When it comes to midterm elections prognostication, it’s helpful to look at demographic trends and polling data, but, at least when it comes to the House of Representatives, you need to focus on the make-up of the districts. Growth of the minority population, higher minority turnout, and less support from minorities for Republican candidates would be unwelcome developments for the GOP, but those factors would also be unlikely to change the outcome in more than a small handful of House elections. That’s because most Republican-held districts have relatively few minorities and the whites are reliably Republican. If the Republicans are really in jeopardy of losing control of the House, it’s because they’re losing the support of people who they used to be able to depend upon for support.
That’s where their handling of the budget, economy, retirement programs, health care, farming, and even transportation, could become a problem. Historically, no organization has been more closely aligned with the Republican Party than the national Chamber of Commerce, but that has to be about to change considering that the modern GOP simply refuses to do its bidding anymore. The Chamber wants immigration reform, but it also wants more transportation spending and opposes a government shutdown or imposition of the debt limit.
The agricultural industry is another source of strength for the GOP, especially considering that the Republicans dominate in rural areas. But failing to produce a Farm Bill is enraging farmers.
I’ve already discussed recent Democracy Corps polling that showed severe erosion of the Republican advantage with elderly voters. This is probably primarily a result of lasting damage done by the voucher plan for Medicare that Paul Ryan pushed over the last several years. But the GOP’s general attitude about entitlements (that we’re not entitled to the benefits we paid for during our working lives) is always going to be a drag on their performance with the elderly. If it’s getting worse, some safe districts are going to become competitive.
There are other factors that could be turning off long-time Republicans. One is the way Republican governors have behaved. Most of them are very unpopular. Pushing voter suppression schemes and blocking a decent fix for college loans turns off young voters. Extreme anti-abortion legislation is alienating many right-leaning women. Attacks on school budgets are worrying countless parents. And there are plenty of people who mildly disagree with the president on most things but acknowledge that he was reelected and think he deserves an opposition that will compromise.
Beyond that, as the culture changes to be more tolerant about things like gay marriage and a pathway to citizenship, and climate change become more of an undeniable reality, the culture wars become a less effective wedge.
Finally, one of the Republicans’ traditional areas of strength has been their message discipline: lower taxes, less regulation, a strong military, etc. But the GOP is no longer united on national defense, taxes and budgetary issues, or even on immigration reform and gay rights. As a result, they will not be able to convey a clear concise message effectively, as they have in the past.
All of these things are factors that could combine to do enough damage in districts that Romney carried easily that a Democrat might be able to sneak out a win in November 2014.
We saw something similar happen in 2006. President Bush was such an epic fuck-up, that a lot of Republicans just left the party, many for good. It could happen again.
Too many people in the sticks get their info from Limbaugh, Hannity, etc…they will always blame the Democrats no matter what. I think you are placing a bit too much trust in the intellect of the voting population in some of these districts.
If GOP obstruction and policy becomes manifest in your life by, say, hurting or ruining your business, getting you laid off, crippling your kid’s school, making it so you pay a tax penalty if your kid votes at his college, making it a pain in the ass to get your daughter an abortion, taking away your subsidized day care, forcing you to order a new copy of the birth certificate you lost, or if you just reach a limit on how many racist, homophobic, or misogynistic statements you can ignore, then you might walk away.
I know that, in my life, what finally got my Dad to totally renounce the Republican Party was the Terri Schiavo incident. Everyone has a different breaking point. But the more personal it is, the more likely that someone will change their political thought process.
That was the last straw for John Cole (Balloon Juice) too.
Pretty amazing — the GOP sided with the in-laws from hell against a sheriff’s deputy. Doesn’t get much more clear-cut than that. I wonder how many voters Mitt Romney alienated because he represented the asshole CEO who shipped their job to Asia.
The Republicans just blame Obama for all those things. I read either here or at dkos recently that the Congressional district with the most SNAP recipients is some district in Kentucky that is poor even by Kentucky standards. They voted 70% for Romney-Ryan.
Hal Rogers district, South Eastern Kentucky, in other terms Appalachia, the place Lyndon Johnson toured while he pushed for the food stamp program, and other programs to help the poor.
Con Rogers doesn’t represent the NEEDS of the vast majority of the people who live in his district,
but them again what republiscum ever does?.
Thanks for the details. That’s my point, their Congressman works against them and they vote for him. Inexcusable. Unless he was unopposed, then it’s the DNC and DCCC that are inexcusable.
Appalachia, where families used to frame newspaper pictures of FDR. ???? Is their racism that powerful?
It ain’t just racism, even though that does play a large part.
The people in that area of the state don’t welcome outsiders of any race, they are more insular them most other places in the south, and they consider themselves southern.
Louisville and Lexington are foreign places to them, forget NYC, San Francisco or Chicago.
Wow!
Ayup! But that is also why a relentless hammering home of the points that Boo made, in every district, would turn a lot of voters. These people would be most susceptible to a direct mail campaign with carefully designed issue-oriented fliers, printed locally at mimeograph prices, targeting the issues that would hit them most. Slick brochures would be a waste of money. Grassroots volunteer efforts can accomplish a lot for not that much money.
But, as was noted above, except for Howard Dean’s tenure, the DCCC and DLC are uninterested in the grassroots efforts in red districts. Which is why we are where we are. (Oh, and Appalachian districts are, for the most part, Dem-voting. They know where their economic interests lie. It’s south central and western Ky where the GOP strongholds are.)
you’re assuming GOP policies, or lack thereof, aren’t affecting voters.
Well, the battle is to get people to assign blame in the right place.
But it is starting to sink in a bit that the GOP is uncompromising.
Well, the battle is to get people to assign blame in the right place.
Politics sure is inspiring these days.
Clinton/Whitehouse 2016: I didn’t do it!
specific things – medicare, soc sec, the farm bill, that affect them or ppl they know directly people follow closely. it’s on the level of “reduce the deficit” where ppl who don’t [have time to] follow all the debate closely are vulnerable
vulnerable to hucksterism
I think your analysis is spot on. The caveat is who the Dems will run in opposition. In Bucks, Fitzpatrick could be beaten with a good candidate, just name one please.
Here’s how the GOP can lose the midterms.
Cap Cops
Note to Joe: I never said they were goosestepping.
Awesome
Pfft. Clumsy goons.
Need more Juche: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lwoSFQb5HVk
Well, something like this is going to happen anywhere, it’s going to happen in the Philadelphia suburbs, right? At some point I’d love to see your analysis of our prospects in the local house districts. It doesn’t sound to me like anyone is talking about them being competitive, in great contrast to every previous election.
The 50 state strategy was derided by many a Democratic campaign stalwart, mostly because (I think) it challenged their conventional wisdom hegemony of taking on only “swing” districts and “winnable” races, fuzzily defined.
When voters are as low-information or mis-information as large swaths of the electorate are, the truth can have a salutary effect on Democratic numbers. It is not the be-all and end-all, but challenging Republicans in their strongholds can expose support that’s 60% wide and 1% deep. Walking away from races, conceding them without a fight, is a sure ticket to re-election for the likes of Louie Gohmert.
I recognize that money is a problem, and wise use of limited financial resources is imperative, but not every race has to be “The Most Expensive Campaign Ever.” And a credible challenge in 2014 can scrub off the patina of invincibility for many Republican officeholders come 2016.
I had a visitor from North Carolina two days ago who had no idea anything political was happening in her state.
I immediately dropped the subject (this was my dinner guest, after all). However, she has a 17-year old son. When he goes off to college and she learns that she’ll lose his tax deduction if he votes in her state, I wonder what she’ll think then.
There is this too – Although it would take some DNC money to support challengers, the Republicans would have to spend money also to defend those districts as opposed to cruising in unopposed.
I wonder, has a Congressional caucus ever screwed up so badly that people fled the party?
Presidents, sure, but Congress?
If there’s any group that can do it, it’s the modern GOP. We’ve been hearing for years now about the GOP’s ahistoric level of obstruction and dysfunction. Yet people seem so surprised that it might lead to an ahistoric outcome in the 2014 midterms.
It’s not an ironclad law that a second-term Prez’s party always loses seats in the midterms. Or at least, maybe it is in normal times, but these are simply not normal times.
Same goes for the meme of “Republicans can just be crazy and bide their time; no matter what happens they’ll eventually return to power.” Yes, Republicans will eventually be back in power, win the Presidency, etc. But how long from now? 3 years? 10 years? 20? It’s also not just as if the Republicans can just sit and do nothing and eventually the Americans will grow tired of the Dems and vote in a GOP president on a whim. The GOP will have to CHANGE to win, and they inevitably WILL change, because the’ll be tired of being out of power. But they aren’t going to change in ways that conservatives will be happy with.
Rahm Emanuel. Terry McAuliffe. Maybe that conventional wisdom is right after all and the Democratic Party will cut it’s own throat.
The more the election is nationalized, the greater the chances the GOP retains the House. (I expect them to take the Senate.)
Depressed Democrats — looked around here lately? — energized Republicans, post-Census redistricting and voter suppression.
R’s pick up 6-10 seats in the House.
Looking around here does not mean that any of us will stay home or sit out. So that is not the index of “depressed Democrats”.
In Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio, and North Carolina, Democrats are likely to be highly energized just on the legislative issues. Possibly in some other states as well.
I’m not sure what nationalizes the election in 2014. The most likely candidate is Republican obstruction in Congress and that doesn’t work to the GOP’s favor. The other nationalizing issue is the GOP’s voter suppression activities; that brings out the Obama base of African-Americans and students big time.
The biggest factor is getting full slates of candidates strong enough to cause Republicans to have to defend more places than they had planned to. In the Senate, that is why the candidacies of Allison Lundergran Grimes and Michelle Nunn are important.
Don’t think the collapse of immigration reform could nationalize the elections too?
Yes, but I’m not sure in which way. Immigration reform is not so popular with low wage workers who directly compete.
Obama. He’s one-of-a-kind. Until the day he leaves office, it’s all the GOP needs.
The mid-term electorate already skews GOP-ward. The crawl-over-broken-glass-to-punish-the-Kenyan vote will turn out.
Let’s see who else does — or doesn’t — turn out.
If they pitch the election as anti-Obama, you will have 2008 and 2012 level of turnout among African-Americans. Remember that the framing in 2010 was “the government is going take away your Medicare”, and that turned Wisconsin and Florida in particular. And it was only in Blue Dog and New Democrat districts that the GOP was trying to hang Obama around the necks of folks who had voted over and over against Obama initiatives. Well most of those Blue Dogs and New Democrats have been replaced by Republicans. And in some districts, GOP use of Obama as a scare to support incumbency might fail because the GOP hasn’t done anything–neither repealing Obama programs or putting forward their own.
2008 and 2012 were presidential years. This time there will be no central, national campaign body driving the turnout bus…
The Obama campaign spent just under a billion dollars all told — what’s being spent in ’14?
“Democrat Depression” is a standard for most Democrats regardless of the candidate. Even in years when it’s clear we’re going to win the White House, many Democrats are still filled with pessimism about their chances because they look at it from all angles.
Likewise, Republicans tend to be overconfident because they only believe what their leaders tell them.
It’s happening.
The NC General Assembly made some folks mad about a whole lot of different issues. 500 in Burnsville is a good turnout in the mountains. Might even be in Virginia Foxx country.
How many showed up in Manteo?
House Republicans Still Very Safe, Jonathan Chait, New York magazine
Taking Chait’s word for anything? Haha! I’d prefer to see Congressional district polling come middle of September.
This is a well-written piece, but Chair doesn’t mention the Democracy Corps poll that BooMan cites above. If we get a few more polls that confirm the trend of a loss of older voters for the GOP, the whole 2014 calculus changes.
They will go back to the GOP when the Democrats start pushing for Chained CPI and Medicare cuts again.