The
Democrats are going to be crushed in the House midterm elections this fall,
right? After all; the
sitting president’s party always loses seats in the midterms, on average 26
lost seats since Truman’s time. What’s more, this president is Barack Obama,
stuck with an approval rating in the low 40’s.
Looks pretty bad, right?
Actually, no. Barring a meteoric event between now and
Election Day in roughly 10 weeks (look at the counter on the right hand side of
this page if you want it down to the second), the GOP may pick up a few seats,
less than 10 and perhaps none at all.
Granted, the Democrats will not pick up any seats, and thus will remain
firmly in the minority, but there will be no bloodbath.
I’ve used
three different methodologies to arrive at this prediction and they all are yielding
similar results, that Republicans will pick up anywhere from one to four seats. For those of you who, like me, prefer point
estimates to ranges or probabilities, as of now I believe the GOP will pick up only one net House seat, to hold a
235 - 200 advantage in the 114th Congress.
Why is
Obama going to avoid the fate of his second-term predecessors? Only Bill Clinton in 1998 was able to add
seats, and his gain was a measly +5. The
rest suffered losses, usually major ones: -30 for Bush in 2006, -5 for Reagan, -48
for Ford/(if you count his one term as a continuation of Nixon’s second term)
in 1974, -48 for LBJ/(JFK) in 1966, another -48 for Ike in 1958 and -28 for
Truman/(FDR) in 1950.
There are at
least three reasons why the GOP is not going to make this kind of hay:
1. The Democrats hold only 201 seats
(including two vacancies from Democrats who won in 2012 and have since resigned). That’s a low number. They lost 63 seats in 2010, so the odds of
losing another pile are far lower given the low base.
2. The gerrymandered house no longer
will allow for major swings. There were
only 60 elections decided by less than 10 percentage points in 2012 (versus 111
in 1992) and only 31 of them were by less than 5 points. Neither party is going to win or lose a
boatload for the foreseeable future.
3. The Republicans are a mighty
unpopular party right now. In four
separate polls since May 1, the GOP approval rating averages 32%. The Democrats are at 41%. And the “generic” poll is tending to favorite
the Democrats recently, albeit marginally
On to the
predictions! My first methodology is a regression equation that uses data from
midterms back to 1950 and predicts the outcomes based on five variables: the party of the president, which term the president
is in, which party is in control of the House, how many seats they have, and
the status of the “generic ballot,” which is a survey that asks people what
party they will vote for in the congressional election with naming a specific
candidate. (Surprisingly, the
president’s approval rating is not a strong enough variable to have made the
final equation.) You will note that the only
one of those variables that can change before the election is the generic
ballot.
For you
stat buffs, I’ve put the equation at the end of this post (kudos to my
daughter, Allie, who created it; she is pursuing a Masters in statistics en
route to a Ph.D. in entomology). Suffice
to say that the equation has an R-squared of 98% (a measure of how strong the
equation is), which is excellent, and here is the track record when applied to
past elections. As you can see, it is
astonishingly accurate, predicting the change of seats in the President’s
party since 1970 correctly within two seats 8 of 11 times, and within six seats
every time.
President's Party Seat
Change
|
|||
Year
|
Prediction
|
Actual
|
Diff
|
2010
|
-64
|
-63
|
-1
|
2006
|
-29
|
-30
|
1
|
2002
|
6
|
8
|
-2
|
1998
|
6
|
5
|
1
|
1994
|
-57
|
-54
|
-3
|
1990
|
-6
|
-8
|
2
|
1986
|
-11
|
-5
|
-6
|
1982
|
-24
|
-26
|
2
|
1978
|
-13
|
-15
|
2
|
1974
|
-44
|
-48
|
4
|
1970
|
-10
|
-12
|
2
|
1966
|
-16
|
-48
|
32
|
1962
|
1
|
-4
|
5
|
1958
|
-6
|
-48
|
42
|
1954
|
-5
|
-18
|
13
|
1950
|
0
|
-28
|
28
|
By this
method, as of today, the GOP will pick up a whopping 4 seats in the House, up
to 238. There have been eight “generic
ballot” polls in the last month and the Democrats are just ahead on average,
40.5% to 40.1%. It sort of makes sense
that with this close split, little change should be expected.
The second methodology is to
aggregate the projections of the five services that predict house elections
district-by-district: Cook Report,
Crystal Ball, Daily Kos, Real Clear Politics and Rothenburg/Roll Call. That scorecard shows the GOP coming away from
the elections with 235 total seats, a pickup of one.
The third methodology is my own
projection, which
looks at the same factors, presumably, as the services but arrives at slightly
different conclusions. These factors
include past elections, 2012 presidential margins, the candidates themselves
and recent polling, where it exists. My
projection happens, not surprisingly, to coincide with the experts with a GOP
pickup of 1 seat, to 235 total seats, although the make-up of “solid,”
“likely/lean” and “tossup” varies by a bit.
Here are
the three methods laid out in a chart:
Current
|
BTRTN
|
Services
|
BTRTN
|
|
House
|
Model
|
Aggregated
|
Forecast
|
|
Democrats
Total
|
201
|
197
|
200
|
200
|
Dem Solid
|
n/a
|
n/a
|
165
|
170
|
Dem Likely/Lean
|
n/a
|
n/a
|
25
|
19
|
Dem Tossup
|
n/a
|
n/a
|
10
|
11
|
Rep Tossup
|
n/a
|
n/a
|
3
|
6
|
Rep Likely/Lean
|
n/a
|
n/a
|
28
|
18
|
Rep Solid
|
n/a
|
n/a
|
204
|
211
|
Republicans
Total
|
234
|
238
|
235
|
235
|
Note: Current Democrats’ total includes two vacancies
(NJ1 and NC 12)
|
||||
There are,
in my view, 54 seats “in play,” meaning they are competitive races that each
side has a chance to win (not “solid” either way per the above chart). And among them, 13 are toss-ups, too close to
call, but some of the experts (including myself) have put them into one camp or
the other.
Below are
the 51 races to watch, ranked in order of Democratic likelihood to win. I’ve put the margin of the Democrats’ 2012 victory
(or defeat) in a column, as well as President Obama’s 2012 margin. In addition, I created an average of the
experts’ picks and have sorted the races in order of Democrats’ likelihood to
win them.
2012
|
2012
|
||||||||
D - R
|
O - R
|
Dem.
|
Rep.
|
BRTTN
|
Expert
|
||||
State
|
Dist.
|
Margin
|
Margin
|
Incumb.
|
Party
|
Candidate
|
Candidate
|
Projection
|
Avg.
|
5
|
3%
|
8%
|
Esty
|
D
|
Esty
|
Greenberg
|
DEM L
|
1.8
|
|
4
|
8%
|
11%
|
Horsford
|
D
|
Horsford
|
Hardy
|
DEM L
|
1.8
|
|
1
|
15%
|
13%
|
Braley
|
D
|
Murphy
|
Blum
|
DEM L
|
2.0
|
|
24
|
5%
|
16%
|
Maffei
|
D
|
Maffei
|
Maffei
|
DEM L
|
2.0
|
|
7
|
26%
|
-10%
|
Peterson
|
D
|
Peterson
|
Westrom
|
DEM L
|
2.6
|
|
9
|
3%
|
5%
|
Sinema
|
D
|
Sinema
|
TBD
|
DEM L
|
2.8
|
|
31
|
-100%
|
17%
|
Miller
|
R
|
Aguilar
|
Chabot
|
DEM L
|
2.8
|
|
17
|
7%
|
17%
|
Bustos
|
D
|
Bustos
|
Schilling
|
DEM L
|
2.8
|
|
New Hamp.
|
2
|
5%
|
8%
|
Kuster
|
D
|
Kuster
|
Garcia
|
DEM L
|
2.8
|
23
|
5%
|
-3%
|
Gallego
|
D
|
Gallego
|
Canseco
|
DEM L
|
2.8
|
|
2
|
16%
|
20%
|
Michaud
|
D
|
Cain
|
Polinquin
|
DEM L
|
2.9
|
|
26
|
4%
|
10%
|
Brownley
|
D
|
Brownley
|
Gorell
|
DEM L
|
3.0
|
|
12
|
7%
|
-11%
|
Barrow
|
D
|
Barrow
|
Allen
|
DEM L
|
3.0
|
|
18
|
1%
|
-4%
|
Murphy
|
D
|
Murphy
|
TBD
|
DEM L
|
3.1
|
|
11
|
-7%
|
4%
|
Grimm
|
R
|
Recchia
|
Grimm
|
DEM L
|
3.3
|
|
36
|
4%
|
3%
|
Ruiz
|
D
|
Ruiz
|
Nestande
|
DEM L
|
3.4
|
|
8
|
9%
|
6%
|
Nolan
|
D
|
Nolan
|
Mills
|
DEM L
|
3.4
|
|
7
|
1%
|
4%
|
Bera
|
D
|
Bera
|
Ose
|
DEM L
|
3.5
|
|
1
|
4%
|
1%
|
Bishop
|
D
|
Bishop
|
Zeldin
|
DEM L
|
3.6
|
|
18
|
3%
|
4%
|
Maloney
|
D
|
Maloney
|
Heyworth
|
DEM TU
|
2.6
|
|
12
|
9%
|
2%
|
Enyart
|
D
|
Enyart
|
Bost
|
DEM TU
|
3.2
|
|
Mass.
|
6
|
1%
|
11%
|
Tierney
|
D
|
Tierney
|
Tisei
|
DEM TU
|
3.2
|
1
|
3%
|
-3%
|
Kirkpatrick
|
D
|
Kirkpatrick
|
TBD
|
DEM TU
|
4.0
|
|
26
|
11%
|
7%
|
Garcia
|
D
|
Garcia
|
TBD
|
DEM TU
|
4.0
|
|
New Hamp.
|
1
|
4%
|
2%
|
Shea-Porter
|
D
|
Shea-Porter
|
Guinta
|
DEM TU
|
4.0
|
2
|
0%
|
-2%
|
Barber
|
D
|
Barber
|
McSally
|
DEM TU
|
4.3
|
|
52
|
1%
|
6%
|
Peters
|
D
|
Peters
|
DeMaio
|
DEM TU
|
4.3
|
|
10
|
1%
|
16%
|
Schneider
|
D
|
Schneider
|
Dold
|
DEM TU
|
4.3
|
|
21
|
2%
|
6%
|
Owens
|
D
|
Woolf
|
Stefanik
|
DEM TU
|
4.3
|
|
3
|
8%
|
-32%
|
Rahall
|
D
|
Rahall
|
Jenkins
|
DEM TU
|
4.3
|
|
6
|
-4%
|
5%
|
Coffman
|
R
|
Romanoff
|
Coffman
|
REP TU
|
4.7
|
|
3
|
-9%
|
4%
|
Latham
|
R
|
Appel
|
TBD
|
REP TU
|
4.7
|
|
2
|
-5%
|
-6%
|
Southerland
|
R
|
TBD
|
Southerland
|
REP TU
|
5.6
|
|
13
|
0%
|
-0.3%
|
R
|
Callis
|
REP TU
|
5.7
|
|||
2
|
-2%
|
-7%
|
Terry
|
R
|
Ashford
|
Terry
|
REP TU
|
5.7
|
|
2
|
-16%
|
-12%
|
R
|
Hays
|
Hill
|
REP TU
|
6.0
|
||
3
|
-9%
|
5%
|
Runyan
|
R
|
Belgard
|
MacArthur
|
REP L
|
6.0
|
|
10
|
-20%
|
-1%
|
Wolf
|
R
|
Foust
|
Comstock
|
REP L
|
6.0
|
|
21
|
-20%
|
11%
|
Valadao
|
R
|
Renteria
|
Valadao
|
REP L
|
6.2
|
|
1
|
-1%
|
-8%
|
Benishek
|
R
|
Cannon
|
Benishek
|
REP L
|
6.2
|
|
8
|
-21%
|
-3%
|
R
|
Schertzing
|
Bishop
|
REP L
|
6.2
|
||
23
|
-4%
|
-1%
|
Reed
|
R
|
Robertson
|
Reed
|
REP L
|
6.2
|
|
2
|
-40%
|
-22%
|
Capito
|
R
|
Casey
|
Mooney
|
REP L
|
6.2
|
|
6
|
-14%
|
-3%
|
Gerlach
|
R
|
Trivedi
|
Costello
|
REP L
|
6.4
|
|
7
|
-10%
|
-3%
|
Walberg
|
R
|
Byrnes
|
Walberg
|
REP L
|
6.6
|
|
3
|
-8%
|
-42%
|
Heck
|
R
|
Bilbray-Cohn
|
Heck
|
REP L
|
6.6
|
|
14
|
-16%
|
-3%
|
Joyce
|
R
|
Wager
|
Joyce
|
REP L
|
6.8
|
|
8
|
-13%
|
-0.1%
|
Fitzpatrick
|
R
|
Strouse
|
Fitzpatrick
|
REP L
|
6.8
|
|
2
|
-1%
|
-14%
|
Walorski
|
R
|
Bock
|
Walorski
|
REP L
|
7.0
|
|
-10%
|
-13%
|
Daines
|
R
|
Lewis
|
Zynke
|
REP L
|
7.0
|
||
6
|
-7%
|
-12%
|
Johnson
|
R
|
Garrison
|
Johnson
|
REP L
|
7.0
|
|
6
|
-24%
|
-7%
|
Petri
|
R
|
Harris
|
TBD
|
REP L
|
7.0
|
|
10
|
-6%
|
4%
|
Denham
|
R
|
Eggman
|
Denham
|
REP L
|
7.2
|
|
11
|
-6%
|
-2%
|
Bentivolio
|
R
|
McKenzie
|
Trott
|
REP L
|
7.2
|
So no
bloodbath for Obama in 2014. He will be
stuck with a cranky GOP majority in the House – as will John Boehner. Whether there will be any break in the
gridlock remains to be seen, but I am not optimistic in the least. A Tea Party-driven House and a lame-duck
president who barely works with his own party is not a formula for the
breakthroughs we need on immigration reform, gun control and many other key
issues crying out for bold action.
**********************************
For the
stat heads out there, here are the relevant statistics encompassing the
regression equation:
Variable
|
Parameter
|
Standard
|
Type II SS
|
F Value
|
Pr > F
|
Estimate
|
Error
|
||||
Intercept
|
66.57315
|
15.74877
|
396.35903
|
17.87
|
0.0134
|
party
|
-14.40944
|
4.69733
|
208.72598
|
9.41
|
0.0374
|
pres_term
|
15.41379
|
4.18056
|
301.53172
|
13.59
|
0.0211
|
pres_seats
|
-0.43989
|
0.06192
|
1119.5085
|
50.47
|
0.0021
|
gen_ballot
|
3.50275
|
0.29246
|
3181.782
|
143.45
|
0.0003
|
majority
|
13.29661
|
5.07375
|
152.33774
|
6.87
|
0.0588
|
