CQ TODAY ONLINE NEWS
Nov. 17, 2009 – 12:01 a.m.
Democrats Who Don’t Retire Make Takeover Tougher
By Greg Giroux, CQ-Roll Call
A lack of competitive open-seat House races in 2010 could complicate Republican efforts to fully maximize a favorable national environment and make large seat gains after back-to-back elections where the political winds were blowing in the opposite direction.
So far, 18 members have announced they are not seeking re-election in 2010 and are running for other office — but only six of those races are currently considered competitive. No member has yet announced an outright retirement, which is unusual; at this point in the 2008 cycle, 14 members had announced their retirement and five others were running for Senate.
The number of members vacating seats in 2010 is certainly much lower than it was in 1994 — when Republicans last won control of the House from Democrats in the first midterm election of a Democratic administration. Next year, comeback-minded Republicans are confident the party will gain seats after big losses in the 2006 and 2008 elections, and they are hoping political elements will come together to produce a wave similar to 1994.
Rep. Kevin McCarthy of California, who heads candidate recruitment efforts for the National Republican Congressional Committee, acknowledged the low number of open House seats, but he said the 2010 elections won’t be kind to Democratic incumbents.
“I believe this is an anti-incumbent year. ... Where the majority has been taking people is not one that the country is supporting,” he said.
But with few House Democrats making this Congress their last, Republicans will need to defeat as many incumbents as they can if they want to win back the majority or at least make significant gains. In November 1994, the GOP defeated 34 House Democratic incumbents — much more than the net gain of 18 than the party made in open-seat races. The GOP hasn’t defeated more than five Democratic incumbents in any election cycle since.
Former Rep. Thomas M. Davis III of Virginia, who won the first of seven terms in 1994 and later headed the NRCC, wrote in U.S. News & World Report on Nov. 6 that “unlike in 1994, few vulnerable Democratic seats are currently open heading into the midterms.”
There are compelling reasons that explain the lower-than-average number of retirements. Barring a political catastrophe, House Democrats will still hold a majority in 2011 — and they’ll be able to work at least two more years with a Democratic White House.
Asked why House Democrats have few retirements this cycle, Rep. Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, said, “The Democrats just regained the majority in 2006, and Democratic members of Congress are excited by the fact that we now have a Democratic president that we can work with to enact a new agenda for America.”
It’s also understandable that there will be fewer retirements this cycle than in the 2012 cycle, when congressional boundaries will be redrawn and some members will retire rather than run in significantly altered districts.
In the 2008 cycle, House Republicans were badly hurt by retirements on their side. Of the 32 members who decided not to seek re-election — either to leave political life or to run for some other office — 26 were Republicans and just six were Democrats.
In the November elections, Republicans lost a dozen of their open seats and didn’t win a single Democratic open seat. By comparison, 14 GOP and five Democratic incumbents were defeated for re-election.
In 2010, Republicans are defending 12 of the 18 open seats, and only three of those are currently competitive.
The toughest open seat for Republicans to hold is the one Rep. Michael N. Castle of Delaware is giving up to run for Senate. Democrats also high on their chances of picking up the suburban seats being vacated by Reps. Mark Steven Kirk of Illinois and Jim Gerlach of Pennsylvania, who are leaving to run for Senate and governor, respectively.
“You have a number of significant Republican retirements — not a huge number, but in districts that present good pickup opportunities for the Democrats,” Van Hollen said.
The best opportunity for a GOP pickup in an open-seat race is in Louisiana’s 3rd District, a conservative-leaning area in the southeastern part of the state that Democratic Rep. Charlie Melancon is giving up to run for Senate. Louisiana has been trending Republican, and Sen. John McCain , R-Ariz., carried the 3rd with 61 percent in 2008 election.
The GOP is also targeting two other Democratic-held districts, where Reps. Joe Sestak of Pennsylvania and Paul W. Hodes of New Hampshire are running for Senate.
Both districts gave Obama 56 percent of the vote in the 2008 election, but Republicans are touting the fact that they have recruited top candidates in each race.
In Pennsylvania, the presumptive Republican nominee is Pat Meehan, a former U.S. attorney. In New Hampshire, GOP former Rep. Charles Bass is running to reclaim the seat he held for six terms before losing to Hodes in 2006.
“You look at what has transpired in these open seats already — good, good movement in there,” McCarthy said.
There will be more retirements in the 2010 cycle, and the bulk of them almost certainly will be announced within the next two or three months. In the 2008 cycle, 16 of the 32 House members who said they would not seek re-election made those plans public within one year of the November 2008 elections, with 12 of them saying so in November or December 2007 or in January 2008.
Comments
If the 1978 (Ds suffer modest loss but lose presidency in 80) and 1994 (Ds suffer monumental loss but retain presidency in '96) midterm results are any useful predictors...
While 2010 will not be an exact repeat of 1994 for the GOP, Greg, it may not have to be. Here's why---the Dems currently control 54 districts in which the incumbent intends to run for re-election and that flipped from R to D since Nov. 1996. By definition, these incumbents are not "entrenched" as were most of the D incumbents running for re-election in 1994. And, since these districts were recently represented by the GOP, these incumbents now are much more vulnerable to defeat in an anti-Dem year than their 1994 predecessors. Therefore, the GOP doesn't need wholesale Dem retirements to make substantial gains in 2010. While I don't expect the GOP to get the majority back in 2010 as things stand now, they should get a substantial net gain. If the Dems standing with the voters is exactly as it is today in Nov. 2010, any net gain less than the 30's for the GOP should be considered a missed opportunity.
Oh for pete's sake. The media is so stuck in this 'good news for Republicans'/gotta have a horse race tape loop. Republicans are going to have difficulty in 2010 because, for whatever misgivings some may have about Obama and the Democratic Congress, they remember who put the economy in the ditch in the first place, they remember who neglected the war in Afghanistan, and they think of the GOP as the party of the cheap gimmick - Sarah Palin, Joe the Plumber, and so on - with no real answers for America. They just want power back and that is nakedly obvious to everyone but the true believers who watch Fox News Channel all day long and think that the entire nation is ready to overthrow Obama.
You don't bother explaining why you think there is a " favorable national environment " for Republicans. They poll very low, they offer no solutions to the problems they created just more obstructionism. I guess this is just conventional wisdom in DC - it's always good for Republicans. Either that or the writer is very impressed with the corporate astoturf campaigns, the teabaggery and the wisdom of Sarah Palin. Please show some intellectual honesty and explain the premise of your article.
What kind of half-baked article is this? The lede itself is fundamentally flawed. What is "the favorable national environment for Republicans"? While the GOP captured two gubernatorial seats--in elections which were hardly viewed as referendums on just 10 months of Democratic rule in DC--they lost two Congressional seats, including one that was a traditional GOP stronghold essentially abandoned as part of an attempt to purge moderates from the party. Did all of this escape your notice or did you choose to ignore it because it would have undermined your story?
The current national environment is SOOOO favorable to Republicans that they are only competitive in 1/3 of the open seat races. Also, the environment is SOOOO unfavorable to Dems that, in unusually high numbers, they are choosing to run for reelection. Makes sense to me! Sounds like great news for the Republican Party! The head of GOP candidate recruitment even TOLD ME SO!
The current national environment is SOOOO favorable to Republicans that they are only competitive in 1/3 of the open seat races. Also, the environment is SOOOO unfavorable to Dems that, in unusually high numbers, they are choosing to run for reelection. Makes sense to me! Sounds like great news for the Republican Party! The head of GOP candidate recruitment even TOLD ME SO!
Alpha--yes; also misleading here was the differential rates of retirements in 2008. From a horse-race perspective, the stat is significant, of course. But the *reason* there were so many retirements was non-random: the ever-increasing alienation of moderate Republicans, which has intensified since Nov. 2008.
so the dems pick up 5 seats in the last month and that is good for republicans?
Sarah Palin strikes more fear into the hearts of liberals than the sight of a crucifix and a wooden stake. I can't wait for 2010 !!!
POST A COMMENT
Oops! The following errors must be addressed: