Predicting the House

I was never a mathematician.

I mean, when I was a child, I did all right on my multiplication tables. And I managed to keep up with my classmates — sort of — when we moved on to more advanced types of math, like algebra and geometry.

But I must confess that, when we got into numerical constructions that involved figures that went into five or six digits or more, that was about the point where I got off the bus.

I do understand enough about math to know that the Democrats are about to get pummeled. I don't know how badly, but I suspect that it will be impressive, much like the 1994 midterms — and with about the same outcome, too.

Anyway, today my attention is on the battle for the House. In the next couple of days, I will write about the battle for the Senate.

As I say, I am not a mathematician. But I know the numbers are crumbling for the Democrats.

And many of them seem to be caught by surprise, like the proverbial deer caught in the headlights. How could that be possible? The signs have been all around them for more than a year.

First, there were all those polls showing slippage for both Barack Obama and the Democrats after the euphoria of the spring of 2009 wore off.

But many Democrats chose to ignore the signals the polls were sending to them. I distinctly remember one of my friends admonishing me that polls aren't accurate, that no matter what the polls were saying, the voters would stick with Obama and the Democrats because the Republicans were clearly to blame for all the nation's ills.

And they went forward, full speed ahead, with an increasingly unpopular health care proposal while ignoring the very issue that had made Obama the first Democrat in more than 30 years to receive a clear majority of the vote — job creation.

It got a little harder to ignore the gathering storm when Republican Scott Brown captured Ted Kennedy's Senate seat back in January. Many Democrats were understandably stunned by that development.

But Jeff Jacoby suggested, in the Boston Globe, that the Democrats had been handed a "blessing in disguise."

His only condition? "[I]f only they are wise enough to recognize it." And the Democrats were assuaged.

Well, I guess we'll find out if they were that wise in a little more than a week. But I never felt that they were, and their last–minute attempts to breathe life into an employment picture that is half again as bad as it was the day Obama took office have been transparent, at best.

In their hearts, Democrats seem to know what is coming; the recriminations have already begun.

I'll give Obama credit for realizing that he failed to give adequate attention to the political side of issues in the first half of his term and for placing the blame for it squarely on his own shoulders — well, sort of.

---

"I think that one of the challenges we had two years ago was we had to move so fast, we were in such emergency mode, that it was very difficult for us to spend a lot of time doing victory laps and advertising exactly what we were doing, because we had to move on to the next thing," Obama said. "And I take some responsibility for that."

The attitude was to get the policy right, "and we did not always think about making sure we were advertising properly what was going on," Obama continued.

CNN wire staff

---

Well, as Mario Cuomo observed a quarter of a century ago, "You campaign in poetry. You govern in prose." And this president, while gifted at the poetry part, has never been able to master the prose.

Much like his predecessor, he just can't seem to take the blame for anything.

And that, I suspect, is at the heart of the disconnect between Obama and the voters. Obama feels compelled to remind the voters that he inherited the bad economy. But that isn't the problem.

The problem is that the voters already understand that. Their disenchantment is not due to origin. It is due to the absence of evidence of improvement.

Obama may think all sorts of grand things about himself and his historically inevitable role, but the thing that broke open his race with John McCain was the economic implosion and the massive hemorrhaging of jobs that continued through his first year as president.

He has never been enough of a politician to recognize the one thing that the voters expected from him above all else — leadership through harrowing economic times. Even if a president can't produce jobs, he should be enough of a politician to know how to take credit for his efforts to promote job creation by those who can do it.

That is called reassuring the voters. And this president, as intelligent as he is, couldn't grasp the national need for that. Even if you have limited knowledge or understanding of history or human psychology, you know that Americans respond favorably to — and remember with fondness — presidents who feel their pain.

Presidents who appear aloof or distant in trying times usually do not remain president very long.

Many were expecting some sort of solidarity from the coalition of irregular and first–time voters who fueled Obama's election two years ago.

But, one by one, the groups that helped Obama by actually coming out and voting for him in unprecedented numbers on Election Day 2008 have been slipping away from the president's party (lately, Helene Cooper and Monica Davey indulged in some hand–wringing in the New York Times about the defection of women voters — who usually vote for Democrats but appear to be pulling away from them this year; so, too, did Liz Sidoti and Darlene Superville with the Associated Press).

They aren't necessarily switching parties. They're just resuming their usual pattern — and not voting at all. Some may be disappointed — as idealists often are — and some may feel permanently alienated from the system, but there are always some of those.

It's just more pronounced this time, with so many first–time and seldom–participated voters who showed up to vote for Obama last time — and now appear to be living down to expectations in the midterm.

There's no telling, of course, what these folks might do in 2012. But one thing, I think, can be said with some certainty as we approach Election Day 2010: even if the Republicans aren't winning over these folks in the midterm, Obama isn't retaining them. Electorally, they might as well not exist. They might as well be one of George Orwell's "unpersons."

Meanwhile, the GOP base — the composition of which has been fairly consistent for the last two or three decades — is said to be energized and eager to vote.

Whether turnout is low or high, Gallup is saying, Republicans stand to win and win big. Pollster Peter Hart recently said the Democrats face a Category 4 hurricane on Election Day.

The House

And I was reminded of something John Boehner said about six months ago: "at least 100 [House] seats are in play." Many political observers scoffed at such bravado; after all, what Boehner suggested would be truly historic, unprecedented in this nation's history.

(Well, a 100–seat swing might be unprecedented, but we have come close to that at times in the 19th century and in the first half of the 20th century.)

No matter what has happened in the last six months, to be honest, it still doesn't seem likely that the Republicans can win 100 House seats from the Democrats.

Of course, Boehner didn't say Republicans would win 100 seats, only that 100 would be in play. And, while each party would like to think it can win all the seats that are in play in a given election (and can devote seemingly endless hours to concocting scenarios in which it is conceivable to do so), such a thing simply never happens in modern America.

But today, some of the foremost political observers in America are suggesting gains that even they might have found impossible to believe only a few months ago.

• Larry Sabato, director of the University of Virginia Center for Politics and perhaps the most spot–on political prognosticator in America today, predicts that Republicans will gain 47 House seats.
  
  To put that into context, let's look at the largest gains experienced by either party in the last half century — Republicans won 54 seats in 1994, 47 seats in 1966 and 34 seats in 1980, and Democrats won 49 seats in 1974, 49 seats in 1958 and 34 seats in 1964.
  
  If Sabato is correct — and last time, he was darn near perfect — it would match the Republicans' gains in 1966.
  
  Oh, and take note, you Boehner defenders — Sabato says 99 Democrat–held House seats are in play.


• Nate Silver of the New York Times predicted something similar.
  
  The GOP, he said, will win 49 seats on Nov. 2.


• Charlie Cook, another accurate political handicapper, projects a 52–seat gain for the Republicans.
  
  Which puts him in roughly the same range as the other two ...


• But Jay Cost's prediction at The Weekly Standard dwarfs them all.
  
  Cost says Republicans will win 61 seats. That would be their biggest gain in more than 70 years.

No matter which one you think is more likely to be correct, the Republicans would take control of the House. They need to win 39.

I, too, think the Republicans will capture control of the House. I think Cost's prediction is too extreme, that it is more likely to be somewhere between Sabato and Cook.

I'm more inclined to favor Sabato — but I think his number, too, is too high — and say that I expect the Republicans to win about 45 House seats.

The 'Hillary Hypotheticals'

---

"As voters left the polls on Election Day, many were asked how they would have voted if the election match-up were between Hillary Clinton and John McCain rather than Barack Obama and McCain. 52 percent said they would have backed the former Democratic candidate; 41 percent would have voted for McCain, wider than Obama’s 7-point margin over McCain."

Vaughan Ververs
CBS News blog

---

Nate Silver of www.FiveThirtyEight.com expresses skepticism about the exit poll findings reported by Vaughan Ververs in his CBS News blog entry, which concluded that Hillary Clinton would have beaten John McCain more decisively than Barack Obama did.

Silver concedes that Clinton might have won by a wider margin — she "certainly proved herself to be an exceptionally compelling candidate," he writes, "even if her execution and staffing decisions were sometimes wanting."

Silver also suggests that the possibility exists that Clinton would have lost the general election. "I doubt you'll find too many Democrats who would be willing to take that trade," he concludes.

Let me address each of the questions he raises.

1. "Would she have handled the financial crisis with as much aplomb as Obama did?"
   
   Silver says yes. I agree.
2. "Would she have been so capable and reassuring in the debates?"
   
   Silver says, "Almost certainly." Again, I agree — although both parties held numerous debates before the primaries — and continued to hold debates once the primaries had begun. By October, both of the nominees had been through the debate process so many times that it was almost as routine as their stump speeches.
   
   I don't think that was a factor for the presidential nominees — nor would it have been if the Democrats had nominated Clinton.
3. "Would she have had an easier time resonating with working class voters in places like Missouri and West Virginia?"
   
   Silver says yes, and, again, I see no reason to contradict that conclusion. Clinton won the West Virginia primary handily — 67% to 26% — and, although Obama won the Missouri primary narrowly (49% to 48%), he appears to have lost the state in the general election.
   
   Nearly two weeks after the election, Missouri remains too close to call. If McCain is declared the winner of Missouri, Obama will be the first winning candidate to lose the state since Dwight Eisenhower more than 50 years ago.
   
   It would be the first time in my lifetime that Missouri has been on the losing side.
   
   At this point, Silver brings out his big guns.
4. "[W]ould she have managed the media as deftly as Obama did?"
   
   Silver is uncertain.
   
   As for myself, I can say that I've been observing Hillary Clinton longer than most Americans.
   
   I grew up in Arkansas, graduated from high school and college in that state and continued to live there until 1988. Hillary was the state's first lady for most of the last 10 years I lived there, including a period when she headed up the effort to improve the state's schools, holding open, public meetings in each of Arkansas' 75 counties.
   
   When Hillary became America's first lady, she had already been on my personal radar for nearly two decades — ever since 1974, when her husband was narrowly beaten in a race for Congress.
   
   When you combine those years in Arkansas with eight years as the nation's first lady and nearly eight years as a U.S. senator, that's roughly three decades of dealing with the media. And I speak from experience when I say that she didn't have a cakewalk when she was in Arkansas.
   
   There were certainly those in the Arkansas media who didn't exactly fawn over her.
   
   She hasn't always exhibited a golden touch — few people in the spotlight have — but I think her success in that regard would have depended upon whether her staff resolved to "let Hillary be Hillary."
   
   If her staff interfered, that probably would only make things worse — so the crucial part of the answer to that question, I think, would be determined by who was on her staff for the general election campaign.
5. "Would Republican attacks on Bill Clinton and Kazakhstan [have] been as counterproductive to their cause as their effort to link Barack Obama and Bill Ayers?"
   
   Again, Silver is noncommittal. "Maybe," he writes, "or maybe not."
   
   Surely, I think Republicans would have connected those dots as they tried to do with Obama and Ayers. But Clinton is no stranger to the "guilt by association" tactic, and I feel she would have been able to avoid being tarred with that brush.
6. "Would she have matched Obama's field organization and raised as much money?"
   
   "Doubtful," says Silver — without elaborating.
   
   Why is it doubtful? All the polls I've seen, even the ones cited in this discussion, suggest the exsitence of an overpowering hunger for change in this country after eight years of George W. Bush.
   
   I think there were people who were ready to contribute to whichever Democrat won the nomination, so great was that desire for a different direction.
   
   Now, Obama had a clear edge in fundraising when he was running against Clinton — but once the campaign for the nomination was resolved, I'm sure Hillary's army of dedicated supporters would have pledged money — as well as volunteer efforts — to her campaign.
   
   I don't know if she would have matched Obama's total — but I think the desire for change was strong enough to generate contributions for any Democratic nominee that exceeded what we've seen in the past. After the economic meltdown, I think Clinton would have benefited from both the desire for change and the nostalgia for the sense of economic well-being that existed during the years of her husband's administration.
   
   If Obama had won a narrow victory — in spite of his tremendous advantage in contributions — I would be inclined to give more weight to the argument about fundraising. But Obama won the election by margins of more than 8 million popular votes and a Clintonesque 95 electoral votes.
7. "Would her campaign have had the same steely confidence as Obama's did after the Republican convention bounce?"
   
   "Unlikely," Silver writes — again, no elaboration.
   
   I don't know why it would have been unlikely, given the many campaigns in which Clinton has participated in her life — as well as the grueling campaign for the nomination that she would have just survived.
   
   It might have depended more upon who was on her staff in the general election campaign — but, as the nominee, I would assume that she could have her pick of the best advisers from the staffs of the vanquished.
8. "Would she have delivered as strong a speech as Mr. Obama did in Denver?"
   
   "Iffy," writes Silver.
   
   I'm inclined to acknowledge that Obama is more skilled as an orator than Hillary — but, as the nominee, her speech wouldn't have been compared to Obama's (which wouldn't have occurred, if Hillary had been nominated).
   
   The only way her speech would have been a factor in the campaign would have been if she committed a serious gaffe while delivering it.
9. "Would she have catalyzed near-universal turnout in the black community?"
   
   "No," Silver says.
   
   I'll concede that point — but was it essential for victory over John McCain?
   
   Prior to 2008, neither the Democrats nor the Republicans had ever nominated a non-white — but Democrats still enjoyed high levels of support from black voters. I've seen no indication that blacks would have abandoned the Democrats if Obama had not been nominated.
   
   Certainly, they might have been disappointed. But before Obama emerged as the front-runner, opinion polls suggested that a majority of blacks were supporting Clinton.
10. "If Hillary Clinton had headed the Democratic ticket, would John McCain have been dumb enough to name Sarah Palin as his running mate?"
    
    "One would hope not," Silver writes.
    
    Ah, now we come to a female factor that really is being credited with influencing the outcome.
    
    My contention all along has been that Palin was selected — in part — as a blatant appeal for the votes of women who were believed to be disgruntled over Hillary's defeat. Women have tended to support Democrats in the past, although minority women have been more inclined to do so than white women (I wrote about this in late August — on the day McCain announced Palin was his choice to be his running mate).
    
    If that was truly the case, that Palin was chosen to mollify women, it was clearly a miscalculation. As it turned out, women supported Obama by 56% to 43%.
    
    With Hillary as his opponent, McCain wouldn't have felt that constituency was in play, although, at that point, he might have been more inclined to follow the advice I gave in May and picked a black man as his running mate.
    
    Granted, that pool isn't as deep in the Republican Party as the pool of women — but there are clearly some options he could have taken.
    
    And, in hindsight, perhaps he should have taken my advice anyway. My sense is that Palin didn't help McCain any more than the selection of Geraldine Ferraro helped Walter Mondale 24 years ago.
    
    Perhaps that was because, in both cases, the voters had already made up their minds — and the gender of the running mate for the other ticket made little, if any, difference.
11. "Might McCain have been smart enough to hire Mike Murphy rather than Steve Schmidt, campaign on themes of bipartisanship, honor, and good government, and appeal as much as possible to independent voters (as the political climate dictated that he ought to have done in the first place)?"
    
    "Who knows," writes Silver. "He just might have figured it out."
    
    I don't know if that part would have changed if Hillary had been the nominee. I suppose that depends on one's evaluation of McCain — and what his probable response to running against a woman would have been.
12. "And what would Clinton's numbers have looked like after the Republicans had gotten done accusing her of being a socialist, a puppet for her husband, and an all-around conniving you-know-what?"
    
    Silver gives no answer to this one.
    
    And it can only be given a subjective response, anyway — like most of his other points.
    
    I do know that I heard Obama accused of being a socialist by many of the right-wing radio hosts — so if Hillary had been the nominee and had been accused of being a socialist, I presume the response by the voters would have been about the same.
    
    No one accused Obama of being a "puppet" for his wife, although I frequently heard those radio hosts complain about Michelle Obama's statement that she was proud of her country "for the first time." A candidate's spouse is often a political target, deservedly or not. When the candidate's spouse happens to have been president for eight years, of course, that's a unique situation, one for which we have no precedent.
    
    But the Clintons have been handling that kind of criticism since the "two-for-the-price-of-one" concept was first introduced during the 1992 campaign.
    
    As for that third accusation, well, I heard complaints during the general election campaign that Obama was too glib, too smooth by half. I suppose, when a candidate appears to be headed for a defeat, his/her campaign staff will latch on to anything it thinks will turn the tide.
    
    If it fails to do so, and the candidate loses as expected, those staffers are usually prepared to point the finger of blame at anyone or anything else — as we've seen many of them do with Sarah Palin since the votes were counted and the Republicans came up on the short end of the stick.

Silver offered no evidence that supported the idea that Clinton wouldn't have beaten McCain in the election.

In fact, considering the pitiful condition of the economy, I'm inclined to believe that talk suggesting Clinton — or any Democrat — would have lost to McCain is merely that — talk.