The New PVI Ratings (and what they mean), Part II

For congressional Republicans, the proof is in the numbers and the numbers are not good. The Republicans have done an absolutely pitiful job in recruiting moderates and preserving districts that are even to swing in their leanings. Sure, Democrats benefited enormously from two consecutive national "change" elections where voters moved to throw the perceived "bums" (the Republicans) out of power and move to punish the party of the hugely unpopular George W. Bush.

But a big part of the results were that Democrats seized their opportunities through superb fundraising, and even more importantly, outstanding recruitment of candidates who were ultimately able to win moderately red districts and very, very red districts. At the same time, Republicans were almost impotent in their quest to recruit. Make no mistake, however, this was not some new phenomenon borne of our of 43rd President. As our last post shows, Democrats have had a built-in advantage in branching out to districts for some time.

To wit: consider Gene Taylor (elected 1989), Jim Matheson (2000), Ike Skelton (1976), Rick Boucher (1982), and Chet Edwards (1990). Each of them was elected several terms ago, and all of them have become well entrenched in their insanely Republican homelands.

And the Republicans? Mike Castle was elected in 1992, Frank LoBiando in 1994, Pat Tiberi and Mark Kirk in 2000, Jim Gerlach in 2002, Charlie Dent and Dave Reichert in 2004, and Cao in 2008. For those eight Members, that comes out to an average of 7.5 years, or just under four terms a pop.

In order to not draw on a limited sample for the Dems, let's look at the elected years of all of the Democrats (note that I will clump in special election winners from odd years in the next election cycle; so, for example, Gene Taylor, who first won his seat in 1989, will be listed in the 1990 cycle) to make a fuller comparison:

2008 (21): Halvorson, Foster, Adler, Grayson, Schauer, Kissel, Dahlkemper, Kosmas, McMahon, Boccieri, Massa, Nye, Periello, Kirkpatrick, Markey, Teague, Griffith, Kratovil, Childers, Bright, Minnick.

2006 (15): McNerney, Walz, Donnelly, Gillibrand*, Arcuri, Wilson, Kagan, Hall, Giffords, Mitchell, Shuler, Altmire, Space, Ellsworth, Carney

2004 (5): Bean, Herseth-Sandlin, Chandler, Melancon, Boren

2002 (2): Marshall, Lincoln Davis

2000 (2): Matheson, Ross

1998 (3): Moore, Rodriguez, Hill

1996 (5): Berry, Snyder, Ethridge, McIntyre, Boyd

1992 (3): Stupak, Holden, Pomeroy

1990 (3): Taylor, Edwards, Peterson

1988 (1): Tanner

1984 (1): Gordon

1982 (4): Boucher, Ortiz, Mollohan, Sprat

1976 (2): Skelton, Rahall

1974 (1): Murtha

All together, the average tenure of service for these 69 Democratic Members of Congress comes to approximately 7.6 years, or just about four terms. This comes out to be the same as the GOP average, where the universe is clearly far smaller. Excluding the 21 freshman (plus Childers and Foster), the number ticks up to 10.98 years, or five and a half terms. In case you can't tell, these are pretty big numbers. And at least to me, they demonstrate impressive staying power for Dems in many districts they really have no place winning and then keeping.

The reason I spell out these averages here is because I want to refute the notion that Democratic control of these districts is not indicative of anything salient, and that once another electoral tide appears, this one against the Blue Team, then many of these Members will be washed out. Not so.

Note that 15 of the Members above came to office before the Republican Revolution of 1994. In other words, they withstood the enormous anti-Democratic tide of that year -- many of them easily -- and they have hung on ever since. To me, this is critically important because it shows that Democratic success in congressional elections has not hinged on the 2006 and 2008 elections alone. The seeds of triumph were planted in the ground and grown up before then, in numerous examples years before.

What this all means is practical terms is that Dems have a tremendous blueprint in place for winning and holding seats across the country, while the Republicans have a terrible existing model. The Republican Party will be unable to win back Congress and then hold it again if it cannot find a way to either (1) dislodge a lot of the above Dems, either through direct challenge or via retirements; (2) begin to promulgate their own candidates who can win in deep blue territory; or (3) both.

So what's their best option before them? Let's consider the route of taking these seats back for Team Red. There is certainly low-hanging fruit here. Minnick and Bright are in overwhelmingly GOP districts, and they won their seats by less than 2% apiece. Other freshman had problems winning last year, and can be beaten with some luck and gumption by the Republicans.

But problems abound, most notably that a great many of these Democrats, particularly the entrenched ones, are not that old and are thus unlikely to retire soon. For example, Gene Taylor and Chet Edwards are both under 60 years old, Ben Chandler is 49, and Jim Matheson is only 48! None of them will ever lose, barring some very unforeseen development, and this should drive Republicans nuts because they should own these seats like the Giants own the Cowboys in big games.

There are exceptions, of course. Minnick and Bright, for one, Skelton's seat once he retires (assuming he doesn't leave in 2012 and his seat is dissolved when Missouri loses a seat in the next census), Grayson (who I think has one term written all over him), and Kratovil, who will face enormous obstacles to hang on next year. The fact still remains that making significant inroads in Dem-occupied red lands could take the Elephants many years. Still, their best bet is that group of 36 name that gained elected over the last two cycles. The GOP needs to try to pick off some of those to ensure they don't become entrenched and end up as a group of new Taylors and Tanners. Unfortunately, since several of the '06 crop won second terms with such ease, it may be too late for many fronts.

In my mind, this leaves proper recruitment as both the best shortterm and longterm panacea for the Republicans. I know, I know: this is some revelation! Yet, for a party that has so clearly done a piss-poor job of branching out politically into districts as well as the Donkeys, it might not be as clear to the GOP House brass as it is to keen political observers like T2L's readers.

One of the worst things that has happened to the Republican Party in the last several years, besides losing the House, the Senate, and the White House, is that the party has become painfully marginalized, mostly because its moderate elements have been defeated, retired, excommunicated, or have shriveled up and died politically.

These names are many: Jim Saxton (a pro-environment Republican who was denied the Resources chairmanship by his party several years back), Nancy Johnson (ousted in 2006), Clay Shaw (also knocked out in '06), Wayne Gilchrest (moderate beaten in a primary in 2008), Joe Schwarz (another moderate knocked out in a primary in 2006), Sherwood Boehlert (retired in 2006), Marge Roukema (denied the Financial Services gavel in 2002, retired, and replaced by an ultra-conservative), Jim Kolbe (retired in 2006 and replaced with a popular Democrat), and finally the smartest GOPer and moderate in the House, Tom Davis, who retired after the Virginia GOP effectively blocked him from running for Senate for not being conservative enough; ironically, his replacement was trounced by a Democrat.

The loss of these moderates has crippled the GOP, not just because many of their seats became votes for Pelosi for Speaker, but because the absence of their voices hurts the ability of the party caucus as a whole to be fully pragmatic and productive. As of now, the House Republican caucus likely resembles an echo chamber, where all the Members from Texas, Utah, Georgia and the like all repeat and endorse the same failed strategies and extremists perspectives. These Members needed those voices, a fact many of them likely cannot (or willfully will not) fathom. Until they do, the House GOP caucus's mission to get back to majority status will not happen. Period.

Tomorrow I want to highlight a fresh story from today which highlights the dangers of conservative marginalization, and its plain absurdities in a political environment that remains caustic to Republicans.