Skip to main content


Fri Oct 11, 2013 at 09:41 PM PDT

Yes We Can: A Rejoinder to Nate Cohn

by gurion05

Anybody who's been reading Nate Cohn at the New Republic the past couple weeks could be forgiven for thinking he's moved on from polling analysis to devote himself to a new passion: concern trolling. The message his pieces have constantly been giving off, at least implicitly, is that "Democrats have no chance of retaking the House in 2014, so not only don't get your hopes up, but don't even try." He started off on September 26 arguing that Wendy Davis has no chance of winning the Texas governor's race (an assessment that, to be fair, I agree with), followed by a series of articles explaining why the government shutdown won't be that bad for the GOP/could be worse/they'll recover/whatever.  Next came a couple of posts explaining why recent PPP polling (featured on this site) does not portend a Democratic House takeover, and arguing that Democrats will not retake the House even if they win the popular vote by 8 points. It's this latter article I chiefly want to respond to, but first let me say a few things:

1. I do intend to make the case for optimism regarding Democrats' 2014 prospects in the House, but I am not saying I think Democrats will retake the House, or even that they are likely to do so. I just think there is a greater chance it will happen than Nate Cohn and a lot of other commentators/prognosticators. Which brings me to a second point:
2. I don't really mean to pick on Nate Cohn (although in any case I doubt he cares what an anonymous, extremely sporadic DKE diarist thinks about him.) I just chose his articles because unlike Charlie Cook, Stu Rothenberg, etc, I follow him on twitter and see when he publishes new material.  I'm sure he does not actually intend to come off as a concern troll.
3. It is kind of strange to see Nate's pessimism re: 2014 while John Judis is apparently predicting the death of the GOP on the same website.(1)

So with that out of the way, let's take a look at what Nate had to say most recently:

1. Democrats are "far from likely" to take back the House in 2014 even if they win the popular vote by an 8% margin. Instead they will "probably" need a double-digit margin to do so.
2. Democrats can't repeat a "2006-esque" wave because prior to 2006, the GOP held 18 seats with a PVI of D+2 or greater, and now they only hold 2. In other words, there are many fewer Democratic targets.
3. Polling does not show Democrats with the double digit lead  they need to win back the House, and since the GOP can't sink any lower than they are right now, they won't get it.

Now, I do not intend to argue with his third point. I can't predict the future, neither can Nate Cohn, and neither can anyone else. On November 3, 2004, who would have predicted that 2 years later Democrats would retake the House and Senate, and 4 years later Barack Obama would be elected President? Absolutely nobody. I have no idea what polling numbers will look like a year from now, or what will happen in the US and the rest of the world to move those numbers. So maybe Nate's right on this point, and maybe he's not; I don't think it's really worthwhile to engage. Instead, what I do want to argue is that, if Democrats' polling numbers do hold up, and those numbers translate to a victory by 8% on Election Day 2014, or even by 7%, or even by 5-6%, Democrats will retake the House. Here is my thinking.

Let's start with a little bit of history. Since 1960, only twice has a party won a majority in the House while losing the popular vote: in 1996, when the GOP lost the popular vote by .07% but won 227 seats to the Democrats' 206, and last year, when the Democrats won the popular vote by 1.4% but took only 201 seats to the GOP's 234. For the Democrats to win the popular vote by  5% or more and still not win a majority of seats would be historically unprecedented. Of course, that doesn't mean it can't happen, but it should give all those pessimists out there a bit of a pause. Secondly, since 1960, 7 elections have seen one party gain 4.5% or more of the popular vote. In these 7 elections, the smallest number of seats gained was 26.(2) This number would, of course, be more than enough for the Democrats to take back the House next year.(3)

Now, let's take a look at what's out there in terms of pickup opportunities. Nate argues that in 2006, Dem pickups were dependent on seats with PVIs of D+2; of which the GOP held 18 prior to the 2006 elections but only 2 now. Therefore, "the best pick-up opportunities are already held by Democrats," and "a 2006-esque wave would only barely get the Democrats over the 17 seat threshold they need to take back the House in 2014." I think this is just plainly wrong.

Nate based his analysis on the PVI of the seats the Democrats took in 2006 and the PVI of Republican held seats today. If instead of PVI you look at the percentage that Obama took last year, we get some pretty different results. By my count(4), the GOP holds 5 seats where Obama took 52% or more of the vote. It holds 13 seats where Obama took at least 49% but less than 52% of the vote. And it holds 28 seats were Obama took at least 46% of the vote but less than 49%. Those numbers look quite different: if the Democrats can win half of the GOP seats where Obama took at least 49%, and 1/3 of the seats where he won between 46% and 49%, they'll have more than enough to retake the majority. It's not likely or easy, but it is certainly doable. If Democrats win the popular vote by 5% and don't do it, I'd be shocked; if they won by 8% and don't do it, I'll cover my apartment with framed Nate Cohn articles.

I think part of the issue here might be with PVI itself.(5) As far as I understand it, PVI is basically an indication of where a district stands in relation to the past 2 Presidential elections. So, in simplified terms, if the average GOP vote in the past 2 Presidential elections was 52%, and a particular district voted 51% for the GOP, that district would have a PVI of D+1, since it is 1 point more Democratic than the nation as a whole.

Where am I going with this? Well, in 2006, the GOP had won the past 2 Presidential elections(6), and the GOP vote in 2004 and 2000 averaged out to 49.3%. So in 2006 an R+1 district would, on average, have given 50.3% of the vote to GW, an R+2 district would have given him 51.3% of the vote, etc.  However, in the past 2 Presidential elections, the GOP has averaged only 46.5% of the vote. So now even an R+3 district will only have voted, on average, 49.5% for Romney.

All this is just to say that not all R+3 (or R+2, R+4, etc.) districts are created equal. If the country is voting 60% Democratic on average, even an R+7 district is still going to be within reach for the Dems. I think, though I'm not positive, that what Nate has done here is compare districts' current PVIs not with a modern PVI (ie calculated according to the 2012 and 2008 elections) based on their former borders, but with their 2006 PVIs-which were calculated according to the 2004 and 2000 elections. And if so, that's a problem. Because today, a district with a PVI of R+2 is a district that Romney and Obama about tied in, and that, all else being equal, Dems should have a pretty good shot at. In 2006, a district with a PVI of R+2 was a district that Bush beat Kerry in by about 4 points. Basically, I just don't think you can compare PVIs at different points in time like that, because the meaning of PVI is constantly changing.

That (hopefully) coherent aside on PVIs concluded, what's particularly strange here is that back in April Nate Cohn agreed with me!(7) I'd love to know what's changed his thinking since then.

(1)Side note: I haven't read Judis's article. Is it any good?
(2)By the Democrats in 1982.
(3)FYI, admittedly, 1960 was a completely arbitrary choice.
(4)Based on the Pres by CD numbers available on this site.
(5)I don't claim to be an expert, so maybe I'm understanding PVI incorrectly.
(6)Well, they really only won 1, but I digress.
(7) "Democrats could probably win the House with a modest victory in the House popular vote, perhaps something like the 4 or 5-point margin suggested by a FiveThirtyEight model in 2011."

Discuss

Sun Dec 02, 2012 at 02:39 PM PST

It wasn't just gerrymandering.

by gurion05

By now I think it's pretty universally known that Republicans will control the House of Representatives for the next 2 years despite losing the popular vote by, at last count, over 1 million votes.  And the seat count wasn't even that close: Republicans will have 234 to the Democrats' 201, or 16 more than are needed for a majority.  This success has been widely attributed to Republican gerrymandering, which was made possible by the GOP's sweeping success at the state level in the 2010 elections.  And to a large extent, this is hard to deny:  Republicans were able to force Democratic incumbents to run against each other, compel others to run in much redder districts, and draw new seats that would be difficult or impossible for any Democrat to win.

But what I want to argue here is that Republican gerrymandering, while certainly important, is not the whole story.  To illustrate, I want to focus on the 6 states of North Carolina, Virginia, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Indiana, and Michigan.  What do these states have in common?  Well, they were all, to some extent at least, swing states this time around, and in all the GOP controlled redistricting.(1)  Ultimately, Obama won 4 of these 6 states, taking in them a combined 50.6% of the vote.  However, of the 81 House seats these states contain, Democrats will go into the next Congress controlling only 23, or about 28%.  

Now, before getting into my argument there are 2 things I want to point out here: first, a lot of the damage here was done in 2010 when the GOP killed it in marginal districts, and second is to reiterate that GOP gerrymandering here was effective and cannot be ignored.

However, and this is what I (perhaps mistakenly) think has been overlooked so far: though Republicans controlled redistricting in these 6 states, there were still 17 districts where the President won between 47-50% of the vote.(2)  Of these 17 seats, Democrats won exactly 0 last November.(3)  If the numbers were reversed and it was instead Republicans who had won 0, we would be welcoming back Speaker Pelosi next January.  

Although I principally wanted to focus on the 6 states above, largely because the numbers are so extreme, the problem does not only exist there:  In Wisconsin there are another 3 districts where Obama got between 47%-50%, in Washington State another 2, in Florida 4.  Only 1 of those 9 districts was won by a Democrat (Patrick Murphy in FL-18.)(4)

So what is my point here?  I imagine most readers here will know that when you are drawing a gerrymander, the goal is not to maximize the number of 53-47 districts or, heaven forbid, 51-49 districts that favor your party.  Rather, depending on the specific area in question, you aim for districts where your party won 55-57% of the vote.  Any lower and, at least in theory, you risk allowing the other party to upset.  Well, although the GOP was in control in all the states discussed, there was only so much they could in the face of these states' light-blue or swing-state natures.  GOP candidates would have to do the rest.  Last month, they did, and as a result we have 2 more years of Speaker Boehner and divided government.

Maybe this was an obvious point, but I thought it was worth making: even in states were Republicans controlled redistricting and were absolutely ruthless (just take a look at the NC map if you doubt this), Democrats were left with a bunch of winnable districts.  Unfortunately, they largely failed to win them.  I'm not a campaign strategist, so I don't have any grand suggestions as to how to do it, but if we're going to retake the House this is going to have to change.

(1) IIRC the Democrats were actually in control of the VA State Senate when the congressional map was passed, but let the GOP do whatever they wanted in an  (ultimately unsuccessful) attempt to try to save their own skins.  For the purpose of this diary I am treating VA as if it was under full GOP control, since it effectively was (again, IIRC.)
(2)This was a rough calculation I did by looking at the drop-off for the President in each of these states and applying that to the 2008 numbers in this site's Pres. results by CD.  I know that the swing in each state will not be applied equally across each district, but I think my point will still hold when the final results are known.
(3)Although it should be noted that Mike McIntyre did hold NC's 7th district for the Dems.  Obama will probably end up with only around 40% of the vote here (!)  Of further note is that the next "reddest" district won by a Democrat in the states discussed here was PA-17, which Obama should end up winning by around 55-44.
(4)At the opposite end of this spectrum, strangely enough, is Arizona, where 3 districts fall into this range, and Democrats won all 3.  

Discuss
You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.

RSS

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site