Month: March 2018

Democrats must pick up 23 seats to win a majority in the U.S. House of Representatives this November. They have plenty of openings since 68 seats currently held by Republicans are at varying levels of risk.

A race-by-race analysis at ScottRasmussen.com shows that 28 of these Republican seats are at a high level of risk (Democrat favored, Toss-Up, Tilt Republican). Fourteen more are modestly competitive while leaning in the GOP direction. Finally, 26 others might be at risk depending upon the political environment this fall.

Seven (7) Republican seats are already tilting or leaning to the Democrats. These are races where Republican incumbents like Frank LoBiondo (NJ-2) and Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (FL-27) retired.

Another 13 races are rated as pure toss-ups bringing the number of top-tier Democratic opportunities to 20. Five (5) are found in Pennsylvania due to a court-ordered redistricting plan and most are suburban districts.

Given that midterm election dynamics typically favor the party out of power, all 20 GOP seats rated as toss-ups or tilting in the Democratic direction could easily flip from R to D in November. Adding to the challenge for Republicans is that there are very few opportunities for GOP gains. Only two Democratic seats are rated as toss-ups.

While these realities are encouraging for Democrats, they can’t win the majority without defeating some Republican candidates who are currently favored. In fact, control might be determined by the results in eight (8) Republican seats currently rated as barely tilting in favor of the incumbent party. While each race has its own distinct characteristics, the results are likely to be reflective of the national political dialogue.

For example, Minnesota-3 could be decided by the electoral power of the Republican tax-cuts. In a district Clinton won by 9 points, Democrats hope to use that issue against incumbent Republican Erik Paulsen. On the other hand, Paulsen believes that “tax cuts and regulatory reform have created real momentum in our economy.”  If the tax cut message works, it will help Paulsen keep his job along with many other Republicans in competitive districts.

In Texas-3, John Culberson was seen early on as a potential target for Democrats. Clinton narrowly won his district and the incumbent was slow to build a campaign team and fundraise. But he may have caught a break due to the deep divide between progressives and more centrist candidates. National Democratic strategists openly opposed progressive Laura Moser in the primary, but she made it to the run-off anyhow.

The Democratic civil war may benefit Culberson and other Republicans hoping to keep their jobs. If progressive candidates like Moser are nominated, it could turn off more pragmatic voters. On the other hand, if more centrist Democrats are nominated, it’s not clear whether progressive voters will maintain their enthusiasm to vote in November.

If tax cuts and the Democratic civil war help candidates like Paulsen and Culberson win, the GOP might have a decent election night and retain narrow control of the House.  Still, even a good night for Paul Ryan’s party would probably mean losing 15 – 20 seats.

On the other hand, there’s a lot of potential upside for the Democrats. With 68 Republican seats at risk, Nancy Pelosi’s team can dream of a victory as big as the Republican gains in 2010.

Just over a week ago, turnout in the Texas primary raised serious questions about how big the Democratic wave could grow by November. This week, however, Connor Lamb won a narrow special victory in a Pennsylvania district that President Trump had carried by 20 points. Democratic spirits soared and some began dreaming that 100 or more Republican House seats could be at risk.

It’s natural for political types to overstate the importance of the most recent election or the one that’s coming up next. After all, convincing voters that the fate of the world hinges on the results is a key part of getting them out to vote. In reality, however, the events of the last two weeks are just early signs of what might happen rather than what will happen.  It’s important to keep things in perspective.

The good news for Democrats from both Texas and Pennsylvania is that President Trump has energized the opposition. The early results confirm polling and anecdotal evidence that Democratic voters are more excited about voting this cycle than Republicans. It’s almost a mirror image of what happened in 2010 when President Obama energized his opposition party.

If the enthusiasm advantage persists into November, the Democrats are likely to win a majority in the House of Representatives. A race-by-race analysis at ScottRasmussen.com currently projects that Nancy Pelosi’s party would end up with 222 seats while the Republicans would have only 213 (assuming a good turnout for the Democrats). And, there’s plenty of upside for the Democrats if the political winds keep blowing in their direction.

Another good sign for the Democrats is that some of these early expectations can take on the character of a self-fulfilling prophecy. A sense of momentum may help in recruiting top-tier candidates in competitive race and will certainly help the party’s fundraising. On the flip side of the coin, evidence of a coming Democratic wave could open up more opportunities by convincing even more Republican incumbents to retire.

But the recent results include warning signs for Democrats as well. The biggest is Connor Lamb himself. Lamb won in a heavily Trump district by running as a conservative. He proudly embraces the Second Amendment, is personally opposed to abortion, and pledged not to vote for Nancy Pelosi as Speaker. It’s not clear how many progressive Democratic voters are willing to accept such candidates as the price for winning.

In fact, most of the recent evidence suggests that the energy came from voters seeking more progressive candidates rather than centrists. Looking ahead, a primary next Tuesday in Illinois highlights the growing demands for ideological purity from the Democratic base. Seven term Congressman Dan Lipinsky is facing a serious challenge precisely because he has staked out policy positions similar to those of Connor Lamb.

If Democratic voters are unwilling to tolerate even moderately conservative candidates, their party’s path to victory will be severely limited. If the party’s messaging veers hard left and highlights themes such as single-payer health care and impeaching the president, then the Republicans will probably remain in control of Congress.

This is a good week for Democrats, but there are a lot of weeks left in Election 2018.

The election season got started this past Tuesday in Texas and the primary results are being analyzed for clues about what they mean for November.

The results confirmed that the Democratic enthusiasm is real, but it’s probably not strong enough to turn Texas blue. The number of votes cast in Democratic primaries nearly doubled from four years ago. However, the 1,037,779 Democratic voters fell half a million short of the GOP’s 1,543,674 votes. Primary votes don’t translate directly into General Election results, but there’s nothing in the data to suggest a big blue wave sweeping over Texas.

However, not all of America is like Texas. The Democratic enthusiasm on display in Texas could easily be enough to give Democrats control of Congress and make Nancy Pelosi the Speaker of the House. Texas results confirmed the conventional wisdom that millions of Democrats can’t wait to express their displeasure with President Donald Trump at the polls.

The question, though, is how excited Republicans are to defend their president and his agenda. His most enthusiastic supporters will be there, but what about the more reluctant Trump voters?

In 2016, the president was propelled to victory with the votes of people who didn’t think he was qualified for the job. Ten percent (10%) of all voters cast their ballot for him despite this enormous reservation. Why did they do so? Partly because they also thought his opponent was unqualified. In other words, Trump was the lesser of two evils.

Today, many of these voters probably disapprove of the president. They don’t like the way he conducts himself and the way that he ignores institutional norms. But, they are still glad he’s in office rather than Clinton. They believe it is good for the country that Neil Gorsuch is on the Supreme Court, that there is a serious effort to reduce the regulatory burden, and that taxes have been cut. Is that enough to get these voters to show up at the polls in November? How many of these voters may decide it’s just not worth the effort?

More than likely, the answer depends upon what the Democrats do. Will they nominate centrist candidates or progressives? From the perspective of reluctant Trump supporters, those two options look vastly different. A centrist establishment Democrat might not be that bad. In fact, some reluctant Trumpers might prefer such a candidate to a very conservative GOP candidate. But they would feel much differently about candidates from the left wing of the Democratic party.

The early indications from Texas suggest that the Democratic primary voters are more likely to prefer progressive Democrats and reject the establishment. If that trend continues nationwide, reluctant Trump supporters may conclude it’s worth the effort to show up and vote once again for the lesser of two evils.

Obviously, there’s a long way to go until votes are cast in November. In fact, there’s a long way to go before we even know who the Democrats will nominate in many key races. But it’s quite likely that the reluctant Trump supporters could determine control of Congress for the next two years.

A recent Politico headline shouted a message that liberal Democrats were longing to hear: “Gun control support surges in polls.” Given the fact that Republicans are generally opposed to strict gun controls, that seems like it should be a boost for the Democrats in the midterm election.

Despite that, many Democratic strategists worry that the gun control issue could backfire. Part of this concern stems from the fact that many Senate races are being held this year in GOP friendly states like West Virginia, Indiana, Missouri, and North Dakota. Democrats talking gun control in those states could hand victories to the other team.

But, even beyond certain states, buried in the Politico article is the fact that voters trust Republicans more than Democrats on the gun issue. Forty-one percent (41%) trust the GOP while 37% prefer the Dems. That may seem odd given apparent support for increased gun control, but the polling also showed that a plurality of Americans believes protecting the right of citizens to own guns is more important than limiting gun ownership.

The Democratic woes on this topic are probably the result of cultural differences more than narrow political positions. They simply don’t know how to talk to gun owners.

Most Republicans and half of all independents live in a household with a gun. According to Pew Research, just 25% of Democrats do the same. Guns are very rare in heavily Democratic urban areas, very common in Republican rural America, and fairly common in the contested suburbs.

Culturally, this means the Democrats live in a social circle where few own guns and many view them as an unmitigated evil with no redeeming qualities. Following a horrific mass shooting, they wonder when the rest of America will wake up and agree with them.

But most Americans have a more nuanced view. Rather than seeing guns as evil, 67% of gun owners say a primary reason they have a gun is for protection. Yes, they know that guns can cause problems, but the thought of giving up their gun makes them feel less safe.

Following a horror like the Parkland shootings, gun owners see children who were left unprotected. According to Pew data, 66% of gun owners believe teachers and other officials should be allowed to carry guns in elementary, middle, and high schools.

The polling data can’t possibly capture all the nuances of this discussion. Some people might think it’s great to have armed security guards at the school but want to keep guns away from teachers. Others might have different views. But the fact remains that many Americans believe both that guns can do great damage and are also essential for protection.

Importantly, regardless of the specific details, most Americans see that there are positive benefits to owning a gun. In fact, even half (52%) of non-gun-owners can see themselves owning a gun in the future.

In raw political terms, this helps explain how polls can show strong support for certain gun control measures while also showing that voters trust Republicans more on the issue. Many current and future gun owners can support modest restrictions such as background checks and waiting periods. But they get nervous with politicians who sound like such restrictions are only the first step to getting rid of all guns.