The 4 T's

That's what Larry Sabato and David Wasserman think will determine who controls the House after this November's elections. Here's what they think the 4 t's are: Terrain, Top-of-the-Ticket Influences, Treasuries of Campaigns and Traits of Candidates.

Noticeably missing from those T's is Turnout. Considering how much has been made of demoralized conservatives the past 6 months, you'd think that'd have to be on their 'T List'. That's just part of the shoddy analysis found in this article. Her's another shoddy bit of analysis:

In February, we rated only 11 races as "toss-ups," and only 8 of those races were in Republican-held seats. Additionally, as we have rotated some districts in to the Dirty Thirty and others out, we now estimate that Democrats will only need to win 22 of the 30 most competitive races to win control of the House , down from 24 in February and 26 in October, still a tall mountain to climb, but more surmountable than ever.

How any political analyst could say with a straight face that "Democrats will only need to win 22 of the 30 most competitive races to win control of the House" is beyond me. The rule of thumb is that, whether it's a wave election or not, the best a party can expect to do is win 50 percent of the vulnerable seats. For instance, when Republicans regained control of the House in 1994, they gained 52 seats. At the time, Republican strategist Joe Gaylord rated Democrats as having 100 vulnerable seats. It's worth noting that a portion of those 30 "most competitive seats" are Democratic seats.

Here's the next bit of folly from Mssrs. Sabato and Wasserman:

But because Democrats have succeeded in putting the Republicans on the defensive this year, there are now more than three times as many GOP-held seats as there are Democratic-held seats in the Dirty Thirty! The count stands at 23 vulnerable seats for Republicans and only 7 for Democrats.

I don't know when this article was written but it couldn't have been this or last week. I could understand their analysis if they wrote this 4-5 months ago but I can't understand it with these current conditions. If you'll notice, the Democrats' message, whatever it is, isn't what's making headlines. They've been on the defensive since Zarqawi's killing. Republicans have been forcing vote after vote on national security issues, ranging from Kerry's 'timetable for defeat resolution' to the House voting yesterday on

"a measure that condemns officials who leak national-security secrets and says Congress expects the press to cooperate by not printing leaked information."

The symbolic measure, which passed 227-183, was inspired by a June 23 New York Times report detailing a CIA terrorist-tracking program that studies banking records.

I'll bet that Democrats didn't like being put on the record that they don't condemn officials leaking top secret counterterrorist programs to the press, especially when the reporting itself says that laws weren't broken and abuses weren't reported.

If that's what Mssrs. Sabato and Wasserman characterize as Democrats having the GOP on the defensive, then they need new glasses and a transfusion of common sense.

In summation, I don't know how this passes as serious political analysis. It's riddled with inaccuracies and omissions. How they could omit talking about the GOP's time-tested GOTV operation is a telltale sign to me that these guys didn't do their homework.

---

Posted Friday, June 30, 2006 9:06 AM

May 2006 Posts

Comment 1 by David Wasserman at 05-Jul-06 11:45 AM

Thanks for your readership and your fair criticism. Just a few points to respond:

1. Beyond the cliche that "turnout could well decide the elections," (our least favorite headline to see printed), we felt that this T would better be addressed in Top of the Ticket Influences. Yes, everyone knows that wave elections manifest themselves through one party voting in disproportionate numbers, but the concentration of House races in states with competitive top-of-ballot races is a unique dynamic for 2006.

2. We acknowledged that 22 out of 30 was an unlikelihood an a "tall mountain to climb," and still feel that way. But this figure is indicative of movement over the last few months and, quite frankly, races often do break heavily one way or the other, though it is true that our D30 in 2004 went 16-14 for the GOP.

3. The defensive posture of the GOP this year we're referring to has as much to do with candidates as message. We acknowledged that the Dems have failed to establish a compelling narrative, but we've stated before that Dem candidate recruitment has fared much better than GOP efforts to date this cycle.

4. When there's any sort of wave election, GOTV operations can matter little in the final analysis. We here in Virginia were treated to the 72-hour program in 2005, and the GOP candidate still lost miserably, underperforming even many of the final polls in the race.

Thanks for the opportunity to respond.

-DW

Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 05-Jul-06 02:25 PM

David, Thanks for taking the time to respond. As owner of this blog, I've vowed that I won't squash intelligent debate & comments.

I will respectfully disagree that Democrats have recruited better candidates than Republicans. I've seen a number of talented, articulate GOP candidates, including Mike McGavick, Michael Steele & Mark Kennedy.

Frankly, Amy Klobuchar is a feeble candidate who will get beat this November because she's farther left than Mark Dayton.

I will admit that we could've gotten stronger candidates in Florida, Nebraska & North Dakota but those races will just be holds.

Kennedy, Steele & McGavick will represent pickups for the GOP.

Comment 3 by David Wasserman at 05-Jul-06 04:39 PM

Gary-

Just to clarify, our analysis in this instance was strictly House-specific.

Comment 4 by Gary Gross at 05-Jul-06 06:10 PM

Thanks for that, David.