Polls and Models: Which Numbers to Believe?

The general election campaign is formally beginning for what is arguably the most important U.S. election, in terms of how much is at stake, since the end of World War II. It is not that this election reflects some great partisan, ideological, or philosophical fork in the road. Indeed, America's two major political parties, almost always relatively centrist, certainly by European standards, are ideologically closer together than any time in memory. Democrats just slightly left of center, Republicans ever so slightly right of center. It is how much is at stake this year that is so unusual.

The House is the closest it's been since 1958--split 50.5 percent Republican to 49.5 percent Democratic. In this extraordinary setting, even the tiniest movement could tip the House one way or another. At the same time, it's very unlikely that either party will win true, working control of the House. For one thing, there are far too few competitive races to make it easy for either party to pick up a great deal of seats. There is an unusually small number of retirements this year, limiting the volatility because between 88 and 98 percent of all incumbents get reelected cycle after cycle. Few open seats usually suggest a narrower trading range for the House. Many of the weakest Democratic incumbents were defeated back in their 1994 tidal wave loss. Similarly, many highly vulnerable Republicans lost in 1996 or 1998, two down election years for the GOP, which culled the herd of many weaker members. It is also true that neither party is behaving in a suicidal fashion (see Democrats circa 1993 and Republicans circa 1995, 1996, and late 1998), the kind of conduct that tends to trigger big swings against one party or the other. Finally, with the economy strong and voters showing signs of relative complacency, it seems very unlikely for a large number of incumbents to be washed out to sea or for either party to be strongly rewarded or punished. In short, all the signs point to very little volatility. It is thus unlikely that either party can build up the kind of majority that gives a party true control of a body.

Increasingly, political observers of the Senate are looking beyond just the New York race, with a dozen good races out there and the chances of Democrats scoring gains not only real but increasing, though winning a majority is still likely to be beyond their reach this time. Republicans have to be really worried about their open seat in Florida, where Connie Mack is retiring, and about incumbents Bill Roth in Delaware, Spencer Abraham in Michigan, and Rod Grams in Minnesota; all three are in very serious races. Facing challenges almost as formidable are John Ashcroft in Missouri, Conrad Burns in Montana, Rick Santorum in Pennsylvania, and Slade Gorton in Washington.

Democrats, though, have their work cut out for them in Nevada, where Dick Bryan is retiring, and Republicans are favored to score a pick up, as well as other open seats in Nebraska, New Jersey, and New York, where Bob Kerrey, Frank Lautenberg, and Daniel Patrick Moynihan, respectively, are stepping down. Most estimates today suggest that Republicans will lose as few as one or two Senate seats to as many as three or four. If Republicans were to break even or limit their losses to just a single seat, it would be demoralizing for Democrats, whose minority status in the Senate would be extended to its longest period since 1933. On the other hand, a three--or four--seat gain, just short of the five- (with a presidential victory) or six-seat gain required for a majority, would still be a very big win for Democrats, putting them within reach of a majority in 2002, when 20 Republican seats are at risk, compared to only 13 for Democrats.

Then there's the presidential race, with two candidates whose campaign...