House Overview: Could 2010 Be the “Year of the Angry White Senior?

September 3, 2009

Assessing the Climate

"You could feel the ground moving," said GOP California Rep. Kevin McCarthy of his recess candidate recruitment tour. The Republican base he saw is "much more motivated than you've seen in years."

No question, August proved cathartic for voters and chaotic for congressional Democrats. But way before the town hall meetings during recess, there were ample signs for Democrats to fear for their careers in 2010. First and foremost, the midterm electorate appears tailor-made for Republicans, even in ways it wasn’t in 1994.

As The Hotline’s Amy Walter wisely pointed out, 1994 became the “angry white male” election because those who were displeased with the direction of the country were “more engaged than those who just two years earlier were voting for Bill Clinton and singing ‘don’t stop thinking about tomorrow.’” But “angry” is only a third of “angry white male,” and anger is only part of the story today.

True enough, the gender gap was the exit poll takeaway of the 1990s, and encouraged cultural observers’ perceptions of the Republican Revolution. In 1996, Bill Clinton won 54 percent to 38 percent among women, but lost men 44 percent to 43 percent. And as recently as 2000, Democrats were winning the two-party presidential vote by 11 points among women but losing by 11 points among men.

Today's divide, however, is the generation gap – no, make that gulf – that characterized President Obama’s victory in 2008. In 1992 and 2000, Bill Clinton and Al Gore performed just slightly better among voters 60 and older than they did among voters 18 to 29 years of age. But in 2008, Obama won 66 percent of voters 18 to 29 and just 45 percent of voters 65 and older – a staggering 21 point difference.

Much has been made about how this disparity in support poses a big long-term problem for the GOP. That’s true, assuming younger voters maintain their current outlook towards the political parties as they age. But aside from flurries of stories about angry senior citizens packing town halls, precious little attention has been given to why the generation gulf poses a grave short-term threat to Democrats in 2010.

Put simply, older voters dominate midterms and have consistently been Obama's weakest age group. Unlike Bill Clinton’s gender gap, Obama’s generation gap complicates Democrats’ midterm math substantially. There's little discernible variation in gender shares of the electorate from midterm to presidential years. But midterm electorates typically skew older and whiter than those in presidential years.

According to exit poll data, voters over 45 comprised 54 percent of the total electorate in 2004 and just 53 percent of the electorate in 2008, but they were 63 percent of all voters in 2006. And diminished turnout on the part of African-American and Hispanic voters, which was a factor in 1994, looks like a double whammy for Democrats.

It's too early to say that Democratic base groups are depressed, and Democrats point to several recent victories in state legislative elections as evidence their troops are still engaged. But it is fair to say that at the federal level, these base groups were unusually energized in 2008. That's understandable - the historical magnitude of 2008 was obvious. So far, the political climate of 2010 feels more like history repeating itself.

Even if Obama and Democrats are just as popular next November as they were last November, they might stand to lose five to ten seats in the House based on the altered composition of the midterm electorate alone. The latest public opinion diagnostics, however, point to a dangerous slide. As voters' views of Obama and Democrats' handling of health care has dimmed, their inclination to elect Democrats to Congress has waned.

According to a new Pew Survey Research poll, Democrats' edge on the generic congressional ballot test is down to 45 percent to 44 percent, a considerably tighter margin than what Democrats enjoyed in both 2006 and 2008. Unsurprisingly, a large part of this shift has been driven by independents, who favored Democrats 44 percent to 33 percent in November 2006 but give the GOP a 43 percent to 38 percent edge now.

But which group is driving an even larger part of this shift? According to Pew, senior citizens. To be sure, Democrats caution that their own polling shows their standing with seniors holding steady, and reasonably argue that they can ultimately sway seniors by reminding them that Bush-era GOP plans to privatize social security would have turned out catastrophically. Still, spreading this message will require plenty of Democratic effort to turn the conversation from Obama back to Bush.

If Pew’s latest numbers are even halfway accurate, they should frighten Democrats. Their surveys show voters 65 and over, who gave Democrats a 50 percent to 39 percent edge on the generic ballot in November 2006, giving Republicans a 51 percent to 43 percent edge now. If that reversal holds, Democrats could be ruing the "year of the angry white senior” at the polling place, not just the town hall.

It's movements as momentous as these that threaten to drive Democrats' midterm losses in the House well into the teens and beyond. And if that happens, which seats could fall? Right now, we rate just 7 Democratic-held seats as "Toss Up" or worse and 20 Democratic-held seats as "Lean Democratic." But, plenty of the 56 districts that fell into Republican hands on Election Night 1994 didn't seem all that vulnerable at this point in 1993.

Flashback: 1994

Right now, the national political environment is following all the contours of the 1994 cycle, and there are striking structural similarities as well. In 1993, Democrats occupied 258 House districts, of which the first President Bush had carried 52 in 1992. Today, Democrats basically occupy 257 House districts, and John McCain carried 49 of them in 2008.

It's structural differences, however, that make the prospect of anything close to a 52-seat net redux for the GOP unlikely. Democrats simply aren't going to lose 22 open seats like they did 15 years ago; it's unlikely they'll even be defending that many. This year's crop of Democrats won't be burdened by the fatigue of having spent 40 years in the majority. And, of course, Democrats have the example of 1994 to scare them into preparing for a tough year.

Still, just as contentious congressional debates over tax increases, health care, and gun control in 1993 set the tone for the following election year, Democratic initiatives on climate change and health care are potential "tone setters" for 2010.

The current health care debate has only reinforced the Obama-driven generational divide that took shape last year. According to the Pew survey, 37 percent of voters 18 to 29 said the current health care reform bills would make them better off personally, while just 22 percent said the bills would make them worse off. Conversely, just 19 percent of voters 65 and older said the proposed reforms would make them better off, while 31 percent said the bills would make them worse off.

As such, it's not surprising to see Democrats who represent large senior voting blocs express skittishness about voting for anything that could plausibly be perceived as "Obama-care." Democratic Reps. John Adler (NJ-03) and Heath Shuler (NC-11) represent two of the 20 most senior-heavy districts in the country. Both cast critical votes for Democrats' "cap and trade" energy bill in June, but oppose the current House health care bill. Last week, the Asbury Park Press quoted Adler as saying "The bill that's coming through the House, with or without the public option, isn't good for America."

And, as 1994 demonstrated, voting behavior in the House matters back home. As the chart below shows, 33 of the 34 Democrats who lost in 1994 voted for either the tax-increasing Clinton budget package or the Brady handgun bill in 1993, and 19 voted for both. Of the 18 House Democrats who voted for neither of the controversial measures, only one ultimately lost (and that member, Jay Inslee of Washington, hurt his standing later by voting for final passage of the Clinton crime bill, including the Assault Weapons Ban, in August 1994).

In 1994, it wasn't easy to be a Bush-district Democrat who voted for both the Clinton budget and the Brady handgun bill. In fact, out of the 12 Democrats who fit this description and ran for reelection, two thirds lost. So far this year, 20 of the 49 McCain-district Democrats have already voted for the "cap and trade" bill. If the House Democratic leadership insists on putting a health care bill with a public option to a vote, how many of these 20 can be relied upon to take on more political risk?

On the other hand, the lessons of 1994 might serve as a reality check for GOP challengers to Democrats who plan to vote against their party's leadership on both of this year's dominant agenda items, such as Reps. Bobby Bright (AL-02), Parker Griffith (AL-05), and Chet Edwards (TX-17). In districts with challenging numbers, the strategy of voting (and running) against party leadership has persisted for generations, if sometimes for only one reason. It works.

2010: Surveying the Landscape

At the moment, we see twice as many competitive and potentially competitive Democratic-held seats as GOP-held seats. Out of 27 competitive Democratic-held seats, six are in the Toss Up column and one, the open seat in LA-03, is in the Lean Republican column. Out of 13 competitive GOP-held seats, four are in the Toss Up column. Additionally, we see 43 Democratic-held seats as potentially competitive and just 21 GOP-held seats as potentially competitive.

From today's perspective, a Republican gain of anywhere from 10 to 25 seats looks possible. Our full competitive House race chart can be found here.

Vulnerable Democrats

So, just how many Democrats are at risk in 2010? This "risk factors" chart is designed to help you estimate who is at how much risk. Obviously, Democrats with the most risk factors are likely to be serious targets in 2010. But, even incumbents with just two risk factors could find themselves at serious political risk.

At the moment, the GOP's slate of candidates in potentially vulnerable Democratic seats doesn't look all that intimidating. Just 12 of the 66 House Democrats in the Likely Democratic, Lean Democratic, and Toss Up columns face Republican challengers who held $100,000 or more in their campaign accounts at the end of June. Still, there is danger on the horizon.

Up until now, the DCCC and NRCC have gone tit-for-tat in candidate recruitment victories. But over the next few months we are likely to enter a new phase in which Republican announcements dominate, thanks to the both the GOP's longer list of targets and the fact that the water is feeling warmer to Republicans than it has in over a decade.

If 2010 sees a sea change, says McCarthy, the GOP's goal is to "get as many people as possible on the surfboard to ride the wave." And over the next few months, we should get a better idea of just how well Republicans are playing Rahm Emanuel's old game of cajoling strong would-be candidates into races that look like long shots at the outset.

Democrats argue that they are ready to play defense. But their depth of preparedness will be crucial. The NRCC is actively laying the groundwork for competitive races in at least ten potentially competitive districts beyond those listed as part of Democrats' “Frontline" program, including districts of Democratic veterans like Vic Snyder (AR-02), Bart Gordon (TN-06), and Tim Bishop (NY-01).

At the moment, the most vulnerable Democrats appear to be freshman Reps. Walt Minnick (ID-01), Frank Kratovil (MD-01), and Harry Teague (NM-02), all of whom already face credible challengers in districts with serious GOP tilts. Insiders say Rep. Mary Jo Kilroy (OH-15) is struggling with upside-down approval ratings and would lose a rematch against Republican Steve Stivers if the election were held today. There's a case to be made that Rep. Bobby Bright (AL-02) is in a better position than other Democrats in the Toss Up category, thanks to his GOP-aligned voting record and appeal in the district's rural counties. It would be reasonable to expect three or four of these Democrats to lose.

In the Lean Democratic column, the most vulnerable members may be freshman Reps. Betsy Markey (CO-04), Eric Massa (NY-29), Steve Driehaus (OH-01), and Tom Perriello (VA-05). Deeply flawed opponents helped Markey and Massa win in 2008, while unprecedented base Democratic turnout propelled Driehaus and Perriello to victory that year. Only Perriello currently lacks a strong announced opponent, but he is likely to get one soon. Democratic Reps. Alan Grayson (FL-08) and Carol Shea-Porter (NH-01) seem to have a knack for attracting bad press and would be in the Toss Up column if Republicans in their districts could get their act together. It's possible a half dozen to a dozen of these Democrats will lose.

The Likely Democratic column is populated by Democrats whose votes on health care could determine whether they will face a significant GOP challenge next year, and competitive races could materialize in one to two dozen of these races. Although most are freshmen or sophomores, a few are Democrats who haven't had to break a campaign sweat in years. It's instructive to remember that plenty of Democrats who lost in 1994 didn't seem terribly vulnerable at this point in 1993. In September 1993, only 10 of the 34 Democrats who lost were in our Toss Up column. Eleven were in the Likely Democratic column, and three were even in the Solid Democratic column.

Vulnerable Republicans

Most Democrats concede that the current national political environment is not exactly conducive to playing offense. However, Democrats were able to draw credible challengers into several remaining trouble spots for Republicans early in the cycle, and every dollar that Republicans spend protecting their own members is a dollar that's not being spent against Democrats.

By far the most vulnerable Republican incumbent is Rep. Joseph Cao (LA-02), who won't have the advantage of facing an indicted incumbent on a one-race ballot as he did in 2008. Beyond New Orleans, Democrats' list of opportunities drops off sharply. After consecutive cycles of recruitment failures, Democrats are finally fielding proven vote-getters in the Obama-won districts of GOP Reps. Lee Terry (NE-02), Pat Tiberi (OH-12), and Charlie Dent (PA-15). But if the 2010 cycle continues on its current trajectory, those Democrats will be left wishing they had run in 2008.

The reelection contests of two Republicans with chronic foot-in-mouth syndrome, Reps. Michele Bachmann (MN-06) and Jean Schmidt (OH-02), are also worth monitoring. In both cases, popular Democratic state legislators from non-major metro areas of the districts have stepped forward to run, and both incumbents have a propensity to become the leading issue in their races. Last year, the presence of third party candidates on the ballot saved both Bachmann and Schmidt from defeat. Next year, their saving grace could be the larger political environment instead.

Democrats are also running interesting up-and-comers against Republican Reps. Don Young (AK-AL), Tom Rooney (FL-16), and Michael McCaul (TX-10). But for now, there is little evidence suggesting any of the three is on particularly shaky footing with voters in their reliably Republican districts.

Open Seats

In 1994, southern retirements helped end Democrats' majority. So far, what's remarkable about 2010 is that there have been no true retirements to date. In all 18 open seats, the departing incumbent is running for other office. Furthermore, just half of these seats are at least remotely competitive, and only five appear truly competitive. We expect there to be at least several more competitive seats before the end of the year, especially if a protracted health care fight saps Democrats' morale.

For Republicans, the most appealing open seat is that of Democratic Rep. Charlie Melancon (LA-03), who is leaving to run for Senate and could have faced the prospect of the district's elimination had he stayed put past 2010. Democrats have a strong bench of potential conservative-minded candidates here, but this Cajun Country district is a ticking time bomb, more Republican than the one former Rep. Don Cazayoux lost in a more favorable political environment. It is in the Lean Republican column.

Republicans have an even money shot of picking up the seat of Senate candidate Rep. Joe Sestak (PA-07) in the inner Philadelphia suburbs, thanks to the likely candidacy of popular prosecutor Pat Meehan, who starts out better known than either of Democrats' possible nominees. And in New Hampshire, several GOP insiders say former Rep. Charlie Bass is leaning towards entering the race for his old seat, which is currently held by Senate candidate Rep. Paul Hodes (NH-02). Bass's entry would make the race a toss up.

Thousands of miles away, Republicans insist that Honolulu Councilman Charles Djou can mount a competitive race for the seat of gubernatorial candidate Rep. Neil Abercrombie (HI-01), but his party label would present a huge obstacle in Obama's native state.

Democratic hopes for open seat pickups lie in the districts of statewide-minded Reps. Mark Kirk (IL-10) and Jim Gerlach (PA-06). Both of these suburban districts gave Obama more than 58 percent of the vote in 2008, but neither House seat is a sure thing for Democrats at this point. Democrats look like they're headed for a bruising and expensive primary in Kirk's seat, and Republicans may end up with an appealing Kirk-style moderate in state Rep. Beth Coulson. In PA-06, Democrats appear to have settled on a wealthy but untested former newspaper editorial writer, Doug Pike, but Republicans may nominate an appealing candidate with an ability to self-fund as well.

Democrats are also touting candidates with potential crossover appeal in the substantially Republican districts being vacated by Reps. Adam Putnam (FL-12), Todd Tiahrt (KS-04), and Zach Wamp (TN-03). Of the three, Putnam's seat is by far the least heavily Republican and Democratic former state Rep. Lori Edwards has made the best head start. But the underlying partisan nature of these districts suggests Republicans would need to make mistakes or be severely tripped up in a primary to give Democrats any sort of opening.

Finally, what about that pesky November special election to replace Army Secretary-designate and GOP Rep. John McHugh in NY-23? The inexpensiveness of the district is likely to attract both parties' involvement, but Republican Assemblywoman Deirdre Scozzafava starts out with an advantage, given her ready-made base in the district's three largest counties and Democrats' lack of ground infrastructure in the district. Sure, Conservative Party candidate Doug Hoffman could attract a considerable share of Republicans away from the socially liberal Scozzafava, but Democratic attorney Bill Owens will need a more cohesive message on health care and a lot of DCCC air cover to capitalize on the split.

Scozzafava and Owens' lack of strict adherence to party doctrine will make it difficult for Upstate voters to see the race as a simple Democrat-versus-Republican affair. But, if Scozzafava can withstand a charge from her right and Democratic criticism of her business history to win, she would give Republicans an important psychological boost. In reality, parties shouldn’t find much reason to get excited about holding one of their own seats, especially when it’s one of the last three in the state. But the GOP would be able to crow about possessing momentum they didn't have in March, when Democrats held onto the neighboring 20th CD by 726 votes.