Skip links

2014 House

Sabato's Crystal Ball

RATINGS CHANGES: GEORGIA, PENNSYLVANIA, TENNESSEE AND WEST VIRGINIA

Two statewide southerners are seeing their fortunes move in opposite directions, while the weight of both a party label and a barrage of negative advertising look increasingly likely to sink one of the longest-serving members of the House. Here are this week’s Crystal Ball ratings changes in four gubernatorial, Senate and House contests. Table 1: Crystal Ball ratings changes GEORGIA (GOVERNOR): Gov. Nathan Deal (R), who has dealt with numerous ethical questions over the years (not to mention orchestrating a horrible response to Atlanta’s 2014 ice storm), got another bad headline late last week: A jury found that the former director of the state ethics commission was forced out of office as retribution for investigating Deal’s 2010 gubernatorial campaign. The former director, Stacey Kalberman, will receive $700,000 as a result of the ruling. This story will likely linger: On Monday morning, Jim Galloway and other reporters at the Atlanta Journal-Constitution posted a piece headlined “Friday’s verdict just the beginning of trial trouble for Nathan Deal.” They note that other former ethics commission staffers have made similar claims as Kalberman, which could keep the controversy in the headlines for months. Meanwhile, state Sen. Jason Carter (D) is raising an impressive amount of

Kyle Kondik

Midterm 2014: Where things stand now

Election Day 2014 is now almost exactly seven months away, which is both near and far. On the one hand, more than half of the states — 29 of 50 — have passed their filing deadlines for major party candidates (the deadline in a 30th, Tennessee, is today). The late entries of Rep. Cory Gardner (R, CO-4) and ex-Sen. Scott Brown (R-MA) into, respectively, the Colorado and New Hampshire Senate races are probably the last major candidate announcements we’re going to see this cycle, barring a late retirement or other big surprise. So the playing field is basically set. On the other hand, the specific players in the game are not set. Just two states — Illinois and Texas — have held their primaries. After the District of Columbia voted on Tuesday, there isn’t another primary until May 6. Candidate selection, particularly for Republicans in places like Georgia, Iowa and North Carolina, could be a decisive factor in the battle for the Senate. So with the caveat that plenty can change, we know enough about the political environment, fundamentals, candidates and other factors that will impact 2014 to offer a new Crystal Ball feature this week: Narrow ranges of what

Larry J. Sabato and Kyle Kondik

Ratings changes: Hawaii, Maryland and Michigan

In addition to our new Crystal Ball Outlook for the House, Senate and gubernatorial races, we have a few tweaks to make to our ratings this week. To get our ratings changes as they happen, follow the Crystal Ball team on Twitter — @LarrySabato, @kkondik and @geoffreyvs — and check our website’s Ratings Changes page. Table 1: Crystal Ball ratings changes HAWAII (SEN): On Monday, this race got a big “aloha” from President Obama when he endorsed appointed Sen. Brian Schatz (D) in the Democratic primary. Unlike in some other states, the president remains relatively popular in his birthplace, and polls have shown Schatz and his primary opponent, Rep. Colleen Hanabusa (D, HI-1), in a neck-and-neck battle. Obama backing a candidate in the state of his birth could be the rare endorsement that matters. The Democratic match-up will also be influenced by race and faction. Hanabusa was viewed as the late Sen. Daniel Inouye’s (D) preferred successor, but after Inouye’s death in December 2012, Gov. Neil Abercrombie (D) instead put Schatz, his lieutenant governor, in the seat. This decision has even complicated Abercrombie’s own gubernatorial reelection race as it upset some Asian-American Democrats, many of whom were close friends and

Kyle Kondik and Geoffrey Skelley

Putting Their Eggs in the Wrong Midterm Basket

Barring significant changes in group voting habits, many commentators have argued that “The Coalition of the Ascendant” is positioned to give Democrats a notable edge in elections in the near future. There may be some truth to that supposition: The country is clearly getting more diverse, and nonwhite voters tend to vote strongly Democratic. A key cog in this coalition has been young voters — often called Millennials — who are more diverse than their elders. Exit poll data in 2012 suggest that young people were vital in securing President Barack Obama’s second term in the White House. He garnered 60% of the 18-to-29 vote (after winning 66% of it in 2008), by far the highest percentage Obama won among any age group. Estimating from exit poll data, all else equal, it’s possible that Obama would have narrowly lost the popular vote (and perhaps the Electoral College vote, too) had he won the same percentage among 18-to-29 year olds as he did among 30-to-44 year olds (52%). Continued strong support for Democratic presidential candidates in the future among younger voters could spell trouble for the GOP as generational replacement occurs (yes, that’s a euphemism). However, one aspect of this trend

Geoffrey Skelley

The End of Amendments?

This year marks the centennial anniversary of the first class of popularly-elected U.S. Senators, as mandated by adoption of the 17th Amendment. A hundred years later, several current or former Republican members of Congress, including Todd Akin (MO), Paul Broun (GA), Pete Hoekstra (MI) and Jeff Flake (AZ), have indicated their support for returning the selection of U.S. senators to state elites. Although the movement to repeal the 17th Amendment is likely to fizzle, the fact is plans to amend the Constitution are mostly a waste of time because, other than a widely popular and highly-unifying suggested change, it is probably almost impossible to ratify or even propose amendments in our highly-polarized nation and divided national government. Holding aside the 10 amendments of the Bill of Rights — and an 11th regulating congressional compensation that, proposed more than two centuries ago as one of 12 originally proposed amendments, was belatedly ratified in 1992 as the 27th Amendment — only 16 amendments that were not part of the constitutional bargain struck in 1787 have been proposed and ratified in the 226 years since the founders met in Philadelphia. That works out to one amendment about every 14 years. After setting aside

Thomas F. Schaller

It’s the Stupid Economy

U.Va. Center for Politics Director Larry J. Sabato is contributing a regular column to Politico Magazine. This week, he examines whether or not an improved economic picture could potentially help Democrats stave off trouble in November 2014. — The Editors Last week’s special election in Florida’s 13th congressional district, where GOP Rep. David Jolly upset Democrat Alex Sink, provided a sugar high to Republicans, but otherwise it didn’t tell us all that much we didn’t already know. There’s close to a consensus among nonpartisan election handicappers about the upcoming 2014 midterm elections: Democrats can’t win the House, and they might lose even more ground to the GOP. And Republicans are bound to pick up some Senate seats, perhaps the six they need to take control or even more; their Senate map is so good that the 10 seats that seem likeliest to change hands in the fall are all held by Democrats. This was all true before about 183,000 voters in Pinellas County, FL, had their say — 0.001% of the total number of votes cast in the 2012 election — and it remains true now. Beyond that, this is the sixth-year election in a two-term presidential administration. That usually

Larry J. Sabato

The limited meaning of Florida’s special House election

Rep.-elect David Jolly (R, FL-13) overcame money, some internal division among Republicans, and a name recognition and prestige deficit to defeat Alex Sink (D) in a much-watched special election in Florida’s Tampa-area 13th Congressional District Tuesday night. Republicans are of course gleeful about the results, and Democrats, despite immediately pledging to fight for the district again come November, have to be disappointed. The district, held by the late former Rep. Bill Young (R) for decades, narrowly supported President Obama twice. It’s the kind of suburban swing district that Democrats are going to have to increasingly target to eventually win back the House now that the party’s old redoubts in conservative Appalachian and Southern districts have largely eroded away. The result came as something of a surprise to us and to other election watchers — many, including us, thought Sink would win, albeit narrowly. We decided after the special election primary back in January to switch the race from Toss-up to Leans Democratic. While the race was close throughout, we decided to keep that rating, based on early voting figures, an overall Democratic money advantage, the opinions of some of our sources and a real pessimism from Republicans about Jolly, which

Larry J. Sabato and Kyle Kondik

It’s Time To Increase The Size of the House

“Our founders put the first amendment first for a reason. It protects all Americans’ right to free speech, regardless of political affiliation or views.” This statement was made by former Sen. Norm Coleman (R-MN) in 2007, but it expresses a commonly cited view among lawyers, judges, politicians and pundits. In fact, what we today know as the first amendment wasn’t originally intended to be the first amendment. Examine closely this copy of the original Bill of Rights, as submitted to the states. Today’s first amendment was originally the third article. The original second article, which prevented Congress from giving itself a raise without an intervening election, was ratified in 1992 as the 27th Amendment. The actual first article — what Congress thought should be the first amendment — dealt with congressional apportionment. It read: After the first enumeration required by the first article of the Constitution, there shall be one Representative for every thirty thousand, until the number shall amount to one hundred, after which the proportion shall be so regulated by Congress, that there shall be not less than one hundred Representatives, nor less than one Representative for every forty thousand persons, until the number of Representatives shall amount

Sean Trende

How Congressional Representation Has Changed Over the Past 50 Years

In January, the release of the Census Bureau’s 2013 population estimates prompted the Crystal Ball to examine what the post-2020 projections for reapportionment might mean for the future shape of the U.S. House. While it’s fun to look at future projections, it’s also interesting to take a peek into the past to see how representation in Congress’ lower chamber has shifted over the years. Looking back since 1960, the first census to include Alaska and Hawaii as states, there have been very large shifts in the number of seats from the industrial Northeast and Midwest to parts of the South, Interior West and West. Map 1 below shows the changes from 1960 to 2010. Map 1: Congressional reapportionment changes, 1960-2010 Source: Vital Statistics on American Politics On the “winning” side, so to speak, 14 states have seen a net increase in their representation in the House. The biggest gainers in this half-century period have been California, Florida and Texas, and no one else is really close. Both California and Florida have seen their seat totals increase by 15, while Texas saw an increase of 13 seats in this timespan. Arizona comes in next with an increase of six seats, followed

Geoffrey Skelley

Deep-sixing California

California is such a massive state — if it were an independent nation, it would have the eighth-largest economy in the world — that it has long been the subject of partitioning proposals. Now a new plan is calling for the Golden State to be dismembered into six new states. The proposal could possibly go before California voters in November should proponents collect the required number of signatures of nearly 808,000 registered voters to put the proposition on the ballot. As displayed below in Map 1, the plan would create the following six states out of California: Jefferson, made up of the northern-most parts of the state; North California, containing Sacramento and areas east and west of it in the north-central part of California; Silicon Valley, encompassing San Francisco, San Jose and much of California’s famous tech corridor; Central California, incorporating much of California’s agricultural heartland in the state’s east-central region; West California, including mainly Los Angeles; and South California, containing San Diego and other big counties south and east of Los Angeles. Map 1: The six-state plan Source: California Legislative Analyst’s Office The Crystal Ball loves a good hypothetical, so putting aside the unlikelihood of this partition, let’s consider

Geoffrey Skelley

2014 House Forecast Update: No Wave in Sight

The results of a simple but extremely accurate midterm election forecasting model indicate that the 2014 U.S. House elections are likely to result in minimal change in the party balance of power. The forecasting model uses three predictors — the current party balance of power in the House, the results of the last presidential election and the relative standing of the two parties on the generic ballot question, a national poll that asks voters which party they prefer in their local House race. Estimates for the model are shown below based on all 17 midterm elections since the end of World War II. Tables 1 and 2: Model summary and coefficients for House forecasting model The party holding the White House almost always loses House seats in midterm elections. However, the size of those losses varies considerably, and one key factor is how many seats the president’s party is defending. These results indicate that Democratic losses are likely to be limited in 2014 due to the fact that Democrats are defending only 201 seats this year. As a result, Republican pickup opportunities are likely to be limited. Another regular feature of midterm elections is that the bigger the winning margin

Alan I. Abramowitz

Toward a perfectly partisan House

After the 2012 elections, there were only 26 members of the U.S. House who were elected from districts that their party’s presidential candidate didn’t win in the 2012 election. Nine Democrats were elected from districts Mitt Romney won, and 17 Republicans were elected from districts President Obama won. As we’ve previously mentioned, this is the lowest total after any presidential election since 1920. The fact that there’s so little crossover partisan representation in the House helps explain why the parties are so polarized, as National Journal amply demonstrates in its latest ratings of congressional votes. After the 2014 election, it’s possible — perhaps even likely — that there will be even fewer crossover members of the House. A quick look at the playing field explains why. First, let’s look at the nine Democratic-held Romney seats. Two of those are almost certain to flip to the Republicans because of the retirements of Reps. Mike McIntyre (D, NC-7) and Jim Matheson (D, UT-4). Additionally, Republicans have a decent shot to defeat Reps. Ann Kirkpatrick (D, AZ-1), Ron Barber (D, AZ-2) and Nick Rahall (D, WV-3), as well as outside chances to beat the four other Romney-district Democrats: Reps. Patrick Murphy (D, FL-18),

Kyle Kondik

Further Discussion of 2020 Reapportionment

Theodore Arrington wrote a short response/supplement to my earlier piece on the Voting Rights Act. I wrote this response mostly because I think he and I actually agree on most of the matters he discusses, suggesting that I was unclear at crucial points. Dr. Arrington discusses my analysis with respect to all three prongs of Gingles, but it’s important to note that developments relating to the first factor are the ones that I found most interesting, and spent most of my time on. I’m not sure Dr. Arrington perceives a disagreement here. I certainly agree with him that a series of close Supreme Court decisions have helped make these developments much more likely, and the background evidence he provides is useful in understanding this. With respect to the third prong — white bloc voting such that it tends to defeat the candidate of minorities’ choice — I was speculating more on where we might be in 2020 than on where we are today, and then only (most likely) in certain Northern jurisdictions. Consider New York. President Obama won the African-American vote there overwhelmingly in 2008, but whites supported him as well. Look to the New York mayoral race, where Bill

Sean Trende

Reanalyzing 2020 Reapportionment

Sean Trende’s analysis in “The 2020 Reapportionment and The Voting Rights Act” is helpful, but I would like to supplement his analysis or present a slightly different take. His overall conclusion that it is becoming more difficult to maintain voting rights districts is accurate, although the problem is with the U.S. Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Voting Rights Act (VRA) in combination with the demographic changes he cites. My reanalysis involves his descriptions of the three “Gingles prongs” or “preconditions” (Thornburg v. Gingles, 478 U.S. 30 (1986)). The first prong states that the minority group must be a majority in a single-member district. The exact legal definition of “majority” was unclear until the ruling in Bartlett v. Strickland, 556 U.S. 1 (2009). In that decision a plurality of the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the minority group must be a majority of the citizens of voting age. Previously experts, such as myself, had interpreted “majority” to mean that the number of minority voters were sufficient for them to usually elect a representative of their choice, even if their choice was a member of their minority group. Using this definition, federal courts had approved many districts that did not have an

Theodore S. Arrington

The 2020 Reapportionment And The Voting Rights Act

We’re pleased to announce that Sean Trende, the shrewd senior elections analyst for RealClearPolitics, will be contributing regularly to the Crystal Ball. His first piece looks at the future of majority-minority House districts in northern states, and how in some instances it will be difficult to maintain these districts as some of these states lose House seats after the next census. Follow Sean on Twitter at @SeanTrende. In late December, psephologists received a belated Christmas present in the form of the 2013 population estimates from the United States Census Bureau. While relatively uninteresting in and of themselves, the figures do allow us to further estimate what the next congressional apportionment will look like. In the first few years after the census, analyses along these lines are mostly parlor games that should be clearly marked “for entertainment purposes only.” But with each passing year population numbers get locked in, and it becomes increasingly difficult to significantly alter the trajectory of population growth. By this point in the 2000s, our estimates for 2010 were a decent approximation of what actually occurred. The Crystal Ball’s Kyle Kondik recently looked at the states that would be expected to gain and lose seats as a

Sean Trende