08/17/2002 Archived Entry: "Other Projections of House gains"
A couple of other sources that I have noted make House predictions for 2002: TAPPED had a sensible post in late July, stating that a six-seat gain in the House by the Democrats could happen, based upon the relationship between GOP-inspired laissez-faire, Bush's sketchy business dealings, and the corporate accounting scandals... you can almost see it all coming together in voters' heads. Professor Pollatz has a Projected 2002 majority for House Democrats of 6.32, which he bases upon historical Presidential approval numbers. Readers here probably know of other forecasts as well which can be shared.
During mid-term elections, frustration plays a large part in voters coming to the booth. As the Gallup poll suggests, this is an inherent Demcratic advantage this year, which corresponds with historical trends that I've noted elsewhere:
In only two midterm elections since 1862, the party holding the White House has won seats in the House-- 1934 and 1998. In 1934, unlike today, the US was then in midst of a severe depression, allowing FDR to mandate support of his economic policies against the Republicans... Bush & Rove have attempted make support of the administrations War on Terror an election mandate for the GOP. Up to now however, Republicans have been unsuccessful in portraying this as a wedge partisan issue, mainly due to the Democrats support of Bush's foreign policy.... In 1998, there was a backlash against the moralists of the GOP, which would tell us that recent history of House elections provides momentum for the Democrats, not the Republicans. Republicans have been steadily losing their House majority margin since 1996, following their 52-seat revolution in 1994.
Replies: 6 comments
"In 1998, pundits on the left and right both expected the Republicans to pick up a number of seats, even a lot of seats. They were wrong, because nobody in Sally Quinn's Washington -- which hated Clinton -- understood how the impeachment was creating a backlash."
I expect the same to happen in 2002, with the CQ and other Washington talking heads predicting a gain for the GOP while the situation outside the beltway is different. Well, the talking heads can say anything. I am pretty sure that Amy Walter of CQ would be around and perhaps even get a promotion even if she is dead wrong as usual and the Dems end up with a double digit gain. Journalism and political analysis are two fields where no one is held accountable in the country. John Fund lied in his Fund Dairy that Simon is ahead of Davis by nearly nine points on the same day a Field Poll put Davis ahead by seven. Back in late March Washington Times lied to the public that the GOP was well placed to win the Governorship in Illinois on the same day Jim Ryan was trailing by 18 points according to an independent poll. No wonder the corporate crooks do not want to be held accountable either.
Posted by G.C. Raj @ 08/17/2002 04:38 PM PST
I agree that 1998 was miraculous in how we did so much better than poll's indicated.Lets hope it happens again.
Kind of hard to justify how we only gained 1 seat in 2000 however.I mean hell,26 GOP congresspersons retired and only 9 Dems.
I just want this election to be over with,so I can see what happens.Nothing is a slam dunk,we"re at mid field.We seem to have the ball however.Im not incredibly confident we will take the House,infact Im not even cautiousily optomistic.I want this election to end fast but its taking SOO long.
(right now,I place our gains at 2-3 seats)
Posted by MLM @ 08/17/2002 06:11 PM PST
G.C. Raj
You echo my sentiments exactly. NOBODY in "serious" punditry predicted a Democratic pick-up in 1998. Against all odds, I amazed all three of my political friends by predicting a Democratic pickup of 2.
In 2000, Gore was written off almost from the beginning, before easily winning the popular vote.
In 2004, my expectations are for a modest dem ocratic pickup: 10-15 seats. Considering redistricting, thats a tidal wave.
I'm not sure where the disconnect is, but official Washington has lately seemed to regularly underestimate Democratic performance. Likewise, polling seems somewhat off-kilter in favor of Republicans.
Posted by mississippidem @ 08/17/2002 06:18 PM PST
While we're on the subject of historical anomalities...
The GOP has lost seats in the House for three straight cycles.
When was the last time a party lost seats in the House for FOUR cycles in a row?
Answer: It was during the beginning of the great depression - the GOP went from 267 seats in the 71st Congress (elected in 1928) down to 214 in 1930, to 117 in 1932, to 103 in 1934, and then finally down to 89 in 1936. (They rebounded to 164 in 1938.) Since then, neither the GOP nor the Dems have gained seats for more than three cycles in a row.
Posted by Mr. Moderate @ 08/17/2002 10:05 PM PST
Thanks for the info Mr. Moderate, that was quite a lot of volitility.
Posted by myDD @ 08/18/2002 08:25 AM PST
Mr. Moderate
We can always go back to history. In 1998 it was said, when was the last time that the party controlling the White House gained seats in the midterm.
Posted by G.C. Raj @ 08/18/2002 12:43 PM PST
