Go to HHH home page.
Smart Politics
 


Democrats in Stronger Position Than GOP to Make Gains in US House in 2010

Bookmark and Share

Although history tells us it is a rarity for the party in control of the White House to make gains in congressional seats during mid-term election years, all the numbers from the 2008 elections point to the Democratic Party to remain in a very competitive position to add to their large advantage in the U.S. House in 2010.

During the past 100+ years, there have only been four instances in which the party controlling the White House has picked up seats in the U.S. House during the mid-term cycle. However, two of these cases have occurred during the past decade: 1902, 1934, 1998, and 2002.

So why would 2010 defy this general historical trend? There are several key factors:

First, the Democratic margin of victory across the 435 House races in 2008 was a whopping 16 points higher than that of the GOP. Democrats won by an average margin of 44.7 points compared to just 28.7 points for the Republicans. Since redistricting in 2002, the average Democratic margin of victory has been remarkably stable – hovering between 44 and 45 points. The average Republican victory margin, however, has been quite volatile: dropping from 41.2 points in 2002, to 37.2 points in 2004, to 25.3 points in 2006, before rebounding a bit in 2008.

Average Margin of Victory in U.S. House Elections, 2002-2008

Year
Democratic MoV
Republican MoV
2008
44.7
28.7
2006
45.8
25.3
2004
44.6
37.2
2002
44.2
41.2
Source: data compiled by Smart Politics.

Still, considering the Democrats netted 30 seats in 2006 and 21 seats in 2008, this large Democratic margin of victory is truly remarkable. With Democrats winning 257 seats to the GOP’s 178 in 2008, one would expect those Republicans who were victorious to be winning larger, more lopsided victories in heavily red districts. Similarly, one would expect a larger number of Democratic seats to be more closely decided than GOP seats – with the Democrats picking up a number of swing districts and right-leaning districts.

But this hasn’t been the case.

In both 2006 and 2008, despite the Democratic Party winning more than 50 swing seats, Republicans nonetheless won more competitive races, those decided by less than 10 points, than the Democrats: 30 to 28 in 2006 and 26 to 24 in 2008.

Number of Competitive U.S. House Seats Won by Party, 2002-2008

Year
Democratic seats
Republican seats
2008
24
26
2006
28
30
2004
10
10
2002
18
15
Note: Denotes races decided by less than 10 points. Data compiled by Smart Politics.

And there is more bad news for the GOP: in 2010 the Republicans will also have to defend more ‘near competitive’ districts (those decided by 10 to 19 points) and ‘marginal’ districts (those decided by 20 to 29 points) than do the Democrats. In 2008, the GOP won 39 seats decided by between 10 and 19 points, compared to 34 seats for the Democrats, and won 53 seats decided by between 20 and 29 points, compared to just 29 seats for the Democrats.

In sum, when 2010 comes along, the GOP will be forced to defend 36 percent more competitive, near competitive, and marginal districts (118) than will the Democrats (87).

This built-in advantage for the Democrats may be enough to ward off the historical loss of seats that usually occurs during mid-terms. However, with Democrats quickly pushing their controversial stimulus bill through Congress during Obama’s first three weeks in office, the ultimate determinate of Democratic gains or losses in 2010 could likely be the ultimate (perceived) success or failure of that singular piece of legislation. Republicans, who voted unanimously to oppose the bill in the House, no doubt now have a unified message and strong issue to run on in 2010 should it fail.

One further note: an additional reason Democrats have been able to maintain a much larger average margin of victory than Republicans during the last two election cycles - even as they picked off more than 4-dozen seats - is because:

a) they have reduced the number of districts in which they failed to run a candidate by 70 percent, from 80 districts in 2002-2004 to just 24 districts in 2006-2008, and

b) the number of districts in which the GOP has failed to run a candidate has increased 32 percent – from 66 districts in 2002-2004 to 87 districts in 2006-2008.

U.S. House Districts in Which Major Party Fails to Field a Candidate, 2002-2008

Year
No Democratic candidate
No Republican candidate
2008
14
42
2006
10
45
2004
36
30
2002
44
36
Source: data compiled by Smart Politics.


Previous post: Marijuana Arrests Decline As Legislative Support for Medicinal Use Builds
Next post: Governor Doyle Would Make History By Winning 3rd Term

1 Comment


  • 2010 will be a huge Democratic year, the country has moved to the left and Republicans are on the 1980's radical right!

  • 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