A recent comment warned about danger in the House for 2008 but also was optimistic about the chances of picking up another three Senate seats. While the lore is that newly elected House members are in great jeopardy, several posts have showed little change of late after the wave. What have been the facts over a longer period of time (and a larger sample)? I looked at all elections from 1900 on in which one party gained 30 or more seats. The results are shown below.
Large gains in a Presidential election year have been pretty much ephemeral. Eight Presidential elections in the last century-plus have produced at least a 30 seat wave (1904,1912,1920,1928,1932,1948,1964, and 1980). Overall, the waves gained 419 seats but lost over 73% of them back in the next election (319 seats). The only exception to this rule was the election of 1932 when FDR led a gain of 97 House seats followed by a further gain of 9 more in 1934. The smallest number gained back in the remaining 7 elections was 27 seats in 1982; the smallest percentage gain was 37% in 1950 with every other gain being at least 77%).
Off year elections have produced decidedly different results in the next House election. Overall, parties in the 12 wave elections picked up 649 seats and gained a total of 37 in the 12 succeeding elections. Totals ranged from a further gain of 97 seats in 1932 (following 52 in 1930) to a loss of 75 seats in 1948 following Republican gains of 54 in 1946.
Four of the twelve after elections produced big gain backs, enough to switch the House back if they occur in 2008. The biggest change (and obviously the one feared by Democrats as a precursor) was the election of 1948. Republicans won control of the House following 16 years out of power as Democrats lost 54 seats in 1946. Two years later, Harry Truman campaigned against the do-nothing Republican congress and not only won a surprise victory but also presided over a 75 seat Democratic gain in the House. Moral of that story? Do something (and do something that helps the little guy). The wariness of the blue dogs afraid to upset "moderate" voters is exactly the wrong medicine here.
The three others? In 1942, Republicans used attacks about FDR tricking America into war to gain an undeserved 45 seats. Democrats won back 20 in 1944 as we were pretty clearly winning the war. In 1922, Democrats gained 76 seats and lost 24 back (32%) in 1924 as republicans held on to the White House by a comfortable margin. 1958 saw stunning Democratic gains (48 seats in the House, a record 16 seats in the Senate); in 1960 Democrats won a close Presidential election and lost 20 House seats (41%). 1958 would be the closest pattern to what I would fear: Under this scenario of a great Democratic year followed by an even election, we would barely maintain the House as a 41% loss would equal about 13 seats. Call it a toss up.
Five of the twelve after shocks proved mild with little or no change produced in the next election (the initial waves took place in 1906,1938, 1966, 1974, and 1994 and include four of the last five waves, excluding 2006). This seems the most likely result.
Three House waves in off years produced sizeable gains in the succeeding Presidential election: 1910 (a Democratic gain of 58 seats followed by a gain of 61 seats and a Presidential win by Woodrow Wilson), 1914 (a Democratic loss of 61 seats followed by a Democratic loss of 16 seats with Woodrow Wilson somehow maintaining the Presidency), and 1930 (a 52 seat gain followed by an enormous 97 seat gain and a huge FDR win).
My best guess, this far off is that the most likely result in the House for 2008 is a small change similar to most recent years. There is, however, the possibility of a real realigning election with the gain of another 20 to 30 House seats. The only way we lose the House is the sniveling Blue Dog way. Do Nothing Congress, friends?
|
|
|
Permalink :: 2 Comments :: Post a Comment
|
In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.
If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.
