By Chuck Todd, NationalJournal.com
© National Journal Group Inc.
Wednesday, May 3, 2006

One of the more interesting debates developing in professional and amateur handicapping circles alike is over which chamber is more vulnerable to a Democratic takeover -- the House or the Senate.

Actually, there isn't much to debate until we tell people where we stand on the issue. Then a debate ensues.

Chuck Todd's Race Rankings Every month for the rest of the election cycle, get an early line on WH 2008, as well as the latest rankings, commentary and analysis on all '06 Senate, House and governor races.

Apparently, we hold the minority view that the Senate is more vulnerable than the House. And since this is the week we're due to update the Senate rankings, we figured it was as good of a time as any to state our case as to why we think the Senate goes before the House.

Put another way, we can't figure out how the House would flip unless the Senate does, too, but we can picture the Senate flipping before the House. Here's why:

As longtime fans of this column know, this is the fifth cycle we've ranked Senate races based on their potential to switch control from one party to the other. We started this in the '98 cycle, and with the help of amazing editors, have created a rankings monster.

This week we went back to the last four columns we wrote during each election cycle to see how the final 11 or 12 "in play" Senate seats fell. What's interesting about all four cycles is that one party did distinctly better than the other each time:

• In 1998, nine of the races were arguably "too close to call" one week before Election Day: They were Nos. 3 through 11 in the final October column of that year, as the first two were no-brainer flips. Democrats won seven of those nine. And even though the net gain for the party was zero, considering the Lewinsky-tinged atmosphere that cycle, not losing seats was a big deal. There were very real predictions at one point that summer that the Republicans could get to 60 seats.

• In 2000, there were 10 races still "too close to call" in our book: They were Nos. 3 through 12 in our last October column then, and like 1998, the first two races in our rankings were the no-brainer flips. Democrats won eight of the 10, thanks mostly to a surprising Election Day surge for Democrats up and down the ballot. Remember that whole Al-Gore-won-the-popular-vote thing?

• In 2002, there were 11 seats in play going into the election: They were ranked No. 1 through 11 in our final October column, as even the No. 1 seat wasn't a slam dunk (or so we thought). Republicans won eight of the 11 in a remarkable night for the GOP, as they gained seats even while holding the White House -- something Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan couldn't accomplish.

• In 2004, there were nine seats still in play that final week; they were ranked No. 3 through 11 in our final pre-election column, and the first two flips were no-brainers. Republicans won eight of the nine.

Notice a pattern? The bottom line is that Senate races are very susceptible to national breezes. A wind was blowing in one party's direction in all four of the previous election cycles, and it made a big difference in determining which party won the lion's share of the competitive Senate seats. Assuming the pattern we've picked up on holds, no more than 12 seats will be in play going into the final weekend of the cycle. And the odds are the top-ranked race in our final rankings will be considered a no-brainer by that time.

For the sake of this argument, Democrats can consider one seat theirs before any votes are cast. So now the party needs to net five seats out of the races we've ranked 2 through 13 in order to gain control. There are six Republican seats in that group, and if Democrats have a good election night (i.e., just a breeze), it's likely they'll win nine of these 12 races. And that would net them, at the worst, another three seats for a four-seat gain. For those wondering, that's the number many handicappers are tossing around right now when pressed about an "all things being equal" election scenario.

Now, in our previous four election examples, there was one that sticks out to us -- 2004. It was the one election cycle where one party was a decisive winner on election night. The breeze in the GOP's direction became an Election-Day gust. Notice that Republicans almost ran the table under that strong Republican turnout scenario. How likely is it that the Democrats will have a very strong wind blowing in their direction if President Bush's job ratings remain as far in the toilet as they are now?

And then there's this fantastic statistic, unearthed by Jay Cost over at RealClearPolitics.com, that ever since direct elections for the Senate began, the House has never switched hands without the Senate either switching to the same party or staying in the hands of the successful party. Cost explained:

The seven times the House has switched, the Senate has also switched. Not only does the Senate switch more frequently, it always switches with the House. A switch in the Senate, therefore, seems to be a necessary, but insufficient, condition for a switch in the House. Conversely, a switch in the House is a sufficient, but not necessary, condition for a switch in the Senate. In other words, when the House has switched, the Senate has always followed; however, when the Senate has switched, the House has not necessarily followed. Thus, historically speaking, two scenarios are possible: the Senate alone changes or both the House and the Senate change.

Of course, Cost isn't someone who's arguing that either the House or the Senate will switch; in fact, he believes the GOP will hold onto both. His column was mainly an attempt to debunk the myth that the House is more vulnerable than the Senate. We're trying to bolster that argument.

It would be historically shocking if the House switches hands and the Senate doesn't. But forget statistics for a minute and let's remind ourselves of a few things:

• It's easier for a Senate race to be nationalized. The media coverage of Senate races increases every cycle, but the same can't be said for House races. Media polls are done constantly for statewide races, creating the aura of competition and feeding the notion that the "message" a voter wants to send should be sent at the top of the ticket.

• It's easier to localize a House race. While we're not one to argue that somehow the environment is going to be completely localized on the House level, at the very least it is easier to insert a local issue into a House race debate.

• The National Republican Congressional Committee has a history of saving incumbents. They've already done it this cycle with their adept move at getting Rep. Tom DeLay, R-Texas, to remove himself from the equation.

• The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee has an apparent operational advantage over the National Republican Senatorial Committee. Financially, the DSCC is in better shape than the NRSC, but that's not the case on the House side where the Republicans have a deeper well of donors to tap into. While the House Democrats have done well to keep up, the NRCC has proven in cycles past to be a fundraising juggernaut.

Bottom line: if you asked us to place a $100 wager on the house of Congress we believe would flip first, we'd not only place our money on the Senate, we'd probably ask if we could increase the amount of the wager.

Trail Droppings

• Is All Well For Blackwell? For months, one of the five or six race predictions we've been expressing the most confidence in is the Ohio governor's race. Between anti-Bush feelings and anti-Bob Taft (R) feelings, the race seems(ed) like a shoo-in for the pro-gun Democratic Rep. Ted Strickland, no matter who he faces in the general. But, frankly, we're getting a bit nervous about that prediction as we're running into more and more smart Ohio natives who tell us we're nuts for under-selling Republican Ken Blackwell. These folks argue that Blackwell has the ability to excite the base and potentially steal some normally Democratic-voting African-Americans because of the way he works black churches. Plus, despite having an "R" next to his name, Blackwell's been running an anti-establishment campaign, so he may come across more of a "change" candidate than one might otherwise expect. We'll see. We're still not convinced, but we certainly plan to re-examine the state now that Blackwell is officially the nominee and see if he can connect, and, more importantly, see if he can keep up financially.

• Where's Murkowski? Sunday's "Face"-off between Democratic Sen. Maria Cantwell and GOP Sen. Lisa Murkowski on "Face the Nation" got us wondering why the Republican Senate Caucus doesn't put Murkowski out there more on a national setting. Of all the Republican women in the Senate, Murkowski strikes us as the one who could really sell well in every part of the country. She may have gotten into the Senate via nepotism, but there's something about her that makes us think she could achieve more. Perhaps the best thing Murkowski could hope for is a permanent retirement by her father, Gov. Frank Murkowski, and then the reminders of how she obtained her seat would diminish. And that would allow her to continue to develop her own persona. Bottom line: the Republicans ought to give her more face time; it could only do the party good.

-- Chuck Todd is a NationalJournal.com contributing editor and editor in chief of The Hotline. His e-mail address is ctodd@nationaljournal.com.

[ On The Trail Archives ]

Need A Reprint Of This Column?
National Journal Group offers both print and electronic reprint services, as well as permissions for academic use, photocopying and republication. Click here to order, or call us at 877-394-7350.