GOP 2014: Wave or Wash?

On Townhall.com, two contributors
contend that the Republican Party will have a wave election in 2014, or they
will not.

The Boston Globe's Jeff Jacoby says
no:



Jeff Jacoby

It's a sweet dream. But don't count on seeing it come true.

One can forgive Jacoby's cynicism regarding the changeability of House Reps
in Congressional elections, particularly off-years (although 1994 and 2010
served as tsunami elections against the Democratic incumbent President). For
two decades, the Massachusetts GOP has witnesses its own slow demosie, losing
its last two house reps in 1996 (in part because of the 1994-1995 shutdown, but
more likely the liberalizing trends shaping the Bay State). Determined that
2014 will provide little change in Congressional representation, Jacoby
half-heartedly acknowledeges the defeat of nine-term incumbent John Tierney,
who barely gripped onto his MA-6 seat in Northeast Massachusetts by one
percentage point in 2012. His Republican challenger during the last cycle,
openly gay moderate Richard Tisei, was prepped to challenge him again as one of
a slate of House GOP "Young Guns".

Suprisingly enough, Tierney lost to a dismissed challenger, Seth Moulton,
who has blasted the now-ousted Tierney's incapacity to get things done. Still,
even with Tierney and Cantor's loss (plus two other incumbent losses to primary
challenges thisy year), Jacoby surmises that such revolutions in representation
are quite rare. Regarding Jacoby's expectations of a whimper as opposed to a
wave, Jacoby's frustration is justified, at least regarding a term-by-term
analysis, particularly in Massachusetts.

Kurt Schlicter

Arguing more positively, Breitbart.com contributor Kurt Schlicter says yes:

Conservatives are going to win them going away, and it's going to be
gloriously devastating to the progressive cause.

Citing less evidence but evincing more enthusiasm (he does refer to a book
which he wrote detailing the coming conservative wave), Schlicter identifies
the fearful damage-control from the Obama Administration. He further points out
that the polling is tight currently in contested races, but the polling numbers
were also close in the 2010 elections. Pointing out the national trends in
politics, (something which Jacoby claimed to do, as well), Schlicter promotes
all the indicators favoring Republicans: the sixth-year itch (When the party of
the incumbent President in his second term alwauys loses seats), the lingering
economic malaise, massive foreign policy failures, the immigration crisis along
the Southern border. The heap of scandals overwhelming the Obama Administration
has spooked vulnerable Senate and House Democrats to run from their President
and their party, playing up conservative causes and right-wing values.

Are Jacoby's recriminations about a GOP wash instead of a wave correct?

The second column not only articulate the outrage among Middle America, and
the charged-up excitement of the Republican base, but reminds readers that
Obama has disappointed his own key supports (immigration activists, pacifists,
hard-core progressives), and their dipping enthusiasm gap will only bring the
Democrats' chances lowers, depressing the turnout, favoring Republicans all the
more.

Where Schlicter brings pep, Jacoby rolls out stats, citing The
Economist: "The
royals of Capitol Hill"

Using a bare comparison between the number of changes among Europe's royal
heads of state and American Congressmen, the Yankee counterparts can boast of a
divine right legacy where they face fewer prospects of losing power.

Since 2012, when its members were last up for election, 30% of Europe’s
monarchies have put newcomers on the throne. By contrast, only around 17 out of
435 House seats—less than 4%—will be competitive in November’s mid-terms.

On its face, the statistics proffer a shocking result: "Kings and
queens are more likely to lose their seats than American Congressmen." A
closer look at the stats, however, reveals that while turnover  rates appear rare among elected House
representatives, who claim with undue pretense their right to inherit their
seats without a challenge, European royals never face a challenge to their
power, and oftentimes they remain reigning for decades, if not longer. Also,
there are only ten monarchs compared to four hundred thirty-five Congressmen,
and the safety of their seats can change rapidly.

Furthermore, looking past local reactions to politicians, national trends recognize
that political power turns over readily among national voters. Elections in
2006 and 2008 witnessed the Democratic Party’s dramatic resurgence, then 2010
returned the Republicans to the majority in the lower chamber. Come 2014, Republicans
may finish in the US Senate what they had accomplished in the House.

Besides, House elections fall into play on one of three issues: retirement,
redistricting, or single-issues. Election Year 2014 has so many issues which
can polarize a race and pulverize incumbents. While the House numbers may change
less this year (in part due to gerrymandering or voter apathy), the US Senate
representation will shift considerably, like the crest of the tsunami which
wiped out Democrats in 2010.

Schlicter's prediction is more likely: Republicans Will Have Another Wave Election This Year (Source: WallArc)

Is there a wave election coming in 2014? Looking at local races in a
one-party state as Jacoby did, no. Considering the national picture and trends,
like Schlicter, yes. Even though Jacoby cited prior outcomes and straight stats
from The Economist, the flawed premise and methodology of those
samples and cohorts distort the deeper significance of the 2014 election year,
and reveal that indeed Republicans are looking good on the national front to
ride another wave of voter discontent.