The 2006 Midterm The 2006 Midterm Elections in the United Elections in the United

States and the States and the Consequences for Policy-Consequences for Policy-

Making in the 110th Making in the 110th CongressCongress

Eric M. UslanerEric M. Uslaner

Professor of Government and PoliticsProfessor of Government and Politics

University of Maryland--College ParkUniversity of Maryland--College Park

College Park MD 20742 USACollege Park MD 20742 USA

euslaner@gvpt.umd.edueuslaner@gvpt.umd.edu

In the 2006 elections the Democrats took control In the 2006 elections the Democrats took control of both the House and the Senate. of both the House and the Senate.

Most political pundits expected the Democrats to Most political pundits expected the Democrats to win the House, but not the Senate.win the House, but not the Senate.

The Democratic victories reflected voter The Democratic victories reflected voter discontent with the war in Iraq and with what discontent with the war in Iraq and with what voters saw as corruption among public officials.voters saw as corruption among public officials.

While the Democrats now control both houses of While the Democrats now control both houses of Congress, their majorities are not large enough to Congress, their majorities are not large enough to let them set the national agenda. The President still let them set the national agenda. The President still is the most important political figure in the is the most important political figure in the country.country.

The 2006 ElectionsThe 2006 Elections Democrats gained (at this writing) 30 seats in the Democrats gained (at this writing) 30 seats in the

House of Representatives and 6 seats in the Senate. House of Representatives and 6 seats in the Senate. These gains gave them a majority of 232-203 in These gains gave them a majority of 232-203 in the House of Representatives and just 51-49 in the the House of Representatives and just 51-49 in the Senate.Senate.

The Senate majority is complicated by an The Senate majority is complicated by an "Independent Democrat," Joseph Lieberman of "Independent Democrat," Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut, who lost the Democratic primary to Connecticut, who lost the Democratic primary to an anti-war activist but ran as an Independent and an anti-war activist but ran as an Independent and won.won.

The 2006 Congressional elections followed history in The 2006 Congressional elections followed history in one key respect and departed from history in another.one key respect and departed from history in another.

Every time in American history that the House of Every time in American history that the House of Representatives has shifted from one party to another, Representatives has shifted from one party to another, the Senate has also shifted. While most people did not the Senate has also shifted. While most people did not expect the Democrats to win the Senate in 2006, the expect the Democrats to win the Senate in 2006, the historical pattern held.historical pattern held.

2006 marked the first time in American history when 2006 marked the first time in American history when any party maintained all of the seats it held in both the any party maintained all of the seats it held in both the House and the Senate. No seat occupied by a House and the Senate. No seat occupied by a Democrat changed to the Republicans in 2006.Democrat changed to the Republicans in 2006.

Historical Patterns of Midterm ElectionsHistorical Patterns of Midterm Elections

Historically, the President's party almost always Historically, the President's party almost always loses seats in the House of Representatives in loses seats in the House of Representatives in midterm elections. The only exceptions since 1900 midterm elections. The only exceptions since 1900 have been in 1998 (most recently) and 1934.have been in 1998 (most recently) and 1934.

The losses are generally greatest for Presidents in The losses are generally greatest for Presidents in their second term. Since the 1930s, the average their second term. Since the 1930s, the average loss for the President's party has been 35 seats in loss for the President's party has been 35 seats in the House and 6 seats in the Senate. The 2006 the House and 6 seats in the Senate. The 2006 election results are about average based upon election results are about average based upon historical trends. historical trends.

Midterm Elections as ReferendaMidterm Elections as Referenda

Explanations for midterm losses by the President's Explanations for midterm losses by the President's party:party:

"Surge and decline" thesis: higher turnout for the "Surge and decline" thesis: higher turnout for the President's party in Presidential elections, lower President's party in Presidential elections, lower turnout (and fewer votes) in off-years.turnout (and fewer votes) in off-years.

End of the President's honeymoon: Presidents are End of the President's honeymoon: Presidents are most popular when they are first elected. As time most popular when they are first elected. As time goes by, their political decisions alienate some goes by, their political decisions alienate some voters and they become less popular. voters and they become less popular.

Midterm elections act as referenda on the Midterm elections act as referenda on the President's popularity and the state of the nation. President's popularity and the state of the nation. Midterm elections are often seen as the public's Midterm elections are often seen as the public's opportunity to express support or opposition to the opportunity to express support or opposition to the President based upon: President based upon:

How popular the President is;How popular the President is; Whether people feel that the country is heading in Whether people feel that the country is heading in

the right direction;the right direction; Optimism over the state of the economy;Optimism over the state of the economy; Whether the country is at peace or at war;Whether the country is at peace or at war; Overall performance of the President and his Overall performance of the President and his

party.party.

The President's party generally loses more seats The President's party generally loses more seats in a President's second term because:in a President's second term because:

Voters become "tired" of Presidents as their Voters become "tired" of Presidents as their time in office has increased. The only recent time in office has increased. The only recent exception has been Bill Clinton, whose party exception has been Bill Clinton, whose party lost its majority in the 1994 Republican lost its majority in the 1994 Republican landslide but who became more popular when landslide but who became more popular when the Republican party tried to remove him from the Republican party tried to remove him from office. The 1994 midterm loss for the office. The 1994 midterm loss for the Democratic party (a loss of 52 seats) was the Democratic party (a loss of 52 seats) was the largest first-term loss since 1920.largest first-term loss since 1920.

Presidents care more about minimizing their Presidents care more about minimizing their losses in their first term. They still must be losses in their first term. They still must be reelected and they need cooperation from reelected and they need cooperation from Congress to enact their programs.Congress to enact their programs.

Some students of elections say that Presidents Some students of elections say that Presidents even manipulate the economy to be strongest even manipulate the economy to be strongest in their reelection years, weaker in their first in their reelection years, weaker in their first midterm elections, and weakest in their midterm elections, and weakest in their second midterms. This is a controversial second midterms. This is a controversial thesis, but it is clear that Presidents have thesis, but it is clear that Presidents have larger stakes in their first midterms compared larger stakes in their first midterms compared to their second midterms.to their second midterms.

Presidents' parties lose more seats when the Presidents' parties lose more seats when the economy is not faring well, when the country economy is not faring well, when the country is at war, and when the President's own is at war, and when the President's own popularity is low.popularity is low.

When the country is at war, the President's When the country is at war, the President's party generally loses 30 House seats in a party generally loses 30 House seats in a midterm election--exactly the number lost in midterm election--exactly the number lost in 2006.2006.

Big "Wave" ElectionsBig "Wave" Elections

The big "wave" elections (when a political tide The big "wave" elections (when a political tide brings in many members of the party that does not brings in many members of the party that does not control the White House) are largely referenda on control the White House) are largely referenda on the President's popularity.the President's popularity.

Big "wave" elections: Big "wave" elections: 19301930, , 19381938, , 19421942, 1946, , 1946, 1950, 1950, 19581958, , 19661966, , 19741974, 1982, and , 1982, and 19941994. Italicized . Italicized elections represent gains of more than 40 seats in elections represent gains of more than 40 seats in the House for the party out of power.the House for the party out of power.

Note that "wave" elections have become less Note that "wave" elections have become less common in recent decades. common in recent decades.

Most big "wave" elections occur when voters Most big "wave" elections occur when voters are upset over the economy. are upset over the economy.

However, in 1966 and 1950, involvement in However, in 1966 and 1950, involvement in war led Americans to punish the party in war led Americans to punish the party in power.power.

Typically, the most important aspect of "referendum voting" is Typically, the most important aspect of "referendum voting" is the performance of the economy. In 2006, the economy was the performance of the economy. In 2006, the economy was relatively strong. The United States Bureau of Labor Statistics relatively strong. The United States Bureau of Labor Statistics ((http://www.bls.gov/eag/eag.us.htmhttp://www.bls.gov/eag/eag.us.htm) reported that in October ) reported that in October the unemployment rate was low (4.4 percent, about the same as the unemployment rate was low (4.4 percent, about the same as it had been for months), the inflation rate was actually it had been for months), the inflation rate was actually negativenegative (-.5, reflecting lower energy prices); but: salaries and (-.5, reflecting lower energy prices); but: salaries and productivity were flat and the robust gains in employment had productivity were flat and the robust gains in employment had slowed dramatically. slowed dramatically.

Nevertheless, 2006 did not qualify as a referendum on the Nevertheless, 2006 did not qualify as a referendum on the economy. Polls showed that Americans were divided on economy. Polls showed that Americans were divided on whether the economy was in good or bad shape. Even as some whether the economy was in good or bad shape. Even as some key indicators were positive, economic growth was uneven.key indicators were positive, economic growth was uneven.

Sources of the 2006 WaveSources of the 2006 Wave In 1994, when the Democrats lost 52 seats in In 1994, when the Democrats lost 52 seats in

the House and eight seats in the Senate:the House and eight seats in the Senate: President Clinton's popularity ranged between President Clinton's popularity ranged between

45-50% in polls.45-50% in polls. 24% of Americans had confidence in 24% of Americans had confidence in

Congress.Congress. Democrats had many seats they could lose, Democrats had many seats they could lose,

conrolling almost 60% of the House and 57% conrolling almost 60% of the House and 57% of the Senateof the Senate

In 2006, Republicans had a small majority in the In 2006, Republicans had a small majority in the House (53%) and 55 of 100 Senate seats.House (53%) and 55 of 100 Senate seats.

However, President Bush's popularity was much However, President Bush's popularity was much lower than President Clinton's (between 35 and lower than President Clinton's (between 35 and 40 percent). Bush's average popularity rating in 40 percent). Bush's average popularity rating in the fall was lower than the fall was lower than anyany level for President level for President Clinton;Clinton;

Only 16 percent of Americans approved of the Only 16 percent of Americans approved of the performance of Congress in the last poll before performance of Congress in the last poll before the election.the election.

Only 29% of Americans said that the country Only 29% of Americans said that the country was headed on the "right track."was headed on the "right track."

The 2006 elections were a "wave" (some called them a The 2006 elections were a "wave" (some called them a "tsunami") as Republicans at all levels lost. Democrats "tsunami") as Republicans at all levels lost. Democrats gained six Governorships (the only incumbent gained six Governorships (the only incumbent Governor to lose was a Republican) and 321 state Governor to lose was a Republican) and 321 state legislative seats, taking control of 10 state legislatures.legislative seats, taking control of 10 state legislatures.

Democrats won Senate seats that had long been safe for Democrats won Senate seats that had long been safe for incumbents. No incumbent had been beaten in incumbents. No incumbent had been beaten in Montana since 1988, in Ohio since 1976, and in Rhode Montana since 1988, in Ohio since 1976, and in Rhode Island since 1936. Several of the defeated House Island since 1936. Several of the defeated House incumbents had won 70% or more in 2004 and one incumbents had won 70% or more in 2004 and one member, involved in a scandal, had won 93% of the member, involved in a scandal, had won 93% of the vote two years ago.vote two years ago.

Waves and RipplesWaves and Ripples

2006 stood out as a "wave" election because 2006 stood out as a "wave" election because landslides for either party have become far less landslides for either party have become far less common in recent years. Since 1970, only five common in recent years. Since 1970, only five elections have seen shifts of 20 or more House elections have seen shifts of 20 or more House seats for either party (1974, 1980, 1982, 1994, seats for either party (1974, 1980, 1982, 1994, and 2006). The average number of House and 2006). The average number of House seats changing parties from 1970-2004 has seats changing parties from 1970-2004 has been 14.5; the average change from 1996 to been 14.5; the average change from 1996 to 2004 has been just 4 seats. 2004 has been just 4 seats.

Incumbent reelection rates have been extremely high--Incumbent reelection rates have been extremely high--over 98 percent in recent years for the House of over 98 percent in recent years for the House of Representatives but lower for the Senate.Representatives but lower for the Senate.

Electoral margins have also increased sharply. From Electoral margins have also increased sharply. From 1992 to 1994, about 40 House seats were determined by 1992 to 1994, about 40 House seats were determined by margins of 5% or more. By 2004 only 10 House seats margins of 5% or more. By 2004 only 10 House seats were competitive. Early in 2006, observers thought that were competitive. Early in 2006, observers thought that only 10-15 seats would be competitive in 2006. only 10-15 seats would be competitive in 2006.

By the late 1990s, 75% of House incumbents won by By the late 1990s, 75% of House incumbents won by margins of 60% or more.margins of 60% or more.

"All Politics is Local""All Politics is Local"

Former House Speaker Thomas P. ("Tip") O'Neill Former House Speaker Thomas P. ("Tip") O'Neill (D, MA) said: "All politics is local."(D, MA) said: "All politics is local."

Since the 1970s, House members have developed Since the 1970s, House members have developed strong reputations among their constituents as "one strong reputations among their constituents as "one of the people." They do favors for constituents of the people." They do favors for constituents ("casework") and they bring projects to the district ("casework") and they bring projects to the district ("pork barrel"). Constituency service is ("pork barrel"). Constituency service is nonpartisan and incumbent members of Congress nonpartisan and incumbent members of Congress can get votes from supporters of both parties. can get votes from supporters of both parties.

The increasing emphasis on constituency service has The increasing emphasis on constituency service has made it easier for incumbent members of the House to made it easier for incumbent members of the House to gain reelection (Senators do not do as much gain reelection (Senators do not do as much constituency service.)constituency service.)

Challengers lack the name recognition of incumbent Challengers lack the name recognition of incumbent members, so they attract fewer votes.members, so they attract fewer votes.

Unknown challengers find it difficult to raise enough Unknown challengers find it difficult to raise enough money to be competitive to incumbents, who raise money to be competitive to incumbents, who raise millions of dollars. Typically, incumbents raise 4-6 millions of dollars. Typically, incumbents raise 4-6 times as much money as challengers. times as much money as challengers.

Republican incumbents find it easier than Democrats to raise Republican incumbents find it easier than Democrats to raise money. Political action committees, or PACs (which donate money. Political action committees, or PACs (which donate money to candidates) favor incumbents and business PACs money to candidates) favor incumbents and business PACs (the most numerous and wealthy) prefer Republicans. Once (the most numerous and wealthy) prefer Republicans. Once the Republicans gained the majority in 1994, they far the Republicans gained the majority in 1994, they far outdistanced Democrats in political contributions.outdistanced Democrats in political contributions.

Research shows that contributions to incumbents don't affect Research shows that contributions to incumbents don't affect their margins, but money is critical to challengers. their margins, but money is critical to challengers. Challengers who cannot raise adequate funds have almost no Challengers who cannot raise adequate funds have almost no chance of winning--and unknown challengers without chance of winning--and unknown challengers without political experience have almost no chance of raising much political experience have almost no chance of raising much money.money.

Why 2006 Was DifferentWhy 2006 Was Different

In two words:In two words: IraqIraq CorruptionCorruption

The 2006 election was "nationalized." The The 2006 election was "nationalized." The advantages many incumbents had, including advantages many incumbents had, including money, were not sufficient to guarantee money, were not sufficient to guarantee victory.victory.

IraqIraq The war in Iraq had become increasingly unpopular. The war in Iraq had become increasingly unpopular.

By the time of the election, most Americans thought By the time of the election, most Americans thought that the decision to go to war had been wrong from that the decision to go to war had been wrong from the start. 55% said that the United States should set a the start. 55% said that the United States should set a timetable for the withdrawal of all troops. 60% of timetable for the withdrawal of all troops. 60% of Americans called themselves opponents of the war in Americans called themselves opponents of the war in Iraq and almost 60% with opinions believed that it Iraq and almost 60% with opinions believed that it had made the United States more vulnerable to had made the United States more vulnerable to terrorism. terrorism.

Only a quarter of Americans said that the President had a clear plan Only a quarter of Americans said that the President had a clear plan for the war.for the war.

Two-thirds of Americans disapproved of the job President Bush was Two-thirds of Americans disapproved of the job President Bush was doing on Iraq and by 45-33 percent they believed that the Democrats doing on Iraq and by 45-33 percent they believed that the Democrats would do a better job in handling the situation in Iraq.would do a better job in handling the situation in Iraq.

In exit polls, 36% of voters said that the war in Iraq was extremely In exit polls, 36% of voters said that the war in Iraq was extremely important--and 60% of these voters chose Democrats for the House. important--and 60% of these voters chose Democrats for the House. (39% said that terrorism was extremely important but only 53% (39% said that terrorism was extremely important but only 53% voted Republican).voted Republican).

87% who strongly approved of the war voted Republican for the 87% who strongly approved of the war voted Republican for the House, but they were only 19% of the electorate. 87% who strongly House, but they were only 19% of the electorate. 87% who strongly disapproved of the war voted Democratic, and they were 40% of the disapproved of the war voted Democratic, and they were 40% of the electorate.electorate.

Republican members of Congress faced charges of Republican members of Congress faced charges of corruption, far more frequently than in the past. Many corruption, far more frequently than in the past. Many were linked to "superlobbyist" Jack Abramoff, who were linked to "superlobbyist" Jack Abramoff, who pled guilty to five felony charges in 2006 and was pled guilty to five felony charges in 2006 and was sentenced to five years in jail and ordered to pay sentenced to five years in jail and ordered to pay restitution of $21 million to Indian tribes he had restitution of $21 million to Indian tribes he had defrauded. He lobbied for conservative religious defrauded. He lobbied for conservative religious organizations who wanted to stop gambling on Indian organizations who wanted to stop gambling on Indian reservations and once this legislation was passed, reservations and once this legislation was passed, Abramoff "changed sides" and lobbied for the Indian Abramoff "changed sides" and lobbied for the Indian tribes to make casinos legal again. To get his tribes to make casinos legal again. To get his legislation passed, he either bribed or made large legislation passed, he either bribed or made large campaign contributions to members of Congress, campaign contributions to members of Congress, mostly Republicans.mostly Republicans.

Other Republicans, including Rep. Randy Other Republicans, including Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham (R, CA), Rep. Mark "Duke" Cunningham (R, CA), Rep. Mark Foley (R, FL), and former Majority Leader Foley (R, FL), and former Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R, TX) were charged with other Tom DeLay (R, TX) were charged with other acts of corruption. acts of corruption.

Cunningham, who is now in jail, solicited Cunningham, who is now in jail, solicited bribes in return for procuring defense contracts bribes in return for procuring defense contracts for businesses in his district.for businesses in his district.

Cunningham "Bribe Menu"Cunningham "Bribe Menu" Here is the "price list" for Cunningham's favors to contractors. Figures on Here is the "price list" for Cunningham's favors to contractors. Figures on

the left indicate contract amounts in millions of dollars, numbers on the the left indicate contract amounts in millions of dollars, numbers on the right indicate bribe demands in thousands of dollars. "BT" indicates the right indicate bribe demands in thousands of dollars. "BT" indicates the

price of Cunningham's boat (yacht).price of Cunningham's boat (yacht).

Rep. Mark Foley (R, FL) abruptly resigned from the Rep. Mark Foley (R, FL) abruptly resigned from the House weeks before the 2006 election when it was House weeks before the 2006 election when it was revealed that he had sent instant messages and e-mails to revealed that he had sent instant messages and e-mails to teenage male pages (interns) who worked in the House teenage male pages (interns) who worked in the House of Representatives. These messages were sexually of Representatives. These messages were sexually promiscuous. Some House leaders including Majority promiscuous. Some House leaders including Majority Leader John Boehner (R, OH) charged that the Speaker, Leader John Boehner (R, OH) charged that the Speaker, Dennis Hastert, had been informed earlier of these Dennis Hastert, had been informed earlier of these messages but had not acted against Foley. Republican messages but had not acted against Foley. Republican Representatives quickly acted to return campaign Representatives quickly acted to return campaign contributions from Foley.contributions from Foley.

Tom DeLay, the Majority Leader, had engineered Tom DeLay, the Majority Leader, had engineered the redrawing of Congressional districts in his home the redrawing of Congressional districts in his home state of Texas to give the Republicans six extra state of Texas to give the Republicans six extra House seats. He was later indicted for violation of House seats. He was later indicted for violation of campaign finance laws, charged with transferring campaign finance laws, charged with transferring funds from corporate contributions he raised in funds from corporate contributions he raised in Washington to Texas races (illegal under Texas Washington to Texas races (illegal under Texas law). Two of his former aides were convicted in the law). Two of his former aides were convicted in the Abramoff scandal and earlier the House had Abramoff scandal and earlier the House had rebuked DeLay on three unrelated ethics issues.rebuked DeLay on three unrelated ethics issues.

The Abramoff scandal had few immediate victims, The Abramoff scandal had few immediate victims, notably Rep. Bob Ney (R, OH), who was found guilty notably Rep. Bob Ney (R, OH), who was found guilty of bribery. Even though he initially refused to resign, of bribery. Even though he initially refused to resign, he was replaced by another candidate by the Ohio he was replaced by another candidate by the Ohio Republican party (who lost in a safe Republican Republican party (who lost in a safe Republican district).district).

DeLay also withdrew, but too late for the DeLay also withdrew, but too late for the Republicans to name a new candidate. He thought Republicans to name a new candidate. He thought about running again, but was convinced he would about running again, but was convinced he would lose, so the Republicans had no official candidate in lose, so the Republicans had no official candidate in his district.his district.

Foley also withdrew too late, his name remained on Foley also withdrew too late, his name remained on

the ballot, and a Democrat won the seat.the ballot, and a Democrat won the seat.

By the time of the election, corruption emerged as the By the time of the election, corruption emerged as the most important issue in voters' minds. 41% of voters said most important issue in voters' minds. 41% of voters said that corruption was extremely important in their voting that corruption was extremely important in their voting decisions and 59% of these voters chose the Democratic decisions and 59% of these voters chose the Democratic candidates for the House.candidates for the House.

20 incumbent House members, all Republicans, lost their 20 incumbent House members, all Republicans, lost their reelection races--two others, one from each party lost reelection races--two others, one from each party lost primaries. (Nevertheless, 94.5% of incumbents seeking primaries. (Nevertheless, 94.5% of incumbents seeking reelection were successful.) Six of these 20 faced reelection were successful.) Six of these 20 faced corruption scandals and three Republican open seats corruption scandals and three Republican open seats (Foley, DeLay, and Ney) also fell prey to the corruption (Foley, DeLay, and Ney) also fell prey to the corruption scandal.scandal.

Almost a third of the Republican losses in the 2006 Almost a third of the Republican losses in the 2006 stemmed from charges of corruption, rather than from stemmed from charges of corruption, rather than from disapproval of the war in Iraq or of President Bush.disapproval of the war in Iraq or of President Bush.

22% of voters, according to the exit polls, said that their 22% of voters, according to the exit polls, said that their vote was an expression of support for President Bush. vote was an expression of support for President Bush. 36% said it was an expression of opposition to the 36% said it was an expression of opposition to the President. President.

57% of political independents and 29% of white 57% of political independents and 29% of white evangelical Christians (the most loyal base of the evangelical Christians (the most loyal base of the Republican party) voted for Democratic candidates. So Republican party) voted for Democratic candidates. So did 20% of self-identified conservatives and 70% of did 20% of self-identified conservatives and 70% of Latinos. Married men, a strong base for the Republicans, Latinos. Married men, a strong base for the Republicans, gave only 47% of their vote to Republican House gave only 47% of their vote to Republican House candidates. candidates.

15% of voters who cast ballots for Bush in 15% of voters who cast ballots for Bush in 2004 voted Democratic for the House in 2006, 2004 voted Democratic for the House in 2006, compared to the 6% of Kerry voters who cast compared to the 6% of Kerry voters who cast ballots for Republican candidates for Congress. ballots for Republican candidates for Congress. 28% of voters who said that they were 28% of voters who said that they were "enthusiastic" about the Republican leaders in "enthusiastic" about the Republican leaders in Congress voted for Democrats, but they were Congress voted for Democrats, but they were only 11% of the electorate. Of the 22% who only 11% of the electorate. Of the 22% who were angry at Republican leaders in Congress, were angry at Republican leaders in Congress, 94% voted Democratic.94% voted Democratic.

Earlier and Later WavesEarlier and Later Waves

If 2006 represented a worse scenario for If 2006 represented a worse scenario for President Bush than 1994 did for President President Bush than 1994 did for President Clinton, why did the Democrats pick up fewer Clinton, why did the Democrats pick up fewer seats in 2006 than the Republicans did in 1994, seats in 2006 than the Republicans did in 1994, when the country was not at war and when when the country was not at war and when there were no widespread corruption scandals?there were no widespread corruption scandals?

Political polarization plays a key role: Voters Political polarization plays a key role: Voters are more motivated by ideology and are more motivated by ideology and partisanship than they were even 12 years ago.partisanship than they were even 12 years ago.

Congressional districts are less competitive Congressional districts are less competitive than they were even a decade ago. Some say than they were even a decade ago. Some say that this is because state legislatures draw that this is because state legislatures draw districts to favor one party over another more districts to favor one party over another more than in the past. However, the evidence for than in the past. However, the evidence for this argument is weak.this argument is weak.

Congressional districts are less competitive Congressional districts are less competitive because their electorates are more because their electorates are more homogenous. Neighborhoods are becoming homogenous. Neighborhoods are becoming less diverse as people seek to live near people less diverse as people seek to live near people like themselves.like themselves.

Incumbent advantages have also grown, especially for Incumbent advantages have also grown, especially for campaign spending. campaign spending.

The two tables below (from The two tables below (from www.opensecrets.orgwww.opensecrets.org ) show ) show the big advantages that incumbents have over challengers. the big advantages that incumbents have over challengers. In 2004 incumbent House candidates had a 5-1 advantage In 2004 incumbent House candidates had a 5-1 advantage over challengers for Democratic incumbents and 6-1 for over challengers for Democratic incumbents and 6-1 for Republican incumbents. In 2006 these advantages fell to Republican incumbents. In 2006 these advantages fell to 4.5 - 1 for both parties, but note the overall increase in 4.5 - 1 for both parties, but note the overall increase in funding for Democratic challengers. While Republicans funding for Democratic challengers. While Republicans had a strong advantage over Democrats, Democratic had a strong advantage over Democrats, Democratic

challengerschallengers were faring better financially. were faring better financially.

2004 and 2006 Campaign Spending2004 and 2006 Campaign Spending

Senate DemocratsRepublicans

Type of Candidate Avg Raised Avg Raised

Incumbent $10,024,707 $6,968,252

Challenger $897,988 $1,262,726

Open Seat $3,240,193 $3,222,335

Grand Total $3,750,328 $2,757,481

House

Incumbent $1,037,534 $1,202,227

Challenger $199,788 $217,448

Open Seat $548,481 $601,210

Grand Total $542,894 $648,716

Senate

Democrats Republicans

Type of Candidate Avg Raised Avg Raised

Incumbent $11,129,949 $9,989,262

Challenger $2,618,751 $1,574,034

Open Seat $2,626,527 $3,468,975

Grand Total $4,646,955 $3,580,336

House

Type of Candidate Avg Raised Avg Raised

Incumbent $967,500 $1,315,202

Challenger $294,489 $212,328

Open Seat $533,892 $540,732

Grand Total $529,043 $750,507

Overall, elections became more expensive in Overall, elections became more expensive in 2006 compared to 2004. Democratic 2006 compared to 2004. Democratic challengers raised more money than challengers raised more money than Republican challengers in 2006 for both the Republican challengers in 2006 for both the House and especially for the Senate (where House and especially for the Senate (where they raised 66% more, $2,619,000 compared they raised 66% more, $2,619,000 compared to $1,574,000).to $1,574,000).

Yet, all challengers were far outspent by Yet, all challengers were far outspent by incumbents.incumbents.

The "cost of beating an incumbent"--the The "cost of beating an incumbent"--the amount of money challengers spent on amount of money challengers spent on average to defeat House incumbents average to defeat House incumbents increased by more than 15 fold from 1974 to increased by more than 15 fold from 1974 to 2004:2004:

Republicans tried to focus on local issues in Republicans tried to focus on local issues in the elections, since people like their own the elections, since people like their own member of Congress far more than they like member of Congress far more than they like the Congress. By 60% to 36%, voters said that the Congress. By 60% to 36%, voters said that they were casting ballots on national rather they were casting ballots on national rather than local issues. And even 51% who voted than local issues. And even 51% who voted on local issues supported Democratic on local issues supported Democratic candidates.candidates.

After the ElectionAfter the Election

What are the prospects for the 110th Congress?What are the prospects for the 110th Congress? Many new Democratic members are moderates from Many new Democratic members are moderates from

districts that have long been Republican.districts that have long been Republican. The Republican conference in the House will be The Republican conference in the House will be

much more conservative. Many of the Republican much more conservative. Many of the Republican incumbents who lost came from the Northeast, the incumbents who lost came from the Northeast, the last bastion of moderate ("Rockefeller" Republicans). last bastion of moderate ("Rockefeller" Republicans). These districts had been trending Democratic and it These districts had been trending Democratic and it will be difficult for the Republicans to win these seats will be difficult for the Republicans to win these seats

back.back.

New Speaker Nancy Pelosi has promised an New Speaker Nancy Pelosi has promised an ambitious agenda for the new Democratic ambitious agenda for the new Democratic majority in the House. The New Deal of majority in the House. The New Deal of Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1933 and the Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1933 and the Republican party's "Contract with America" in Republican party's "Contract with America" in 1995 had 100-day plans to remake the country. 1995 had 100-day plans to remake the country. The Democrats propose to enact broad The Democrats propose to enact broad domestic legislation within the first 100 hours domestic legislation within the first 100 hours of the new Congress.of the new Congress.

The first agenda item is ethics reform within Congress. The first agenda item is ethics reform within Congress. Next, there will be a focus on enacting the Next, there will be a focus on enacting the recommendations of the 9/11 commission on terrorist recommendations of the 9/11 commission on terrorist attacks, raise the minimum wage to $7.25 an hour, cut attacks, raise the minimum wage to $7.25 an hour, cut the interest rate on student loans in half, allow the the interest rate on student loans in half, allow the government to negotiate directly with the government to negotiate directly with the pharmaceutical companies for lower drug prices for pharmaceutical companies for lower drug prices for Medicare patients, broaden the types of stem cell Medicare patients, broaden the types of stem cell research allowed with federal funds, and then enact a research allowed with federal funds, and then enact a "pay as you go" program to require new revenue "pay as you go" program to require new revenue sources for new spending.sources for new spending.

These proposals are largely domestic. The These proposals are largely domestic. The issue of withdrawing troops from Iraq will issue of withdrawing troops from Iraq will have to wait because there is no consensus on have to wait because there is no consensus on an alternative plan for Iraq. Few Democrats an alternative plan for Iraq. Few Democrats want to keep troops in Iraq, but there is little want to keep troops in Iraq, but there is little agreement on how quickly to get them out and agreement on how quickly to get them out and what might happen to Iraq once the troops are what might happen to Iraq once the troops are withdrawn.withdrawn.

The Democrats' dilemma is threefold:The Democrats' dilemma is threefold:

First, the President is still in control of foreign First, the President is still in control of foreign policy. While he has promised to work with the policy. While he has promised to work with the Democrats and seemed more conciliatory after Democrats and seemed more conciliatory after the election, there is much bad blood between the election, there is much bad blood between the two sides. This has already been reflected in the two sides. This has already been reflected in the President's renomination of nine federal the President's renomination of nine federal judges that the Democrats had previously judges that the Democrats had previously blocked as well as John R. Bolton as United blocked as well as John R. Bolton as United Nations ambassador.Nations ambassador.

Second, House Democrats may agree on a policy on Second, House Democrats may agree on a policy on Iraq but Senate Democrats have a slender majority Iraq but Senate Democrats have a slender majority that depends upon Senator Lieberman, a supporter of that depends upon Senator Lieberman, a supporter of the President on the war. Lieberman was reelected as the President on the war. Lieberman was reelected as an Independent and has promised to vote with the an Independent and has promised to vote with the Democrats to organize the Senate. However, he has Democrats to organize the Senate. However, he has not ruled out changing sides if the Democrats not ruled out changing sides if the Democrats become too radical for his tastes. become too radical for his tastes.

Senate Democrats thus depend, for their majority, on Senate Democrats thus depend, for their majority, on one member who is out of step with the party on Iraq. one member who is out of step with the party on Iraq.

Third, the House Democratic Party has already Third, the House Democratic Party has already showed signs of dissent, when Speaker-elect showed signs of dissent, when Speaker-elect Pelosi tried to replace her second in command, Pelosi tried to replace her second in command, Rep. Steny Hoyer (MD) with John Murtha (PA), a Rep. Steny Hoyer (MD) with John Murtha (PA), a more loyal ally and a vocal opponent of the war in more loyal ally and a vocal opponent of the war in Iraq. The attempt failed and Pelosi and Hoyer, Iraq. The attempt failed and Pelosi and Hoyer, longtime opponents, made peace. But many longtime opponents, made peace. But many worry that this battle and others will make her a worry that this battle and others will make her a less effective Speaker-- and thus give more power less effective Speaker-- and thus give more power to the President.to the President.

On foreign policy more generally, there will be On foreign policy more generally, there will be Congressional pressures for greater Congressional pressures for greater consultation with other nations, especially consultation with other nations, especially America's allies. This may open the door to America's allies. This may open the door to more multi-national initiatives, especially on more multi-national initiatives, especially on Iraq and perhaps on the Middle East more Iraq and perhaps on the Middle East more generally.generally.

Beyond Iraq and perhaps on environmental Beyond Iraq and perhaps on environmental policy, there is little likelihood for a major policy, there is little likelihood for a major change in foreign policy. The focus will shift change in foreign policy. The focus will shift to the 2008 Presidential elections. to the 2008 Presidential elections.

The leading candidates for the 2008 nominations The leading candidates for the 2008 nominations are Senator John McCain (AZ) for the Republicans, are Senator John McCain (AZ) for the Republicans, a strong hawk on Iraq; and for the Democrats, a strong hawk on Iraq; and for the Democrats, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton (NY), who has Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton (NY), who has been more supportive than most Democrats of the been more supportive than most Democrats of the President on Iraq. A "wild card" is Illinois President on Iraq. A "wild card" is Illinois Democratic Senator Barak Obama, who is a strong Democratic Senator Barak Obama, who is a strong opponent of the war but who has established a opponent of the war but who has established a reputation as a moderate who works well across reputation as a moderate who works well across party lines.party lines.

The 2008 Congressional elections do not bode well for the The 2008 Congressional elections do not bode well for the Republicans. At least a third of the House seats won by Republicans. At least a third of the House seats won by Democrats are unlikely to revert to the Republicans and Democrats are unlikely to revert to the Republicans and Republicans have more vulnerable incumbents in the 2008 Republicans have more vulnerable incumbents in the 2008 Senate races than do Democrats.Senate races than do Democrats.

There is much talk about bipartisanship on Capitol Hill and in There is much talk about bipartisanship on Capitol Hill and in the White House. However, cooperation is not likely since the the White House. However, cooperation is not likely since the gap between the parties is too wide and candidates are gap between the parties is too wide and candidates are positioning themselves for 2008.positioning themselves for 2008.

The 2006 election was not only the most The 2006 election was not only the most expensive Congressional election in history expensive Congressional election in history (18% more expensive than the 2002 midterm). (18% more expensive than the 2002 midterm). It was also perhaps the nastiest. It was also perhaps the nastiest.

Both parties put a lot of emphasis on personal Both parties put a lot of emphasis on personal attacks on the other party's candidates. attacks on the other party's candidates. PoliticalMoneyLine estimated that 80% of the PoliticalMoneyLine estimated that 80% of the $67.4 million spent by the two parties went to $67.4 million spent by the two parties went to attack ads. The Republican National attack ads. The Republican National Committee made a decision to try to focus on Committee made a decision to try to focus on the personal lives of Democratic candidates to the personal lives of Democratic candidates to divert attention from national issues. divert attention from national issues.

Candidates use negative ads because they Candidates use negative ads because they work. One Republican ad showed a white work. One Republican ad showed a white woman enticing an African-American woman enticing an African-American candidate, implying that he would welcome candidate, implying that he would welcome such an advance. Democratic ads showed such an advance. Democratic ads showed Republican leaders together with Mark Foley, Republican leaders together with Mark Foley, implying that they tolerated sexual predators.implying that they tolerated sexual predators.

After a campaign with such a high level of After a campaign with such a high level of negativity, it will be difficult for members of negativity, it will be difficult for members of the two parties to work together.the two parties to work together.