5 questions for 5 analysts: What will happen Election Day, what it means

5 questions for 5 analysts: What will happen Election Day, what it means


Question: What sets this election apart from others that have taken place over the past decade?


Jennifer Duffy, senior editor of the Cook Political Report: The level of voter anger and the increased level of incivility really stand out to me. I've never heard a candidate for statewide office tell the president to "shove it," as Rhode Island Democrat Frank Caprio did, or another candidate say that if elected he hopes for headlines that read "Gov. LePage tells Obama to go to Hell."

Larry Sabato, director of the Center for Politics at the University of Virginia: This is the first initial midterm of a Democratic president in 16 years. Oddly, Obama's first midterm election is looking a lot like Bill Clinton's first midterm in 1994. Democratic presidents are starting to have real problems early in their terms — although a sample of two is very, very small.

Linda Fowler, professor of government at Dartmouth College: The economy. We haven't had unemployment rates this high since 1982. Every forecasting model that any political scientist has ever run indicates that when you have an economy running this badly, the party that the president controls gets punished pretty heavily.

Earl Black, co-author of "America Divided" and a political scientist at Rice University in Houston: This is the first election really since Lyndon Johnson's Great Society where we've had a very liberal Democratic president move to enact a highly ambitious program, health care being the most obvious, and to do this in the face of national public opinion that was opposed to the bill. This has created a lot of opposition.



Bill Whalen, research fellow at the Hoover Institution and a GOP media consultant: That would be the "wave" dynamic seemingly working to the Republicans' advantage for the first time in 16 years and President Clinton's first midterm test. ... (T)his is the first time the GOP is looking at landmark congressional gains (plus gaining a majority advantage among governorships) since Newt Gingrich and the Contract With America.

Question: Why are the Democrats so vulnerable this go-around?

Duffy: Democrats have made a number of missteps. Congressional Democrats started this Congress on a very partisan note that set the tone for the last 22 months. They forgot that they have independent voters to thank for their majorities and didn't focus on issues important to them.

Sabato: The lion's share of blame for the Democrats' predicament goes to a bad economy and high unemployment rate. The Great Recession has left America battered, and as a people we're not known for patience in waiting for change. But President Obama has contributed to his problems. Like almost all candidates he has overpromised and underdelivered.

Fowler: The economy. President Obama's approval rating is not helping. Democrats are always more vulnerable in off-year elections, because theirs are more ephemeral voters: younger voters, minority voters, lower-income voters, who tend not to vote in off-year elections.

Black: Because the Democrats have moved so far to the left in terms of Obama's agenda that they have passed. Health care is a bill with enormous impact on the economy, and they did it on an almost completely partisan vote.

Whalen: Like the movie "The Perfect Storm," I like to think of this as several storms colliding at the same time. First factor: overreach on the part of the Democrats. Second factor: no way Obama could live up to the hype and anticipation that greeted him on Inauguration Day. Factor three: Despite the talk of "hope" and "change," Washington still seems dysfunctional — voters are in a sour mood against incumbents, and there are simply more Democrats than Republicans as fall guys. Factor four: the American public's tendency to revolt against one-party control of the federal government.

Question: Will the Democrats lose control of the House, Senate, or both?

Duffy: Democrats are definitely going to lose their majority in the House. The Cook Political Report currently projects that Republicans will gain between 48 and 60 seats, perhaps surpassing the 52 seats the GOP picked up in 1994. Scoring the net gain of 10 seats that Republicans need to win a majority in the Senate will be much harder. ... Oddly, the majority in the House has never flipped without the Senate flipping as well. This year may prove to be the exception to this rule.


Sabato: The Democrats are very likely to lose control of the House by a wide margin. ... The Senate looks likely to stay Democratic by a seat or two, though Republican gains of seven to nine seats are substantial for a single election year. No one runs the Senate when the margin is as close as it will be in January.

Fowler: Many of the forecasting models are predicting a seat loss and the range is huge this year. Some say more than 50; some put it in the 40s, two models have it in the 30s. The professional consensus among political scientists is that it's going to be 40 to around 45. But the electorate is pretty volatile these days.

Black: Based on all of the polling and analysis that's out there now, the only surprise would be if Democrats are able to maintain control of the House.

Whalen: House yes, Senate no.

Question: Will this election help or hinder the Tea Party's political clout?

Duffy: If Republicans fail to beat Harry Reid and Michael Bennet, then the tea party is to blame, because of the candidates they nominated and since it will probably be the difference between gaining eight seats and winning the majority. This will certainly diminish the tea party's credibility. If, on the other hand, Republicans win these seats, plus Kentucky, Florida, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, then the tea party's influence, particularly on the 2012 presidential nomination, is greatly enhanced.


Sabato: The tea party has brought energy and enthusiasm to many Republican candidates, and that is a plus in a low-turnout midterm election. But they also have endangered some seats. ... Moreover, the tea party candidates are not the sort to compromise easily. Once elected, they will prove a handful for GOP leaders in the House and Senate to manage, and they significantly reduce the chances for bipartisan cooperation in the next Congress (if that were ever possible anyway).

Fowler: The tea party, to the extent that we know what it is, may help in some House races that are held by low-seniority Democratic incumbents.


Black: If in fact the Democrats lose their enormous majority in the House — today the Democrats have 59 percent of House Seats — it's a great loss to the party and the president. Think of it this way: It took George Bush as president six years to lose his majority in the House. It could take President Obama only two years to do that.


Whalen: It can only enhance. The movement will have elected some new senators and sent veteran ones packing. But that's only part of the story. The better question: Like a lottery winner that's suddenly come into a pile of money, what does the tea party do with its new fortune? And, five years from now ... is it still wealthy or broken and miserable?

Question: What can we expect out of the White House in the next two years, based on your election predictions?

Duffy: It would seem that the White House has to choose between one of two models. The first is the Bill Clinton model. When Democrats lost majorities in 1994, Clinton moved center (it wasn't a tough move for him) and worked with Republicans to get legislation passed. The other model is the George W. Bush model. When Republicans lost their majorities in 2006, Bush dug in and didn't work with Democrats. As a result, not much got done. The Bush model would be tougher for the White House, since Obama has to run for re-election, whereas Bush was at the end of his second term and something of a lame duck anyway.

Sabato: We are headed not just for gridlock but super-gridlock. The parties have little in common, and the infighting between the houses, the party caucuses, and the White House will be intense. Not much will get done legislatively. Most of the energy will be spent posturing, angling for the next election, and investigating.

Fowler: In the best-case scenario with the Republicans, they're going to have a lot of people elected who have never held office, who don't know how to govern, who would rather be right than get something done. So I think they will be quite difficult for the party leaders in both chambers to manage. I don't know anyone who thinks the next two years are going to be anything but unpleasant and that's certainly my view.

Black: The question would be whether (Obama) follows in the footsteps of Bill Clinton in 1994 and tries to moderate his policy agenda or continues on his current path. Whatever happens, the president will lose his ability to set the agenda.

Whalen: My question: Does the Obama White House read the results as a referendum on the president or the Democratic Congress. I'm guessing he goes through the motions of bipartisanship — extends an olive branch in his State of the Union, talks tough on deficit spending. But it doesn't last long. This president's not a preternatural centrist like Bill Clinton; there's simply not much common ground with the GOP.

I blame the Tea Party for all this election mess... it has been the ugliest campaigning event in history !!!

c/thru wrote:

I blame the Tea Party for all this election mess... it has been the ugliest campaigning event in history !!!

the ugliest campaing i can ever recall seeing was the one obama waged on hillary.

KK wrote:

c/thru wrote:

I blame the Tea Party for all this election mess... it has been the ugliest campaigning event in history !!!

the ugliest campaing i can ever recall seeing was the one obama waged on hillary.

I was just thinking about her.... I may actually vote for her if she runs for President, I bet she has learned a lot lately

BTW...I saw where George jr. is gonna spill his guts in the media any time now ...should be interesting

c/thru wrote:

KK wrote:

c/thru wrote:

I blame the Tea Party for all this election mess... it has been the ugliest campaigning event in history !!!

the ugliest campaing i can ever recall seeing was the one obama waged on hillary.

I was just thinking about her.... I may actually vote for her if she runs for President, I bet she has learned a lot lately

hillary is an excellent politician. I don't always approve of her politics but she is a very good politician. I think she would have done a better job than obama