This is section eightSNOW JOB
THE MEDIA-TION OF THE 1996 CONGRESSIONAL ELECTIONS Ronald Gordon Ziegler In his anthology The Road to Victory, Ron Raucheux, editor of Campaigns and Elections magazine, enters a caveat that should be no great revelation What amounts to one of the cardinal sins of politics is self-delusion. Candidates and politicians who chose to ignore this warning and proceed against all evidence to the contrary on their flawed premises are apt to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune with losses in the electoral process. And yet, politicians are being joined by pundits and political scientists in deluding themselves completely about the results of the last several elections in American politics. The matter is exemplified by the cover story of Newsweek magazine (November 18, 1996), "The Inside Story of His [Clinton's] Big Victory." This is not new. After 1992, the heralded triumph of Clinton's landslide victory was a dominant newstory. And there are many in political circles who still do not quite comprehend that the House is no longer in Democrat hands. This may all be well and good as far as rhetoric goes, but when the talespinner begins to believe the fable, there are bound to be problems. Indeed, it almost seems as if these minstrels not only believe it, but that they have never doubted it. To many, it has become the accepted version of these political events. While a corollary of the old adage that you can fool most of the people most of the time becomes a serious error when those who profess it are in reality fooling only themselves, there is too much at stake in the political wars to excuse such excess. Politicos, punditry, and the discipline itself must come to some major realizations about the past three elections -- 1992, 1994, and 1996. To begin with, it is simply not the case that Bill Clinton 'won' two big victories in capturing the White House. Furthermore, in terms of the Congress, GOP control of both Houses is not an aberration for which the actual seven seat loss they suffered in 1996 is indicative of changing political winds that bode an ill fortune for future Republican prospects. It doesn't matter how many times this tale is repeated. Those who continue to proceed ostrich-like on such misconceptions are courting the disaster that will befall them if they do not consider alternative explanations. As 1996 drew to an end, the northwest was being inundated with the worst snow fall it had experienced in memory. That may be altogether fitting and proper, or at least poetic justice, considering the snow job that was done on the area in the 1996 elections. Republicans lost as many seats in the west as they did in any other part of the nation (although the fact that they also picked up four previously Democrat held seats mitigates that loss in the aggregate regional totals somewhat). Indeed, the entire country was hit by a snow job by the media in the November elections, as perhaps moreso than at any other time in recent memory, the media had a tremendous impact on the outcome of the elections. This was not accomplished by its beating the Democrat drum, although they clearly did that and it had some impact. The effect was much more subtle than that, coming on the heels of the media's self-fulfilling prophecy as to how the election would go. And, as much as this is true with regard to the Presidential election, it is just as clear, if it was less successful, in regard to the races for the House of Representatives. Had it not been for the 'media effects', it is probable that the partisan makeup of the 105th Congress would have been even more Republican than it was in the 104th, with whatever losses the Republicans incurred in the northeast and midwest being balanced by their gains in the south and the west. The eight seats picked up by Democrats would not have been won had it not been for the lower turn out in the west. That decline in voting as compared to 1992 cost Republicans at minimum ten seats in California, Oregon, Washington, Wisconsin, and Ohio, if not the capture of additional seats in several areas. At the very least, the GOP loss would have been cut to only a couple of seats. An examination of the results of the voting in Congressional races across the nation can clearly evidence this.
TABLE 1 -- House Partisan Changes -- 1994 to 1996 South Northeast Midwest West Alabama R + 2 Californ D + 3 Conn D + 1 Iowa D + 1 Kent R + 1 Maine D + 1 Mass D + 2 Mich D + 1 Missi R + 2 Misso R + 1 Mont R + 1 NJ D + 1 NY D + 1 NC D + 2 Oh D + 2 Ok R + 1 SD R + 1 Tx R + 2 Ut R + 1 Wash D + 3 Wisc D + 1 Net Regional Gains South R + 6 Northeast D + 6 Midwest D + 5 West D + 2 Total D + 7
Almost totally ignored amidst all the hoopla over the Democrat gains in the mainstream media was the pounding they took in the Senate. With thirtyfour Senate seats up for grabs in 1996, Republicans won 21 of them. But, they came within a breath of winning in Georgia, Louisiana, Montana, and South Dakota, as well. Had it not been for the media effects, they would certainly have carried those states, but probably Massachusetts, too, and perhaps Minnesota and Iowa. Half of the mere 13 Democrat victories were by narrow margins. The 54 to 46 Republican Senate edge could easily have gone from the 53-47 margin of the104th Congress to 61 Republicans to 39 Democrats. In five southern states, the Republicans gained House seats in the 1996 Congressional elections, following the pattern that has exhibited itself for some time throughout the region. In Alabama, they now hold two seats that had previously been Democrat controlled.
1994 1996 Rep Dem Rep Dem 1st 103431 50227 132086 69322 2nd 124465 44694 132596 74330 3rd 53757 93924 102923 94927 4th unopposed 102879 99356 5th 86923 88693 94334 126705 6th 155047 41030 181313 70072 7th 34814 116150 52084 136634
With the Republicans winning the 3rd and 4th districts in Alabama, Democrats are now left holding only two seats in this once solid Democrat bastion. Bob Riley won the 3rd district for an open seat as Democrat Glen Browder was not running again, and Republican Robert Aderholt won in the 4th, a district which the GOP did not even contest in 1994 against Democrat Tom Bevill, who was not running this time, although in the 5th, Republican Wayne Parker was challenging incumbent Democrat Bud Cramer but came up with only 42 % of the vote this time even though he had lost to Cramer by less than 1800 votes in 1994. Scotty Baessler is now the only Democrat Congressman from Kentucky, after Mike Ward's narrow loss to Anne Northrup in 1996 in the 3rd district. Two years ago, Ward hung on to claim an open seat by defeating Susan Stokes by less than 500 votes in a three candidate field in which Taxpayer Party candidate Richard Lewis polled 17591 votes. In a one on one race this time, Northrup edged Ward by 1300 votes.
1994 1996 Rep Dem Rep Dem 1st 64849 62387 111483 96640 2nd 90535 60867 125430 90208 3rd 67238 (T17591) 67663 126625 125326 4th 96695 33717 147997 68661 5th 82291 21318 unopposed 6th 49032 70085 100234 125908
Tom Barlow was an incumbent Democrat in 1994 when he lost to Republican challenger Ed Whitfield by 2500 votes. Whitfield won re-election this time by 16000 votes in Kentucky's 1st district. In the 6th district, Baessler's hold on the seat around Lexington may appear to be more vulnerable in the future. Former Tiger hurler and Hall of Famer Jim Bunning appears to be leading the way toward a potential sweep of the delegation which when he first came to Congress was a decidedly Democrat stronghold. Democrats still hold onto two seats from Mississippi, but they lost one more seat to the Republicans in 1996, which gives them control of the delegation for the first time. The win for the GOP was in the open 3rd district, where Democrat Sonny Montgomery was not seeking re-election (as had been the case with their victory by Roger Wicker had in the 1st district two years ago). Another change in the Mississippi delegation was that Mike Parker won for the Democrats in the 4th district in 1994, but was re-elected as the Republican candidate in 1996, and thus the change is a net gain of two seats for the GOP in 1996 over 1994, even though the switch occurred some time ago -- after the 1994 races, but before those of this year.
1994 1996 Rep Dem Rep Dem 1st 80553 47192 122554 55200 2nd 49270 68014 63989 99754 3rd 39826 83163 114379 67957 4th* 38200 82939 110895 64823 5th 48575 73179 69990 101832
The Republicans took the 9th Congressional district in northern Missouri in the 1996 elections (this race has been placed with the South in this analysis, but could just as easily have been placed with the Midwest). The district in question lies across the Mississippi River from Illinois (the 20th district of Illinois which lies across the river was also taken over by the GOP, while the 3rd Iowa district to which it is also adjacent in part fell to the Democrats in 1996). Kenny Hulshof had come 11000 votes short in his bid to unseat Democrat incumbent Harold Volkmer in 1994, but this time, he garnered 3000 votes more than the Democrat to win. There was also an interesting development in the 8th Congressional district for one of the states two open seat districts in which Jo Ann Emerson, running on a third party, defeated both the Democrat and the Republican candidates. The new Congresswoman is the wife of the Republican who held the seat as recently as to win it going away in 1994. It effectively remains a 'Republican' seat.
1994 1996 Rep Dem Rep Dem Other 8th 129320 48987 23459 83074 112473 9th 92301 103443 123579 117684
The only southern state in which Republicans lost seats was North Carolina. They had hoped to pick up a new seat there, perhaps the one vacated by Charlie Rose, but they did not accomplish that either. The two seats they dropped were in the east central part of the state, two contiguous districts, the 2nd and 4th. In the 2nd, the GOP picked up an open seat two years ago that had been held by Democrats prior to that, but it was retaken by them in 1996. And in the 4th, Republican Heineman defeated incumbent David Price in 1994 but then lost to him the second time around. It seems that there may be a corollary to the rule about incumbents overwhelmingly winning re-election -- if an incumbent loses a seat, they also may have a very good chance at retaking it again subsequently. Other than for these two seats, the vote in House elections in 1996, at least in regard to the proportion of the vote each party garnered, changed very little in comparison to 1994. Vote totals were way up over four years earlier, but nothing compared to the doubled vote the Democrats won over last time in these two districts. However, Republican vote in these was way up, too, although not quite as much -- and hence, their loss of these seats.
1994 1996 Rep Dem Rep Dem 2nd 79207 62122 98317 113371 4th 77773 76558 124882 155163
In the 12th district in Texas, to the west of Dallas, and in the 5th, which runs from east of Dallas toward Houston, Republicans gained two seats in the Texas delegation. In the latter, the gain was in an open seat, but in the former, Pete Sessions was able to do what he had not succeeded in doing in 1994. But that is not the entire story in Texas. In the 1st, 2nd, and 17th districts, Republicans ran very much more competitive races than they had done last time. And in the15th district, Greg Laughlin won re-election for the Republicans, in the seat he had held prior to 1994 as a Democrat. Part of the reason for the generally better showing for Republicans across the state is due to the fact of a limited redistricting which had taken place in the state between 1994 and 1996. It further seems quite possible that the GOP will have a good chance to pick up a few more seats in Texas in the near future. There has been here, as in the rest of the South, a marked rise in Republican vote. Most vulnerable would seem to be not only the 1st, 2nd, and 17th, but also perhaps the 24th, and 25th as well -- and maybe even others if incumbent Democrats decide not to run again anywhere. It seems reasonable to think that the GOP may be able to claim a majority of the Texas delegation as early as 1998.
1994 1996 Rep Dem Rep Dem 1st 63911 86480 94107 103924 2nd 66071 87709 89810 102868 5th 58521 61877 80311 71065 9th 81353 71643 88171 83781 (17886) 10th 80382 113738 97204 132066 11th 52876 76667 74712 100107 12th 43959 96372 98349 69859 15th 41119 61528 50608 85442 16th 37409 49815 35271 90260 17th 72108 83497 91197 99458 24th 58062 65019 54551 77847 25th 53321 61959 21898 (16727) 43693 (21698) (9070) (8983) 27th 44693 65325 50962 97251
Whereas Republicans gained a net total of 6 seats from the South with the 1996 elections, results in the rest of the country appeared to go the other way, although that may not be quite what it appears to be on the surface. In the 'greater South,' a rather expansive area of 14 states, Republicans hold a margin of 84 seats to 63 Democrats and one 'other' (which is effectively a Republican seat, that of Missoui's 8th District), compared to a margin of 78 to 70 for them after 1994. Leaving aside Maryland (where the delegation is evenly split, and Missouri with actually 4 members of the 9 person delegation being Republican, the GOP's edge is even bigger, 22 seats instead of 20. It is also likely to get even bigger, with the prospects for them to pick up seats in especially Texas as soon as 1998 being very good. Democrats took over the 5th Congressional district from Republicans in Connecticut in 1996, increasing their control of the delegation to an edge of 4 to 2. But there were also other important changes in the voting patterns for Congress in the state this time. Two years ago, Democrat incumbent Sam Gejdenson won re-election over Republican challenger Edward Munster by a mere 19 votes in the 2nd district, and that was with 'A Connecticut Party' candidate David Bingham taking almost 28000 votes in the race (In most districts, the Democrat nominee is also nominated by 'A Connecticut Party'). This time around there was a smaller vote for the third party ticket (under 10000 votes), and Gejdenson was able to defeat Munster by close to 14000 votes. Gary Franks had won re- election in 1994 by 12000 votes over his Democrat challenger James Maloney, but in 1996, while Franks got 4000 more votes than he had the last time, Maloney increased his vote from 81523 to 110884, handing Franks a 13000 vote defeat. Democrats came close to knocking off the 6th district Republican, as well. Whereas in 1994, Charlotte Koskoff collected only 49701 votes to Republican Nancy Johnson's 123101, Kostoff fell less than 2200 votes short in 1996 (Johnson won 113020 to 111396). As in much of New England, there appears to be a pattern in development now over several elections of the one- sidedness of Massachusetts' Democrat strength overflowing its borders into neighboring states Connecticut, Maine, New Hampshire, and even Vermont. Franks' former district, however, borders on the Big Apple, so that would have been less likely to impact there. After the 1996 elections, both members of the House from Maine are Democrats. This may seem peculiar for the state in which Ross Perot fared the best in 1992, but it is nonetheless the case. In 1994, Republican James Longley won 10000 more votes than Democrat Dennis Dutremble in a contest for the open 1st district, but incumbent Longley lost his re-election bid to Thomas Allen by a hefty 32000 votes. The 2nd district was also an open seat in 1994 when John Baldacci defeated Richard Bennett by 12000 ballots. Republicans ran Paul Young in 1996 and he was thoroughly trounced. The total Democrat Congressional vote was, however, much above the 311000 votes Clinton won in Maine (Dole's vote was only slightly below the Republican Congressional vote), and the 'sweep' was accomplished even as Republican Susan Collins won the Senate seat by 30000 votes. While little is certain in politics, the margins of both Democrat wins for 1996 probably do not portend well for any chance of Republicans retaking them very soon, although obviously the Maine electorate is in a volitile mood.
1994 1996 Rep Dem Rep Dem 1st 136316 126373 133501 165815 2nd 97754 109615 68420 197177
Probably the least surprising place for Democrats to pick up seats in the House would be in Massachusetts. With the new 105th Congress, all ten of the members of the House from Massachusetts will be Democrats. The Republicans did make a run at the open 10th district seat vacated by Gerry Studds, but William Delahunt beat Republican Edward Teague 160468 to 123261, a closer race than Studds' last margin in 1994. And John Oliver did not even have a Republican opponent in 1994, but was able to overcome the challenge from Jane Swift 129020 to 115712 in western Massachusetts. Republican incumbent Peter Blute who won re-election in 1994 by 22000 votes, lost in 1996 to James McGovern by 19000. In the 3rd district, and in the 6th, Democrat John Tierney, who fell 7500 votes short of Republican incumbent Peter Torkildsen in 1994, beat him by 600 votes this time. With the expected fall off of voters in 1998 (and maybe a return of some Perot voters), and the normal retrospective vote against the incumbent President's party that normally occurs in off-year elections, it might be conceivable for Republicans to mount strong challenges in the 3rd, 6th, 1st, and perhaps even the 10th district in 1998. Bill Martini won election to Congress from New Jersey in 1994 by defeating Democrat incumbent Herb Klein, but he was unable to hold onto the seat to win re-election in 1996, shifting the balance of control over the delegation back to Democrats by a 7 to 6 margin. Democrat William Pascrell won the seat Martini had captured by 2000 votes with a margin of over 8000 this time. In two open seats, Republicans held onto control of the 12th where Pappas beat Del Vecchio by 10000 votes, a closer race than the GOP's Zimmer had had in 1994, and Rothman took over Torricelli's Democrat seat in the 9th with a margin of 20000 votes. In the 11th, Republican Rodney Frelinghuysen who had been elected for the first time in 1994, had no more trouble winning re-election this time around. The only change in New York's delegation was the 4th district victory of Carolyn McCarthy over Daniel Frisa 123228 to 87695. Frisa had defeated Democrat Phillip Schiliro for this open seat in New York City 87815 to 65286. The only other change in the returns of any significance involved Democrat Maurice Hinchey's 26th district seat, which he held onto in 1994 by 366 votes but won this time by over 22000. The rest of the story in New York is of incumbents winning big by about the same margins as they did in 1994. While the make-up of Pennsylvania's delegation remains unchanged, there were some close races in 1994 and 1996 which are worthy of note:
1994 1996 Rep Dem Rep Dem 13th Fox 96254 Margolies-Mezvinsky 88073 Fox 120297 Hoeffel 120287 (14942) 15th Yaeger 71602 McHale 72073 Kilbanks 80784 McHale109377 20th McCormick Mascara McCormick Mascara 84439 95251 97307 113302 21st English 89439 Leavens 84796 English 106421 DiNicola 103675
Jon Fox defeated the Democrat incumbent in the 13th district north of Philadelphia in 1994 and was able to hold on to win re-election by 10 votes in 1996, even with a third party candidate (Burke) capturing almost 5000 votes. And in the 21st district around Erie, Phillip English's 4700 vote victory for the Republicans in an open district in 1994 was sustained by a slightly slimmer margin in 1996. On the other hand, the challenge to Democrat incumbent McHale also north of Philadelphia in the 15th district which fell just 471 votes short in 1994 could not be matched by another challenger in 1996 who lost to McHale by over 28000 votes, and a somewhat less successful effort by Republican McCormick against Democrat Mascara in an open seat contest for the 20th district seat south of Pittsburgh in 1994 lost in a rematch by a slightly larger margin in 1996. The Northeast is the section of the country in which the Democrats had their best showing for 1996, but unlike the West, it is rather more difficult to explain it, short of a more liberal voting pattern among much of the electorate. In contrast to the South, and similar to the Northeast, Democrats in Iowa were able to take one seat that had been held by the Republicans. The races were all tighter than they were in 1994, except for that in the 5th district. Democrat Leonard Boswell edged out Republican Mike Mahaffey for the seat that had been held by Jim Lightfoot who unsuccessfully challenged Tom Harkin for Iowa's Senate seat. The 3rd district which Boswell won has Des Moines as its hub, and much of his strength came from that area. It is possible that the increases in Democrat voting strength are a continuation of Iowa's trend over the last decade of stronger showing by Democrats. This has been particularly apparent at the Presidential level, or the increased Democrat vote may fall back again slightly, if not to the level of previous years, either because of an expected drop off in voting in off-year elections in 1998 or with either diminishing labor campaign funds -- or the diminishing return on them. The 3rd district may be difficult for Boswell to hold onto. Still, this is one state in which Democrat strength has been on the rise, and it might be possible for them to make future challenges in some of the congressional districts in the state.
1994 1996 Rep Dem Rep Dem 1st 110448 69461 128190 111190 2nd 111076 86087 127357 109383 3rd 111862 79310 110507 113811 4th 111935 98824 132396 118909 5th 114796 73627 146658 75520
The one seat the Democrats picked up in Michigan was the GOP's loss of the seat Dick Chrysler had won from the Democrats in 1994. In this seat, the Democrats managed to outspend the Republicans to take back a district that is often called a swing district, but which has elected Democrats by slim margins in most recent contests. Chrysler garnered almost the identical vote he won in 1994, about 110000, but Stabenow polled some 137000 votes compared to the approximately 95000 the Democrat candidate received in 1994, when neither candidate Chrysler nor Democrat Mitchell were incumbents. The change in the vote tracks closely with the change in campaign expenditure by both sides. Continue
