While many Democrat candidates ran stronger than they had two years previously, so, too, did many of the Republican candidates. The Democrat totals appear to have been aided by the huge influx of campaign dollars from organized labor -- perhaps here as much as in any other state -- although, the impact on the outcome of the contests was not adequate to change the winner, except perhaps in the 8th. Republican hopes, largely pinned to expectations on their having run 'better' candidates in several districts (on Jacobsen's thesis), such as Suzy Heintz and James DeSana, did not alter the votes much, either (although Heintz drew closer to Bonior, that candidacy did not fare as well as the challenge to the whip by State Senator Doug Carl four years ago. There is little evidence that GOP hopes for greater campaign funds was adequate to make any difference. Democrat incumbents regularly outspent their Republican challengers. Democrat Lynn Rivers was elected to an open seat narrowly in 1994 and won re-election in 1996, but the vote totals in the district were startling, with Rivers winning easily, yet with a mere 100000 votes cast in all -- down from over 167000 in 1994. Perhaps Clinton's showing in Michigan, in which he polled more than half the vote unlike 1992 when he won the state on the back of Perot sapping Bush's strength, helped some of the Democrats, but it might have just as likely been a reverse of that, with the Democrat Congressional candidates helping poll votes for Clinton on reverse coattails. Michigan has been a stronghold of organized labor, and it looks as if their strategy of spending the farm did help Democrats here, although it is uncertain that they can continue to spend in that manner on a regular basis or that it would continue to show the marginal return it seemed to in 1996, and this may bode an ill wind for Democrats in the future in Michigan.
District 1994 1996 Republican Democrat Republican Democrat 7th 115621 57326 107552 89487 8th 109663 95383 110307 136781 9th 89148 97096 89522 136129 10th 73862 121876 93848 117894 12th 92762 103508 78153 116007 13th 77908 89573 37676 67302 16th 71159 105849 52599 80068
Democrats picked up one seat in the Cleveland's 10th district and another in the huge 6th district which ranges across the southern part of the state from above Cincinnati to the Ohio River border with West Virginia. Both of these races were decided by just over 5000 votes. Martin Hoke, the Cleveland Republican, was not new to the office as Frank Cremeans in the 6th was in defeating the incumbent Democrat Ted Strickland in 1994. Strickland reclaimed his former seat, another factor helping the Democrats increase their share of the Ohio delegation, and probably one making it seem less vulnerable the next time around.
1994 1996 1994 1996 6th 10th Rep 91263 109626 Rep 95226 102149 Dem 87861 114961 Dem 70918 107986 Ind 17495
Other than the fact that turn out was up over 1994 (though much lower than in 1992), there was little change in the other races in Ohio. Democrats had targeted both districts and spent heavily in their effort to take the two seats. Without such spending, though, and with lower turn out in the 1996 off year elections, these would seem to be prime candidates to be vulnerable for defeat in two years. They had targeted the 18th district east from Columbus, also, but the margin of Bob Ney's victory there, though slimmer than it had been, was still nearly 10000 votes. Democrats also picked up two previously held Republican seats in Wisconsin in the 1996 elections. But there are some rather peculiar aspects about the state's congressional races. For one thing, it seems that six of the nine districts are rather competitive. Both of the seats the Democrats won were in open districts. Wisconsin, perhaps in its tradition as a third party bastion, has in the last two Presidential elections been one of the states in which Clinton was able to win because Perot captured so many votes that otherwise would have gone to Bush or Dole. Furthermore, it has been in the national spotlight for the initiatives undertaken by its popular Republican Governor Tommie Thompson. Finally, voter participation in the state fell by considerably more than the national average of about 7 % in 1996 as compared to 1992. In Wisconsin's 1st district, the GOP's Mark Neumann was able to win re-election to the seat he had taken from incumbent Democrat Peter Barca in 1994. His margin of victory this time over Lydia Spottswood was nearly 5000 votes, compared to his 900 vote edge over Barca in this district across the state line from Chicago. In the 2nd, Republican incumbent Scott Klug collected over 20000 more votes than he had received in 1994, but against him, Democrat Paul Soglin doubled the vote Democrat Hecht won in 1994..Republican Steve Gunderson did not run this year, and Democrat Ron Kind beat Republican James Harsdorf by almost 10000 votes. And with Toby Roth not seeking the 8th district seat in Packer country in 1996, which he easily won last time, the Democrat Jay Johnson was able to best Republican David Prosser by 10000 votes, as well. At the same time, however, the Democrat Congressman Dave Obey, who represents northwest Wisconsin, held off a second consecutive challenge from Scott West, doubling his edge this time over him from the 15000 vote margin he carried the district by in 1994. Had it not been for the big decline in voter turn-out compared to 1992, much of which was Perot voters, neither open seat would probably have gone to the Democrats. Indeed, if that had occurred, it is even possible that West could have been successful in his challenge of Obey. Instead of a two seat loss by the GOP, they might well have picked up three seats in Wisconsin in 1996. Democrats, on the other hand, may well feel that they have a fair chance of taking the 2nd district in the near future.
1994 1996 Rep Dem Rep Dem 1st 83937 82817 118397 113850 2nd 133734 55406 154553 110560 3rd 89338 65758 112686 122462 4th 78225 93789 98398 134017 5th 51145 87806 47274 140697 6th unopposed 168941 55047 7th 81706 97184 102807 136397 8th 114319 65065 119666 129544 9th unopposed 197929 67744
There were other competitive races in the Midwest which reflect some of the same influences that have been described earlier. For example, in the 17th district of Illinois, Mark Baker came closer in his challenge to Democrat incumbent Lane Evans than Jim Anderson had two years earlier.
1994 1996 Rep Dem Rep Dem 17th 79471 95312 109240 120008
Actually, the parties effectively traded seats in Illinois in 1996, with the Democrats retaking Chicago's 5th district (Dan Rostenkowski lost it amidst his legal problems) and the Republicans capturing the open 20th district formerly held by Democrat Richard Durbin by just over 1200 votes:
1994 1996 Rep Dem Rep Dem 5th 75328 63065 62588 111608 20th 88964 108034 120749 119496
Democrat candidates in California captured six seats in the U.S. House of Representatives that were held by Republicans before the 1996 elections. There were Democrat gains in the 10th east of San Francisco, the 22nd around Santa Barbara, and the 46th in the LA area. But there were eight other districts in which the races could be called extraordinarily competitive. The Democrat victory in the 10th district was over incumbent Bill Baker by a narrow margin of about 5000 votes, but he had won re-election handily by 50000 votes in 1994. Baker's total this time was lower and that could be attributed to the lower turn out of Republicans and Independents on the sense that the Presidential race had been decided long ago and the comparative weakness of Perot's effort, two factors which can be seen as outcomes of media influence, but the vote in 1996 was up from 1994 and Ellen Tauscher collected some 36000 more votes this time than Ellen Schwartz had in 1994 to defeat Baker. It is also a district in which the heavy influx of labor money probably had an impact. The 15th is a gain for Republicans, but it was made some time ago in a special election by Tom Campbell after Democrat Norm Mineta resigned to take a job at Lockheed. But Walter Holden Capps was able to do in the 22nd district in 1996 what he was unable to accomplish two years ago in his race for an open seat against Republican Barbara Seastrand. Capps actually received 950 more votes this time, but Seastrand's vote fell by more than 12000. His perseverance obviously had much to do with the win, but so did union money and the media effect described with regard to Baker and others. Republican hopes to recapture those two seats in 1998 may be considerable due to the closeness of the vote, but it was much closer in the 46th district where long-time Representative and 1996 Republican Presidential candidate Bob Dornan lost his Orange County seat to a former Republican now running as the Democrat candidate by a razor thin margin that leaves many questions unanswered. Nevertheless, unless some legal challenge is successful or the House decides to seat Dornan on the evidence, Linda Sanchez will take the seat for the Democrats. Probably unlikely, a decision by the House leadership to seat someone who appears to have narrowly lost does have recent precedent. Indiana Democrat McCloskey was seated in a district he appeared to lose a decade and a half ago. Dornan has raised some substantive questions about the vote in the 46th, but his best prospect for regaining the seat would probably be in 1998. Democrats had made the races in the 1st and 49th rather competitive in 1994, but they were somewhat less so this time around. In five races, Republicans came close to taking seats held by the Democrats. Long time Democrat Vic Fazio survived the challenge by the GOP's Tim Lefever in 1994 by only about 7000 votes, but was able this time to beat him much more soundly with a margin of some 26000 votes. A similar scenario showed itself in the 20th district, where Cal Dooley has withstood challenges from two different candidates by about 13000 votes in each contest. And in the 24th, where incumbent Democrat Anthony Belleson won over Rich Sybert by only 3500 votes in 1994, Brad Sherman defeated him this time in a race for an open seat by over 15000 votes. They were unable to do much to cut into Republican Sonny Bono's share of the vote which won him re-election in 1996. In both the 36th and 42nd, however, the races remained rather close even though Democrats won both in both elections. Incumbent Democrat Jane Harman defeated challenger Susan Brooks in 1994 by only 800 votes, but was able to collect about 18000 votes more in the rematch in the 36th district in the LA area, Harman winning 14000 more votes than she had won this time while Brooks' total fell by about 3000. Again, similar with the other such races, the same forces identified above probably played a part in this contest. The really close race both times was in the 42nd east of LA in which incumbent Democrat George Brown won over Republican Ron Guzman by 1400 votes in 1994 and bested Linda Wilde this time by only 1200 votes. The race for the 17th and 20th seats were somewhat tighter in 1994 than this year, but they still seem to be in vulnerable Democrat hold, but Democrats made gains on the GOP's hold in the 27th, while their edge in the 49th grew. In 1998, the Republicans thus stand a fair chance of taking both the 42nd and 46th if not the others. And, given the tendency for an incumbent President's party to lose seats in the off-year elections following a Presidential victory, they may even be able to capture control of the California delegation next fall, especially if labor is unable to sustain its huge effort to pump campaign funds into the Congressional races the way it did in 1996 in its futile effort to retake the House. For 1996, the changes in the California delegation can be largely attributed, however, to the media effect of 'conditioning' the populace to a self- fulfilling prophecy of a foregone conclusion to the election for President and a less viable Perot candidacy which worked to reduce Republican vote, both for the Presidential race and in Congressional contests. The early declaration of the election outcome, three hours before the polls closed in California, also undoubtedly depressed the turn-out in the state, which fell below 40 % for 1996. It is a little surprising that the Congressional vote in 1996, a Presidential year, was so much lighter in so many districts compared to what it had been in the off-year 1994 contests.With the anticipated drop of Democrat votes in 1998's off-year races, the GOP could pick up several seats in California -- or more, depending on whether incumbents seek re-election (this, of course, remains probably the main factor in deciding most races). Had it not been for the media effects, the Republicans would not have lost three seats in California in 1996; quite to contrary, they would probably have picked up at least a couple.
1996 1994 Rep Dem W Rep Dem W 10th 121332 126868 D 138916 90523 R 15th* 115434 70691 R 80266 119921 D 17th 65648 100658 D 74380 87222 D 20th 33939 46427 D 53836 57394 D 22nd* 90374 102374 D 102987 101424 R 24th 81428 96641 D 91806 95342 D 27th 84642 73679 R 88341 70267 R 42nd 48757 49907 D 56259 56888 D 46th* 41308 41475 D 50126 32577 R 49th 94850 77482 R 90283 85597 R 23 R 29 D 25 R 27 D
Pat Williams has been able to win re-election to the House as a Democrat in what is generally considered a very Republican seat for many years. Last time, he won by some 23000 votes, but in 1996, Williams was not seeking re-election and Republican Rick Hill beat Democrat Bill Yellowtail quite handily to put Montana in the Republican column. Only the 3rd Oklahoma district remained in Democrat hands after 1994, but incumbent Bill Brewster did not seek re-election and the GOP added this open seat to their side of the aisle by over 12000 votes in 1996, giving Republicans complete control over the state's delegation in the House. There were those who thought that newly elected Representative Enid Greene Waldholtz' marital and related problems might cut into the Republican vote in Utah. She did not run in 1996 to try to hold the 2nd district she took from Democrat incumbent Karen Shepherd the last time in a three way contest, but Merrill Cook held the seat for Republicans. There was not much doubt that James Hansen would win again in the 1st, but what surprised many observers was the GOP's Chris Cannon's 8000 vote defeat of incumbent Democrat Bill Orton, who had been re-elected by 30000 votes in 1994. And in South Dakota, the at-large seat long held by Democrat Tom Johnson who did not run for re-election was taken by a wide margin by Republican John Thune. There are now ten states the delegations from which (albeit that several have but one or two members) all the members of Congress will be Republicans in the 105th. Democrats managed to retake three seats in Washington which the Republicans had won in 1994. The seats that the Republicans lost here were the 2nd, 3rd, 6th, 7th, and 9th. (Here, * denotes an incumbent)
2nd 1994 1996 Rep 107430 *96826 Dem 89096 99155
In 1994, neither candidate was the incumbent in the 2nd district.
3rd 1994 1996 Rep 100188 *99397 Dem* 85826 102044
Republicans took the 3rd seat in 1994 as Linda Smith turned out the incumbent Democrat Jolene Unsoeld, but Smith was not able to repeat in 1996 and the Democrat Brian Baird retook it by 3000 votes. In the 5th, which had been Tom Foley's seat until he was defeated in 1994, the Republican held on to the seat.
9th 1994 1996 Rep 77833 *72367 Dem* 72451 81029
Like the 3rd, in the 9th a Republican who had overturned an incumbent Democrat in '94 sought another term, but was unsuccessful, a Democrat newcomer curiously named Adam Smith got 9000 more votes (the GOP edge in '94 had been 5400. To end where this began, Washington is a prime example of what happened in Congressional races across the country in 1996. Not only was the election 'over' long before election day, but the results of the Presidential election were announced as decided nearly three hours before the polls closed in important areas of the country. The combination of these two factors, together with the apparent sense that Perot would not be doing as well in 1996 as he had in 1992, depressed voter turn-out tremendously in the west, as well as a few other locations. Had it not been for these 'media manufactured reality myths,' probably Clinton could not have been re-elected, but, of more importance for this analysis, the Congressional elections in 1996 would have turned out quite differently. The aggregate vote for House candidates in the state of Washington:
1994 1996 Rep 854000 (Bush 731234) 693000 (Dole 639743) Dem 829000 (Clinton 933037) 918000 (Clinton 899645)
is not exactly what it appears to be at first glance. While the Democrat total vote has increased by almost 100000, all of that was in the 2nd, 3rd, 6th, 7th, 8th, and 9th districts -- nearly all of it around Seattle. The inverse relationship between Democrat Congressional candidate vote and Clinton's vote is interesting. The change in the Republican vote also parallels both the decline in the Perot vote and the overall drop in voter turn-out in the state, which was more than twice the national average decline (that, of course, could be seen as comparing apples and oranges because 1994 was not 1992 -- the turn-out in 1996 was up from 1994, but not as much as it might have been; and clearly not up to the 1992 levels). Clinton's vote fell from 993000 in 1992 to 900000 in 1996, while Dole got 640000 votes compared to Bush's 731000 in 1992, but the Perot vote fell from over half a million to well below 200000. And the aggregate Republican vote for House contests in 1996 was off almost as much as the decline in the Perot vote. What cannot be ignored, however the three elections are compared, is that nearly half a million people who voted in 1992 in Washington did not do so in 1996.
1994 1996 Gain or (Loss) Rep Dem Rep Dem Rep Dem 1st 100.6 94.1 106.4 97.7 +6 +3 2nd 107.4 89.1 96.8 99.2 -11 +10 3rd 100.2 85.8 99.4 102.0 -1 +16 4th 92.8 81.2 87.0 80.4 -5 -1 5th 110.1 106.1 110.3 90.6 = -16 6th 75.3 105.5 51.2 123.8 -24 +18 7th 49.1 148.4 37.5 173.7 -12 +25 8th 140.4 44.2 121.6 69.8 -19 +25 9th 77.8 72.4 72.4 81.0 -5 +9
Even so, the big increases in Democrat vote were in districts in which incumbent Democrats were seeking and won re-election, except in the 3rd where the Republican vote was almost unchanged as the Democrat vote rose enough to take the seat, and in the 8th where an incumbent Republican still won by a two to one margin despite the rise in Democrat vote. Quite interestingly, the one big drop in the Democrat vote was in Foley's old district. In the 9th, the Democrats picked up enough votes as the GOP total fell for them to recapture that seat as well. It is very likely that had turn-out not declined as much as it did -- had it been about at the level it was at in the rest of the country except for the west -- Republicans would have held onto the seats in the 2nd and 3rd districts, if not the 9th also, though that is not as clear. It is very plausible, therefore, that the snow job of the media that the election for President was over weeks if not months ago (including their reduced enthusiasm and attention on Perot which helped to reduce his numbers) combined with their announcement some three hours before the polls closed in Washington that the election had been decided which had a great impact on the western states -- in all of which the drop in voter turn out was twice the national average -- cost the Republicans two if not all three of the seats it lost in Washington. Summary Remarks Concerning the Congressional Elections Had it not been for the 'media manufactured reality myths' in 1996, Republicans would have come into the 105th Congress with a considerably increased margin of control. Instead of a net loss of 7 seats, the GOP might very well have won in 39 districts they lost in 1996:
CA 10,20,22,24,36,42,46 NC 2,4 CN 2,5 NJ 8 GA 2 NY 4 HA 1 OH 6,10 IL 17 OR 1,5 IN 10 SC 5 IA 3 TX 1,2,17 KY 6 WA 2,3,8 MA 1,3,6 WI 3,7,8 MI 8,10
Even in the Northeast, this might very well have been the case with a GOP gain of one seat, but especially in the West, where turn-out was down compared to 1992 by more than twice the national average decline (and even in many districts compared to 1994), they would have picked up ten seats rather than having lost those they did. Instead of gaining six seats in the South, they would have stood to have picked up eleven. For the Midwest, instead of having lost five seats, they could have won seven addition seats. The 105th Congress would then have had perhaps as many as 274 Republicans to 161 Democrats, a 'cushion' of 113 seats in the House. Undoubtedly, the huge influx of labor dollars (not to mention the hundreds of thousands of illegally raised dollars from Clinton and Huang connected contributors) had some impact on at least many races. Furthermore, the hysteria stirred up by media hype and spin control also had some impact. But by and large, the influence of the reality myths about the 'expectations' of the election were a very much more subtle, though nonetheless critical, factor in Republicans' net loss of seven rather than an increase up to as many as 39 seats. It is very doubtful that the mobilization which produced the more overt influences on the races can be sustained even in 1998, let alone beyond that. At the very least, even if they can be duplicated, they will likely have a diminishing return in terms of their impact. But whether the more subtle factors can be regenerated remains to be seen. The Perot factor has already demonstrated a diminishing return and its half-life phenomenon probably does not bode well for it to be very much of a factor in the future. Without that element, it would be quite more difficult to create the appearance of an 'insurmountable' lead by the Democrat ticket beginning at the top for the elections in 2000. This suggests one reason that the 1994 races seems so out of sync with what happened in 1992 but especially 1996. It seems probable that 1998 elections will witness another big Republican surge, if only on the pattern of an incumbent President's party losing seats in the next off-year election. As for Democrats and pundits, as well as for political scientists, they should observe very closely the conclusions drawn by this analysis. They may be able to recreate the 'reality myth' to a degree, but it is not so much a certainty that they should stake their fortunes on it. That corollary of the old adage attributed to Lincoln may be in order. You may be able to fool all of the people some of the time, and some of the people all of the time, but it is not wise to fool oneself at all. Self-delusion can prove to be a very costly practice. Although there has been a virtual reality about what seems to be 'conventional wisdom' concerning the Congressional and Presidential elections of 1996 (and 1992 as well as 1994), a house of cards built on sand is a poor substitute substantive reality. James Carville may or may not believe these things, but it is not likely that very many Republicans do. And such disparity of perception is not, whatever else it may be, a very sound basis for political endeavor. The question has to be one of who is being snowed? Continue
