No, I'm not talking about Republicans and Democrats. While most of us do care deeply how the elections go this year (I have my opinions), this thread isn't about that. Actually, I'm addressing here predictions about the generational balance of the next Congress.

It's all but sure that Boomers will retain a strong majority in the 110th Congress. By my projections, the Xers won't take over Congress until 2016 or 2018. But there are some interesting generational shifts going on right now in Congress. First, let's look at the current balance (generationally, not by party) in the U.S. House:

273 Boomers (+3 Boomer vacancies)
104 Silents
52 Xers
3 G.I.s

As generations have come in and out of control, the leadership style has changed. Some of you may remember the back-slapping, hubristic days of G.I. control in the '50s, '60s, and early '70s. Following that came the timid, compromising days of Silent control from 1974-1994. And since 1994, not just because of Newt Gingrich's Revolution but also because of the Boomers, Congress has been hopelessly divided and partisan. It may seem pointless to look at generational rather than partisan control, but it isn't. Part of the zeitgeist in Washington is determined by the style in which Congress is running, and people of different generations see the way to run it differently.

That said, something interesting is going on this year. Based purely on open House seats, not assuming any incumbent defeats, the Silents will lose 13 seats. The number of G.I.s will go from 3 to just 2 after the retirement of Henry Hyde. Boomers will add 3 seats to their majority, and Xers 11. Again, this is just looking at expected results in open seats, not assuming any incumbent defeats. So by that narrow lense, the next Congress will be:

279 Boomers
91 Silents
63 Xers
2 G.I.s

Note that Xers are rapidly closing the gap with their Silent parents. After the 2008 election, there may be more Xers in Congress than Silents, a significant generational shift as the old compromisers retire and give way to a fiercely unpredictable midlife minority. Boomers may have maxed out on seats after this election and may start slowly collapsing after 2008 (as the Silents did after 1982).

Again, I know this is meaningless to some of you, and we all care more about what party controls Congress. But it's food for thought. I'd love your predictions, projections, and observations about the generational shifts in Congress and when you think milestones will occur (i.e. the last 2 G.I.s leaving, an Xer majority, the first Millie in Congress, etc.).

Note: the projection of 279-91-63-2 is based on my own calculations for open seats where the incumbent is retiring or running for another office. I did not get the figure from anyone else. And incumbent defeats will, of course, change the balance a little.

Anyway, your thoughts?

Originally Posted by 1990

It's all but sure that Boomers will retain a strong majority in the 110th Congress. By my projections, the Xers won't take over Congress until 2016 or 2018. But there are some interesting generational shifts going on right now in Congress. First, let's look at the current balance (generationally, not by party) in the U.S. House:

273 Boomers (+3 Boomer vacancies)
104 Silents
52 Xers
3 G.I.s

As generations have come in and out of control, the leadership style has changed. Some of you may remember the back-slapping, hubristic days of G.I. control in the '50s, '60s, and early '70s. Following that came the timid, compromising days of Silent control from 1974-1994. And since 1994, not just because of Newt Gingrich's Revolution but also because of the Boomers, Congress has been hopelessly divided and partisan. It may seem pointless to look at generational rather than partisan control, but it isn't. Part of the zeitgeist in Washington is determined by the style in which Congress is running, and people of different generations see the way to run it differently.

That said, something interesting is going on this year. Based purely on open House seats, not assuming any incumbent defeats, the Silents will lose 13 seats. The number of G.I.s will go from 3 to just 2 after the retirement of Henry Hyde. Boomers will add 3 seats to their majority, and Xers 11. Again, this is just looking at expected results in open seats, not assuming any incumbent defeats. So by that narrow lense, the next Congress will be:

279 Boomers
91 Silents
63 Xers
2 G.I.s

Note that Xers are rapidly closing the gap with their Silent parents. After the 2008 election, there may be more Xers in Congress than Silents, a significant generational shift as the old compromisers retire and give way to a fiercely unpredictable midlife minority. Boomers may have maxed out on seats after this election and may start slowly collapsing after 2008 (as the Silents did after 1982).

Again, I know this is meaningless to some of you, and we all care more
Anyway, your thoughts?

First, it's amazing that there are GI's still kicking around in Congress, esp. the House.

Second, the fact that the Xer number is still far under the Silent number leads me to believe that the Boomer peak will not arrive in 2006 as scheduled. And it looks like the Boomer peak may not even reach 2/3rds of the seats. Interesting. What does a late, but relatively low, peak mean? A long 3T? A late 4T? A weak early 4T? Nothing at all?

Third, you must have done a lot of work to figure out the generation of each House member. Thank you.

Originally Posted by Zarathustra

... Third, you must have done a lot of work to figure out the generation of each House member. Thank you.

I'm sure you were equally precocious at 15.

If we believe that there's anything at all to this theory, then we should take factors like this into account. On other threads it has been mentioned that if the silent disappear before the X'er style has firmly established itself as a counterbalance to boomer excess, bad outcomes become more likely.
Partly because we are in this grey area between artistic and nomadic restraint on the prophets, there is an added a bit of darkness to the picture. It could be that part of what makes the regeneracy possible is not only the maturation of great prophets into grey champions, but also the progress of nomads and heroes into more mature roles. At any rate, we'll be testing the theory and our preconceptions of where this 4t may lead, in the next few years.

Originally Posted by herbal tee

If we believe that there's anything at all to this theory, then we should take factors like this into account. On other threads it has been mentioned that if the silent disappear before the X'er style has firmly established itself as a counterbalance to boomer excess, bad outcomes become more likely.
Partly because we are in this grey area between artistic and nomadic restraint on the prophets, there is an added a bit of darkness to the picture. It could be that part of what makes the regeneracy possible is not only the maturation of great prophets into grey champions, but also the progress of nomads and heroes into more mature roles. At any rate, we'll be testing the theory and our preconceptions of where this 4t may lead, in the next few years.

Amen.

That said, what are your predictions for years when milestones will happen?

Here are the milestones, in possible order:

• Last 2 G.I.s leave the House (I say as soon as 2008, as Ralph Hall will be 85 and Ralph Regula will be 84)
• Xers gain majority (I say 2016 or 2018)
• First Millie in Congress (I say 2018 or 2020)
• Last Silents leave (2020s?)

Originally Posted by 1990

Amen.

That said, what are your predictions for years when milestones will happen?

Here are the milestones, in possible order:

• Last 2 G.I.s leave the House (I say as soon as 2008, as Ralph Hall will be 85 and Ralph Regula will be 84)
• Xers gain majority (I say 2016 or 2018)
• First Millie in Congress (I say 2018 or 2020)
• Last Silents leave (2020s?)

1.There must be something about being a GI congressman named Ralph, they seem blessed with longevity.

2.I'm not smart enough to guess that far ahead.

3. It may be soon. With the rise in voting among the young and other signs of civic behavior, I will guess that some millies will run for office successfully while quite young. Being a dominant generation may help, I remember as a pre teen in the early 70's, some 20ish boomers were elected mayors and to other offices as early as was legally possible, and the media was generally positive that these young people would do great things in public service. I see the likelihood of very young millie local government officals soon, for the age limit for local offices is often only the voting age of 18 itself. And it is the classic steppingstone to state and federal office.

4.See the answer to #2.

Sorry, I was only confedent enough to elaborate on #3, but we nomads tend to get risk adverse in middle age.

Originally Posted by herbal tee

Sorry, I was only confedent enough to elaborate on #3, but we nomads tend to get risk adverse in middle age.

It's okay. Now I know, so when I'm old enough to go to casinos I'll know not to gamble with an Xer. Party poopers; what happened to your maverick streak?

Originally Posted by 1990

what happened to your maverick streak?

I think I lost it one night in 1994 at a punk rock club at 3 in the morning.

Seriously, predicting when the X'ers come to a majority in congress depends on how you think the next few years will go. If we have disaster compairable to the civil war, it is likely that the boom will get the boot early as happened to the transies in 1866-68. If the younger generations come to feel that the boomer establishment is generally handiling the 4t well, then they may age out of power and the X'ers may not really control congress until 2020 or later. There's just too many unknown variables this far out to get much more precise than this.

OTOH, mathmatically it's almost a given that the last silent in congress will retire by 2030.

According to msnbc, the GOP is in free fall.

Oct. 7, 2006 - Come hell or high water-ran the conventional wisdom-Republicans could rely on two issues to win elections: the war on terror and values.

Then came Mark Foley. The drip-drip-drip of scandal surrounding the former Congressman from Florida, which became a deluge this week, now threatens to sink Republican hopes of keeping control of Congress, says the NEWSWEEK poll out today.

And that was the good news for the GOP. More worrisome still, the Foley fiasco is jeopardizing the party’s monopoly on faith and power. For the first time since 2001, the NEWSWEEK poll shows that more Americans trust the Democrats than the GOP on moral values and the war on terror. Fully 53 percent of Americans want the Democrats to win control of Congress next month, including 10 percent of Republicans, compared to just 35 percent who want the GOP to retain power.

If the election were held today, 51 percent of likely voters would vote for the Democrat in their district versus 39 percent who would vote for the Republican. And while the race is closer among male voters (46 percent for the Democrats vs. 42 percent for the Republicans), the Democrats lead among women voters 56 to 34 percent.

The full article can be found here:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15167150/site/newsweek/

Originally Posted by The Wonkette

According to msnbc, the GOP is in free fall.



The full article can be found here:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15167150/site/newsweek/

WTF?!?? Yowie!

Thank you, Wonk.

What amazes me is how the GOP were able to win in 2004 by saying their plans for fighting terror was better than the Democrats plan. The GOP plan was full of holes and yet they were able to win through propaganda, money from special-interest groups, Karl Rove and voter manipulation.

The 2004 campaign was fixed Karl Rove should be thrown in jail!!!!!

Three weeks is a long time in an election campaign. But, the historical performance for the presidents' party in a midterm is closely related to his approval rating.

Superribbie's diary :: ::
Comparing the last presidential rating prior to a midterm election to the net results of that election (http://clerk.house.gov/...) yields some interesting results:

Year President Party Approval House Res.

1938 Roosevelt D 52 -76.5
1942 Roosevelt D 70 -46
1946 Truman D 33 -54.5 *
1950 Truman D 41 -28
1954 Eisenhower R 61 -18.5
1958 Eisenhower R 57 -48.5
1962 Kennedy D 62 -3
1966 Johnson D 44 -47.5
1970 Nixon R 58 -12
1974* Ford (Nixon) R 54(24) -48.5*
1978 Carter D 49 -15
1982 Reagan R 42 -26.5
1986 Reagan R 63 -5
1990 Bush I R 58 -8
1994 Clinton D 45.5 -54
1998 Clinton D 64 +5
2002 Bush II R 62 +8

In all of those midterms, the sitting president has only twice faced an approval rateing of under 40%,such as Bush currently does, this close to the voting day. In those two elections, 1946 and 1974, which are the one's that I inserted an asterek for, the party in question lost over 50 seats.

Notice also that except for the GOP wave in 1994, which happened with Clinton at 45.5 approval rating, the midterms shift has been at 8 seats or less. That's the power of gerrymandering mulltiplied by computer generated districts. Gerrymandering gives the party that does it a lot of narrow majorities by conceeding a smaller number of seats that are won by a huge margin to the minority party. The danger is that if an anti-majority party wave hits those gerrymandered districts, they tend to flip en masse to the opposition.

In other words, unless the Republicans revive PDQ, it is going to be impossible for them to keep the house. Soon, a 30-50 seat Democratic gain will become more likely than a GOP hold of the house. And, this would happen because rather than dispite gerrymandered districts.

Originally Posted by herbal tee

Notice also that except for the GOP wave in 1994, which happened with Clinton at 45.5 approval rating, the midterms shift has been at 8 seats or less. That's the power of gerrymandering mulltiplied by computer generated districts. Gerrymandering gives the party that does it a lot of narrow majorities by conceeding a smaller number of seats that are won by a huge margin to the minority party. The danger is that if an anti-majority party wave hits those gerrymandered districts, they tend to flip en masse to the opposition.

In other words, unless the Republicans revive PDQ, it is going to be impossible for them to keep the house. Soon, a 30-50 seat Democratic gain will become more likely than a GOP hold of the house. And, this would happen because rather than dispite gerrymandered districts.

Heh. Superribbie is the ultimate election statistics geek.

What I find much more interesting than the outside chance of a 50-state swing is the fact that the most recent omnibus poll numbers have the number of "safe" seats (i.e. where the result is outside the margin of error) at 217-D 198-R. In other words, a swing necessary for the Dems to take the House has already occurred.

279 Boomers
91 Silents
63 Xers
2 G.I.s

Hmm, according to S&H, the last time an Idealist Generation was on the march like these Boomers, America solidly rejected the Wilsonian "Make the world safe for Democracy" era in favor of a serious bout with nativism and the decade that roared!

Originally Posted by 1990

279 Boomers
91 Silents
63 Xers
2 G.I.s

Hmm, 63 Xers? What boundary years are you using? Do you have a spreadsheet I could use -- I'd be interested in projecting the counts for the incoming Congress based on the most recent polls. Of course, the generational balance is likely to shift no matter the prevailing sentiment, as there a large number of (mostly R) "retirements", parallelling 1994.

Originally Posted by Finch

Hmm, 63 Xers? What boundary years are you using? Do you have a spreadsheet I could use -- I'd be interested in projecting the counts for the incoming Congress based on the most recent polls. Of course, the generational balance is likely to shift no matter the prevailing sentiment, as there a large number of (mostly R) "retirements", parallelling 1994.

I'm using S&H definitions for all these generations (1901-1924 for G.I.s, 1925-1942 for Silents, 1943-1960 for Boomers, 1961-1981 for Xers).

It is clear that Silents will be the biggest losers this year. Even if Dems Ken Lucas in KY-4 and Jack Davis in NY-26 win (both are in tossup races), the Silents will have lost 11 seats. And of course the last two G.I.s will probably be gone by the end of the decade.

Originally Posted by 1990

I'm using S&H definitions for all these generations (1901-1924 for G.I.s, 1925-1942 for Silents, 1943-1960 for Boomers, 1961-1981 for Xers).

It is clear that Silents will be the biggest losers this year. Even if Dems Ken Lucas in KY-4 and Jack Davis in NY-26 win (both are in tossup races), the Silents will have lost 11 seats. And of course the last two G.I.s will probably be gone by the end of the decade.

I see. Do you have a spreadsheet tracking this? I'd like to try out different boundary years.

Electoral-Vote.com has the projected Senate at 50-D 48-R, with 2 races [TN, VA] within the MoE but trending Dem.

If Dems win at least one of the two, they will be the majority party in the Senate. (Assuming Lieberman caucuses with the Dems as promised.) If Dems win both (or Lamont wins in CT, which currently seems unlikely), Lieberman will be irrelevant.

Originally Posted by Finch

I see. Do you have a spreadsheet tracking this? I'd like to try out different boundary years.

No, I just found the birth dates of every Rep. through Wikipedia.

Originally Posted by 1990

No, I just found the birth dates of every Rep. through Wikipedia.

Yes, but surely you recorded the data somewhere... fine, I'll do it myself.

Originally Posted by Finch

Yes, but surely you recorded the data somewhere... fine, I'll do it myself.

Some Word document. I can find it and send it to you by email.

Originally Posted by 1990

Some Word document. I can find it and send it to you by email.

Thanks! I PM'ed you my email.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...type=printable

Yet there is little evidence of warmth, respect or policy agreements between the two. It is hard to imagine Pelosi and Bush, after demonizing each other for political purposes, developing the relationship forged between Democratic House Speaker Tip O'Neill and Republican President Ronald Reagan, who waged bitter policy battles during the 1980s but came to admire each other and build a friendship.

"They both had a professional admiration and attitudinal fondness for each other,'' said journalist John Farrell, author of "Tip O'Neill and the Democratic Century.''

"Tip had an ability to maintain friendship and civility while they were savaging each other. There was something about those earlier generations of politicians' ability to compartmentalize,'' he said.

Originally Posted by Finch

Thanks! I PM'ed you my email.

I emailed you the attachment.