Forecasting the 113th Congress

Forecasting the 113th Congress

© April 2012 Center for Trends Research and Analysis. Page 1

Forecasting the 113th

Congress Michael J Price, Jr.

Center for Trends Research and Analysis

Abstract: Examination of the relationship between the President’s party

identification and whether or not their party ascends as majorities in both

chambers shows no statistical significance. Exploring past election data since

1969 and forecasting the coming 113th Congressional party composition indicates

that Republicans are very likely to hold onto the House of Representatives, and

most likely to assume control of the Senate.

Keywords: Republicans, Democrats, regression curve estimation,

transformation moving average, forecasting, 113th Congress, MAPE.

INTRODUCTION

his coming fall, the makeup of the 113th Congress will be determined. The

entire House of Representatives are up for reelection, and there are thirty-

three Senate seats up for reelection. The party breakdown for the Senate

seats is 23 Democrat and 10 Republican. According to Rasmussen, there are

“seven toss-ups at the moment, six of them Democratic: Joe Lieberman (D-CT),

Claire McCaskill (D-MO), Jon Tester (D-MT), Ben Nelson (D-NE), John Ensign

(R-NV), Sherrod Brown (D-OH), and Jim Webb (D-VA). All seven are either in

the very vulnerable or vulnerable categories. [1]

” I wrote an article back on October

30, 2010 for Examiner.com, and pointed out that McCaskill’s, Tester’s, and

Webb’s seats are vulnerable and therefore, should be targeted. [2]

I furthermore opined that if:

Republicans are able to occupy 47 seats in the Senate after the election, and are able to

defend 6 of 9 seats, they would occupy about 44 seats. Even if they steal 7 of the 24

Democratic seats, they become the party in the majority (51). Even if President Obama

gets reelected, he will have tremendous difficultly getting Congress to create legislation

he is willing to support. The Senate is [likely to be] lost to the Democrats come 2012. [2]

T



This proclamation will be tested. I claimed that Republicans will become the

majority at 51 seats and the Democrats will be the minority with 49 seats. To

forecast the 113th Congress, I will take the Senate and House seat election results

dating back to 1969 under President Richard Nixon. The purpose of going back

that far is to get an adequate amount of data to use for the forecast.

Since 1969, there have been 21 Congressional elections in these 42 years. There

have been five Republican and three Democrat Presidents in that span. According

to figure 1, on average, Democrat Presidents had a Senate composition of 53

Democrats and 47 Republicans. On the other hand, Republican Presidents had an

average of 52 Democrats and 48 Republicans in the Senate. In terms of the House,

figure 2 shows Democrat Presidents had an average of 237 Democrats and 197

Republicans, and Republican Presidents had an average of 245 Democrats and 189

Republicans. When in office, both Democrat and Republican President’s averaged

8 fewer seats of their own party in the House, which was gained by the opposition.

40

45

50

55

Democrat Republican

53 52

47 48

Nu

mb

er

of

Sen

ate

Se

ats

President's Party

Figure 1: Average Senate Seats

Democrat Republican

0

100

200

300

Democrat Republican

237 245 197 189

Nu

mb

er

of

Ho

use

Se

ats

President's Party

Figure 2: Average House Seats

Democrat Republican



METHODOLOGY

Before going any further in this analysis, we must establish an acceptable error rate

for the forecast model. The error rate we will be using is called a MAPE or a mean

absolute percentage error. MAPE is used to determine the forecast model’s error

rate of its predictions. The acceptable error rate benchmark of the preceding

forecast will be ≤ 10 percent. [3, 4]

The formula to calculate our error rate is:

In this formula At is the actual value and Ft is the forecast value. The difference

between At and Ft is divided by the actual value At again. The absolute value in this

calculation is summed for every fitted or forecasted point in time and divided again

by the number of fitted point’s n and then multiplied by 100 giving us our

percentage error for our model.

I will test my original statement by conducting two sets of forecasts. One will

constitute a transformation movement average (TMA) and the other, a regression

curve estimation. I will run forecasts for both the House and the Senate, and then

display the results.

FINDINGS

Does the President’s Party identification have any influence over whether or not

their power gains power in the House? Fifty percent of Democrat President’s had

their party in the majority in the House during their administrations, whereas,

Republican President’s had their party in power under their administration 21.4

percent of the time. These result are not statistically significant (X2=1.916;

p=.166)1. These results indicate that the President’s party identification has no

influence on whether or not their party gains power in the House.

1 P value must be less than or equal to .05



Does the President’s Party identification have any influence on whether or not their

party gains power in the Senate? Sixty-three percent of Democrat President’s had

their party in power in the Senate during their administration, whereas Republican

President’s had their party in the majority 36 percent of the time. These results are

not statistically significant (X2=1.4743; p=.225). The President’s party affiliation

historically has no influence on whether or not their party gains power as the

majority in the Senate.

As shown in table 1, since 1969

Republicans assumed the Presidency

64 percent of the time, whereas

Democrats 36 percent. Republicans

had their party in the majority in both

chambers at the same time 14 percent

and Democrats 50 percent.

The most fascinating aspect of this

analysis is the fact that political

make-up of the House is closer to

being statistically significant than the

Senate. All 435 House members come up for reelection every 2 years and Senators

have a six year term, but not all 100 members are never up for reelection at the

same time. Our Founding Fathers wanted to prevent populism from taking hold of

Congress and in so, insulated the Senate from such sweeping change. On the other

hand, the House had to be responsive to the people and so, the Founders made this

chamber of Congress more susceptible to populism. The Senate would keep the

House in check as a precautionary measure.

Nevertheless, there apparently are other exogenous variables that may influence

whether or not a party gains the majority in either the House or the Senate.

Unfortunately, this inquiry is beyond the scope of this paper and instead we will

turn our attention towards forecasting the 113th Congressional party composition.

The current 112th

Congress constitutes 242 Republicans and 193 Democrats in the

House, and 51 Democrats and 47 Republicans in the Senate. The 111th Congress

had Democrats as the majority in both chambers and now the Republicans control

the House. This change was mostly a by-product of the Tea Party Movement in the

2010 mid-term elections.

Table 1: Congressional Control per President

Democrat Republican

% Party as President 36.4% 63.6%

Control both Chambers?

Yes 50.0% 14.3%

No 50.0% 85.7%

Party in Power Senate?

Yes 62.5% 35.7%

No 37.5% 64.3%

Party in Power House?

Yes 50.0% 21.4%

No 50.0% 78.6%



According to Figure 3, the forecast model projects Republicans to still be the

majority party in the House. The forecast indicates that Republicans could have a

seat total of 227 and Democrats with 207. So how accurate is this model? To

calculate the error rate of this forecast, we use the MAPE formula. The error rate of

this forecast is 9.67 percent. This falls within the acceptable pre-established MAPE

rate of ≤ 10 percent.

Now let’s establish a range. To do this we will use a transformation moving

average (TMA). The TMA analysis indicates that Republicans have an average

gain of +3 seats and Democrats -3 seats since 1969. This indicates that

Republicans are on an upswing and Democrats are in a decline. The forecast shows

that Republicans are expected to win 245 seats, while Democrats could only win

190 seats.

So, with these two forecast methods, Republicans could win anywhere between

227 and 245 seats, while Democrats could win anywhere between 190 and 207

seats. Either way, the forecast predicts that Republicans will still be the majority,

while Democrats will remain the minority party in the House. So what do the

forecast models show for the Senate?

According to Figure 4, the forecast model predicts that the Republicans will be the

new party majority in the Senate with 52 seats, while Democrats lose control with

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

Nu

mb

er

of

Ho

use

Se

ats

1969 to Present

Figure 3: U.S. House

Democrat D-Forecast Republican R-Forecast



48 seats. The current Senate count has Democrats with 51 seats and Republicans

with 47. This is a 5 seat gain for Republicans and a 3 seat loss for Democrats. The

question is how reliable is this forecast? The MAPE for the Senate forecast is 8.85

percent. This is a much lower MAPE than the House forecast.

Now let’s establish a range. Since 1969, Democrats have an average loss of 1 seat

in the Senate. On the other hand, Republicans have an average gain of 1 seat in the

last 42 years. The TMA forecast has Republicans with 51 seats and Democrats

with 49 seats. This indicates that Democrats will lose the majority in the 113th

Congress. The error rate of this forecast is 8.35 percent.

The two forecasts show that Republicans could win anywhere between 47 and 52

seats, and Democrats 48 and 51 seats in the Senate. Unlike the forecast for the

House, Republicans could either take over the Senate or remain the minority party

in this chamber. The change is most likely predicated on Republicans beating

vulnerable incumbent Democrats such as McCaskill and Tester. Earlier this year,

Jim Webb announced his retirement from the Senate, marking a heated race for his

seat.

CONCLUSION

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

Nu

mb

er

of

Sen

ate

Se

ats

1969 to Present

Figure 4: U.S. Senate




The previous forecast indicates that Republicans will maintain their majority in the

House, but the Senate could go either way. For Republicans to take control of the

Senate, it will require them to target vulnerable incumbent Senators. Republicans

will most likely become the majority in the Senate. Why is that? In examining the

data, Republicans averaged a 1 seat gain, while Democrats have been losing an

average of 1 seat since 1969.

Does this indicate a pendulum shift towards Republicans? Not exactly! The reason

being is that politics is tricky and difficult to map. No one predicted that the Tea

Party would have the impact that they did on the 2010 mid-term elections, but they

did. With the country in the worst recession in U.S. history, and having a Democrat

President in power, a shift in the other direction seems logical. This shift would

indicate that Americans want to try Republicans again.

Regardless, forecasting the Congressional makeup gives researchers and political

minds and pundits a glance into the future. Let’s look at several scenarios:

Scenario 1

President Obama

Democrat Senate

Republican House

Outcome:

If President Obama wins reelection, he enters into his last term as president. With

no election to check his power, he has no restraints other than the House. This

could see partisan tensions increase and as a result, solving the lingering debt issue

becomes difficult. The President will continue to characterize Republicans as the

party of obstruction. The types of issues that are most likely to be pushed by

President Obama in his last term are hot button issues such as immigration reform.

Scenario 2

President Obama

Republican Senate

Republican House

Outcome:

Just like the first scenario, President Obama will press to get high conflict and high

salient policies passed. But with a Republican majority in both chambers,

partisanship will elevate at unbelievable levels. President Obama will act like a

cornered cat and claw his way out. Furthermore, high salient issues to the President



that can’t be passed in the Republican controlled Congress are most likely to be

passed to his administrative agencies to regulate. Also, he will utilize his bully

pulpit to his advantage and use divisive issues such as healthcare, immigration and

education to rally his supporters.

Scenario 3

Republican President

Democrat Senate

Republican House

Outcome:

If a Republican presidential candidate defeats President Obama, the assuming

President will have to overcome a Democrat Senate majority. With a Democrat

majority in the Senate, favorable bills of the newly assumed President will most

likely die in this upper chamber. The Republican House will pass party favored

bills, but meet stark opposition in the Senate. This will result in a faceoff between

the Republican President and the Democrat Senate majority.

Scenario 4

Republican President

Republican Senate

Republican House

Outcome:

With Republicans sweeping the 2012 elections, the Democrats will be in rebuild

mode. Democrats will fight tooth-and-nail against Republicans in Congress. A

caveat of a Republican lead Congress is that tensions will not alleviate. Will the

debt issue be solved? Not likely. With a Republican lead government, issues

favorable to Democrats will be slashed come budget time, and Democrats will use

divisive rhetoric to rile their constituents. Democrat leaders will utilize the media

to rally support and the utilization of their favorable tool, class warfare, will be

amped. Since the electorate has given Republicans the opportunity to solve our

country’s ills, the failure to do so could damage the party for years to come. This

failure will see further infiltration by constitutional and fiscally conservative

leaders into the party and as a result, lead to the purging of establishment members

of the party.

These scenarios are based on possible forecasted outcomes that give us a clearer

picture of what the 2013 government will look like. One of four scenarios will

unravel in the aftermath of this year’s election and planning for each one is



advisable. Based on the forecasts, scenarios two and four are more likely. The

previous analysis shows that the President’s party identification has no influence

on whether or not their party assumes control of either the House or the Senate.

Over the last 42 years, a Republican President had majorities in both chambers at

the same time under their administration only twice. This was the 108th and 109

th

Congress under President George W. Bush2. Since 1969, Republican

administrations had their party in the majority in the Senate 39 percent of the time

and in the House only 15 percent. If Republicans can pull off scenario 4, this will

be a massive upset for Democrats. If this happens it would be the third time a

Republican President had majorities in both chambers at the same time since 1969.

Will this scenario unravel? Time will only tell.

These forecasts are not without error. The error rates are within the 10 percent

benchmark, but error is still present. This does not discount the validity of the

forecasts, but rather puts into perspective the difficultly in predicting political

outcomes. To build a stronger predictive model requires finding a correlation

between party shifts in Congress and their exogenous influencers such as the

economy, military conflicts and foreign relations. The question for further analysis

would be what foreign and national factors are most likely to influence the change

in party majorities in Congress.

2 This excludes the 107

th Congress because it was 50/50 in the Senate, neither party had majorities



References

1. Sabato, Larry. J. (2011, January 6). Initial Rating For All 2012 Senate Seats. Retrieved

April 25, 2012, from Rasmussen Reports:

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/political_commentary/commentary_by

_larry_j_sabato/initial_rating_for_all_2012_senate_seats

2. Price, Michael. J. (2010, October 30). The Coming Democratic Polarization.

Examiner.com.

Notes

3. This value was established as the benchmark because of the relatively difficult nature of

predicting political outcomes. The lower the MAPE, the lower the error rate of the

forecast. There are unknown exogenous predictive indicators which influence

Congressional election outcomes not modeled in this forecast. In financial management,

the benchmark MAPE is 5 percent. See XiaoHu Wang. (2010). Financial Management in

the Public Sector (Second ed.). NY: M.E. Sharpe, Inc.

4. There are debates within academia that claim MAPE is susteptible to outliners and that it

overstates the error rate in forecasts, especially when forecasting population. See: Stefan

Rayer. (2007, April). Population Forecast Accuracy: Does the Choice of Summary

Measure of Error Matter? Population Research and Policy Review, 26(2), 163-184, and J.

Tayman & D. A. Swanson. (1999, August). On the Validity of MAPE as a Measure of

Population Forecast Accuracy. Population Research and Policy Review, 18(4), 299-322.



APPENDIX

Party in power? * House since 1969

President party id

Total Republican Democrat

Party in power? Yes Count 3 4 7

% within President party id 21.4% 50.0% 31.8%

No Count 11 4 15


Total Count 14 8 22


Chi-Square Tests

Value df

Asymp. Sig. (2-

sided)

Exact Sig. (2-

sided)

Exact Sig. (1-

sided)

Pearson Chi-Square 1.916a 1 .166

Continuity Correctionb .825 1 .364

Likelihood Ratio 1.883 1 .170

Fisher's Exact Test .343 .182

Linear-by-Linear Association 1.829 1 .176

N of Valid Cases 22

Party in Power in Senate? * Since 1969

President party id


Party in Power in Senate? Yes Count 5 5 10


No Count 9 3 12


Total Count 14 8 22




Chi-Square Tests

Value df

Asymp. Sig. (2-

sided)

Exact Sig. (2-

sided)

Exact Sig. (1-

sided)

Pearson Chi-Square 1.473a 1 .225

Continuity Correctionb .591 1 .442

Likelihood Ratio 1.482 1 .223

Fisher's Exact Test .378 .221

Linear-by-Linear Association 1.406 1 .236

N of Valid Cases 22

Average Party in the House Under President since 1969

President party id N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean

Democrats in

House dimension1

Republican 14 244.8571 25.86312 6.91221

Democrat 8 237.0000 37.89459 13.39776

Republicans in

House dimension1

Republican 14 189.4286 25.26388 6.75206

Democrat 8 197.3750 37.70539 13.33087

Average Party in the Senate under President since 1969

President party id N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean

Democrats in Senate

dimension1

Republican 14 51.8571 5.18663 1.38618

Democrat 8 52.8750 6.64267 2.34854

Republicans in

Senate dimension1

Republican 14 47.6429 5.34368 1.42816

Democrat 8 46.8750 6.59951 2.33328



Control both Chambers? * President party

President party id


Control both Chambers? Yes Count 2 4 6


No Count 12 4 16


Total Count 14 8 22


U.S. House Forecast: 1969 to Present


243 273.88538 192 160.93676

255 270.84867 180 163.92547

241 267.81197 192 166.91417

291 264.77527 144 169.90288

292 261.73857 143 172.89159

277 258.70186 158 175.88029

244 255.66516 191 178.869

272 252.62846 163 181.85771

253 249.59176 182 184.84641

258 246.55505 177 187.83512

251 243.51835 183 190.82383

270 240.48165 164 193.81254

258 237.44495 176 196.80124

204 234.40824 230 199.78995

206 231.37154 228 202.77866

211 228.33484 223 205.76736

211 225.29814 221 208.75607

205 222.26143 229 211.74478

201 219.22473 232 214.73348

233 216.18803 202 217.72219

255 213.15133 179 220.7109

193 210.11462 242 223.6996

207.07792 226.68831



U.S. Senate Forecast 1969 to Present3


57 56.25296 43 43.47431

55 55.86957 44 43.84472

56 55.48617 42 44.21513

61 55.10277 38 44.58554

61 54.71937 39 44.95596

58 54.33597 42 45.32637

47 53.95257 53 45.69678

45 53.56917 55 46.06719

47 53.18577 53 46.43761

55 52.80237 45 46.80802

55 52.41897 45 47.17843

56 52.03557 44 47.54884

57 51.65217 43 47.91925

47 51.26877 53 48.28967

45 50.88538 55 48.66008

45 50.50198 55 49.03049

50 50.11858 50 49.4009

49 49.73518 51 49.77132

44 49.35178 55 50.14173

49 48.96838 49 50.51214

59 48.58498 41 50.88255

51 48.20158 47 51.25296

47.81818

51.62338

3 Table does include Independents who caucus with Democrats

Date post:	27-Mar-2016
Category:	Documents
Upload:	mike-price
View:	224 times
Download:	3 times

Forecasting the 113th Congress

Documents