I wrote this diary a week ago, but got sidetracked before I could do my final edit and basically forgot about it. Somehow, it doesn't seem as timely now as it did a week ago, but what the heck, here goes.
I know that Charlie Cook enjoys a reputation as a top-notch political prognosticator. And I know that some of you have been disheartened by his recent pronouncement that Democrats=Toast in 2010.
Here's what Cook told Chris Cillizza of the Washington Post about two weeks ago:
Cook has, of late, been extremely down on Democrats' chances -- an attitude born, he argued in the interview, of "fundamental, total miscalculations from the very, very beginning" by the White House about the direction to take the country. Cook added that the White House's miscalculations in terms of their agenda were "of proportions comparable to President George W. Bush's decision to go into Iraq."
In what respect Charlie?
Anyway, I thought maybe a quick review of his predictive powers over the last four years might be useful.
Lets start with the congressional elections of 2006. What was Charlie saying in early March?
Here's Charlie was saying:
Structural barriers are protecting the GOP's majorities like seawalls, and would likely withstand the surge from a Category 1, 2, or 3 storm.
Despite national political trends indicating that the GOP is in serious trouble, a race-by-race "micro" analysis suggests that Democrats cannot easily seize control of the House or the Senate this fall.
In the Senate, Democrats need a net gain of six seats. Republicans are truly fortunate to have only one senator retiring, Majority Leader Bill Frist of Tennessee. Although Democratic Rep. Harold Ford is a talented candidate, he will have his work cut out for him against the winner of a competitive three-way August GOP primary for Frist's seat. The South has become a GOP stronghold. In 2004, Democrats went 0 for 5 in attempting to hold open Senate seats in that region.
Democrats need to win in Tennessee and knock off five GOP incumbents. Only five look truly vulnerable: Conrad Burns of Montana, Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island, Mike DeWine of Ohio, Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania, and Jim Talent of Missouri.
[...]
So Democrats have to run the table by defeating all of the most vulnerable Republicans while holding all of their own seats, including in Minnesota, where their incumbent is retiring, and in Washington state, where Sen. Maria Cantwell faces a very strong challenger. They also need to hang on to somewhat more secure open seats in Maryland and Vermont, as well as 14 other incumbents. Although not impossible in a favorable political climate, this is a very tall order.
Sorry 2006 Charlie. I can tell you now from my all-seeing perch here in the future that the Democrats ran the table on the 5 vulnerables you identified, narrowly lost Tennessee, but still took over the Senate because they knocked off a little guy named George Allen who wasn't even on your radar screen.
So, how'd you do with House, Charlie?
In the House, where Democrats need a net gain of 15 seats, only about three dozen are truly in play today. So far, 17 Republicans and 10 Democrats have announced their retirements. Ten of those Republicans serve in safe GOP districts, where Democrats stand little chance of winning.
Meanwhile, despite their herculean efforts, Democratic recruiters have enticed few first-tier challengers into running this year. Instead, the party has an abundance of second- and third-tier candidates who could never prevail on their own and would need a hurricane-force wind at their backs to cross the finish line first. (Democrats last had a strong political wind propelling them in 1982 -- and before that in 1974.) So, as with the Senate, Democrats need to win every truly competitive House race.
A hurricane does seem likely to hit the GOP this November. But the micro analysis shows that structural barriers in the House and Senate are protecting the Republican majorities like seawalls, and would likely withstand the surge from a Category 1, 2, or 3 storm. They probably couldn't withstand a Category 4 or 5, though.
In 1994, the last wave election, Democrats were protected by many of the same barriers, particularly in the House. The tsunami that slammed into their party had looked perhaps 10 stories tall, not enough for the GOP to shift the necessary 40 seats. But the wave ended up being 15 stories high, and Republicans picked up 52 seats (plus two party switchers).
In four out of five elections, the micro analysis proves accurate. But in about one out of five, it doesn't. Will this year be one of those exceptions?
Well, 2006 Charlie, this may come as a shock to you, but you know how you said that Democrats would need to win "every truly competitive House race to net 15 seats? Would you believe me if I told you they netted 31 seats? Cuz they did.
In other words Charlie, the Democrats did significantly better in November 2006 than the best case scenario you laid out for them in March 2006.
Okay, enough about 2006. Did you see the Obama phenomenon coming 8 months before the Democratic primaries started? Okay what about 2 months before the Iowa caucus?
Heres what you said:
Those same polls do not show similar electability arguments working against Clinton. In fact, most Democrats see her as more electable than Obama.
The critics are right that anyone focusing exclusively on the national nomination polls is making a mistake, but I'm not sure who is doing that.
The national polls, when they point in the same direction as the other indicators, become a useful and efficient way to assess the current political climate.
In this case, the national polls reflect much of what is happening in the early states, with Iowa the one asterisk that has to be watched carefully for signs that it will pull the race in a different direction.
Well, two months before the Iowa caucus, you at least hadn't completely ruled out the possibility that Obama could win the nomination, so at least you've got that going for you.
Okay, the primaries were unpredictable and the 2006 elections were a shocking, once in a generation tsunami.
So, how'd you do with the 2008 congressional races?
Here's how you saw things in March '08. Out of 35 races you considered 10 solid Democrat, 2 Likely Democrat, 1 Lean Democrat, 5 toss-up, 2 Lean Republican, 2 Likely Republican and 13 Solid Republican. So You tilted 13 seats toward Democrats and 17 toward Republicans with 5 too close to call.
How'd that end up?
Democrats won 20 out of 35, considerably better than someone relying on your analysis would have thought a best case scenario would look like.
What about the House in 2008?
This article from September 9, addressing the Presidential, Senate and House elections less than 2 months before the election, is everything I could have hoped for in a summation:
In short, while the Senate looks most likely to end up with GOP losses of at least four, but most likely five to seven seats, and most likely between 12 and 17 seats in the House, this presidential race is very much up in the air. The fundamentals argue one thing, but there is a resistance that prevents it from being a done deal and a running mate that seems to have slowed down Democratic momentum.
This being the case, so many things become important. International or economic events that can pull the spotlight toward or away from one candidate's strong suit, debates, game-changing advertisements or arguments, resources and missteps all become potentially critical elements.
So what happened approximately 8 weeks later?
Barack Obama won the popular vote by a margin of 9.5 million votes, 7.2%, 365 electoral votes to 173, the largest margin of victory for a President since Reagan's landslide in 1984.
In the Senate, the Democrats added seats, 1 more seat than Cook's upper number and in the House Democrats picked up 21 seat, four more than Cook's upper number.
The way I read it, that's three elections in a row where Charlie Cook erred on the side of underestimating the Democrats.
This year I'm predicting a Cook 4-peat.