May 5th, 2009:

via Plouffe Warns: Democrats Are A “Little Over-Confident” Right Now.

David Plouffe, Democratic Political Strategist

David Plouffe, whose refusal to let poll numbers eclipse electoral realities became the defining feature of the Obama campaign, threw some cold water on Democrats on Monday. The gains made in 2006 and 2008 had left little room for further growth, he said. And right now, the party was a “little over-confident” with their majority status.

(snip)”Because we’ve won so many House seats in the last two elections, we have got more Democrat[s] representing swing seats, so the balance has shifted a little bit,” he said.

When David Plouffe speaks, I listen. He’s never given me any reason not to. He regularly debunked just about every goofy maneuver the Republicants tried and then offered us his plan unashamedly through videos for all Democrats and Republicans to see. This openness helped endear me to the Obama campaign.

I think that he is right about the Democratic outlook in the House for 2010. In 2006 the Dems picked up 31 seats giving them a 236 to 199 majority, almost the exact same numbers the Republicants held prior to the election.  270 votes are needed to override a veto. Of those 31 seats that the Democrats gained, 21 of them were Republicant incumbents.

In 2008, 17 more Republicant incumbents were defeated and the Dems overall gained 21 more seats now giving the Democratic Party a 257 to 178 advantage. Only one seat switched from Democrat to Republicant. The Democratic Party will be hard-pressed to exact those kind of numbers one more time.

The House was controlled by Republicants before November 2006, boasting that Democrats would remain in the minority forever. Now, just three years later, the Republicants have not only lost power but have done so in such a spectacular and biblical fashion that now it looks as if they will have a long minority roll. In two short years the Republicants lost a dizzying 52 seats in the House. It’s only 2009 and I’m wondering what happened to the eternal Republican mjority they boasted of so proudly?

Here’s what I believe happened – George W. Bush and Karl Rove ruined it. The Republicants are just too ashamed to say it. These guys were their heros. It wasn’t the liberal media that ruined these two, but rather their own actions versus what the voting public knew was the truth. Take the illegal invasion of Iraq for example. Bush pounded the pulpit about Saddam and WMDs but when the truth surfaced, he became a lying fool of a president and his lackey Rove was one of the causes of it, being the one that whispered in his ear. It wasn’t the liberal media that brought down the Republican Party, it was policy – the lies and secrecy, the uncaring manner in which he addressed the struggles of everyday Americans such as the Katrina victims – and until they see a way to revamp policy, they will not gain much in the House of Representatives.

So between the scant number of seats left for the Dems to take (all that’s left is a core, or strict conservative districts), and the lack of ideas for the Republicants, I do not see any kind of tidal wave of seats moving one way or another. The Republicans are too stubborn and are joined at the hip to the religious-right and anti-gay crowd. That is turning out to be their big mistake – that and an almost silly reluctance to let Ronald Reagan rest in peace.

The article ends with an observation from Rove.

“Things can change,” said the Bush strategist. “The average gain by a non-White House Party is two seats in the Senate and 26 seats in the House. I don’t think Republicans will do that well in the House, but we are likely to see American politics change as it often does.”

The average gain by a non-White House Party in last two elections only is, in fact, 26 House seats. But Rove is undone by his own words. Let’s take a look at the last two administrations covering 16 years.

Going back a few elections to the election of 1994, mid-term election, the non-White House party, the Republicants, gained 54 seats. That was a huge backlash, so we will start there. In the election of 1996 the non-White House party, the Republicants lost 8 seats. In 1998, the non-White House party, the Republicants lost 5 seats.  Averaging the numbers for the non-White House party there is a net gain of 14 seats, not 26.

In the election of 2000 Republicans lost 2 seats – the third election in a row that Democrats, now the non-White House party, gained seats.  The Republicants gained a whopping 8 seats in 2002 and actually bragged about it, meaning the non-White House party lost 8, not gained 26. And the Republicans gained another 3 seats in 2004, the non-White House party loosing that many. So the trend for a non-White House party since 2000 is a net gain of 3 seats, not 26.

So, Karl, where’s the 26 seat average gain? Those numbers only fit in the 2006, and 2008 elections. The two elections that swept the Republicans out of power. As Plouffe insinuates, things will tighten once again as history and averages have shown.