The GOP won the nation’s most high profile Senate race in South Dakota. Thus, in nearly every contested race the GOP candidate eked out razor thin victories. Bush carried those states and offered substantial coattails for Republican senate hopefuls. With twenty-five of twenty-six incumbents winning an average of 64-percent of the vote, the battle for senate control was located in a relative handful of states.

9 In 2004, however, the overwhelming majority of senate races were uncompetitive. Historically, senators have faced a much more competitive environment than House members. These factors gave the GOP a profound advantage in the electoral map. Meanwhile, Republicans also had the opportunity to compete for additional senate seats in South Dakota, Illinois, Colorado, and Oklahoma, and Alaska. Of those, five were Democrats who hailed from southern states with Republican leanings: Georgia, the Carolinas, Florida and Louisiana. Eight senators retired prior to the 2004 election. For Senate Democrats, erasing the GOP’s bare advantage always amounted to an uphill climb. The rough-and-tumble House political wars were hardly confined to the lower chamber. 6 All told, DeLay’s plan led to five additional Texas House Republicans overall, the GOP netted three seats. This tactic was intended to produce seven new GOP-leaning districts. With Republicans newly in charge of the Texas legislature, DeLay’s plan redrew legislative districts. Practicing a brand of hardball that had already rendered him into the bête noir of Democrats, GOP Majority Leader Tom DeLay oversaw an unprecedented “mid-decade” redistricting plan. Even in open seats, both parties cruised to wins in districts designed with decided partisan leans. Creating safe seats across the nation, both parties garnered, on average seven of every ten votes in their respective winning House races. The post-2000 census redistricting efforts of both parties proved to be effective. The combination of gerrymandered districts and the power of incumbency meant the GOP would retain a bare congressional majority. Opportunities to flip control of the House might have been scant, but the partisan fury boiled.

A scant 23 House races, 5-percent of all seats, were decided by 10 percentage points or less. The combination of gerrymandered seats and a motivated electorate meant that very few House seats were in play. 3 Unlike the 2002 midterms in which terrorism and foreign policy issues had nationalized the election, candidates in 2004 vied over local and state issues as much as they did on Iraq. House candidates garnered $433 million, while $278 million went to Senate hopefuls both parties amassed war chests sufficient to wage long, protracted campaigns. With so much riding on the outcome, records sums of money poured into Senate and House campaigns. Indeed, the 2004 election promised to shift the entire balance of power in Washington to one party. With such narrow margins, the congressional races mattered nearly as much as the marquee presidential matchup. In the House, Republicans held a twelve-seat advantage. Thus, the GOP entered 2004 with a one-seat majority. In the 2002 midterms, the Republicans took back the Senate. The GOP maintained control of the upper chamber in the 2000 election, but lost it in late 2001 when Jim Jeffords caucused with the Democrats. Between 20, control of the Senate swung between Republicans and Democrats three times. In the years preceding the election, Congress reflected the nation’s hyper-partisan political environment. © 2004 House elections / Kurykh 2009 / Wikimedia Commons / CC-BY-SA-3.0 & GFDL Generally, a predictor of future political events the special elections seemingly augured well for the Democrats. Events had not only lined up in their favor, they had also won two special congressional races. In the months leading to the election, Democrats had every reason to believe they were poised for victory. 2 Despite this dissonance between environment and results, congressional races revealed 2004’s political verities: a mandate for the president, an eroding political center, and a changing center of political gravity for the GOP. Unlike the president who staged a ferocious and efficient campaign to win a narrow mandate, 97-percent of all congressional incumbents cruised to reelection. 1 With gas prices and deficits surging, job numbers flat, and Iraq careening from one crisis to the next, the president encountered turbulent political waters. In the three years prior to the presidential election, the institution’s favorability rating had plunged nearly fifty points. The American voter possesses a curious relationship with Congress: never more so than in the 2004 election.

Midterm house results