Skip links

2016 House

Sabato's Crystal Ball

The Political Science Election Forecasts of the 2016 Presidential and Congressional Elections, Part 3

Dear Readers: This is the latest in a series of political science forecasts for the 2016 races for the White House and Congress. We’ll be featuring forecasts from nine different individuals and/or teams this year, which James E. Campbell is assembling as part of a project for PS: Political Science and Politics that we are also featuring in the Crystal Ball. These models are based on factors such as the state of the economy, polling, whether an incumbent president is running for reelection, and other indicators. They can often be a better predictor of the eventual results than polls alone, and many are finalized months before the election. We are pleased to feature the work of the many top political scientists who have built these models, both in an attempt to predict the outcome of the election and, more importantly, to identify the factors that actually affect presidential and congressional races. Below, Campbell lays out the details and outlook of his congressional forecasting model. Additionally, we have updated our running tally of presidential and congressional forecasts to include a new version of the presidential forecast by Robert Erikson and Christopher Wlezien, as well as the forecasts for Alan Abramowitz’s congressional

UVA Center for Politics

How to Tell if 2016 is a Wave Election

With Hillary Clinton taking a large lead in the polls following the Democratic National Convention, journalists have begun to discuss the extent to which Democrats may be able to capitalize on these gains in down ballot races for the House and Senate. As has been the case in every recent election cycle, some journalists have even begun to write about whether or not 2016 could be a wave election. Given the popularity of this concept among journalists and elections experts, being able to classify elections as either a “wave” or “not a wave” would appear useful. Unfortunately — and surprisingly given the widespread use of this term — there is not a precise definition of this concept. To try to correct this, I have developed my own definition that combines both scholarly rigor with the basic intuition of a wave election being a “big win” for one side at the expense of the other. Specifically, I define a “wave election” to be a congressional election that (1) produces the potential for a political party to significantly affect the political status quo as (2) the result of a substantial increase in seats for that party. What exactly do I mean by

Jacob Smith

The Political Science Election Forecasts of the 2016 Presidential and Congressional Elections, Part 2

Dear Readers: This is the latest in a series of political science forecasts for the 2016 races for the White House and Congress. We’ll be featuring forecasts from nine different individuals and/or teams this year, which James E. Campbell is assembling as part of a project for PS: Political Science and Politics that we are also featuring in the Crystal Ball. These models are based on factors such as the state of the economy, polling, whether an incumbent president is running for reelection, and other indicators. They can often be a better predictor of the eventual results than polls alone, and many are finalized months before the election. We are pleased to feature the work of the many top political scientists who have built these models, both in an attempt to predict the outcome of the election and, more importantly, to identify the factors that actually affect presidential races. The two sets of forecasts below feature outlooks for both the presidential and U.S. House of Representatives. As we feature new models, we will update Tables 1 and 2 to provide a running tally of these forecasts. — The Editors Economic Expectations and Political Punishment Model (President and House) By Brad

UVA Center for Politics

House Update: Handful of races move toward Democrats

In a recent meeting, House Speaker Paul Ryan (R, WI-1) warned donors that the GOP’s House majority might not be safe. Now, politicians don’t like to project overconfidence — just check your email for campaign fundraising pitches with subject lines like “the sky is falling” — but Ryan, who romped to victory in his primary on Tuesday, is also offering an accurate assessment. Republicans continue to be favored to hold the House, but there are signs that Democrats could make significant gains and even challenge for the majority itself. This week we’re moving four House race ratings toward the Democrats (descriptions of those changes are below). That brings the overall House tally to 226 Safe/Likely/Leaning Republican seats, 193 Safe/Likely/Leaning Democratic seats, and 16 Toss-ups (14 of which are held by Republicans). The House is currently 247-188 Republican, so if one splits the Toss-ups eight apiece, the House would be 234-201 Republican, giving Democrats a net gain of 13 seats (and matching the makeup of the House following the 2012 election). That squares with our current projection: a 10-15 seat Democratic gain, which even at the high end would still be just half of the 30 seats the Democrats need to

Kyle Kondik

PROF. SABATO WELCOMES THE NATION’S NEWEST CITIZENS AT MONTICELLO

Dear Readers: Larry J. Sabato, founder and director of the University of Virginia Center for Politics, will be the keynote speaker for the 54th annual Independence Day Celebration and Naturalization ceremony at Monticello, the home of Thomas Jefferson and a must-visit American treasure. This ceremony is the oldest continuous naturalization ceremony that takes place outside of a courtroom. As 76 people from 40 countries prepare to take the oath of citizenship, Prof. Sabato’s remarks will focus on the value and importance of citizen participation for the health of American democracy. The text of his speech is below. If you would like to watch the ceremony live this morning, it will be livestreamed here beginning at 9 a.m. EDT. We wish you and your family a safe and happy Independence Day. — The Editors Good Morning Ladies and Gentlemen, Thank you for that kind introduction. I’m grateful to the Thomas Jefferson Foundation, Chairman Donald King, and President Leslie Greene Bowman for inviting me to speak to you today. If I may be permitted a point of personal privilege: Over the last decade my UVA Center for Politics has hosted delegations of students from more than 40 nations around the world including

Larry J. Sabato

As deadline approaches, Rubio ponders

The horrifying massacre at a gay nightclub in Orlando forces us to ponder whether it will somehow change the national electoral calculus. The short answer is that it’s too soon to tell, but the grim reality is that the frequency of mass murder in the United States — committed by ISIS-inspired lone wolves or others — suggests that this, terrifyingly, might not be the last major spasm of violence that takes place between now and the election. How candidates react could have consequences in November, although it’s also easy to overstate the potential impact of jarring events on the choices that voters make. After all, the American electorate is partisan and the vote choices for the vast majority of them don’t waver much throughout the campaign. But the Orlando attack could have other political consequences. As the clock ticks down to a June 24 filing deadline, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) gave his strongest signals yet that he might be reconsidering his decision not to seek a second term following his loss in the GOP presidential primary. Speaking with conservative radio host Hugh Hewitt, Rubio said that the attack gave him “pause to think a little bit about, you know, your

Kyle Kondik

House 2016: The Balancing Act

While Hillary Clinton still leads Donald Trump in most national polling, her margin is not what it once was: She’s up about five points in the HuffPost Pollster average, down from nine points in mid-April, and she’s up just two points in the RealClearPolitics average, also down from nine points seven weeks ago. Now that she’s the presumptive nominee, Clinton will hope to restore those numbers to their prior luster. However, the betting markets have been fairly steady on the race, giving Clinton a consistent edge even as her polling has weakened. PredictWise, which tracks these markets, gives the Democratic nominee (almost certainly Clinton) a 74% chance to win the presidency. The odds of a Democratic presidential victory have not dipped below 65% since early March. Relatedly, polls asking voters who they believe will win can be a better predictor of the actual winner than asking who someone will vote for. So perhaps Clinton can take some solace in the fact that while she trailed Trump by two points (46%-44%) in an ABC News/Washington Post poll conducted in mid-May, she actually led 50%-40% in the “who do you think will win” question. Another survey, the most recent NBC News/SurveyMonkey weekly

Kyle Kondik

GROWING URBAN-RURAL SPLIT PROVIDES REPUBLICANS WITH DOWN-BALLOT ADVANTAGES

The 2012 election provided two powerful reminders about the electoral implications of overly-concentrated Democratic voters. First, the Republicans held their U.S. House majority, won in 2010, despite the fact that the Democratic candidates in the 435 House districts received more votes than their Republican opponents. Second, these House results were echoed by Democrat Barack Obama’s defeat of Republican Mitt Romney by nearly four percentage points nationally despite the fact that Obama carried fewer House districts than Romney did (211 to 224 based on the most recent congressional maps). Whether by dint of the nonpartisan self-segregation of voters or partisan gerrymandering, Democratic voters are distributed inefficiently in U.S. House districts. Of course, House districts and state legislative districts can be redrawn each decade in ways that concentrate or diffuse voters to the electoral benefit of either (or neither) party. What do not change are borders for state, county, and local jurisdictions that elect officials and that also may happen to confer an advantage on one party or the other. For example, as I document in my latest book, The Stronghold, for the better part of a half-century Republicans have enjoyed inflated representation in the Senate by virtue of their greater strength

Thomas F. Schaller

House 2016: Incumbency Still Powerful in Primaries

On Tuesday night, scandal-drenched Rep. Chaka Fattah (D, PA-2) became the first House incumbent to lose a primary this year. History suggests a few others will join him, but only a few. Since the end of World War II, there has never been a year where every single House member who sought another term won his or her party’s nomination. However, the vast, vast majority who want to be nominated again get nominated. Table 1 shows the postwar history of House renominations. Overall, more than 98% of members who seek renomination get it each election. Table 1: Renomination rates of U.S. House members, 1946-2014 Note: The 2014 total does not include former Rep. Vance McAllister (R, LA-5). He ran for reelection in 2014 and did not finish in the top two in Louisiana’s all-party “jungle primary.” In a way, he did not win renomination because he was not one of the two candidates who advanced to a runoff, but his situation isn’t quite comparable to other, more traditional incumbent primary losers. Source: Vital Statistics on Congress, Crystal Ball research To the extent that there have been years with higher-than-average numbers of incumbent primary losses, they have been in years that

Kyle Kondik

House 2016: How a Democratic Wave Could Happen

Pennsylvania’s Seventh Congressional District, which forms a misshapen U linking Greater Philadelphia in the east to the outskirts of Lancaster and Reading to its west and north, provides a vivid example of the challenges Democrats face on the current U.S. House map. It is a district that Democrats won in 2006 in their wave year, then lost in 2010. After 2010, Pennsylvania Republicans re-drew it to make it more Republican, and Rep. Pat Meehan (R) has a fairly secure grip on it. With Democrats now effectively locked out of many of the Southern and Appalachian districts that used to be a mainstay of their pre-2010 House caucuses, the Democrats’ path back to the majority almost has to travel through GOP-held suburbs and exurbs around the country: In other words, seats that look very much like Meehan’s. In 2012, Meehan’s PA-7 supported Mitt Romney over Barack Obama by about two points, 50.4% to 48.5%. Given that Obama won nationally by 51.0% to 47.1%, PA-7 is roughly three points more Republican than the nation. It also happens to be, according to Obama’s 2012 performance by congressional district, the precise median seat in the House. It was the president’s 218th-best district, and of

Kyle Kondik and Geoffrey Skelley

HOUSE UPDATE: The Waiting Game

We are making 17 changes to our U.S. House ratings this week. On the surface, all that movement suggests that there is a lot going on in the battle for the House. Actually, though, the overall House picture remains largely where it has been for months: on hold until the presidential race gets sorted out. Neither party’s House campaign committee can control what happens in their respective nominating contests: either might end up with nominees who help or hurt down the ballot. Or the election could be closely contested between two equally strong — or weak — candidates, creating a relatively neutral political environment. For the purposes of our ratings, we’re assuming the third scenario — a close national election where neither presidential candidate exerts excessive influence on other races. As it stands right now, Democrats are poised to gain a small number of seats, probably somewhere between five and 10. Part of this is just a correction to the big, overextended Republican majority. Republicans won a few seats in 2014 that they really don’t have much business holding. Additionally, court-ordered redistricting in Florida and Virginia created more favorable maps for Democrats, which should allow them to pick up a

Kyle Kondik

Further Down the Ballot: How the 2016 Presidential Primaries May Influence Congressional Primary Voting

Amidst the onslaught of news stories about the 2016 presidential primaries, it is easy to forget that voters in many states will soon be casting primary ballots in races for a variety of other offices. We haven’t yet heard much about incumbents “getting primaried” this year, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t happening. This year’s crop of outsider candidates is likely to draw new voters to the polls in many states, and in the 19 states that hold concurrent presidential and nonpresidential primaries this year these voters will certainly pose a challenge for handicapping congressional and senatorial primary outcomes. This may well be a particular problem for Republican incumbents. We know little about the causes of voter turnout in primaries. Certainly many of those who participate are habitual voters who show up no matter who is on the ballot. But there is also evidence that the composition of the primary electorate is driven by the nature of competition in the races at the top of the ballot. The chart below shows voter turnout for state-level primaries (that is, governor and senator) in states that hold concurrent presidential and nonpresidential primaries and those that do not. The chart shows that there

Robert G. Boatright

The down-ballot outlook as 2016 approaches

The upcoming battle for the Senate depends to a large extent on the presidential race; Democrats should gain House seats but not truly threaten the GOP’s big lower chamber majority; and Republicans are positioned to add to their already-substantial majority of governorships. That’s the early line on next year’s down-ballot contests as we prepare to turn the calendar from 2015 to 2016. Of course, a lot can and will change with these ratings, particularly as the identity of the Republican presidential nominee becomes clearer (and if something goes seriously amiss for the current Democratic presidential favorite, Hillary Clinton). But here’s where we stand now: The Senate Map 1: 2016 Crystal Ball Senate race ratings The Republicans currently hold a 54-46 advantage, so they can afford some losses and still maintain their majority. We currently have them as underdogs in two seats they are defending, Illinois and Wisconsin; three other seats — Republican-held Florida and New Hampshire as well as Democratic-held Nevada — are Toss-ups. There are additional Democratic targets, particularly Pennsylvania, which Leans Republican now only because of uncertainty over the strength of the Democratic nominee. Assuming the eventual Democratic standard bearer isn’t damaged beyond repair in what could be

Kyle Kondik

House 2016: Finally, a New Map in Florida

The long saga of Florida’s legal battle over redistricting now appears to be over. The state Supreme Court, in a 5-2 decision, approved a new map for the state’s 27-member U.S. House delegation. The remap is an improvement for Democrats over the current map drawn by the state’s Republican-controlled state legislature. While it appears that the map might be challenged in federal court, “the boundaries are now likely to be those set for the 2016 election,” according to the Tampa Bay Times. With that, we have a series of ratings changes to announce in response to the new lines: Table 1: Crystal Ball House ratings changes Let’s take a closer look at the new maps. The 2012 presidential results for the new districts cited below are from Matthew Isbell, a Democratic data consultant who has done outstanding work explaining Florida redistricting. The biggest change made to the state’s districts was the unpacking of African-American voters in the district of Rep. Corrine Brown (D, FL-5), whose current district snakes north to south, from Jacksonville to Orlando. The new FL-5 now goes from east to west, from Jacksonville to Tallahassee. It remains safely Democratic, but changing it creates a ripple effect that

Kyle Kondik

University of Virginia Center for Politics to host 17th annual American Democracy Conference in Washington

On Thursday, Nov. 19, the University of Virginia Center for Politics will host the 17th annual American Democracy Conference in Washington, DC. The conference will feature leading journalists and political experts discussing the Democratic and Republican presidential primaries as well as the overall political outlook for 2016. The conference will be held at the Ronald Reagan Building and International Trade Center’s Atrium Ballroom, 1300 Pennsylvania Ave NW. It will begin at 10 a.m. and is free and open to the public with advance registration, and the press is invited to attend. For more information or to register, please visit http://www.centerforpolitics.org/adc.html. Tweet about the conference by using the hashtag #2015ADC. The conference will also be livestreamed online at the following link: https://livestream.com/tavco/17thADC The conference will feature: 10:15 a.m. – 11:30 a.m. Panel I: The Democratic Presidential Primary Moderator: Margie Omero, pollster with Purple Strategies Panelists: Jamelle Bouie, chief political correspondent for Slate Maria Cardona, principal at Dewey Square Group Mark Mellman, president and CEO of The Mellman Group Dan Pfeiffer, former Senior Advisor to President Barack Obama for Strategy and Communications Hilary Rosen, managing director of SKDKnickerbocker 11:30 a.m. – 12:15 p.m. Keynote Speaker: Former Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-MS) 12:15

UVA Center for Politics