Go to HHH home page.
Smart Politics
 


Seeds for Democratic Gains In U.S. House Actually Planted in 2004

Bookmark and Share

Even though Democrats lost seats in the U.S. House in 2004, there are several indicators in that election that suggest their Party was making inroads to be more competitive with Republicans—inroads that paid off in a big way in 2006. Trends in several measures of party competitiveness were already working in the Democratic Party's favor in 2004.

First, Democrats reduced the number of House districts in which they did not field an opponent against the GOP—from 45 in 2002, to 38 in 2004, to just 10 in 2006.

Secondly, Democrats drastically reduced the number of "blow out" races in which they fielded a candidate but were on the losing end of a 50 to 99 point margin. The number of blow out races dropped from 17 in 2002, to 9 in 2004, to just 5 in 2006.

Thirdly, Democrats also reduced the number of "very uncompetitive" districts in which they lost to Republicans by 30 to 49 points: from 96 in 2002, to 87 in 2004, to just 53 in 2006.

As a consequence of fielding more candidates and reducing the number of grossly uncompetitive districts, Democrats were positioning themselves in greater number in weakly competitive and competitive races. For example, Democrats increased the number of weakly competitive races in which they lost by between 11 and 29 points: from 53 in 2002, to 81 in 2004, to 100 in 2006.

The rise in weakly competitive GOP-held districts was not a result of Democrats losing ground in competitive districts held by the GOP: competitive districts (decided by between 0 and 10 points) rose from 20 in 2002 to 35 in 2006.

By picking up several seats in 2006 Democrats will naturally have to protect several districts that they won by slim margins (28 races were decided by 10 points or less). However, the sheer number of districts that are potentially up for grabs in 2008 has skyrocketed from 2002. The Democrats have positioned themselves to make the GOP defend up to 135 districts in 2008—almost double the number of competitive and weakly competitive districts in 2002 (73).

While defending a 25-point GOP-held district may not at first blush seem like a worrisome task, the current political climate dictates otherwise. Just ask ousted Republicans like J.D. Hayworth of Arizona (AZ-05) who won by 24 points in 2002, 22 points in 2004, and then lost by 5 points in 2006—a 27 point turnaround. Or ask defeated Connecticut Congresswoman Nancy Johnson (CT-05), who lost by 12 points in 2006 after winning by 22 points in 2004—a 34-point swing.

Previous post: Reader Request: Should Mike Hatch Have Better Utilized Keith Ellison in His Campaign?
Next post: GOP Struggling to Find Opportunities for Pickups in U.S. House Races

Leave a comment


Remains of the Data

Is There a Presidential Drag On Gubernatorial Elections?

Only five of the 20 presidents to serve since 1900 have seen their party win a majority of gubernatorial elections during their administrations, and only one since JFK.

Political Crumbs

Strike Three for Miller-Meeks

Iowa Republicans had a banner day on November 4th, picking up both a U.S. Senate seat and one U.S. House seat, but Mariannette Miller-Meeks' defeat in her third attempt to oust Democrat Dave Loebsack in the 2nd CD means the GOP will not have a monopoly on the state's congressional delegation in the 114th Congress. The loss by Miller-Meeks (following up her defeats in 2008 and 2010) means major party nominees who lost their first two Iowa U.S. House races are now 0 for 10 the third time around in Iowa history. Miller-Meeks joins Democrat William Leffingwell (1858, 1868, 1870), Democrat Anthony Van Wagenen (1894, 1912 (special), 1912), Democrat James Murtagh (1906, 1914, 1916), Democrat Clair Williams (1944, 1946, 1952), Democrat Steven Carter (1948, 1950, 1956), Republican Don Mahon (1966, 1968, 1970), Republican Tom Riley (1968, 1974, 1976), Democrat Eric Tabor (1986, 1988, 1990), and Democrat Bill Gluba (1982, 1988, 2004) on the Hawkeye State's Three Strikes list.


Larry Pressler Wins the Silver

Larry Pressler may have fallen short in his long-shot, underfunded, and understaffed bid to return to the nation's upper legislative chamber, but he did end up notching the best showing for a non-major party South Dakota U.S. Senate candidate in more than 90 years. Pressler won 17.1 percent of the vote which is the best showing for an independent or third party U.S. Senate candidate in the state since 1920 when non-partisan candidate Tom Ayres won 24.1 percent in a race won by Republican Peter Norbeck. Overall, Pressler's 17.1 percent is good for the second best mark for a non-major party candidate across the 35 U.S. Senate contests in South Dakota history. Independent and third party candidates have appeared on the South Dakota U.S. Senate ballot just 25 times over the last century and only three have reached double digits: Pressler in 2014 and Ayres in 1920 and 1924 (12.1 percent). Pressler's defeat means he won't become the oldest candidate elected to the chamber in South Dakota history nor notch the record for the longest gap in service in the direct election era.


more POLITICAL CRUMBS

Humphrey School Sites
CSPG
Humphrey New Media Hub

Issues />

<div id=
Abortion
Afghanistan
Budget and taxes
Campaign finances
Crime and punishment
Economy and jobs
Education
Energy
Environment
Foreign affairs
Gender
Health
Housing
Ideology
Immigration
Iraq
Media
Military
Partisanship
Race and ethnicity
Reapportionment
Redistricting
Religion
Sexuality
Sports
Terrorism
Third parties
Transportation
Voting