March 25, 2006<...>
So Democrats have to run the table by defeating all of the most vulnerable Republicans while holding all of their own seats, including in Minnesota, where their incumbent is retiring, and in Washington state, where Sen. Maria Cantwell faces a very strong challenger.
They also need to hang on to somewhat more secure open seats in Maryland and Vermont, as well as 14 other incumbents. Although not impossible in a favorable political climate, this is a very tall order.
In the House, where Democrats need a net gain of 15 seats, only about three dozen are truly in play today. So far, 17 Republicans and 10 Democrats have announced their retirements. Ten of those Republicans serve in safe GOP districts, where Democrats stand little chance of winning. Meanwhile, despite their Herculean efforts, Democratic recruiters have enticed few first-tier challengers into running this year.
Instead, the party has an abundance of second- and third-tier candidates who could never prevail on their own and would need a hurricane-force wind at their backs to cross the finish line first. (Democrats last had a strong political wind propelling them in 1982--and before that in 1974.) So, as with the Senate, Democrats need to win every truly competitive House race.
A hurricane does seem likely to hit the GOP this November. But the micro analysis shows that structural barriers in the House and Senate are protecting the Republican majorities like sea-walls, and would likely withstand the surge from a Category 1, 2, or 3 storm. They probably couldn't withstand a Category 4 or 5, though.
<...>
November 6, 2006 <...>
“Two years ago, winning 14 seats in the House would have been a pipe dream,” said Matt Bennett, a founder of Third Way, a moderate Democratic organization. Now, Mr. Bennett said, failure to win the House, even by one seat, would send Democrats diving under their beds (not to mention what it might do to all the pundits).
“It would be crushing,” he said. “It would be extremely difficult.”
Mr. Cook put it more succinctly. “I think you’d see a Jim Jones situation — it would be a mass suicide,” he said.
On election eve, the rough consensus among officials in both parties was that the Democrats would win the House but come just short of capturing the six seats they needed in the Senate. There was wide disagreement, though, about how many House seats Democrats might win.
Many of these predictions had been based on polls showing that President Bush, the Republican Party and Congress were extraordinarily unpopular. But going into Election Day, at least 20 House seats and probably 3 Senate seats were tied or close to it, no matter what the national polls say.
So, what if Democrats just squeak to victory in the House by a seat or two? What if Democrats win just three seats in the Senate or — unlikely but not impossible — even two?
“I’m not getting into the Washington expectations game,” said Representative Rahm Emanuel, the Democrat from Illinois running his party’s effort to capture the House, in what he said would be a very brief minute he would devote to commenting on this subject. “My job is to deliver north of 15 seats and that’s what I am going to do.”
Howard Wolfson, a Democratic consultant advising candidates in some of the most competitive races in upstate New York — and one of his party’s biggest optimists this year — said the size of the margin would not matter, assuming, of course, that Democrats win. “It’s not a question of 25 or 35,” Mr. Wolfson said. “It’s a question of 14 or 15. Would you rather have a bigger margin? Of course. But if you take back the House, the world changes.”
<...>
What strikes me as interesting is that with all Democrats had going for them in 2006, conventional wisdom was hesitant to predict a blowout. Up until the end, the general consensus was that Democrats would win two or three Senate seats.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
