As long as Bush remains unpopular, there are no more safe Republican House seats. That’s the message I want to get across. But first:
It’s been a long time since I made a map of Bush’s approval ratings. But Bush has been holding steady at record low approval ratings for the past four months – I just had to see that lovely sea of blue spread across the country. The problem is, Survey USA is now doing 16-state surveys instead of 50-state surveys. So, averaging all the polls I could find over four months, and throwing in a few estimates, here you go, everybody:
Click to enlarge.
Why the heck should we care about Bush’s approval ratings anymore? Because they could guarantee our majorities in the House and Senate. An explanation below.
Ahhhhh......
What a soothing picture. Deep calming blue in the Northeast, with just a spot of green from our friends in Rhode Island, leading the way with approval of Bush in the teens. The solid south – solidly disapproving of Bush, that is. And of course that persistent pink stain in the mountains.
But what does this mean? Well, one thing we know is that approval of Bush’s handling of the Iraq war is generally a few points below his general approval rating. So looking at this map, we should be seeing every single Senator voting against Bush’s war plans. But we’re not: now that might be good for electing Democrats in 2008 and 2010, but it’s not good for the soldiers and their families or our national security. So, Senators, act in your own self interest and oppose Bush.
Numbers note
The approval ratings for 28 states came from averages of polls that were conducted from January to April 2007 available at SurveyUSA and Pollster.com. Also, I found two polls for Utah (see below). For the remaining states, approval ratings were calculated from a regression of Survey USA polling averages from January to April versus those from June to October for 16 states. For an example, see this diary.
Our friends in Utah
What with Mayor Rocky Anderson of Salt Lake City calling for impeachment, and the alternative commencement at BYU protesting Dick Cheney, why is Utah still so stubbornly pink? One poll puts approval of Bush at 61% in January and another at 56%. Otherwise, the estimate would be 52%; the map shows a compromise between the two. But the true approval may well have diminished since January. Another poll shows support for Bush’s handling of the war among Utah’s Mormons tumbled in the five months prior to January, from 65% to 44%, possibly due to negative comments about war in general (from the LDS leader Gordon Hinckley) and the Iraq war in particular (from prominent Mormon politicians). Support for Bush’s handling of the war among all Utahns was 41%. Again, Iraq war job approval is generally only a few points below overall job approval for Bush. Once people decide they disapprove of the war, they may decide they don’t approve of the Decider either. Don’t give up on Utah yet!
So what? Bush is a fried duck anyways.
A lot of people have posed this question, in my diaries and elsewhere. My stock reply was that Bush’s low approval ratings represented an opportunity for Democrats, but was no guarantee of electoral success. This turned out to be true. Now I have some more detailed answers, from looking at data from the 2006 House elections. I served the pretty map for dessert first: now here’s the meal.
Democrats
Let’s look at seats held by Democrats first. The following graph compares the percent of votes received by the Republican to the estimated presidential approval rating in a given district for districts held by Democrats. Estimates of Bush’s approval ratings were calculated as discussed in this diary, and have an error of approximately plus or minus five percentage points.
Click to enlarge.
If all those and only those who approved of Bush voted for Republicans, and all approval estimates were correct, all the dots would fall along the solid line, which marks a 1:1 ratio. The dashed line is there to give an approximation of the highest possible approval rating, given the error involved in calculating the approval rating.
Many points fall below the solid line. This means many people who approved of Bush voted for their incumbent Democratic representative anyway, showing the power of incumbency. This power of incumbency results in a lack of qualified opponents and/or increased loyalty to the current representative.
Those who do not approve of Bush, did not vote for a Republican when a Democrat was an incumbent. The same is true for open seats held by Democrats in the previous Congress. The lines are therefore an estimate of the maximum support possible for Republicans in Democratic-held districts.
There are three districts that are above the dashed line and do not follow these rules very well – IN-7 and IA-3, both with incumbents with severe recent illnesses, and WI-2, which has an incumbent who is openly gay.
If similar dynamics are in play for the 2008 elections – record low approval ratings for Bush, and a strong connection between Bush and the Republican party, we would expect to keep all the seats currently held by Democrats in the House, except in unusual circumstances.
Republicans
Here’s a similar graph for Republicans. I’ve added a new line that shows the vote Bush had in 2004 in each district. Incumbent Republicans ought to do at least as well as Bush did in 2004. That a large number did not is telling.
Click to enlarge.
Again, if all those and only those who approved of Bush voted for Republicans, and all approval estimates were correct, all the dots would fall along the solid line, which marks a 1:1 ratio. The dashed line is there to give an approximation of the lowest possible approval rating, given the error in estimating the approval rating.
Many points fall above the thin solid line. This means many people who disapproved of Bush voted for their incumbent Republican representative anyway, showing the power of incumbency on the Republican side. This power of incumbency was lessened, however, as we might also expect the baseline for local Republican support to be not the approval of Bush this year, but the vote for Bush in 2004. The thick purple line shows Bush’s 2004 support. As we can see, Republican support was not typically much above this line.
Those who did approve of Bush, did vote for a Republican when a Republican was an incumbent. The same is true for open seats held by Republicans in the previous Congress. The black lines therefore are an estimate of the minimum support possible for Republicans in Republican-held districts. Competitive districts generally fell between this minimum and the 2004 support for Bush.
There are three districts that are below the dashed line and do not follow these rules very well – OH-18 and TX-22, both with incumbents who did not run for reelection because of corruption charges, and IN-8, the ‘bloody eighth.’ WY-AL is also marked; ID-1 is the dot right above it.
If similar dynamics are in play for the 2008 elections, we would expect every Republican seat to be potentially competitive, depending on recruitment and funding on the Democratic side (and of course other factors). Remember, current Bush approval levels are lower than those used to make these graphs, so the minimum Republican support line has fallen.
All the data for the 2006 House elections plotted together can be seen here.
Conclusions
To repeat:
If similar dynamics are in play for the 2008 elections – record low approval ratings for Bush, and a strong connection between Bush and the Republican party, we would expect to keep all the seats currently held by Democrats in the House, except in unusual circumstances.
Also, we would expect every Republican seat to be potentially competitive, depending on recruitment and funding on the Democratic side (and of course other factors, such as popularity of the incumbent, although that can be changed by Democratic campaigning). But there are no districts that are inherently too Republican or too conservative.
Democrats have little control over Bush’s popularity; some control over the link of Brand Republican to Bush.
But we do have control over candidate recruitment and funding.
It’s early in the cycle. Last time we said we should run a candidate in every district. Detractors said it was a waste, that most districts would never elect a Democrat. The 2006 elections showed this was not true, and these graphs show why. How about a new goal? Run a serious, funded candidate in every district, because it is possible for a Democrat to win in every district. There are no more safe Republican districts.