Control of the House is a far stretch in 2014, but it is not so far of a stretch as some on dKos have suggested. WE can possibly reach it. If we sit on the sidelines and moan, THEY, the Democratic-Party establishment, cannot. First, compare this century's congressional elections:
Year |
kD |
kR |
Diff |
% |
Swing |
4YC-D |
4YC-R |
4YC-Tot |
2000 |
46,412 |
46,750 |
-338 |
-0.36 |
x |
x |
x |
x |
2002 |
33,642 |
37,091 |
-3,449 |
-4.88 |
-4.51 |
x |
x |
x |
2004 |
52,745 |
55,713 |
-2,968 |
-2.74 |
2.14 |
6,333 |
8,963 |
15,296 |
2006 |
42,082 |
35,675 |
6,407 |
8.24 |
10.98 |
8,440 |
-1,416 |
7,024 |
2008 |
64,888 |
51,953 |
12,935 |
11.07 |
2.83 |
12,143 |
-3,760 |
8,383 |
2010 |
38,854 |
44,594 |
-5,740 |
-6.88 |
-17.95 |
-3,228 |
8,919 |
5,691 |
2012 |
59,646 |
58,228 |
1,417 |
1.20 |
8.08 |
-5,242 |
6,275 |
1,033 |
Let's start with the table headers. "kD" and "kR" are the reported Democratic and Republican votes for Congress in
thousands. (Source
Statistical Abstract of the United States various years. For 2012 votes, Wikipedia.) "Diff" was the Democratic lead (in negative numbers if the Republicans led). The "%" was the lead in percent of the
Two-Party vote. "Swing" is the change in percentage lead from 2 years before. "4YC-D" is the four-year change in the Democratic vote -- the increase (decrease if it is negative) in the Democratic vote from
four years before. That avoids the regular drop off in votes in off years; it also confuses somewhat the effects of this election with the effects of registration drives for the previous election. "4YC-R" is the increase in the Republican vote from four years before. "4YC-Tot" is the total (2-party) change.
2012
Okay. Let's say it once more. It is unconscionable that the Republicans have such a large majority in Congress after the Democrats had a slight majority of the votes for Congress. One of the largest swings in recent years resulted in only a one-seat net gain. (Aside from Illinois, where the Democrats did the gerrymandering, Republicans gained seats while losing % of the vote.)
On the other hand, the Democratic lead in votes in 2012 was a minor lead in historical terms, the second smallest in this century. Democrats can, and have, done better than that. The gerrymanders are the situation. The question is how we are going to deal with the situation. And the gerrymanders are not the only aspects of the situation. The House Republicans have a record, and the record is -- while it has been bad for the country -- fine for people trying to target them.
I want to post tomorrow on the ways we -- ordinary citizens of Daily Kos -- can affect these contests. Let me spend this diary on what these tables reveal.
The first thing that this teaches us is that even if swing voters are as mythical as some on the blog would claim, even so the totals act like they were -- particularly the drops in each party. If nearly 4 million fewer people voted for Republican congressional candidates in 2008 than voted for Republican congressional candidates in 2004, do you really think that most of the change was people who would have voted R, but stayed home during a red-hot presidential year?
The Democratic vote in 2010, similarly, had a major drop off from the vote in 2006 as well as from the wild election of 2008. It's hard to believe than none of them were in the Republican column. And the story of 2010 was not only people who failed to vote Democratic. Nearly 9 million more people voted Republican than had four years before.
Indeed, the drop off in 2-party congressional votes from the previous election was almost exactly the same in 2010 (28.6%) as it was in 2006 (28.3%). In contrast, the election of 2002 only saw a 24% drop off.
A million more people voted for Congress in 2012 than in 2008, and five million fewer people voted for Democratic congressional candidates. Some of those have died, of course, but most of them live and can be recovered for our side.
Indeed the only election in this list where both parties gained votes over the election four years previously was 2004, and the Republicans beat us 60-40 in gains. (The presidential vote rose 17 million in 2004 over 2000. Despite impressions that -- certainly my impression -- that 2008 set a record for gains, it only rose 9 million between 2004 and 2008.)
Now, the total vote isn't what counts. It does, however, show a sort of average as to how well campaigns do. Our side did great in 2006 and 2008. We did abysmally in 2010. We didn't do so hot in Congressional races in 2012. (That might be because we were concentrating on the presidential race.)