts in IA, MN, OH and elsewhere that should be theirs on paper have not followed through.

A couple cases in point.  Democrats should be dominating in IA-1.  The district gave Obama 56 percent pf the vote in 2012.  Rod Blum, is a member of the House Freedom Caucus and has consistently opposed Obama.  He has endorsed Trump.  Blum should be a goner.  But instead, fueled by Trump’s strength in the district he has held his own against his Democratic challenger.

How about NV-4.  The district voted for Obama by 10 points in 2012 and is almost a majority-minority Hispanic district.  This seat should be blue.  But, instead, Democrats despite finding a top recruit have struggled to put it away as polls show Hispanics and blacks unlikely to vote and Republicans core voters, blue-collar whites, geared up to do so.

Democrats counter that their strength among college educated women, particularly white women, will pay dividends in the future.  They vote at a higher rate than college educated white men, are more Democratic and only growing as a share of the electorate.  That all may be true.  But it is scant comfort for Congressional leaders who will be irrelevant for another 2 years of divided government.

Six Takeaways From Tuesday Night

While the dust settles from the 2014 shellacking Democrats received several things stand out.  Some of them are surprising, others not so much.  This is by far not an exhaustive list, but to me it signifies the six most interesting things to have come out of this election cycle.

1. The polls were biased towards Democrats: Coming into election night Democrats had a solid lead in Virginia and a small lead in North Carolina.  Greg Orman led in Kansas and numerous gubernatorial polls showed Dems ahead in blue states and GOP Governors in swing states trailing.  Last night those polls were proven to be badly off.  It is hard to count the number of races where the polls were off.  In Arkansas, the RCP average of polls had Cotton up 7%, he won by 17%.  In IA, Ernst led by 2.3% and she won by an astounding 8.5%.  In CO, Gardner led by 2.5% and he won by 4.2%.  The list goes on further.  In KS, Roberts trailed Orman by .8% and he won by 10.7%.  In Georgia, Perdue led by 3% in the polls and he won by 7% and avoided a runoff with 53%.  The polls were off by at least 3% in North Carolina and though polling was sparse in Virginia, Ed Gillespie only trails Mark Warner by .6% compared to Warner leading double digits in the polls.  In Governors races in Wisconsin, Maine, Florida and Michigan the polls were off by 2-5%.  In blue states in Maryland, Illinois and Massachusetts the GOP ran ahead of polling margins.  All this begs the question why the polls were off?

Democrats in the run-up to the election claimed the polls were biased against them.  But this time the polls badly underestimated GOP strength.  Perhaps pollsters should wonder after three consecutive elections if they need to wholesale re-examine their profession.

2. The vaunted Democratic ground game failed: Consider some numbers for me.  Obama won IA in 2012 by 6%.  He won CO by 5%.  He carried Virginia by 4%.  Yet, in these purple states the GOP candidate won by 8.5% (IA), 4.2% (CO), and the GOP candidate trails by .6% in Virginia.  In red states that featured competitive Senate races Democrats touted their ground game, arguing it would give Kay Hagan, Mark Pryor, Michelle Nunn and Mary Landrieu a huge advantage.  Instead, Pryor lost by over 15%, Landrieu barely garnered 42% (run-off on Dec. 6th), Nunn notched only 44% and Hagan could not get above 47.2%.  The ground game the Democrats had boasted so much about in 2008, in CO and NV Senate races in 10, the Presidential race in 012, failed miserably.  Which for 2016 begs the question, did the GOP catch up or was the toxic environment simply to much for national Democrats?

3. How the GOP Did with Minorities: Taking a gander at the exit polls it is not surprising to see the GOP did well with men, struggled with women and dominated among Independents.  It is surprising to see the GOP make dramatic improvements with all minorities who promise to control future elections.  Republicans dramatically improved their 2012 showing among Hispanics (35%), blacks (10%) and perhaps most importantly, Asians (49%).  The exit polls even show they won American Indians (52%).  N0w, one can argue these minorities were more conservative than those that showed in 2012.  Perhaps so.  But the GOP’s improvement among these groups is a significant win for the party heading into 2016.  I will not focus on specific state exit polls but I will give shout outs to Nathan Deal in Georgia who won 47% of the Hispanic vote, Greg Abbott in Texas who won 44% of the Hispanic vote and John Kasich in Ohio who won 22% of the black vote.

4. How the Governorships Swung: The sheer number of Governorships the GOP is set to assume in 2015 is no less than amazing.  Heading into the night many analysts expected the GOP to lose 1-3 seats and some crucial 2016 states.  But, with many of the races called the party held virtually every big state and picked up some blue states to boot.  In Wisconsin, Scott Walker trounced Mary Burke.  In Michigan, Rick Snyder cruised to reelection.  In Florida and Maine, both races many analysts expected the GOP to lose, Rick Scott and Paul LePage won.  Sam Brownback, an endangered incumbent in Kansas that was widely expected to lose, won with over 50% of the vote.  Then we get to races the GOP won.  In Maryland, Larry Hogan pulled off a surprising victory.  Charlie Baker in Massachusetts gave Marth Coakley her second major defeat in less than four years.  Even in deep blue Illinois, Bruce Rauner proved a winner over Pat Quinn.  The GOP also easily held open seats in Nebraska and Arizona. Connecticut and Alaska are still outstanding.

While Democrats hold the edge in both some analysis indicates the races have yet to be called because some GOP heavy precincts have not reported their ballots.  One bright spot for Democrats is they did hold the Colorado governorship.  The GOP did lose Pennsylvania (as expected) and they could very well lose Alaska.  But regardless, the GOP is alive and well at the state level.  I will have more on state legislative turnover when more numbers come out.

5. Where Have All the Conservative Democrats Gone: The GOP wave was so strong this cycle they not only won in conservative districts but also liberal ones.  But it is the conservative Democrats who lost that are notable and indicate the Democratic Caucus in the House will move inexorably to the left.  Nick Rahall, a 19 term West Virginia Congressman lost his bid for reelection.  With Capito’s victory in the Senate, Senator Joe Manchin is the lone Democrat in the state’s delegation.  In Georgia, John Barrow lost his bid for reelection.  Outside of TX and Florida in the South the Democrats do not have a single white Congressman representing a majority white district.  Democrats also saw notable moderates and liberals lose.  Democrats might take solace in the fact Gwen Graham beat Steve Southerland in the conservative FL-2 and Steve Ashford leads Lee Terry in NB-2.  Collin Peterson won reelection in a district Mitt Romney won by 10% in 2012.  But by and large the Democratic Caucus will lose more moderates and conservatives than it gained.  With several close races in CA and AZ pending, those losses could become even deeper.

6. Idaho Democrats Have Another Rough Night: Democrats are used to having rough nights.  But this time might be different.  Many Democrats felt AJ Balukoff was the guy to topple Otter.  Holli Woodings for Secretary of State and Jana Jones for Superintendent of Education were top-notch candidates.  But in the end it does not look like Democrats will hold a single statewide constitutional office for the next four years.  With all precincts reporting Otter had 54%, Denney had 56% and Ybarra had 50.7%.  Democrats still hold out hope Jones can come from behind with absentee and provisional ballots (she has yet to concede) but the odds are long.

At the legislative level Democrats are in slightly better shape.  They look likely to hold all their metro Boise seats and add a seat or two in the House with narrow wins in district 5 and 6 house races (both to close to call).  Meanwhile, Republicans have few pick-up opportunities unless remaining ballots go decisively in their favor.  One saving grace for Democrats was their margin in Ada County.  They easily held their legislative seats and Balukoff, Jones and Wooding all took Ada County.

Despite winning Ada County Democrats were trounced in the state.  Are Democrats simply to toxic to ever win in Idaho for a generation?  I am starting to suspect so.

Republicans Still Likely to Easily Hold the House and Perhaps Build on Their Majority

Matheson’s retirement makes it more difficult for Dems to retake the House this cycle.

A spate of recent retirements have altered the battle for the House at the margins but have not changed the basic arithmetic of 2014.  Democrats need 17 seats to gain the majority and no clear path has appeared for them to do so.  This as Republicans have retired in several left or rightward leaning seats.  Most notably the retirements of Rep. Tom Latham (IA-3), Jon Runyan (NJ-3) and Jim Gerlach (PA-6) have buoyed Democratic hopes.  Both Latham’s and Runyan’s districts went narrowly for Obama in 2012 while Gerlach’s suburban Philly district backed Romney with a mere 51%.

Despite these retirements however Democrats have been slammed with their own slate of retirements.  Most damaging for the party were the retirements of Congressman Jim Matheson (UT-4) and Jim McIntyre (NC-7).  Both seats went heavily for Romney in 2012 and are almost guaranteed to swing to the GOP this cycle. Most recently, Congressman Bill Owens in the upper New York based 21st CD announced his retirement after two terms.  The district went narrowly for Obama in 2012 but Republicans have coalesced around a strong nominee and the area has a strong local GOP to help with turnout efforts.

Democrats might be encouraged by what they are seeing in the open 13rd CD in Florida.  Longtime Rep. CW Bill Young’s death opened up the seat.  Democrats have former 2010 gubernatorial nominee Alex Sink while Republicans just finished up their primary and selected former Young aide David Jolly. Democrats have a cash advantage and with the general in March it does not give the GOP much time to catch up.  That said, the demographics of the district, becoming more diverse, still favor the GOP as it is older and whiter than most suburban districts.  Both parties plan to use the district to test national messages and trumpet or downplay expectations for 2014.

Yet even if Democrats win FL-13 they will still need 16 seats to regain the majority and this seat would be another competitive seat they need to defend. This gain must be made in the face of likely losses in conservative districts, a public unhappy with Obamacare and a President with 40% approval ratings.  Democrats also have a number of endangered seats with incumbents to defend.  In Arizona, Ann Kirkpatrick and Ron Barber are endangered as strong GOP nominees wait in the wings.  In California, Ami Bera has to defend his suburban San Francisco district with large pockets of rural voters.  Scott Peters in his suburban San Diego district faces an openly gay Republican in his reelection bid and Raul Ruiz’s district is majority Hispanic but high white turnout could offset this advantage.

Elsewhere Republicans are optimistic about their chances in several Illinois districts as well as Maine’s newly open 2nd CD.  In Illinois, the GOP plans to target Bill Enyart and Cheri Bustos who represent urban/suburban districts that include conservative and union territory.  Republicans also plan to make a bid for now Senator Mark Kirk’s old seat, hitting Brad Schneider in the only competitive suburban Chicago district left in the state.  In Maine’s open 2nd district the GOP hopes Mike Michaud’s run for Governor will allow a moderate nominee to emerge and steal the seat.

Admittedly Democrats have plenty of their own opportunities.  Suburban districts as well as several largely rural but unionized districts give them some leverage to play offense.  But this will come in the shadow of a still sputtering economy and an unpopular Health law.  Even progressives in polls have shown dissatisfaction with their party and the President.  Combined with the Senate map this means Democrats may simply be forced to play more defense than offense.

Of course much can change over the course of the next 10 months.  It is unlikely the basic fundamentals that favor the GOP will shift however.  The President’s approval is unlikely to bump up, red state Democrats are likely to run as far way from their party as possible and Democratic base voters are likely to be unmotivated to show up in the midterm.  All this points to Republicans holding the House and perhaps adding to their majority.

Update: Longtime California Congressman Buck McKeon’s retirement in CA-25 offers Democrats another pick-up opportunity though Republicans have better candidates vying to replace McKeon.  The district is split between the San Diego suburbs and exurbs and narrowly went for John McCain and Mitt Romney.  This district may be comparable to PA-6 with a slight Republican tilt that Democrats may find this cycle might be to much to change.

Why the House is now out of reach of the Democrats (and Senate control might be as well).

Congressman Mike McIntyre

What a difference a month makes in politics.  In mid-October Democrats were openly gleeful they had gotten the better of their GOP opposition over the government shutdown.  Republicans were divided and feuding, the party’s base was simmering and meanwhile Democrats were raking in hoards of cash and seeing several strong recruits enter newly competitive House races.  Now, with the disastrous roll out of Obamacare Democratic hopes of retaking the House are all but gone even to the most optimistic analyst.  As for the Senate, Democratic strategists concede that even Senators in non-red states such as IA, MN, NH and MI could face tough races due to Obamacare.

As a result of the Obamacare furor generic ballot polls have returned the party’s to near parity among registered voters.  This means the GOP likely leads among the electorate that will show up to vote next November.  More worrisome for Congressional Democrats are that the generic ballot polls do not show the party’s new weakness in the districts they must win to retake the majority in the House.  These seats are diverse in terms of  geography and political composition but they lean to the right.  Mostly suburban/rural districts,  Democrats always needed help to win the majority and take 18 new seats.  The government shutdown promised them that help.  Obamacare’s roll out has stolen that help away and made their climb steeper.  In fact, many of those most impacted by the law’s effects, higher premiums, cancelled plans and loss of access to their preferred carrier reside in these districts.

In contrast to the kind of seats Congressional Democrats need to win to claim the majority Democrats need to hold predominately rural states to keep control of the Senate.  Consider, of the seven states Obama lost in 2012 that have Democratic incumbents up for reelection (MT, WV, AK, LA, NC, SD and AR) only North Carolina can be considered to have more than one major urban area with surrounding suburbs.  The rest all have one urban area with surrounding suburbs.  This means these Democratic incumbents need to win moderate, suburban voters and just enough rural voters to hold their seats.  Obamacare has made that harder.

Along with hurting suburban voters some of the law’s most onerous provisions have impacted rural voters.  Rural voters have lost access to preferred coverage and their doctors and now have to drive to a city to see somebody.  Obamacare has helped accelerate the trend of doctor’s practices being bought up by major hospitals or consolidated in major population centers.  Also, higher premiums have hit rural voters and even worse limited policy options have left these individuals with few choices.  Every Democrat in the Senate up for reelection voted for this law which means they must explain or sidestep the impact their actions have had on rural individuals lives.

Being able to explain or sidestep their votes will be crucial.  A new Fox News poll on Alaska, Louisiana, Arkansas and North Carolina (where Democratic incumbents remain in Romney states) finds by a 3-1 (46%-15%) margin adults say a a vote for the Healthcare law would make them less likely to support the candidate.  Nationally, the numbers break down 37% less likely to 21% more likely and among Independents the numbers are 35% less likely and 18% more likely.  Among whites, the largest constituencies by far in swing House districts and Senate races the numbers are even worse, 46% less likely and 20% more likely.

Certainly, elections are about more than just bad laws.  Candidates and money do matter.  But wave elections in 2006, 2008 and 2010 helped propel a number of weak candidates to victory.  In 2006 and 2008 this was to the benefit of the Democratic Party.  In 2010 it helped the GOP.  Many traditional incumbent advantages in these years did not matter. But Democratic incumbent Senators have a number of tough opponents already declared (see prior posts).  The racial and ideological composition of their constituencies also limit their ability to fight the impact of the national political environment.

Republicans have already promised they will do little little to nothing to help Democrats get out of the jam they have wrought.  Democratic leadership would be unlikely to accept their olive branch even if they offered one.  In the House last Friday the GOP offered a bill that would allow Americans to keep their plans if they wanted.  While 1 in 5 Democrats voted for the GOP plan (39 Democrats), including 23 of 25 Democrats rated vulnerable in some form by Roll Call, President Obama said he would veto such a plan if it hit his desk and Majority Leader Harry Reid said he would not bring the bill up for a vote in his chamber (he may have no choice regardless).

All these factors help explain why Democrats are now on the defense heading into 2014.  But even before the government shutdown and Obamacare fiasco the party was facing a headwind known as the “Six year itch.”  This electoral phenomenon has seen numerous two term President’s party lose seats as the party’s base tires of their standardbearer and partisans on the other side work hard to limit the President’s agenda.  Democrats could see this phenomenon magnified in 2014 due to Obamacare.  Republicans certainly would not mind.