|Clinton: 86, 1.1 from yesterday Dole: 14, 0.4 from yesterday|
|Clinton: 92, 8 from last week Dole: 8, 8 from last week Perot: still a jug-eared zero|
Bored by Dole's slow, predictable, and unpleasant deterioration, the pundits have moved on to three adjacent topics: (1) What's right or wrong with the election (whose ads are nastier, which issues are important, etc.); (2) the nominees for 2000 (the early line is Gore vs. Kemp); and (3) the congressional races. The last are attracting particular attention--they're the only real horse race left. So that's where this page will focus, pending divine intervention on Mr. Dole's behalf.
The threshold: Prognosticators debated how big a majority Clinton must win in the popular vote in order to swing the 20 House seats necessary to give the Democrats control. Gerald Seib opened the bidding at around 58 percent (a 15-point margin for Clinton), poli-sci nerds concurred in the NewYorkTimes, and by the weekend, R.W. Apple had established "the high double digits" as Clinton's magic number "to set off a landslide that would bury large numbers of House Republicans" in the Midwest. Everyone agreed the key variable was turnout among hard-core Republicans, who might stay home in despair if Dole looks like a sure loser on Election Day.
States: The shift to congressional races revived pundits' interest in state-by-state analysis. They derided Dole's campaign stops and ad buys in states he should have had in the bag (Arizona, Florida, South Carolina), but found the down-ballot implications interesting. Apple predicted Clinton's coattails would safeguard "most if not all" the dicey Democratic seats in the Midwest. Conservatives wagered that the GOP would offset the depletion of its freshmen by winning seats that Democrats are vacating in the South. Morton Kondracke predicted Clinton will defy that strategy by campaigning in Texas, figuring that while he can't win there, his congressional candidates might.
GOP message: Right-leaners noted the continuing diagnostic debate in the GOP over whether its message (tax cuts, Gingrich Congress, ideological conservatism) is too extreme or its messenger (Dole) is failing to deliver the message effectively. Some predicted the election will affect the diagnostic debate more than the diagnostic debate will affect the election--i.e., if GOP congressional candidates survive while Dole loses, the messenger-blamers will be vindicated.
Divided government: This week's obligatory pseudo-insight was that Americans like to keep the presidency and Congress in different party hands. The WallStreetJournal offered this as one reason GOP candidates aren't overly worried about Dole's woes. Several pundits sneered that the same reason probably accounts for Clinton's silence about electing a Democratic Congress.
Desertion: The pundits can hardly wait for Dole's party to betray him. Ralph Reed's remark that religious conservatives "are no longer fixated on the Oval Office" bounced from the NewYorkTimes onto the chat shows. Left-leaners chuckled that Republican congressional candidates are assuring their constituents that they can work amicably with Clinton. Cynics snickered that self-styled conservative revolutionaries are playing down their ideology and riding the pro-incumbent wave. The Journal noted that Republican incumbents are undermining Dole's criticism of the economy by taking credit for the country's prosperity.
Money: Throughout the summer, the pundits were awed by organized labor's massive ad campaign against GOP candidates. The awe is now giving way to sober reflection that the GOP has a huge financial surplus and is hoarding it for a massive counterattack in the election's final weeks.
Bottom line: The opening conventional wisdom in the pundit congressional market is: (1) Clinton's big lead seriously jeopardizes GOP control of the House. Polls indicate that Democratic congressional candidates, generically, are now preferred by about the same margin that the GOP enjoyed just before its 1994 landslide; (2) Clinton's lead will probably diminish, and Republicans will probably recover in the generic polls and keep the House; (3) Democrats are less likely to win the Senate than the House; (4) Whoever ends up in control will have only a bare majority, so the parties will have to cooperate more; (5) If the GOP loses control, House Republicans will have the long knives out for Gingrich.
Iowa Electronic Market: Congressional Control Gain is a share that pays $1 if the Republicans increase their number of seats. Hold pays $1 if they stay the same or lose seats but retain majority control. Lose pays $1 if the Republicans lose their majority. The IEM site has graphs tracking price changes over time for the House and the Senate. The latest prices as of 9/20/96:
|Senate Gain: 34, unchanged from yesterday Senate Hold: 48.6, 0.9 from yesterday Senate Lose: 21.5, 1.3 from yesterday|
House Gain: 14, 0.7 from yesterday House Hold: 47.9, 2.1 from yesterday House Lose: 39.7, 1.3 from yesterday
Congressional Pundits' Index
TODAY IN SLATE
The Irritating Confidante
John Dickerson on Ben Bradlee’s fascinating relationship with John F. Kennedy.
My Father Invented Social Networking at a Girls’ Reform School in the 1930s
Renée Zellweger’s New Face Is Too Real
Sleater-Kinney Was Once America’s Best Rock Band
Can it be again?
The All The President’s Men Scene That Captured Ben Bradlee
The Simpsons World App Is Finally Here
I feel like a kid in some kind of store.
Driving in Circles
The autonomous Google car may never actually happen.