Before the 2008 Presidential election, Democrats and Republicans will struggle to make advances in Congress in mid-term elections later this year.
Congressional Quarterly's latest analysis of the 2006 Congressional races show the Republicans maintaining their hold over both the House and the Senate. But Bob Benenson, editor of CQ Politics, is quick to add that these aren't projections, but rather their best assessment early in the process based on their reporters' input, polling data, and other factors. He also notes, "It's important to understand that 'leans' indicates a real battle for the incumbent, so that alone could make a big difference.
In the House, here's the way they see it now:
| Now | Safe | Fav | Leans | Proj | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dem | 203 | 181 | 11 | 10 | 202 |
| Rep | 232 | 179 | 28 | 17 | 224 |
| No clear favorite: | 9 | ||||
Among incumbent Democrats, there's no clear favorite for Strickland* (OH 6).
Republican incumbents in that situation include Beauprez* (CO 7), Nussle* (IO 1) Hostettler (IN 8), Sodrel (IN 9), Boehlert* (NY 24), Ney (OH 18), Gerlach (PA 6), and Delay* (TX 22).
* Indicates open seats.
The Senate right now looks like this:
| Now | Safe | Fav | Leans | Proj | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dem | 45 | 9 | 4 | 5 | 45 |
| Rep | 55 | 6 | 3 | 5 | 54 |
| No clear favorite: | 1 | ||||
40 Republicans and 27 Democrats are not up for reelection in 2006.
Democrats, where there's no clear favorite, include Dayton* (MN). No Republican is in that situation, but Rick Santorum (R. PA) is in the race of his life, with CQ saying the district is leaning Democratic.
Comparing these projections with the latest poll data leads to some perplexing issues. For example, a Pew Research Center poll released June 27th confirms other polls that find Democrats with "two distinct advantages in midterm campaign that they have not enjoyed for some time."
Americans continue to favor the Democratic candidate in their district by a 51% to 39% margin. Second, Democrats are much more enthusiastic about the election than are Republicans.
However, the "Democratic zeal is mostly driven by anger towards Bush and Republican leaders, not support for Democratic leaders. In fact, only half of Democrats approve of the job being done by Congress's Democratic leadership.
The president is also a factor for Republicans. The headline in Sidney Blumenthal's article in today's Slate, "Bush? Never heard of him." He writes, "Desperate to appeal to voters but fleeing from an unpopular president, Republicans are embracing jingoism, nativism and even Jim Crow."
Article comments
1 - chantal stone
People also need to realize that if they get involved, they can make a difference. Complacency helps no one.
2 - G. Chell
I think they are off their rocker. Santorum is likely gone and Chaffee is under 40 againsgt Whitehouse. Both DeWine and Talent are under 50. Conrad Burns is actually trailing. The CQ needs to have its head examined. Perhaps Rove bribed them into talking this nonsense.
3 - mschannon
Chell, if you'd read the article and clicked on the link, you'd realize that you're simply echoing what they way. They've got Santorum's district leaning Democratic--as the article points out, and if you go to the site, you'll see that Chafee, DeWine, Burns, and Talent are all listed as "leaning" Republican.
As Bob Benenson, the editor of CQ Politics defines it, "It's important to understand that 'leans' indicates a real battle for the incumbent, so that alone could make a big difference."
So what's your point?
In Decaf Veritas
4 - G. Chell
The point is that is very interesting that when Dems are leading by over 10 points in all polls including the GOP Strategic Vision there are some analysts who would claim that the GOP still has an edge. In 2002 the Dems hardly ever had a lead of more than 7 during the entire year among registered voters and among the likely voters they were tied. This is not the case now. The dems are leading by an average of 12. Gallup does not seem to think so:
http://poll.gallup.com/content/?ci=23509
I also heard from a source that Gallup's refusal to put the GOP spin like CQ has done led to their split with CNN late last month. In 2002 some viewed Gallup as very pro GOP but they were right in the end.
I have problems with projections. Perhaps 53-47 GOP...more likely 52-48. In the House perhaps they are closer to the mark and similar to Charlie Cook's political report.
5 - mschannon
CQ has the same problems with projections that you do, as Benenson indicated. Also, the article notes, and CQ agreed, that the poll data at this point is very volitile.
For example, when people say they'd prefer a Dem. canadidate to a Rep. in their own districts by a 12 point margin (which is very close to the Gallop poll you linked to), that flies in the face of the traditional findings--Congress sucks, but my Congressman (particularly House Reps) is o.k., which is why it's so hard to unseat a Member of the House.
I went over these numbers this morning with a Democratic lobbyist/strategist, and, once he understood what "leans" means, he thought CQ was probably a close as anyone could get.
I really don't see a GOP spin in the CQ numbers, except that your comments make me think that "leans" is the wrong word, based on how CQ defines it. I'm going to e-mail them about picking a different word--it does give a false impression.
Who knows, we could have a major impact on CQ!
In Decaf Veritas
6 - G. Chell
I think if the current trends hold past september 11, we will have a five point lead for dems going into the elections among likely voters enough for a 8-12 seat gain...would leave the dems short of majority by about 4-6 seats. In the senate it would be three seat gain and the GOP majority would hang by Specter, Martinez and McCain and other pro-immigration folks like Graham, Brownback and Hagel. As far as the House is concerned, unless GOP looses big in NY Congressional races, intense pressure would build on the New Dem governor and an all Dem legislature to redistrict all but two of the nine GOPers from the NY congressional delegation, and if Blago wins (a big if) pressure would mount to re-district Hastert out at the minimum. So, the Texas decision could cost the GOP majority status in 2008 and beyond.
7 - mschannon
Mr. Chell,
You seem not to be a BCer, but you are clearly very knowledgeable about politics. We're just starting up this On the Road to Election 2008 and I could use some good writers who understand the political spectrum, how to do good research, and even have some contacts.
If you're intersted in joing, we should chat more. I can't post my e-mail here, but if you look above to my personal blog, go there and then click on "about", it'll have a link to my e-mail.
Look forward to hearing from you--sorry to make it such a hassle.
Mark
8 - Dave Nalle
Ok, you guys don't get something very important here. A 5-10 point lead among 'americans' is a nationwide statistic, and we're talking about regional elections here. The fact that the Dems are going to win certain seats by huge margins skews any nationwide figure and makes it very unrepresentative. Having extra voters in one election does not give you any better chance of winning one two districts over where you're trailing by 2 votes - at least not without some serious cheating.
Dave
9 - G. Chell
Dave:
What you say has never happened in US history. This I must see.
10 - mschannon
Dave, remember first that these aren't even "projections" in the formal sense--they're a sense of a mood of the voters. Second, in terms of tracking over time, this is the biggest gap the Dems have ever had over the GOP. Third, Bush's popularity is a huge factors. And, most important, since the Republicans never cheat, that gives those cheat-crazed Democrats a huge advantage.
In Decaf Veritas
11 - Dave Nalle
Mark, I think that the current environment is going to make traditional democrat cheating - vote buying, padded ballot boxes, votes from beyond the grave, etc - very difficult to pull off. Why do you think they're so incredibly desperate to stop electronic voting? Simple - their tried and true methods of fraud just don't work when computers are keeping track of the votes and more importantly the voters.
How much that's going to hurt them is debatable. There are only a few states where widespread voting fraud has been the basis for democrat victories year in and year out. I'll be watching Louisiana, Illinois, Misouri and Florida like a hawk in 2006, though.
As to the Democrats big lead. As I said before. If the states that are already voting for democrats have become more polarized and more pro democrat that doesn't necessarily mean that they'll win even a single additional seat in the rest of the nation.
Dave
12 - gonzo marx
do i have to link again to the scientific evidence that a Diebold voting machine can be hacked with NO record by using a simple Palm Pilot and it's infrared link?
spare me the bullshit
we NEED the FEC to come up with a standard that is transparent, tracable and accountable
for fucks sake, we have ATMs handling billions of dollars an hour with perfect paper trails and almost 0% errors and total accountability
WTF is the problem here...
as for results, trying to go this route this early is like trying to handicap the Kentucky derby when the horses that are going to be racing have not even been born yet...
talk about premature voter speculation
Excelsior?
13 - Jet in Columbus
Several state legislators filed bills this year -- to no avail -- to require that touchscreen voting machines have the capability of producing a paper record of votes cast.
"If I can get a receipt when I drive through an ATM to fill up my car with gas, there's no reason I shouldn't be able to get one when I vote," argued Sen. Rod Smith, D-Gainesville, who also happens to be running for governor.
All of the "paper trail" bills introduced this session died in committee. Florida lawmakers apparently consider touch-screen voting machines tamper-proof.
Somebody ought to tell that to officials in Pennsylvania, California, Iowa and other states that are facing imminent primary elections. Computer scientists say there are security flaws in the popular Diebold Election System touch-screen machines that make them vulnerable to the introduction of software that could distort the results.
"It's one of the most severe security flaws ever discovered in a voting system," Michael J. Shamos, computer science professor at Carnegie Mellon, told The New York Times recently. Added Douglas W. Jones, another computer science professor, at the University of Iowa, "This is the barn door being wide open, while people were arguing over the lock on the front door."
Concerns about the integrity of touch screens have been around for a while. But this latest discovery of security problems in Diebold machines comes at the beginning of a busy primary election season. And although Diebold -- which calls the problem a "theoretical security vulnerability" -promises to make corrections, some state primaries will occur before machines can be fixed. Indeed, Pennsylvania's primary has already been held. Florida's is three months away.
Not to worry, though. Diebold officials say the "theoretical security vulnerability" only exists because voting machines were intentionally designed to allow easy updating by elections officials.
"For there to be a problem here, you're basically assuming a premise where you have some evil and nefarious elections officials who would sneak in and introduce a piece of software," Diebold's spokesman David Bear told the Times. "I don't believe these evil elections people exist."
A corrupt public official? Who ever heard of such a thing?
Small wonder the Florida Legislature couldn't be bothered to mandate paper trails in this state's touch-screen voting machines.
Why, the likelihood of nefarious elections officials scheming to rig an election in the Sunshine State is probably smaller than the chances of Florida being struck by a hurricane again this year
By the way Ken Blackwell, Ohio's secretary of state in charge of elections is running for Govenor of Ohio...
14 - Dave Nalle
For your infrared palm pilot hack to work someone would have to be blatantly using the palm pilot in close proximity to the machine for a prolonged period of time and not be noticed. No question it's a flaw, but it's not one which can be easily or practically exploited.
I'm all for paper trails, though. The whole concept of a voting machine with no receipt given seems nonsensical to me.
As for the corrupt public officials, elections ARE monitored by officials from BOTH major political parties and thye watch each other like hawks.
The truth is that electronic voting is going to be the standard by 2008 whether the left likes it or not. There may be some kinks to be worked out, but we all know what the real objection to these machines is - the luddites of the left fear technology and assume that if elections can no longer be rigged their old fashioned way then someone must be rigging them using the 'magic' voting machines. It's pathetic.
Dave
15 - Jet in Columbus
Just for argument's sake (which obviously will be ignored) There's enough time behind those curtains to do anything. Look how long it takes to download the data involved in displaying this page! especially if your program is prewritten, pre-loaded and ready to go with the mere push of a button. Or it could be done in pieces by determined people.
The palm pilot is the lowest common denominator Dave, he's asserting that someone with something as simple as that could do it, but dialing in, or even transmitting from outside using cellphone frequencies could be used just as easily.
Your argument Dave, is like participating in a discussion on how to make it rain, by scoffing at an indian rain-maker in order to distract from the real possibility of a professional pilot seeding clouds.
16 - gonzo marx
actually the two blatant security flaws are the RS-232 port inside the machine, which can be accessed by anyone with a key, and program the machine to do anything...show that you pressed button "a" and yet record it as a press for button "b" with NO trail afterwards, or show that such tampering had been done...
the Wired article i linked to months ago had a 17 year old game hacker demonstrate just how easily Mickey Mouse coudl win an election this way
the Palm Pilot hack is even simplet, a Palm strapped to an arm in your sleeve coudl alter each machine on the fly (the transfer fo data takes mere seconds) or even more practical is an operative before the polls open, or after they close changing what they like...
thjis second hack is the one i linked to a week or so ago, and was done independantly by folks from MIT and other engineering colleges...it was NOT just Diebold, but that machine was the easiest to alter
as for your denigrating these scientifically PROVEN facts, which are documented, repeatable and peer reviewed...it calls into Question any tinge of objective Judgement or acceptance of facts whcih some might find distasteful
it still does nto alter the Fact that these machines are even MORE prone to manipulation and falsification than any previously used system
there ARE answers to make a secure voting system...but NONE are in place with these machines (one of the manufacturers of said machines, which account for just under 20% of the total are owned and manufactured by the government of Venezuela, FYI)
this Issue should concern EVERY american, and proves beyond reasonable Doubt that the best way still at this point in our HIstory is the same as has been used in Pinkham's Notch New Hampshire since the founding of the Republic....signed paper ballots, counted by hand twice...once from each "party" and then saved
i can't make the Point any simpler or more plain than that, and any who would argue the proven Facts are either delusional or stand to gain from the corruption of our voting system
Excelsior?
17 - Dave Nalle
Ok, I accept that the machines are fucked. Hard to believe, but not beyond the realm of reality. So on the assumption that observers aren't enough to stop malfeasance, and since the hacks have now been well publicized, fix the fucking machines. And a great deal of fixing could be achieved with the simple addition of a detailed paper receipt.
And I'm sorry, Gonzo. But Florida in 2000 proved once and for all that the paper ballot system is too screwed to rely on any longer. Plus there's the endless history of deliberate abuse and fraud.
I'm afraid that the biggest protection we have the one we will have to rely on no matter what system we use is trust in human honesty. It's not perfect, but I do think that the number of people with the will, the skill and the lack of principles to abuse such an important element of our system is pretty damned small. It's the one crime besides murder and rape which I'd consider entirely unforgivable.
Dave
18 - gonzo marx
well now, we have some Agreement...
my Appreciation for you taking the Time and Thought to check out the facts i provided concernign the machines...
now, machines can indeed be the way to do it in the future, but safeguards need to be built into the system
otherwise, i do agree the human Factor is best, hance my example in NH...the town is so small that they gather in the town hall, everyone knows everyone by name and sight, and make ceremony as each places their ballots in the box...which are then counted in front of everyone before the end of the Meeting
not practical in urban areas, i know...
as for the Florida example, it shows that making things more complex tends to make it easier to screw up
fuck chads...remember the old Iowa tests we all took, number two pencil and fill in the ovals?
EVERY citizen in the last 50 years or so have done them, so it's about as universal a format as one coudl ask for...merely a preliminary suggestion, and cheap to implement...able to be scanned electronically as well as checked visually
but there needs to be a better Answer than is currently used...voting fraud and gerrymandering are two of the most vital Issues to the foundation fo our Republic...with institutionalized corruption following close behind
your mileage may vary
Excelsior?
19 - Dave Nalle
The bubble sheets are what we had in Austin before we went to the electronic system. They're certainly better than the punch-cards.
But as I see it the idea behind electronic voting was to cut out some of the easy methods of cheating which have been around for years, and no form of paper ballot is going to do that.
And remember, the dems are about as corrupt in this area as you can get, what with their opposition to checking IDs at polling places and the like. That kind of shit really has to stop.
And like it or not, the machines are here now. What we need ASAP is at the very least some sort of paper receipt requirement as a federal law for all states.
Dave
20 - gonzo marx
comment #19 sez...
*And remember, the dems are about as corrupt in this area as you can get, *
and the same can easily be said about the GOP types
so, we can take it as a given that if either side gets the chance to cheat, they will
so the Answer is to ensure the System has the checks and balances required to minimize, if not eliminate said cheating from either side
but as long as some will point fingers at "the other guys" and not recognize that their "gang" does it's own share fo shit, then you will nto reach the needed concensus to solve the problem
as long as broad brush sterotypes about "them" are tossed around in a cavalier fashion, rather than speaking about specifics....as long as fear and blame are used for political purposes more than Thought and striving to properly identify problems and reach soloutions...
than the problems are being obscured and added to rather than resolved
it does NO good to always go with the AM radio host bullshit blame game scapegoating "them" with all kinds of bullshit, rather than dealing with the actual problems
but i understand, partisans do what they must, and it is far easier to spew unfounded hatred rather than actually looking at those "others" and finding common ground that helps ALL people
silly of me, i know
Excelsior?