Republicans More Insulated Against Backlash

Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA) (center) and others listen during a press conference outside the Capitol on September 29, 2013.
National Journal
Add to Briefcase
Ben Terris, David Wasserman and Ronald Brownstein
Oct. 1, 2013, 3:28 a.m.

Resolv­ing the seri­al show­downs over the fed­er­al budget and debt ceil­ing may be more dif­fi­cult now than dur­ing the last shut­down un­der Bill Clin­ton and Newt Gin­grich be­cause so many more House Re­pub­lic­ans today rep­res­ent safely GOP dis­tricts, a Na­tion­al Journ­al ana­lys­is has found.

This sug­gests that even if a pub­lic back­lash de­vel­ops against a shut­down or po­ten­tial gov­ern­ment de­fault, Re­pub­lic­an mem­bers may be far more in­su­lated against those gales than their coun­ter­parts were dur­ing the two shut­downs in the winter of 1995 and 1996. Today’s GOP le­gis­lat­ors, for the same reas­on, also may be less sens­it­ive to shifts in pub­lic at­ti­tudes that could threaten their party’s na­tion­al im­age or stand­ing in more closely con­tested parts of the coun­try.

Com­par­ing today’s 232-seat Re­pub­lic­an ma­jor­ity with the 236 seats Re­pub­lic­ans ul­ti­mately held after spe­cial elec­tions and party switches from 1995-96 un­der­scores the ex­tent to which GOP le­gis­lat­ors have suc­ceeded in for­ti­fy­ing them­selves in­to ho­mo­gen­eously con­ser­vat­ive dis­tricts. On every meas­ure, Re­pub­lic­ans today rep­res­ent con­stitu­en­cies that lean more lop­sidedly to­ward their party.

On av­er­age, Clin­ton in 1992 won 46.6 per­cent of the two-party pres­id­en­tial vote in the dis­tricts held by con­gres­sion­al Re­pub­lic­ans dur­ing the 104th Con­gress from 1995-96. (That two-party cal­cu­la­tion ex­cludes the share car­ried by Ross Perot in his in­de­pend­ent bid that year.) Pres­id­ent Obama last year car­ried only an av­er­age of 40.4 per­cent of the two-party pres­id­en­tial vote in the dis­tricts held by the cur­rent Re­pub­lic­an ma­jor­ity.

Back in 1995, 79 House Re­pub­lic­ans rep­res­en­ted dis­tricts that backed Clin­ton in the pre­vi­ous pres­id­en­tial elec­tion; just 17 House Re­pub­lic­ans now rep­res­ent dis­tricts that Obama won. Few­er Re­pub­lic­ans now hold dis­tricts that fall in­to an even broad­er defin­i­tion of com­pet­it­ive­ness:  In 1992, Re­pub­lic­an Pres­id­ent George H.W. Bush won 55 per­cent or less of the two-party pres­id­en­tial vote in 141 of the 236 House Re­pub­lic­an dis­tricts. Now, only 71 House Re­pub­lic­ans, roughly half as many, rep­res­ent dis­tricts where 2012 nom­in­ee Mitt Rom­ney won only 55 per­cent or less.

All of this means that the per­son­al elect­or­al in­cent­ives for most House Re­pub­lic­ans would en­cour­age more — not less — con­front­a­tion as the stan­doffs pro­ceed, notes Gary C. Jac­ob­son, an ex­pert on Con­gress at the Uni­versity of Cali­for­nia (San Diego). “The elect­or­al threat of them an­ger­ing any­body out­side of their base is pretty low,” he says.

Pres­sure on Re­pub­lic­ans to re­solve the stan­doff without a sus­tained shut­down or de­fault, he says, is less likely to come from fear of re­pris­al by voters than “in­sti­tu­tion­al pres­sure” from the party’s core fin­an­cial sup­port­ers in busi­ness and the in­vest­ment in­dustry. “The people I ex­pect to make a dif­fer­ence in this are the Re­pub­lic­an fin­ance and cor­por­ate types who will be very, very un­happy, and that seg­ment of the Re­pub­lic­an Party that is re­spons­ive to them will force the House to [re­lent],” he said. “I think that’s the only way out of this.”

The same trend to­ward more pro­tec­ted dis­tricts emerges from an­oth­er meas­ure of par­tis­an com­pet­i­tion, The Cook Polit­ic­al Re­port‘s Par­tis­an Vot­ing In­dex. That in­dex uses pres­id­en­tial vot­ing res­ults to as­sess each con­gres­sion­al dis­trict’s gen­er­ic par­tis­an strength re­l­at­ive to na­tion­al trends.

In 1995, the av­er­age dis­trict held by House Re­pub­lic­ans poin­ted to a GOP ad­vant­age of roughly 6.6 points on the Cook in­dex. Now, that’s in­creased by about two-thirds, with the av­er­age for House Re­pub­lic­ans stand­ing at a GOP ad­vant­age of 11.1.

Bey­ond those av­er­ages, the PVI data also show that the share of House Re­pub­lic­ans in over­whelm­ingly safe dis­tricts has soared, while the por­tion in even mar­gin­ally com­pet­it­ive seats has plummeted. In 1995, 12 House Re­pub­lic­ans rep­res­en­ted ruby-red dis­tricts whose in­dex score leaned to­ward the GOP by at least 20 points; now 24 rep­res­ent such dis­tricts. In 1995, 25 House Re­pub­lic­ans rep­res­en­ted dis­tricts with a Re­pub­lic­an-lean­ing in­dex score of at least 15; now 61 rep­res­ent such dis­tricts.

Con­versely, back then, more than two-fifths of the Re­pub­lic­an caucus (105 mem­bers in all) rep­res­en­ted at least some­what com­pet­it­ive seats with a Re­pub­lic­an-lean­ing in­dex score of 5 points or less. Today only about one-fifth of Re­pub­lic­ans (53 in all) rep­res­ent dis­tricts so closely bal­anced.

The risk for the GOP is that such in­su­la­tion will leave the House in­ured to po­ten­tial dam­age to the party’s over­all im­age from any shut­down or de­fault. Res­ults over the past week from the United Tech­no­lo­gies/Na­tion­al Journ­al Con­gres­sion­al Con­nec­tion Poll, a CBS/New York Times sur­vey, and a CNN/ORC poll have con­sist­ently found that around three-fifths of adults op­pose shut­ting down the gov­ern­ment to pur­sue changes in the health care law, with some in­dic­a­tions that num­ber may be rising as the stan­doff pro­ceeds.

Rep. Dav­id Price, D-N.C., a former polit­ic­al sci­ent­ist, says that the pro­lif­er­a­tion of safe GOP seats means that even if Re­pub­lic­ans re­ceive most of the blame for a shut­down, as polls sug­gest, “in these in­di­vidu­al dis­tricts maybe that’s no prob­lem; maybe it’s ac­tu­ally to their elect­or­al be­ne­fit.” If there is an elect­or­al cost for the GOP, he ar­gues, it will come through ali­en­at­ing the swing voters they need to win statewide elec­tions in closely con­tested states like North Car­o­lina. “This may be just fine for in­di­vidu­al Re­pub­lic­ans in ger­ry­mandered seats, but it isn’t fine at all for [the party’s] na­tion­al am­bi­tions,” he said. Speak­ing of his home state of North Car­o­lina, he ad­ded: “This cer­tainly en­hances the abil­ity to flip [the ] gov­ernor­ship in 2016, and the same thing ap­plies to the pres­id­ency.”

But vet­er­an GOP poll­ster Glen Bol­ger, in a blog post Monday, warned that his party may face the op­pos­ite risk of de­mo­bil­iz­ing their core sup­port­ers if they con­cede without ex­act­ing any con­ces­sions from Obama. “Re­pub­lic­ans have to get something tan­gible from this, or the base will be dev­ast­ated go­ing in­to 2014,” Bol­ger wrote. “That does not mean no com­prom­ise—last I looked, the Demo­crats con­trol two-thirds of the power in D.C., so the GOP is not go­ing to get everything it wants. But neither should the Demo­crats ex­pect to get everything they want either.”


Welcome to National Journal!

You are currently accessing National Journal from IP access. Please login to access this feature. If you have any questions, please contact your Dedicated Advisor.