Wholesale Buyer's Remorse for MN DFL House Officeholders Doubtful
My Monday entry for the Brain Trust (Republicans Unlikely to Take Back House in '08) prompted a quick reply by the GOP leadership. House Minority Leader Marty Seifert offered a thoughtful rejoinder (Democrats Unlikely to Retain House in '08) to my historical analysis demonstrating the rarity of turnover in party control in consecutive elections for the Minnesota House.
Seifert offered several arguments indicating why 2008 will be different — that the DFL will be in big trouble — including echoing the point I made in my piece that the DFL had won several close elections in 2006 and, therefore, will likely lose some of these seats back in 2008. To refresh, I wrote:
This is not to suggest the DFL won't lose seats in 2008; in fact, it is at a much greater risk to do just that. In 2006 the DFL picked up 13 seats by 5 points or less and an additional 6 seats by between 5 and 10 points. As a result, the DFL will have to defend 28 competitive districts: 19 pickups plus 9 held seats. The Republicans will only have to defend 18 competitive districts in 2008 — all seats held by the party in 2006.The Minority Leader also stated Republicans will have stronger candidates at the top of the ticket (e.g. Norm Coleman) in 2008 than in 2006, benefiting the GOP state House candidates. I certainly do not disagree that Senator Coleman is a strong candidate. In fact, in my February 16th Brain Trust entry (Speaking Frankly: Al is No Jesse and 2008 Isn't 1998) I acknowledged the difficulties Mr. Franken will face in his Senate campaign.
However, citing early poll numbers (as the Minority Leader does) for the primary evidence of Franken's likely demise is a dangerous route to take. Perhaps Rep. Seifert has forgotten that in 2000 incumbent Republican Senator Rod Grams held a 17-point lead over Mark Dayton in a July 2000 Pioneer Press / MPR poll — just 4 months before the election. We are currently 19 months out now from the hypothetical Coleman-Franken matchup.
The Minority Leader is also a bit quick on the draw in discounting the relevance historical trends might have on projecting the 2008 election. He writes:
Giving statistics about House races from 1962 might show interesting historical facts, but the reality is that the 21st century in Minnesota shows a lot of independents and soft voters who gravitate back and forth.
While no one can predict the future with certainty, we can certainly study and learn from the past to establish baseline patterns in voting behavior. To further bolster my point that voters tend to stick with a new majority party for more than one legislative session, and that voting patterns over the past 50 years for the Minnesota House are not an anomaly, consider the following trends of voting behavior in the Upper Midwestern region.
- In the Wisconsin Assembly and Iowa House, turnover in party control in consecutive elections has happened just one time in each state since 1960: from Democrat (1964) back to Republican (1966) control in both cases.
- In the Iowa Senate, Minnesota Senate, and Wisconsin Senate such turnover in back-to-back elections has not happened once since at least 1960.
In other words, modern Upper Midwestern electoral history tells us the kind of "buyer's remorse" that would be required in the Minnesota electorate to prompt an immediate flip-flop back to the GOP in 2008 is a rarity: about once per 50 years for the House and even more rare for the Senate. The challenge for the GOP in 2008 is that, to take back control and win back a net 18 seats, they need to hope Minnesotans experience wholesale buyer's remorse for all the new DFL House officeholders they voted into office in purple, bluish-purple, and reddish-purple districts.