What Does a Wave Look Like?

Will the government shutdown give Nancy Pelosi a third term as Speaker?

Over the next day or so, I want to get political with my blog.  As I’ve mentioned before, I don’t write these blog posts live, but instead write them a day or two in advance, so I’ll be sticking more to larger commentary than minute-by-minute coverage (if you want up-to-the-minute updates on Washington, head over to your favorite news site…after reading and commenting, of course!).

The likes of Stu Rothenberg and Chuck Todd have discussed in recent days the possibility of a wave election in 2014, something that is definitely a possibility next year, but is not something that I would consider extremely likely at this point.  The reason for this is because Americans have a notoriously short memory when it comes to political hot topics.  People like Ronald Reagan have had terrible approval ratings that eventually were followed up with landslide victories.  Every month for the four years preceding the 2012 election you heard Republicans talking about how a certain issue would doom the President with voters, from the ACA to Benghazi to gay marriage, and all the while he won a comfortable reelection in 2012.  Polls and opinions a year out from an election are barely worth the paper that they’re written on in terms of electoral predictability.

However, let’s suppose that the pundits do prove to be prophetic, and we do have a wave election in 2014 for the Democrats.  Disregarding the fact that this would be almost unheard of (midterm elections rarely go for the president), what would this election look like?  I’ll be investigating some of the traits of three recent landslides (2006, 2008, and 2010) to see what we may be in for if the Democrats succeed on a major scale in 2014.

Candidates Will STILL Matter

The election adage that you can’t win if you don’t run will continue to be true, but for some reason the majority of people seem to think that most candidates in a wave election are someone like Zack Space or Scott Desjarlais-someone who has never held elective office.  This, however, is not true as a whole.  Most people who run successfully in a wave have held some elected office in a previous cycle or have a traditional launching pad that would normally matter in a House or Senate race (such as a position in a congressional office, being a political party official, or a high-ranking military position).  There will be occasional candidates that get through with little to no previous elected or political experience, but they will remain the exception, not the rule.

SoS Natalie Tennant, one of the Democratic
challengers facing a House GOP incumbent.

A Wave Affects the Entire Country, but Is Not a Magic Wand

This is probably the most problematic aspect of the wave argument right now, as polls in states like Arkansas have not shifted to blame the House Republicans, but instead stay fairly lined-up with traditional partisan beliefs.  In a true wave, the entire country feels the brunt. 

This will be of crucial importance for both political parties in regard to the Senate.  Eight major races in 2014 (possibly the only eight major races if there’s a wave) will be in states that Mitt Romney won in 2012 (MT, NC, AR, AK, LA, GA, KY, and WV).  Combining the personal popularity of some of the Democratic candidates running with a wave would be a major hurdle for the GOP, one that they likely couldn’t overcome.  In the past decade, the nation has handed nearly all competitive Senate races in a cycle to the same party (2010 being the only exception to that rule), so if the Democrats are sweeping, expect them to carry the bulk of these eight seats, and certainly hold the Senate.  What's also worth noting about this upcoming cycle is how reliant the GOP is on incumbents as challengers in these races.  Of the eight, the GOP has sitting members of the House likely winning the nomination in five of the races.  Considering the incredibly unpopularity of the House Republicans in particular, this is going to be a steep hill to climb for the GOP if their approval ratings remain in the toiler.

Having a wave isn’t to say that Democrats suddenly start winning in Wyoming and Republicans take a San Francisco seat, however, but that a wave rarely has a state that doesn’t see an increase in turnout for a particular party.  Absent a scandal, a wave is not going to be able to overcome something insane like a double-digit PVI, but it will carry seats that you didn’t expect to take.

A Party’s Inherent Advantages Are Still in Play in a Wave

What I mean by the above is the following: if you look at the past two decades of elections, Democrats traditionally are better at keeping an incumbent in office and beating a Republican incumbent, and the GOP is far better at winning an open seat.  This is particularly true of wave elections-in 2006 and 2008, the Democrats didn’t lose a single incumbent senator (despite running incumbents in places like Louisiana and South Dakota).  In 2010, the Republicans had wild success in open blue seats like Pennsylvania and Illinois, but couldn’t pick off vulnerable incumbents like Michael Bennet, Barbara Boxer, and Harry Reid.  A wave will help to overcome these obstacles (the GOP certainly beat a lot of incumbents in 2010 and the Democrats won a lot of open seats in 2006 and 2008), but the inherent advantage stands.

Blue-State Republicans Would Be Most Vulnerable

Republican Sen. Susan Collins, who represents Obama-won Maine in
the Senate

The biggest thing to notice from the 2006, 2008, and 2010 elections is that the Democrats and Republicans knocked out a lot of the “borrowed time” incumbents.  These are the men and women who represented districts that had been going for the opposite party on a regular basis on a presidential level, but thanks to the personal popularity of the incumbents, hadn’t been going to the party on a congressional or downballot level.

This changes in a wave election, and quite unfairly when framed against the Washington scandals, this could affect Republican governors the most.  The thing about a wave election is that it doesn’t discriminate.  Someone like Lincoln Chafee, who was at the time a moderate Republican and rather popular, will still lose when the country is looking for a way to punish the party ID.  Looking at high profile races, the governors’ seats are the most disproportionately weighted in Obama states.  People like Paul LePage, Rick Snyder, Scott Walker, and Tom Corbett all are politically more vulnerable in a wave because their states are naturally blue.  Add in an emboldened Democratic Party and their jobs get a lot harder.

Congressional Republicans aren’t in as much trouble on this front, as we’ve discussed in the past.  Only five Republicans represent seats with a positive Democratic PVI, and only Susan Collins represents an Obama state next year in the Senate.  It’s because of this that many pundits are reluctant to call the House for the Democrats this far out-there really isn’t much opportunity for them.  It’s also the reason that Susan Collins is taking an active role in this debate-she doesn’t want to turn into the Lincoln Chafee of 2014.

The Wave Party Loses in a Wave Election Too

With 2006 as a really rare exception (you have to research to find incumbent Democrats that lost in 2006), wave party members still lose in wave elections.  In 2008, four incumbent Democrats (two scandal-free: Nancy Boyda and Don Cazayoux) still lost despite the national headwinds in their districts.  In 2010, both Charles Djou and Joseph Cao lost re-election despite the Republicans nationally doing stunningly well.

It’s worth noting that all of these incumbents were in districts that they were never going to hold for long.  Djou and Cazayoux won in special elections (anything can happen in a special), Cao won because the Democratic incumbent was facing corruption charges, and Boyda won in part due to incredible coattails from Gov. Kathleen Sebelius.  None of these seats would have gone to the incumbent party during a traditional election, and even in a wave, they weren’t easy sells (though it’s worth noting all four performed far better in the wave election than they would have in a standard cycle).

Sometimes Waves Just Don’t Make Sense

Waves occasionally make absolutely no sense.  Sometimes there are incumbents that no one thought could possibly win that do.  By all accounts, Jim Matheson, Susan Collins, Dean Heller, and Bill Owens have absolutely no business still holding office.  All politicians ran for election in a wave race for the other party against a solid challenger in a district that generally favors the other party.  Sometimes people just win races, through sheer political skill, personal popularity, and dumb luck.  If there’s an election next year, there will be candidates who prevail that all logic and common sense dictate will be thrown out of office (Chris Christie’s about to become one of them).

Those are my thoughts on what a wave election would look like.  Even a small wave would put the Speakership into tossup status (though she doesn’t have a lot of seats to rely on, Pelosi definitely has enough to make everything in play if the winds are to her back).  What are your thoughts on a potential wave-do you see it happening?