The Lessons of 2010

After the Democratic debacle in the last midterms, no one can ignore the power of holding the redistricting pen.

WASHINGTON - MARCH 23: U.S. President Barack Obama (C) signs the Affordable Health Care for America Act during a ceremony with fellow Democrats in the East Room of the White House March 23, 2010 in Washington, DC. The historic bill was passed by the House of Representatives Sunday after a 14-month-long political battle that left the legislation without a single Republican vote. (Photo by Win McNamee/Getty Images)
National Journal
Charlie Cook
Add to Briefcase
See more stories about...
Charlie Cook
Aug. 1, 2014, 1 a.m.

In real es­tate, the three most im­port­ant things are said to be “loc­a­tion, loc­a­tion, and loc­a­tion.” In polit­ics, it might well be “tim­ing, tim­ing, and tim­ing.” As we ap­proach the 2014 midterm elec­tions, the Sen­ate’s Demo­crat­ic ma­jor­ity is tee­ter­ing on the edge, but the House is just an af­ter­thought, with little chance that it will change con­trol or dir­ec­tion. Had it not been for the Demo­crat­ic de­bacle in 2010, we might well be talk­ing about an en­dangered Demo­crat­ic ma­jor­ity in the House this year rather than a GOP lock.

Obama signs the Af­ford­able Care Act in March 2010. (Win Mc­Namee/Getty Im­ages)Re­call that Re­pub­lic­ans them­selves had been through pun­ish­ing elec­tions in 2006 and 2008; the GOP was in pretty aw­ful shape head­ing in­to 2009. Con­versely, the fore­cast for Demo­crats at that point looked aw­fully good. Then the bot­tom fell out for Demo­crats in 2009 and 2010, largely due to the drop in Pres­id­ent Obama’s job-ap­prov­al num­bers and the ra­dio­activ­ity of health care re­form, and, to a less­er ex­tent, House pas­sage of cap-and-trade cli­mate le­gis­la­tion. Un­for­tu­nately for Demo­crats, the re­versal of for­tune happened in a midterm elec­tion, when far more gov­ernor­ships and state le­gis­lat­ive seats are up than in the pres­id­en­tial cycle. Even more im­port­ant, it was the last elec­tion be­fore state le­gis­lat­ors re­drew maps for con­gres­sion­al and state seats for the com­ing dec­ade.

Tim Storey of the Na­tion­al Con­fer­ence of State Le­gis­latures, who has spent more than two dec­ades study­ing state-level elec­tions, points out that there were his­tor­ic­al danger signs: Demo­crats had gained state le­gis­lat­ive seats in three straight elec­tions lead­ing in­to 2010, and neither party since the 1920s had gained seats in four straight elec­tions. Demo­crats were set up for a loss, and, boy, did they have one. The party not only saw a net loss of six gov­ernor­ships (ac­tu­ally los­ing 11 but gain­ing five), it also suffered a net loss of 725 state le­gis­lat­ive seats, which was, ac­cord­ing to Storey, more than either party has gained or lost since 1966. Re­pub­lic­ans picked up 23 state le­gis­lat­ive cham­bers (plus, Ore­gon moved from a Demo­crat­ic ma­jor­ity to a tie) in 2009 and 2010. Demo­crat­ic state Sen­ate cham­bers went Re­pub­lic­an in Alabama, Louisi­ana, Maine, Min­nesota, Mis­sis­sippi, New Hamp­shire, New York, North Car­o­lina, and Wis­con­sin. State Houses flipped from blue to red in Alabama, Col­or­ado, In­di­ana, Iowa, Louisi­ana, Maine, Michigan, Min­nesota, Montana, New Hamp­shire, North Car­o­lina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wis­con­sin.

With their pres­id­ent’s pop­ular­ity tank­ing, this was the worst time for Demo­crats to face an elec­tion. The day after, Storey wrote proph­et­ic­ally that “2010 will go down as a de­fin­ing elec­tion that will shape the na­tion­al polit­ic­al land­scape for at least the next 10 years. The GOP, in dra­mat­ic fash­ion, finds it­self now in the best po­s­i­tion for both con­gres­sion­al and state le­gis­lat­ive line-draw­ing that it has en­joyed in the mod­ern era of re­dis­trict­ing.”

Of course there is more to the par­tis­an dis­tri­bu­tion of con­gres­sion­al and state le­gis­lat­ive seats than just ger­ry­man­der­ing. The Vot­ing Rights Act, for ex­ample, has the ef­fect of con­cen­trat­ing large num­bers of minor­ity voters in dis­tricts that make ad­ja­cent dis­tricts less hos­pit­able for Demo­crats, even when Re­pub­lic­ans are not in a po­s­i­tion to help the pro­cess along. Pop­u­la­tion-sort­ing also plays a role: Ac­cord­ing to our num­ber crunch­ing at The Cook Polit­ic­al Re­port, in the 2012 pres­id­en­tial elec­tion, 60 per­cent of Re­pub­lic­an-lean­ing seats got even more Re­pub­lic­an and 76 per­cent of Demo­crat­ic seats got even more Demo­crat­ic — in­de­pend­ent of re­dis­trict­ing. Fur­ther­more, Demo­crats’ res­id­en­tial “clus­ter­ing” in urb­an areas shows no signs of abat­ing; thanks to the bur­geon­ing in-mi­gra­tion of young (and quite so­cially lib­er­al) voters to urb­an set­tings, many cit­ies have ac­tu­ally be­gun to grow faster than their sub­urbs for the first time since the 1920s. This is con­tinu­ing to make Demo­crats’ elect­or­ate even less geo­graph­ic­ally ef­fi­cient for pur­poses of win­ning the House.

All that aside, the fact that Re­pub­lic­ans had the re­dis­trict­ing pens in their hands still made an enorm­ous dif­fer­ence. That Demo­crats won the na­tion­al pop­u­lar vote for the House of Rep­res­ent­at­ives in 2012 while just barely chip­ping away at the newly min­ted GOP ma­jor­ity un­der­scores that.

While this year’s midterms won’t change the course set in 2010, what hap­pens in the 2018 and 2020 gubernat­ori­al and state le­gis­lat­ive elec­tions will be huge in es­tab­lish­ing who con­trols re­dis­trict­ing in 2021, and which gov­ernors can veto or in­flu­ence where the lines are drawn. For Demo­crats, those elec­tions will de­term­ine wheth­er they are go­ing to be shut out of con­trolling the House for a second straight dec­ade, or wheth­er there will be a fairer fight for dom­in­ance of the lower cham­ber. Ob­vi­ously, the polit­ic­al en­vir­on­ment will also be shaped by who­ever wins the pres­id­ency in 2016; how the next pres­id­ent per­forms in the 2018 midterm elec­tion, and her or his pro­spects for reelec­tion in 2020, will likely de­term­ine wheth­er the ter­rain will be tilted to­ward one party or be re­l­at­ively level. But after they saw how much of a dif­fer­ence 2010 made, it’s pretty safe to as­sume that neither side will be caught asleep in these cycles.

What We're Following See More »
Lieberman Withdraws from Consideration for FBI Job
4 days ago
Trump Tells NATO Countries To Pay Up
4 days ago
Russians Discussed Influencing Trump Through Aides
4 days ago

"American spies collected information last summer revealing that senior Russian intelligence and political officials were discussing how to exert influence over Donald J. Trump through his advisers." The conversations centered around Paul Manafort, who was campaign chairman at the time, and Michael Flynn, former national security adviser and then a close campaign surrogate. Both men have been tied heavily with Russia and Flynn is currently at the center of the FBI investigation into possible collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia.

Ethics Cops Clear Mueller to Work on Trump Case
5 days ago

"Former FBI Director Robert Mueller has been cleared by U.S. Department of Justice ethics experts to oversee an investigation into possible collusion between then-candidate Donald Trump's 2016 election campaign and Russia." Some had speculated that the White House would use "an ethics rule limiting government attorneys from investigating people their former law firm represented" to trip up Mueller's appointment. Jared Kushner is a client of Mueller's firm, WilmerHale. "Although Mueller has now been cleared by the Justice Department, the White House may still use his former law firm's connection to Manafort and Kushner to undermine the findings of his investigation, according to two sources close to the White House."

Senate Intel to Subpoena Two of Flynn’s Businesses
5 days ago

Senate Intelligence Committee chairman Richard Burr (R-NC) and ranking member Mark Warner (D-VA) will subpoena two businesses owned by former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn. Burr said, "We would like to hear from General Flynn. We'd like to see his documents. We'd like him to tell his story because he publicly said he had a story to tell."


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.