House Democrats Face Long Odds in 2012

WASHINGTON -- A new poll of 50 competitive congressional districts by the Democrat-sponsored polling organization Democracy Corps finds "the new Republican majority very much in play," but much recent punditry argues the opposite -- that Democrats face long odds to reclaim the House of Representatives.

Although caution is in order when seeking to predict an outcome that is still 19 months away, there is some truth in both perspectives. To understand why, consider the recent postings of various pollsters, pundits and statistical modelers:

In December, Republican pollster Glen Bolger offered a "guarantee" that Republicans would maintain control of the House, even if President Barack Obama "stages a political comeback" and wins reelection. Bolger argued that recent presidents who have won reelection have had short coattails. The biggest swing to the president's party was in 1984, when Ronald Reagan's landslide swung 16 seats to the Republicans. The Democrats need 25 to regain control of the House.

"Obama is not likely to win a blowout reelection," Bolger wrote, and even 16 seats would be insufficient for Democrats to regain control of the House. He also noted that Republican victories in gubernatorial races in 2010 give the GOP a big net advantage in the ongoing redistricting process. Thus, Bolger guarantees a win.

Earlier this month, election handicapper Charlie Cook reached a similar conclusion: Another "wave election," this time favoring the Democrats, is unlikely in 2012. Like Bolger, he highlighted the lack of recent presidential coattails in House elections and the Republican redistricting advantage, but Cook also noted that that the 63-seat Republican pickup in 2010 might leave the party "overexposed" in districts "where they wouldn't normally win." His conclusion is little net change in 2012: "It’s not hard to imagine these off-setting forces resulting in a more-normal House election."

For their newly released poll, Democracy Corps surveyed 50 competitive House districts currently represented by Republicans, including 44 in districts that Barack Obama carried in 2008, plus the six "most competitive seats" in districts won by McCain. They find "the two parties at parity" in these seats, with Republicans running an average of just two percentage points ahead of their likely Democratic opponents (46 percent to 44 percent; they matched the named Republican against "the Democratic Candidate" where the opponent was unknown). Republicans carried the same districts in 2010, according to the Democracy Corps report, by an 11-point margin (54 percent to 43 percent).

Democracy Corps also reports that the incumbent Democrats held a slightly larger six "6-point advantage" in a similarly designed survey of seats held by Democrats in July 2009 and that the current crop of Republican incumbents "remain[s] largely unknown" and is thus "very vulnerable" in 2012.

Republican pollster Bolger and colleague Jim Hobart quickly responded that voting patterns in the districts selected by Democracy Corps explain their confidence about 2012. Although Obama carried 44 of the 50 districts in 2008, Democratic nominee John Kerry won just 12 of these districts in 2004. Their bottom line: "In order to win the 25 seats they need to take back the house, Democrats will most likely need to win no fewer than 13 districts won by Bush in 2004."

Enter the modelers. Former HuffPost Pollster intern Harry Enten created a statistical model based on the 15 presidential year elections since 1952 and argued that Republicans will maintain control of the House in 2012 "unless a historic event occurs." Nate Silver took issue with the mechanics of the model and the degree of certainty Enten reported about his findings (Enten responds here).

The bottom line? Headlines and "guaranteed" results aside, much of what the pollsters, pundits and number-crunchers assert above is true. It is still early in the 2012 cycle, and the most vulnerable Republican incumbents -- many of them newly elected -- may well look vulnerable on traditional polling measures, at least for now. But history, the advantages of incumbency and the size of the Republican majority are all on the side of Republicans maintaining control. Enten and Silver may quarrel about the mechanics of modeling, but both agree that the "safe money" is on the House Republicans in 2012.

Comments

[AxelDC]

07:30 PM on 04/05/2011

American pollsters seem unfamiliar with swingometers.  The GOP won the 2010 election with +7% of the vote.  Even if Obama loses in 2012, it's highly unlikely that Democrats will lose by 7 points again.  Any thing less and Democrats pick up seats, even if it's only 5 or 6.

Most elections are blowouts, with less than 25% of Presidential elections being decided by 5 points or less.  If Obama were to win by 5 points, that would be a 12 point swing in Democrats favor.  The exact number of seats is hard to determine, but picking up 16 in that scenario would seem the best case for Republicans.  More likely, they would retake 30 seats with that large of a win.  They won in 2008 with 8% of the vote, so their majority would not be as large but would be feasible.

Pundits want people to think that elections are always close because it boosts ratings.  Most elections are more like 2008 than 2004.  Also in Obama's favor: only one President in the last 100 years has been defeated in his party's first term in office.  The rest won re-election fairly easily and only Bush won without much of a mandate.  The other losing incumbents were all in the 3rd term or later of their party's control of the White House.

[StevieRae]

10:43 AM on 04/01/2011

Propaganda for party fund raising.

[Joel Chandler]

03:26 AM on 03/30/2011

Give the Republicans some time they'll take care of it them self. The anti union movement on the Republican side will hurt them; not to mention they want to cut everyone off unemployment yet give the rich tax breaks.

[MiddleMolly]

12:21 AM on 03/31/2011

I don't know how many people see the debacle for what it is. I think you'd have to look at those swing districts one by one and figure out where the people of that district are. In other words, a well-off district where people have largely escaped the effects of the recession would be hard to win back. A more moderate district might swing.

[theocrat]

10:52 PM on 03/29/2011

The real problem in this country is ignorant voters who vote Republican like zombies every two years, and the rest of us have to pay for it.

[Deucejack]

10:31 AM on 03/30/2011

lol... as opposed to the zombie democrats. lmao.

[Rightbrainedleftwinged]

09:55 PM on 03/29/2011

Citizens United was the ultimate ponzi scheme of stealing an election. Outspending Democrats is something the GOP has had a historical advantage, and the GOP's final solution to their ultimate scheme is to try to kill the Unions, but they are not going to get away with it. You can't mess with big labor because they are the teachers and people who pay to build our cars and goods we depend on.

Maybe the deep south, and more rural areas will stay Republican but the suburbs in the rust belt and the smaller cities in the Upper midwest, IL upstate, NY,and PA the GOP is going to get killed in 2012. Likewise the shifting Demographics may help the Democrats pick up seats in CA. and perhaps AZ and even some places like VA and NC. The GOP should not be celebrating at the new redistricting efforts.

[MiddleMolly]

12:25 AM on 03/31/2011

Unfortunately, the shifting demographics may not benefit the Democrats for years. Many of the people who represent the increases in population in states with such increases are not citizens and/or are children and are not yet eligible to vote. In the meantime, their influence will be reduced by the Republicans who control the redistricting process. Texas and Arizona, for instance, will get extra seats due to an increase in Hispanics, but those seats will probably wind up in the hands of white Republicans.

[LV711]

01:11 AM on 03/29/2011

What ever happened in 2008 or 2010 shouldn't matter more to Republicans that what happens in 2011 running up to 2012. They weren't busting up unions then. They weren't crucifying teachers then. They weren't stripping funding from Planned Parenthood and NPR then. That was then, this is now. And now, they are in the majority in the House and if they don't start producing jobs and put forth a reasonable budget, the only district they would need to concern themselves with is the one they live in.

[MiddleMolly]

12:26 AM on 03/31/2011

But people knew what they were going to do and many of those that voted for these people are happy that they are busting up the unions and crucifying teachers.

The progressives are going to have to work really hard to show how regressive these Repuglicans are.

[AxelDC]

07:31 PM on 04/05/2011

Republicans ran in 2010 on jobs, jobs, jobs.  Their response has been shut down, shut down, shut down.

[swift goat pet for truth]

06:59 PM on 03/28/2011

I have faith in Citizen's United.

The Dems are in for tough slogging.

[swift goat pet for truth]

06:52 PM on 03/28/2011

"I don't belong to any organized political party.  I'm a Democrat."
- Will Rogers.

True then.
True now.


.... then there is the Citizen's United money....

[Bart DePalma]

01:04 PM on 03/28/2011

Mark is right to be skeptical.

Dem Corps is almost certianly employing a 2008 level advantage for Dem voters. There is no other way Indis can continue to be rejecting Dems by double digit margins, but Dem candidates miraculously close within 2 points of the GOP folks these districts just elected.

You can safely ignore DC until just at least summer 2012 when they will start employing current reality.

[JacksonAndy78]

08:39 PM on 03/27/2011

We can choose the K0CH BANKSTER REPUBLICAN PARTY

or

We can choose the Rubin BANKSTER DEMOCRAT PARTY

Either way MAIN STREET LOSES since BRIBERY IS LEGAL IN AMERICA!

[MiddleMolly]

12:28 AM on 03/31/2011

I understand your frustration with both parties, but if you really look closely, you will see that there is a difference: Republicans are clearly regressive; most Democrats will vote for policies that benefit people.

[wbbroome956]

06:54 PM on 04/02/2011

At what cost MiddleMolly? Democrats vote for policies that benefit people at the cost of our national debt. The largest segment of the budget in Washington is for social programs. That cost is 2 1/2 times of defense spending. How can it be justified that Washington spends so much on people that don't produce revenue? Strictly in a business sense, so much social spending can't be maintained for our solvency. The answer is not with taxing the rich more.

[gr8abz]

06:54 AM on 03/27/2011

Democrats just can't get it together even on a good day. Whereas, horrible as the Republicans are, they stick together through thick and thin no matter what. That's why they win.

[Deucejack]

10:33 AM on 03/30/2011

Democrats can't get it together because their policies don't make economic or foreign policy sense. It is difficult to craft a message around poorly crafted ideas.

[AxelDC]

07:33 PM on 04/05/2011

Republicans haven't had a new idea since 1980.  Their plan is to retry Voodoo Economics for the 3rd time.

The only thing Trickle Down Economics has done is pool wealth at the top and reduce wages for those waiting for the trickle.

[Markrsm]

06:14 PM on 03/26/2011

Dear Friends,

We are in our third shooting war, our budget deficit are increasing each year, over 1.6 estimated in 2012, and our elected leaders are talking about how they will maintain power.

Guess what, we need to vote every single person in office out in 2012, all of them vote for anybody you want to vote for, but vote for nobody in office today.

Vote Green, Libertarian, Communist, Socialist, anything but Republcan or Democrat, because most our issues were caused by these two parties, and we need to get rid of both of them, before they get rid of us.

[DirtyWater]

01:54 AM on 03/27/2011

Already my plan.

[gr8abz]

06:49 AM on 03/27/2011

Many from the disenchanted Left will be voting for the alternate parties but guaranteed the
disgruntled Righties WILL STILL stay behind the Republican Party. That's one reason the GOP usually wins.

[Markrsm]

01:55 PM on 03/30/2011

Dear Gr8abz,

We all voted for Mr Perot, and we are all not voting for Republicans in 2012, trust me, we understand that the neither party wants to fix anything.

[JustinGwaltney]

12:39 PM on 03/26/2011

WHITE house democrats face long odds in 2012 is what this title should read.....Hope Hussein Obama enjoyed his 4 years. Up next, REPEAL the socialist medicine bill!! RUBIO/RYAN IN 2012!!!

[dnegri]

01:04 PM on 03/26/2011

zzzzzzzzzzzzzz

[JustinGwaltney]

01:07 PM on 03/26/2011

Good to see you're following the example of the dictator-in-chief!!

[DirtyWater]

01:57 AM on 03/27/2011

A politician’s best attribute.

[bassface49]

05:11 PM on 03/26/2011

and last presidential cycle you were predicting who?
Oh yea, that's right, it was the LOSERS.....you've got a reputation to uphold, I guess..........

[JustinGwaltney]

08:46 AM on 03/27/2011

....and the midterms, you were predicting what?

[jbvbwysu]

12:27 PM on 03/26/2011

If a far-right unelectable (Bachmann, Cain, Gingrich, Palin, etc.) manages to secure the Republican presidential nomination--and given the makeup of the primary base it's certainly possible--ALL BETS ARE OFF.

[AG creative]

04:37 PM on 03/26/2011

What do you mean by 'all bets are off'

[jbvbwysu]

06:25 PM on 03/26/2011

I mean that the Democratic landslide in response to said candidate would be monumental.

[jbvbwysu]

12:23 PM on 03/26/2011

I don't know. It's really too early to tell anything. I do think Democrats will pick up seats, but I'm not naive enough to think we can win back the House. Given the fact, though, that Republicans are currently better campaigners for Democrats than the Democrats are (particularly in the Rust Belt states where I think Dems will bl0w the doors off next year), I suppose anything is possible. Believe it or not, I do hope that the Tea Party maintains a House presence after 2012. As repugnant as I find them personally, they're basically useful !d!ots who an enlarged Democratic minority can co-opt to defeat much of the Boehner/Cantor agenda (similar to how Jim DeMint joined progressive Senators in voting against the tax cut plan).

I do think Democrats will perform surprisingly well in the Senate. Though the math is obviously stacked against them, the Tea Party will hand them unexpected victories just as they did last year. They may not retain the majority, but I doubt the Republicans will gain more than a handful of seats despite their current overly-optimistic expectations.

[Markrsm]

06:17 PM on 03/26/2011

Dear Jbv,

That is there to win, we are bankrupt our economy is going down, inflation is up, and soon interest rates will follow, then we will be paying 1.5T a year in interest on our debt.

Guess what, that is more than we take in income tax money, so I would not worry about it, any smart person will take their ill gotten gains and leave for the hills.

[jrleftfoot]

08:30 AM on 03/29/2011

Start the procession.