Politics: campaign 2012

Why 2012 Will Be a Watershed House Election

House speaker John Boehner speaks to reporters after a House GOP meeting on the debt ceiling on Monday, July 25, 2011.
National Journal
Add to Briefcase
David Wasserman
Nov. 5, 2012, 5:06 a.m.

Con­sider this mind-bog­gling stat­ist­ic: as­sor­ted non-can­did­ate groups spent a stag­ger­ing $310.8 mil­lion on House races between Labor Day and Novem­ber, and it’s pos­sible that the House’s par­tis­an makeup won’t move an inch. The Cook Polit­ic­al Re­port es­tim­ates the most likely out­come to be no net change to a Demo­crat­ic gain of five seats, with any­thing from a Re­pub­lic­an gain of five to a Demo­crat­ic gain of 10 be­ing pos­sible. The House will re­main com­fort­ably Re­pub­lic­an.

Su­per­fi­cially, it sounds like a pretty un­event­ful even­ing. But it’s haz­ard­ous, if tempt­ing, to write off 2012 as a “status quo” con­gres­sion­al elec­tion. Be­low the calm sur­face are tec­ton­ic shifts that prom­ise to al­ter the nature of House polit­ics, pos­sibly for many years to come. Here are five pre­dic­tions and reas­ons why Tues­day night will be a rare wa­ter­shed elec­tion in the House:

1. Don’t ex­pect much net par­tis­an change, but brace for an his­tor­ic level of turnover. There are 62 House seats with no in­cum­bent on the bal­lot, a re­cord since 1992. That fig­ure in­cludes 39 open seats of mem­bers re­tir­ing or run­ning for oth­er of­fices, 19 seats newly cre­ated by re­dis­trict­ing, and four va­can­cies. Re­mem­ber that class of 87 Re­pub­lic­an fresh­men from 2010? Over four-fifths are likely to be reelec­ted, but now they’ll be yes­ter­day’s news when a new, huge fresh­man class num­ber­ing between 75 and 85 ar­rives.

Al­to­geth­er, it’s cer­tain that more than a third of the House will have less than three years of ex­per­i­ence when the 113th Con­gress is sworn in in Janu­ary. The last time that was the case was 1995, after the GOP wave of 1994 and the land­mark re­dis­trict­ing year of 1992 (this time, it’s the same story in re­verse se­quence). Some very vo­cal ju­ni­or mem­bers (in­clud­ing, pos­sibly, a reindeer ranch­er from Michigan) will be tasked with tack­ling enorm­ously vex­ing and press­ing fisc­al is­sues, prob­lems that are ag­grav­ated this time by an ex­ceed­ingly fra­gile eco­nom­ic re­cov­ery.

2. We are headed for the most po­lar­ized Con­gress in memory. In the GOP wave of 2010, the Blue Dog Co­ali­tion of cen­ter-left and cen­ter-right Demo­crats was cut in half from 55 mem­bers to 26. Get ready for it to be cut in half yet again. The re­tire­ments of Reps. Mike Ross, Ark.-4; Heath Shuler, N.C.-11; and Dan Boren, Okla.-2; the primary de­feats of Jason Alt­mire, Pa.-4; and Tim Hold­en, Pa.-17; and the likely gen­er­al elec­tion losses by a few oth­ers are likely to whittle their ranks to the mid-teens, dis­tilling Demo­crats down to their lib­er­al base. 

While the ranks of the Blue Dogs shrink, the tea party looks poised to gain. A com­mon mis­con­cep­tion is that the 2010 class of GOP fresh­men rode in­to Con­gress on a big tea party band­wag­on. In fact, only 19 of 87 joined the Tea Party Caucus once they got to Wash­ing­ton. But as more mod­er­ate Re­pub­lic­ans re­tire (Reps. Steve La­Tour­ette of Ohio and Tim John­son of Illinois) or go down to de­feat, the next crop of GOP fresh­men will in­clude tea party hard-liners like Trey Radel of Flor­ida and Robert Pit­tenger of North Car­o­lina, fur­ther di­min­ish­ing pro­spects for cross-aisle co­oper­a­tion.

3. Re­pub­lic­ans have a huge built-in ad­vant­age, not just in 2012, but for the fore­see­able fu­ture. Demo­crats couldn’t have picked a worse year to suf­fer hor­rif­ic losses up and down the bal­lot than 2010. In ef­fect, the GOP won the right to draw much of the polit­ic­al map for the next 10 years. After re­dis­trict­ing, the Cook Polit­ic­al Re­port’s par­tis­an in­dex counts 190 heav­ily GOP dis­tricts and just 146 heav­ily Demo­crat­ic dis­tricts, mean­ing the Re­pub­lic­ans need only to win 28 of 99 “swing” House seats to win a ma­jor­ity — not a heavy lift.

In oth­er words, the deck is stacked. A “neut­ral” year or pop­u­lar vote now trans­lates in­to a strong GOP House ma­jor­ity. Mean­while, Demo­crats would need a tid­al wave, not just in 2012, but in any year, to con­trol the House. Re­pub­lic­an ger­ry­man­der­ing isn’t en­tirely to blame for the Demo­crats’ pre­dic­a­ment — they have their own voters to blame, too. Demo­crats’ ex­traordin­ary con­cen­tra­tion on coasts, in big cit­ies, and in col­lege towns has made it easi­er than ever for Re­pub­lic­ans to “quar­ant­ine” Demo­crats in a few dis­tricts and claim the rest for them­selves.

4. For the first time ever, white men will no longer be the ma­jor­ity of the Demo­crat­ic caucus. In 1953, white men were 98 per­cent of House Demo­crats and 97 per­cent of House Re­pub­lic­ans. Today, white men are down to 53 per­cent of Demo­crats and 86 per­cent of Re­pub­lic­ans. In 2013, for the first time, white men will be a minor­ity of the Demo­crat­ic caucus as Blue Dogs (pre­dom­in­antly white men) exit and wo­men and minor­ity can­did­ates claim more di­verse, newly drawn dis­tricts.

Demo­crats will cer­tainly cel­eb­rate this mile­stone, but it doesn’t ne­ces­sar­ily bring them closer to a House ma­jor­ity. In fact, it’s in part a byproduct of Re­pub­lic­ans pack­ing Demo­crat­ic voters in­to the kinds of minor­ity-ma­jor­ity seats most likely to elect minor­ity mem­bers. Al­though Re­pub­lic­ans are mak­ing pro­gress — their 2010 fresh­man class in­cluded five Lati­nos and two Afric­an-Amer­ic­ans and in 2012 Afric­an-Amer­ic­an Mia Love could join their ranks — they have a long way to go to di­ver­si­fy their lead­er­ship and their im­age.

5. Cam­paigns and can­did­ates still mat­ter, but less than they used to. After the big wave elec­tions of 2006, 2008, and 2010, when can­did­ate qual­ity and loc­al is­sues took a back­seat to an­ger at the in­cum­bent in the White House, some the­or­ized voters would “re­vert to the norm” in a non-wave year like 2012. But that hasn’t happened. In pri­or years, a Demo­crat like Rep. John Bar­row of Geor­gia’s 12th Dis­trict could eas­ily run ahead of his party’s pres­id­en­tial nom­in­ee in a tough dis­trict. This year, he’s run­ning a stel­lar cam­paign, but just scrap­ing by.

Voters are con­tinu­ing to cast bal­lots based on who they think ought to con­trol Con­gress, not who they think would do the best job of fix­ing their street­lights. And more ideo­lo­gic­al in­terest groups and su­per PACs are choos­ing mem­bers, par­tic­u­larly in primar­ies with nar­row elect­or­ates. Even in the gen­er­al elec­tion peri­od, out­side groups like Amer­ic­ans for Tax Re­form and the AF­SCME labor uni­on have spent $193 mil­lion to the NR­CC’s $60.5 mil­lion and the DCCC’s $57.4 mil­lion, di­lut­ing the role of these tra­di­tion­al ap­par­at­uses.

The pro­lif­er­a­tion of su­per PACs hasn’t led to a pul­ver­iz­a­tion of com­pet­it­ive races as some pre­dicted. But it has shif­ted paid com­mu­nic­a­tion in House races to a more chaot­ic, multi-di­men­sion­al mod­el, in which an in­di­vidu­al cam­paign is just one of a vast ar­ray of pay­ing com­mu­nic­at­ors. “I’ve come to con­clude that can­did­ates are less and less in con­trol of their own des­tiny,” re­marked one busy vet­er­an Re­pub­lic­an poll­ster. And that shift, on such full dis­play in 2012, may be here to stay.


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.