Columbia Professors Weigh In

To get some perspective on the midterm elections, we sat down with several American politics professors from Columbia's political science department. We talked with experts in voter behavior, elections, statistics, and congressional politics about what they expect to see on Election Day and beyond. Here are their predictions:

Shapiro:

Average turnout for midterm elections is 37 percent, but, according to Shapiro, this year could be higher. "Since the turnout was higher in the last presidential election-it was 61 percent-it could be as high as 46 percent this year," he said.

"The only tempering is that in some states and places there aren't competitive elections. But there are probably enough that overall it will be 37-46 percent-that's of the voting-age population, including noncitizens."

Gregory Wawro, political science professor:

"There's been a lot of negative campaigning, which has a tendency to repress turnout," Wawro said. "The Republicans are worried that their supporters will stay home," and are doing heavy get-out-the-vote campaigns as a result. "There are a lot of dynamics so it's hard to say what the end effect will be."

O'Halloran:

"For them [the Democrats] to regain the Senate, they need a large turnout. The Republicans have a built-in advantage in that they are more efficient with votes. They win races with fewer votes ... just by the nature of the gerrymander."

To win the House, O'Halloran said, Democrats would need "a level of turnout they haven't seen since 1992."

What are the chances that the Democrats will win a majority in the House of Representatives?

Michael Ting, political science professor:

"One thing people don't always remember is that parties in the U.S. are weak relative to other countries. They aren't able to discipline their members," he said, referring to candidates like Sen. Joe Lieberman who are not Democrats but may vote with them in Congress. "Even if the Democrats don't win the majority, I think we'll definitely see a shift to the left" in Congress.

O'Halloran:

In an average midterm election, experts estimate a gain of 23 congressional seats for the party that is not in power. But this year, O'Halloran gives the Democrats a 65 percent chance of taking back the House, as predicted by polling data taken by the Iowa Stock Market.

What impact will this election have on the 2008 presidential race?

Ting:

During the period of divided government in the 1990s, "you would occasionally hear concerns about whether government was effective," Ting said. "But now that we've had united government for a few years, maybe [people will think] divided government isn't that bad."

Wawro:

"There's an eternity between now and the presidential election. Will there be another terror attack? Will the Democrats get the blame? It depends on what happens in Iraq, whether it gets worse. What happens if it goes into an all-out civil war?"

He said the success of the Democrats may depend largely on their ability to do better than Republicans at fighting terrorism. "Republicans' strongest point has been their belief that they're better at fighting the war on terror. But that's a big open question," he said.

Shapiro:

If the Republicans "take a beating, there will be pressure there like there was on Clinton in '94 to move to the center in some fashion, and nominate a more moderate­-or moderate-looking-[presidential] candidate than they might otherwise like to nominate," Shapiro said. "That would be McCain, and although he's rather conservative, he's being perceived as someone who is more moderate in some respects."

But if the Democrats "don't take back the House and things go worse for them, that pressures the Democrats to look for a more moderate candidate than is available right now."

What about in the Senate?

Robert Erikson, political science professor:

"It's probably in the hands of the voters now," Erikson said. He boils the competition for the Senate down to three states: Missouri, Tennessee, and Virginia. "If the Democrats take two out of three, it's even."

Wawro:

Compared to the House, the odds of the Democrats taking the Senate "are a little dicier," Wawro said. "You're looking at specific races that are within the margin of error in the polls, and they don't look as good now" for Democrats as they did a week or two ago. This, he said, is most likely because Republicans have "dumped money" into the states with the closest races. "It's within the Democrats' reach. But elections tend to break strongly one way or another in the last weeks."

What would a Democratic majority in the house mean for national politics?

Ting:

"Not much in the sense of them being able to enact anything." Though [current minority leader] Nancy Pelosi has mentioned some possible legislative initiatives, "it's hard to imagine that these proposals will get anywhere," he said.

O'Halloran:

"The Democrats are not going to have the ability to push forward an agenda, but they are going to be able to push for investigations," O'Halloran said. Such investigations could include the response to Hurricane Katrina, the Iraq war, and the awarding of contracts in Defense Department spending.

Shapiro:

"With control of the House they get all the committee chairmanships with regard to legislation and, most importantly, with regard to legislative oversight. I think on the agenda they could do some modest things pretty forcefully. They could push forward a new minimum wage bill" and maybe Medicare drug reform.

Erikson:

"We'd see Nancy Pelosi behind the president in the State of the Union message," he said with a laugh. "The Democrats would probably try to enact certain policies that they think are popular, and the president would veto them."