The 2004 Congressional Elections

NOTE: This resource has been developed by APSA to provide media with information from notable political scientists on issues in American politics, including introductory essays, contact information for dozens of scholars around the country, and citations for recent research. For more information, contact Bahram Rajaee (brajaee@apsanet.org)

Alan Abramowitz, Emory University

Experts

Scott Adler University of Colorado 303-492-6659 Elections and policy effects Barry C. Burden Harvard University 617-495-4249 Voter turnout, third parties, campaigns, surveys, primaries Jason Casellas Princeton University 609-577-4548 Latino politics, legislative politics, elections, redistricting, constitutional law John Coleman University of Wisconsin-Madison 608-265-3680 Parties, elections, congress, presidency, campaign spending Roger Davidson University of Maryland 805-898-9176 Congress, public opinion and government Jay Goodliffe Brigham Young University 801-422-9136 Campaign finance, voting behavior, agenda setting, congress, interest groups Patrick Kenney Arizona State University 480-965-4222 Congress, senate, political behavior, civic engagement Robin Kolodny Temple University 215-204-7709 Richard Lau Rutgers University 732-932-6685 Political decision-making, political campaigns, public opinion, political attitudes and behavior Chris Lawrence Millsaps College 601-974-1438 Mississippi politics Sandy Maisel Colby College 207-859-5307 Congressional elections, candidate recruitment, third parties, redistricting, Jewish candidates Quin Monson Brigham Young University 801-422-8017 Gerald Pomper Rutgers University 732-932-9384 Elections, voting behavior, parties, U.S. consititution, Jews and American politics Steven Puro St. Louis University 314-977-3037 Electoral college David Redlawsk University of Iowa 319-335-2352 Political information and voting behavior, corruption, campaign finance Fred Solop University of Northern Arizona 928-523-3135 Elections, public opinion, American politics, social movements, racial profiling  Leonard Williams Manchester College 260-982-5335 Political ideology and American politics

The battle for control of Congress in 2004 should be just as intense as the battle for control of the White House. Republicans currently control both chambers of Congress by extremely narrow margins: 228-207 in the House of Representatives and 51-49 in the Senate. All 435 House seats and 34 Senate seats are up for grabs. A Republican loss of only 11 seats in the House and, depending on the outcome of the presidential election, one or two seats in the Senate, would return control of both chambers to the Democrats for the first time since 1995. With policy differences between congressional Democrats and Republicans greater than at any time since the New Deal and party unity at its highest level in decades, the results of the 2004 congressional elections will dramatically affect the ability of either President Bush or President Kerry to achieve his policy objectives.

Despite the intensity of the battle for control of both the House and Senate, however, the large majority of individual House and Senate races in 2004 will be low-key, one-sided affairs. Only about one in ten House races and one in three Senate races are likely to be seriously contested. The main reason for the lack of competition is the advantage of incumbency. The large majority of House and Senate incumbents face little-known, poorly financed challengers. As a result, the average reelection rate for House incumbents is over 95 %. In 2002, a record 99% of House incumbents were reelected-only four challengers succeeded in unseating a House incumbent in the entire country. In the Senate, the average reelection rate for incumbents is "only" about 90%. This difference is because Senate challengers are often experienced politicians, celebrities, or multi-millionaires who can finance their own campaigns.

Money is also a critical factor in congressional elections. In 2002, the parties and candidates spent a record 1.6 billion dollars on the House and Senate elections. This year, despite the recently enacted ban on soft money contributions, that record is likely to be broken. But this campaign wealth is highly concentrated. The vast majority of campaign funds go to incumbents and candidates in open-seat races. Most challengers, especially in House elections, get very little or nothing. In 2002, median spending by House challengers was less than $50,000-not enough to make any impression on the electorate.

As a result, the battle for control of Congress in 2004 will be fought in the open-seat contests and a small group of competitive races involving incumbents. The small number of competitive House and Senate races will make it difficult for Democrats to regain control of either chamber. In addition, the Senate today has a natural Republican tilt. Because of the equal representation of states in the Senate, states with small populations are greatly over-represented and these states tend to vote Republican. In 2000, George W. Bush carried 15 of the 20 least populous states. Those states have only 10% of the U.S. population but 40 % of the seats in the Senate. Al Gore carried six of the nine most populous states. Those states have over 50 % of the U.S. population but only 18% of the seats in the Senate.

The states with Senate elections in 2004 have an especially strong Republican tilt. George Bush carried 22 of the 34 states holding Senate contests this year, including 9 of the 18 states with seats currently held by Democrats. Nevertheless, the battle for control of the Senate in 2004 will be very intense. That battle will focus on eight open seats and two or three potentially vulnerable incumbents.

Democratic retirements in Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, Florida, and Louisiana provide opportunities for Republicans to make gains in states that were carried by George Bush in 2000. Meanwhile, Republican retirements in Illinois, Colorado, and Oklahoma have created competitive open-seat contests; Democrats could offset losses in the South with pickups in one or more of these contests. At least three Senate incumbents appear to be vulnerable, including Democratic minority leader Tom Daschle of South Dakota, Republican Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, and moderate Republican Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania. Overall, Democrats face an uphill battle to retake the Senate but there are enough competitive races that a pickup of one or two seats is an outside possibility. In fact, Democrats may have a better chance of regaining control of the Senate than they do of winning a majority of seats in the House. With only 30 to 40 seats in play, Democrats would have to win about two-thirds of the competitive House contests in order to pick up the 11 seats that they need to regain control.

Recent national polls show more voters favoring Democrats than Republicans in the congressional elections. While such polls do not include the names of the local candidates, they usually give a rough indication of which way the national tide is running. Because of the even division of the country between the parties, the closeness of the presidential election, and the advantage of incumbency in congressional elections, any shift in the party balance in Congress in 2004 is likely to be small. The 109th Congress probably will not look very different from the 108th Congress. However, given the extremely close division of the House and Senate, even a fairly modest Democratic tide could produce a change in party control that would have major policy consequences.

Recent Publications on Congressional Elections

Abramowitz, Alan I. 2004. Voice of the People: Elections and Voting in the United States, Chapter 7. New York: McGraw Hill.

Herrnson, Paul S. 2004. Congressional Elections: Campaigning at Home and in Washington, 4th edition. Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly Press.

Jacobsen, Gary. 2004. The Politics of Congressional Elections, 6th edition. (New York: Longman).

Kahn, Kim F., and Patrick J. Kenney. 2004. No Holds Barred: Negativity in U.S. Senate Campaigns. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.

Magleby, David G. and J. Quin Monson. 2003. "The Noncandidate Campaign: Soft Money and Issue Advocacy in the 2002 Congressional Elections." PS: Political Science and Politics 36:3 (July): 401-403.

Stone, Walter J. and L. Sandy Maisel. 2003. "The Not-So-Simple Calculus of Winning: Potential U.S. House Candidates' Nomination and General Election Prospects." Journal of Politics 65:4 (November).

Gronke, Paul, Jeffrey Koch, and J. Matthew Wilson. 2003. "Follow the Leader? Presidential Approval, Presidential Support, and Representatives' Electoral Fortunes." Journal of Politics 65:3 (August).

Jacobson, Gary C. 2003. "Terror, Terrain, and Turnout: Explaining the 2002 Midterm Elections." Political Science Quarterly 118 (Spring): 1-22.

Lau, Richard R., and Gerald M. Pomper. 2002. "Effectiveness of Negative Campaigning in U.S. Senate Elections." American Journal of Political Science 46 (January): 47-66. Goodliffe, Jay. 2001. "The Effect of War Chests on Challenger Entry in U.S. House Elections." American Journal of Political Science 45 (October): 862-886.

Coleman, John J., and Paul F. Manna. 2000. "Congressional Campaign Spending and the Quality of Democracy." Journal of Politics 62 (August): 757-789.