Through Nov. 7, you’re going to hear a lot of predictions about which candidates will win and which party will thrive on Election Day. Only some of them are worth your attention.
In Washington, there are the fun kind of predictions like those at the end of each week’s “McLaughlin Group.” Pundits garner more attention by going out on a limb and offering a forecast that is bold, daring, and perhaps a little nutty. For example, Pat Buchanan forecasted in March that “Bush will be pushed to attack Iran in October,” while Eleanor Clift suggested that “Katherine Harris’s collapsing campaign in Florida will prompt a draft effort for Jeb Bush to run for the Senate.”
For many talking heads, high-risk predictions are a win-win. If they hitthe bulls-eye, they can claim this reflects their keen insight, well-connected sources, and trustworthy gut instincts. If they’re wrong, few will remember.
But other folks in the political world put a bit of their reputation on the line with their predictions — and they’re the ones to watch this summer and fall.
Congressional Quarterly is the ultimate wonkish inside-the-Beltway bible. (Full disclosure: I worked there as a reporter and researcher from 1998 to 2000.) The company publishes a variety of daily, weekly and annual news reports for Capitol Hill’s professional class. (Ironically, they do not currently have a quarterly report.) CQ’s publications are rarely found on newsstands; relishing its trusted, buttoned-down image, the institution behaves as if it doesn’t understand the meaning of hype.
Each campaign cycle, CQ’s election team determines its “risk ratings” of contests for the House, the Senate and governors with grassroots level reporting, historical research, and detailed examinations of demographics and party registration figures.
All of that digging results in a pre-Election Day assessment that is much more accurate (and sometimes much more boring) than your usual Washington cocktail chatter. The most spectacular example of this occurred in 1998, when the Monica Lewinsky scandal had most pundits convinced that the GOP was set for big gains for much of the fall. (Newsweek predicted Republicans would pick up 30 seats.) CQ’s seat-by-seat analysis suggested that the Democrats actually were in position to gain two seats — and on Election Day, the Democrats picked up five.
CQ was also the first news organization in 1994 to predict that the Republicans had a good chance to take over the House — almost unthinkable at the time. And in 2004, CQ accurately forecasted the continued GOP control of both the House and the Senate.
This year, CQ is — so far — again going against the grain, projecting a continued GOP House majority, with 224 seats labeled safe, favorable, or leaning Republican. The Senate currently looks set for a minor shift with 54 GOP seats looking safe, favorable and leaning. Democrats appear to have some great pickup opportunities in the gubernatorial races, with only 17 GOP seats safe, favorable and leaning. A clean sweep would mean Democratic governors going from 22 to 34.
Bob Benenson, CQ’s politics editor, offers a bit of caution however.
“There’s a danger in giving ‘Leans’ to the named party because the races in that category are, by our definition, highly competitive and could very well go the other way,” Benenson says. “The tendency in recent elections for most of the competitive races for the House and the Senate to break to one party in the campaign’s endgame. If you subtract the 17 “Leans Republican” races from the projected Republican column, you’re down to 207 seats, and if you do the same for the Senate, you’re down to 49 Republican seats — both less than a majority.”
Benenson says he expects enough Republican-held seats to remain in play to keep the fight for majority control up for grabs well into the campaign, perhaps right up to Election Day.
Still, CQ’s constantly updated assessment appears to be refreshingly free of spin. By comparison, predictions from Republican or Democratic partisans tend to skew in favor of their side.
Through Election Day, you’re going to hear a lot of predictions about who will be celebrating on election night. Consider the source, and exercise appropriate caution. If CQ’s current assessment is as spot-on as previous years, talk of sweeping changes on Capitol Hill may end up being just that: Talk.
Jim Geraghty, a contributing editor at National Review and member of The Examiner’s Blog Board of Contributors, is author of “Voting to Kill: How 9/11 Launched the Era of Republican Leadership,” to be published by Simon & Schuster this September. He blogs at TKS.nationalreview.com.
