Democrat Staci Appel's effort to snare a GOP-held open U.S. House seat in Iowa is a high-profile 2014 race.
To conclude our three-part series assessing the validity of all this "Republican Wave" talk that we have heard from the pundit classes over the past month or so, we turn our attention to the U.S. House of Representatives.
Usually, given the sheer bulk of the U.S. House (435 seats), it is in that chamber that we ordinarily see the most tangible evidence of electoral waves. Unlike the Senate, where movement of five seats or less is fairly typical in recent decades, the House can swing on the order double digit gains and losses fairly easily.
But in this particular cycle, given the heated battle over the control of the U.S. Senate, there has been virtually no attention placed on the state of play in the House. This lack of focus has been augmented by the fact that virtually no credible analyst thinks the U.S. House is in play. However, if one were to make a legitimate argument that a GOP wave was building, we'd be seeing evidence of major Democratic erosion in their House contingent.
Is that happening? Well, we don't have a ton of data, but we have some: just over 70 different House races have been polled this cycle. So we turn our focus to the House races this time around, seeing if the "wave" narrative holds up in the place where we'd be the most likely to expect it.
But, first, feel free to peruse a sizable mass (owed in no small part to the monthly YouGov downpour) that have come across our desks in the past four days (10/3 through 10/6). In all, we have a total of 80 polls for you to examine, before we narrow our focus on the state of play in the U.S. House.
AK-Sen (YouGov): Dan Sullivan (R) 48, Sen. Mark Begich (D) 42
AR-Sen (YouGov): Tom Cotton (R) 45, Sen. Mark Pryor (D) 41
CO-Sen (YouGov): Sen. Mark Udall (D) 48, Cory Gardner (R) 45
DE-Sen (YouGov): Sen. Chris Coons (D) 51, Kevin Wade (R) 35
GA-Sen (Insider Advantage): David Perdue (R) 47, Michelle Nunn (D) 43, Amanda Swafford (L) 3
GA-Sen (Rasmussen): David Perdue (R) 46, Michelle Nunn (D) 42
GA-Sen (YouGov): David Perdue (R) 47, Michelle Nunn (D) 43, Amanda Swafford (L) 2
HI-Sen (YouGov): Sen. Brian Schatz (D) 71, Cam Cavasso (R) 17
IA-Sen (Loras College): Bruce Braley (D) 42, Joni Ernst (R) 42
IA-Sen (Magellan—R): Joni Ernst (R) 50, Bruce Braley (D) 41
IA-Sen (Marist): Joni Ernst (R) 46, Bruce Braley (D) 44
IA-Sen (YouGov): Bruce Braley (D) 44, Joni Ernst (R) 43
ID-Sen (YouGov): Sen. Jim Risch (R) 64, Nels Mitchell (D) 27
IL-Sen (YouGov): Sen. Dick Durbin (D) 51, Jim Oberweis (R) 39
KS-Sen (Gravis—R): Greg Orman (I) 47, Sen. Pat Roberts (R) 40
KS-Sen (Marist): Greg Orman (I) 48, Sen. Pat Roberts (D) 38, Randall Batson (L) 5
KS-Sen (YouGov): Sen. Pat Roberts (R) 40, Greg Orman (I) 40, Randall Batson (L) 2
KY-Sen (SurveyUSA): Alison Lundergan Grimes (D) 46, Sen. Mitch McConnell (R) 44, David Patterson (L) 3
KY-Sen (YouGov): Sen. Mitch McConnell (R) 47, Alison Lundergan Grimes (D) 41, David Patterson (L) 2
LA-Sen Primary (YouGov): Sen. Mary Landrieu (D) 36, Bill Cassidy (R) 32, Rob Maness (R) 4, Thomas Clements (R) 3, Raymond Brown (D) 2, Brannon McMorris (L) 2
LA-Sen Runoff (YouGov): Bill Cassidy (R) 47, Sen. Mary Landrieu (D) 41
MA-Sen (YouGov): Sen. Ed Markey (D) 54, Brian Herr (R) 31
ME-Sen (YouGov): Sen. Susan Collins (R) 57, Shenna Bellows (D) 33
MI-Sen (PPP—D): Gary Peters (D) 49, Terri Land (R) 42
MI-Sen (YouGov): Gary Peters (D) 46, Terri Land (R) 41
MN-Sen (YouGov): Sen. Al Franken (D) 49, Mike McFadden (R) 42
MS-Sen (YouGov): Sen. Thad Cochran (R) 46, Travis Childers (D) 35
MT-Sen (YouGov): Steve Daines (R) 55, Amanda Curtis (D) 34
NC-Sen (Marist): Sen. Kay Hagan (D) 44, Thom Tillis (R) 40, Sean Haugh (L) 7
NC-Sen (YouGov): Sen. Kay Hagan (D) 46, Thom Tillis (R) 45, Sean Haugh (L) 2
NE-Sen (YouGov): Ben Sasse (R) 58, David Domina (D) 31
NH-Sen (YouGov): Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D) 48, Scott Brown (R) 41
NJ-Sen (Monmouth): Sen. Cory Booker (D) 53, Jeff Bell (R) 38
NJ-Sen (YouGov): Sen. Cory Booker (D) 51, Jeff Bell (R) 37
NM-Sen (Gravis—R): Sen. Tom Udall (D) 53, Allen Weh (R) 36
NM-Sen (YouGov): Sen. Tom Udall (D) 53, Allen Weh (R) 35
OK-Sen-A (SoonerPoll): Sen. Jim Inhofe (R) 56, Matt Silverstein (D) 32
OK-Sen-A (YouGov): Sen. Jim Inhofe (R) 67, Matt Silverstein (D) 25
OK-Sen-B (SoonerPoll): James Lankford (R) 56, Connie Johnson (D) 28
OK-Sen-B (YouGov): James Lankford (R) 65, Connie Johnson (D) 24
OR-Sen (YouGov): Sen. Jeff Merkley (D) 52, Monica Wehby (R) 39
RI-Sen (YouGov): Sen. Jack Reed (D) 64, Mark Zaccaria (R) 22
SC-Sen-A (YouGov): Sen. Lindsey Graham (R) 44, Brad Hutto (D) 27, Thomas Ravenel (I) 8
SC-Sen-B (YouGov): Sen. Tim Scott (R) 54, Joyce Dickerson (D) 31
SD-Sen (YouGov): Mike Rounds (R) 42, Rick Weiland (D) 27, Larry Pressler (I) 12
TN-Sen (YouGov): Sen. Lamar Alexander (R) 53, Gordon Bell (D) 32
TX-Sen (Rasmussen): Sen. John Cornyn (R) 50, David Alameel (D) 29
TX-Sen (YouGov): Sen. John Cornyn (R) 55, David Alameel (D) 35
VA-Sen (YouGov): Sen. Mark Warner (D) 51, Ed Gillespie (R) 39, Robert Sarvis (L) 1
WV-Sen (YouGov): Shelley Moore Capito (R) 56, Natalie Tennant (D) 33
WY-Sen (YouGov): Sen. Mike Enzi (R) 75, Charlie Hardy (D) 17
CT-Gov (PPP—D): Gov. Dan Malloy (D) 43, Tom Foley (R) 35, Joe Visconti (I) 9
GA-Gov (Insider Advantage): Gov. Nathan Deal (R) 44, Jason Carter (D) 43, Andrew Hunt (L) 4
GA-Gov (Rasmussen): Gov. Nathan Deal (R) 49, Jason Carter (D) 43
IA-Gov (Magellan—R): Gov. Terry Branstad (R) 55, Jack Hatch (D) 39
IA-Gov (Marist): Gov. Terry Branstad (R) 58, Jack Hatch (D) 36
KS-Gov (Fort Hays State Univ): Paul Davis (D) 39, Gov. Sam Brownback (R) 37, Keen Umbehr (L) 9
KS-Gov (Gravis—R): Paul Davis (D) 48, Gov. Sam Brownback (R) 40
KS-Gov (Marist): Paul Davis (D) 44, Gov. Sam Brownback (D) 43, Keen Umbehr (L) 4
MA-Gov (SocialSphere/Boston Globe): Charlie Baker (R) 39, Martha Coakley (D) 36
MA-Gov (YouGov for UMass): Martha Coakley (D) 48, Charlie Baker (R) 44
MD-Gov (Univ. of Maryland): Anthony Brown (D) 47, Larry Hogan (R) 38
MI-Gov (PPP—D): Gov. Rick Snyder (R) 47, Mark Schauer (D) 46
MN-Gov (Rasmussen): Gov. Mark Dayton (D) 50, Jeff Johnson (R) 40
MN-Gov (SurveyUSA): Gov. Mark Dayton (D) 51, Jeff Johnson (R) 39, Hannah Nicollet (I) 4
NH-Gov (Univ. of New Hampshire): Gov. Maggie Hassan (D) 46, Walt Havenstein (R) 36
NM-Gov (Gravis—R): Gov. Susana Martinez (R) 48, Gary King (D) 44
OK-Gov (SoonerPoll): Gov. Mary Fallin (R) 50, Joe Dorman (D) 36
SD-Gov (Nielson Brothers): Gov. Dennis Daugaard (R) 53, Susan Wismer (D) 28, Mike Myers (I) 10
TX-Gov (Rasmussen): Greg Abbott (R) 51, Wendy Davis (D) 40
WI-Gov (Gravis—R): Gov. Scott Walker (R) 50, Mary Burke (D) 46
AZ-01 (Northstar Opinion Research—D): Andy Tobin (R) 48, Rep. Ann Kirkpatrick (D) 42
FL-02 (National Research—R): Rep. Steve Southerland (R) 45, Gwen Graham (D) 39
FL-02 (Anzalone Liszt Grove—D): Gwen Graham (D) 48, Rep. Steve Southerland (D) 45
IL-10 (We Ask America—R): Rep. Brad Schneider (D) 46, Bob Dold! (R) 44
IL-11 (We Ask America—R): Rep. Bill Foster (D) 47, Darlene Senger (R) 44
IL-17 (We Ask America—R): Rep. Cheri Bustos (D) 50, Bobby Schilling (R) 41
ND-AL (WPA Opinion Research—R): Rep. Kevin Cramer (R) 48, George Sinner (D) 38
NJ-03 (National Research—R): Tom MacArthur (R) 44, Aimee Belgard (D) 37
SD-AL (Nielson Brothers): Rep. Kristi Noem (R) 55, Corinna Robinson (D) 37
With today marking the point where we are precisely four weeks away from Election Day, we conclude our examination of the validity of the suddenly trendy "2014 is a Republican wave year" narrative.
Last Tuesday, we looked and saw that there while there was movement in month of September in the GOP direction in most (82 percent) of the top-tier Senate races, that movement has been relatively modest, with few moving more than 0-2 percentage points. Our
Senate Election Outlook model has long predicted that the GOP were a modest favorite to claim control of the U.S. Senate, but longtime DKE readers already know that this shift has long been a source of concern, and was based far more on a perilous class of candidates (those who won in an excellent Democratic cycle in 2008) and a brutal map, as opposed to some building Republican momentum surge in the electorate.
Last Friday, we turned our attention to the gubernatorial races on the docket this cycle, where the evidence of "GOP wave"-dom was even less in evidence. In the top 16 races for governor, half edged in the GOP's direction, but half moved towards the Democrats. What's more: our own Election Explorer model has long held the belief that the most likely outcome in the gubernatorial balance of power is anywhere between a wash to a Democratic gain of two statehouses. Given the GOP holds most of the governorships in play, this is not a terrible outcome for them. But it is nowhere in the ballpark of evidence of a wave favoring the red team.
Today, we conclude with the battles for the U.S. House. This analysis, admittedly, is on the shakiest foundations of the three focal points of U.S. elections. For one thing, the data pool is tiny. Where some statewide elections have been polled exhaustively (the Michigan Senate race, for example, has been polled 49 times by itself), there is not a single House race that has been polled more than 10 times (that would be the rematch in NH-01).
What's more: most of the data here comes from campaigns and affiliated sources. Meaning that, unlike in the statewides, there are relatively few nonpartisan House polls to draw from. Indeed, of the 160 House polls conducted to date (a number that will assuredly rise), close to 60 percent of them were conducted for a partisan client. Factor in partisan pollsters who were apparently polling on their own dime, and it goes well over 60 percent.
Just the same, we can learn from the data, even in its present form. After all, it has always been an article of faith among many poll watchers (myself among them) that an unanswered partisan poll is, for all intents and purposes, an unwitting confirmation of said poll.
(Which, by the way, is why when party committees or campaigns scoff at a rival poll, without offering any hard evidence to the contrary, it is the most sad and hollow of all pushbacks known to man.)
So, let's take the data we have, and look at how it relates to the last House elections. Are the Republicans in this year's class outperforming their 2012 brethren (and...I dunno...sistren)?
For 2014 to be a wave year, one has to assume that the GOP has to pick up quite a few seats. After all, having one solid election year, as it relates to the House, doesn't preclude a party from having another one shortly thereafter. The Democrats picked off 20+ seats in both 2006 and 2008, for example. For those who would argue that Republicans maxed out in 2010, thus limiting future gains, consider the fact that the GOP majority at present is pretty much identical to the Democratic one in 2006. And yet the Democrats managed to snag another 20+ seats in 2008.
So, let's look at where the individual House polls stand relative to the results in 2012. The rubric here is a simple one. If the 2014 polling to date is more than three percentage points away from the 2012 result, we state that the race is one in which one party has "improved" its standing since 2012. If it is within three points in either direction, we state that the race is "neutral."
In a wave year, of course, we'd expect a greatly disproportionate "improvement" for one side over the other. Is that what we have to date? Let's check:
DEMOCRATIC "IMPROVEMENT" DISTRICTS (27): AK-AL, AR-02, AR-04, CA-33, CO-06, DE-AL, FL-02, FL-15, FL-18, IA-03, KS-02, KS-03, LA-06, MA-06, ME-01, MI-07, MI-08, NC-02, ND-AL, NH-02, NJ-02, NJ-03, NY-11, PA-06, PA-10, VA-10, WV-02
"NEUTRAL" DISTRICTS (25): AR-01, AZ-02, CA-03, CA-07, CA-10, CA-52, IA-02, IA-04, IL-10, IL-17, MI-11, MN-02, MN-08, MT-AL, NC-06, NE-02, NV-03, NH-01, NJ-05, NY-01, NY-18, NY-24, OK-05, SD-AL, WV-03
REPUBLICAN "IMPROVEMENT" DISTRICTS (19): AZ-01, CA-21, CA-26, CA-41, FL-26, GA-12, HI-01, HI-02, IA-01, IL-11, IL-12, IL-13, KY-06, ME-02, MN-07, NY-04, NY-19, NY-21, UT-04
(**)—AR-03 polling, to date, is less Republican than 2012 results, but the GOP opponent is not a Democrat, and thus is not included in this tally. Also not included in the tally was WA-04, because the polling pitted the two general election candidates, both of whom are Republicans.
(For those interested in the polling, click here. For uniformity in the 2012 results, we just went with this as a summary resource, with the exception of California, where their numbers, for whatever reason, were way off.)
Now, I will be the first to admit the flaws here. Relative improvement from 2012 can, in the scheme of things, mean precisely jackshit. Of course, for example, FL-15 is closer—the Democrats didn't bother to field anyone in 2012! Likewise, Republicans are indeed closer in NY-04 now than they were in 2012. But they are still down 18 (in an open seat race, no less!). So, that's a pretty weak argument for a "OMG! Waaaaaave!" declaration.
That said, the data, taken as a whole, hardly makes the case for Republican momentum. Democrats are (marginally) better suited in more districts in 2014, relative to 2012.
So why are most analysts predicting a net GOP gain in 2014? Because of two factors, really. For one thing, the GOP has a handful of almost certain gimmes (NC-07, NY-21, and UT-04), and the Democrats basically have...one (CA-31). Furthermore, as our own race ratings suggest, there are more perilous Democratic seats being seriously contested than GOP seats.
But virtually everyone is projecting modest GOP gains, at best. This, too, speaks to the absence of a wave. In a wave election, as happened in 2006 and 2008, the GOP would be playing virtually no defense at all. Yet they are, as recent polls in surprising locales of GOP vulnerability would attest (ND-AL? AR-02?). And marginal Democratic seats would be on the radar. After all, our recent epidemic of wave (and quasi-wave) elections tells us that, in those cycles, even districts thought to be basically unassailable fall by the wayside.
The bottom line is simply this: based on the evidence to date, it is pretty fanciful to call this a wave year. With four weeks to go, of course, things could break late. But anyone declaring this a "Republican year" now is doing so based on an interpretation of the "fundamentals" of the cycle, because it is pretty tough to look at the individual race data and see pending Democratic disaster. It's hard to see Democratic bliss, either, by the way. What seems to be the theme, if one exists, is that very little has changed since the start of the cycle: the Senate sucks for reasons we have known for quite some time, and the gubernatorial and House elections feel pretty close to a wash. At least, that's what the data tells us thus far.