One Way or Another

Given the historically low approval ratings of the current Congress—and House Republicans in particular—it’s not unreasonable to think that the chamber as a whole is in for an electoral reckonning next November. For my part, I’ve predicted a complete flip; anti-incumbent sentiment would drive Americans to eject House Republicans and Senate Democrats, leaving Democrats with a majority in the House and Republicans with one in the Senate. What’s more, this anti-incumbent wave would result in GOP control of the White House, as voters reject President Obama for his performance on the economy.

Writing for the Crystal Ball, political scientist Alan Abramowitz tears this idea to pieces. “There has never been a triple flip election and there is not going to be one in 2012,” he writes. Despite the fact that anti-incumbent sentiment is a regular occurrence in American political life, the United States has never seen an anti-incumbent election. Abramowitz provides two charts that illustrate this fact. The first shows the relationship between Democratic and Republican incumbent defeats in House elections, from 1954 to 2010:

The second shows the relationship between incumbent defeats in Senate elections, during the same period:


Abramowitz explains:

There have been seven elections since 1954 in which at least 30 House incumbents were defeated: 1958, 1964, 1966, 1974, 1980, 1994 and 2010. Of the 279 House incumbents defeated in those seven elections, 263 or 94% were from the party that experienced a net seat loss in the election. Similarly, of the 32 Senate incumbents defeated in those seven elections, 31 or 97% were from the party that experienced a net seat loss in the election.

In other words, “anti-incumbent” waves are reserved for one party or the other, never both. The implications for 2012 are straightforward: The public’s distaste for Congress will either become a distaste for Republicans or a distaste for Democrats. If it becomes the former, then the GOP could lose its House majority, as well as its shot at the Senate and the White House. But if it’s the latter—given the slim Democratic majority in the Senate—we can look forward to a unified Republican government in 2013.


Dear Mr. Kuttner
In a recent article you (thankfully) pointed out the reality of Americans Elect. I get it; water down the electoral process to service the interests of the billionaires. That makes perfect sense.
Some of us have long held the belief campaign finance is at the root of virtually all of our political (and therefore, otherwise) dysfunctions. If the thousands of times a day that our politicians make decisions, they are NOT focused on the well-being of this nation but the satisfaction of their campaign contributors then what could be more dysfunctional than that?
I was for a short time, happy to have come across Americans Elect. I only hear one presidential hopeful beating the campaign finance reform drum and that’s Buddy Roemer. Although I don’t agree with him across the board, he is no doubt, singing the song that must be heard. My hope was that Americans Elect would give him a shot at the presidency.
Is that ignorant of me?
If it is, then how can we (left and right) who are SICK of the corruption, give a man like Buddy a chance to right what is so very wrong?
Please respond, I really need to know.

You need to be logged in to comment.
(If there's one thing we know about comment trolls, it's that they're lazy)