The 2006 election looked a lot like the 1994 election in reverse. Will 2008 look like 1996?

Since 1986, nine of the 11 House elections were pretty boring, with no change in majority control and with fewer than 10 seats shifting from one party to the other. But two elections were momentous: 1994, when Republicans gained 54 seats, and 2006, when Democrats gained 31. Contrast this period with the volatile 1964 to 1984 period, when in 10 of 11 elections one party gained more than 10 seats.

These numbers show that we are in a period of stability. Unless you have all of the political winds blowing against you, you are unlikely to lose more than a handful of House seats. The regional party realignment has been completed with Republicans now dominating the South and Democrats the Northeast. Democrats tend to sit in Democratic-leaning seats and Republicans in Republican seats. Because of these safe districts and incumbents’ ability to raise significant campaign funds, incumbency is a very strong predictor of reelection.

So if all reverts back to its past pattern, we shouldn’t expect large party shifts in the House in 2008 (in 1996 Democrats gained back nine seats). This is also true because there are several contradictory trends, some favoring Republicans and some Democrats.

Republicans can point to three factors in their favor. First, the tide that brought in Democrats in 2006 may recede slightly in 2008. The numbers are not good for Republicans, but they are no longer in control of Congress and responsibility is split between the parties.

Second, there are more Democrats in Republican-leaning seats than Republicans in Democratic seats. Sixty-two seats that Bush won in 2004 are held by Democrats. Only eight Republicans hold seats that John Kerry won in 2004. In addition, with such a big freshman class of Democrats, Republicans will have opportunities to knock off some Democrats who could only have won in a Democratic wave year. In 1996, Democrats knocked off 18 Republican incumbents, 12 of them freshmen.

Third, Republicans will have four or five incumbents who lost in 2006 running in rematches in 2008. In 1996, Democrats only ran two such incumbents, and both won. Jeb Bradley, Jim Ryun, Melissa Hart, Mike Sodrel and possibly Charles Taylor give Republicans good shots in competitive districts.

But Democrats also have advantages. First, while the election may not be the perfect storm it was in 2006, the climate is still very good for Democrats and much better than it was for Republicans in 1996. President Bush and the Iraq war are as unpopular as they were in November 2006. And Democrats lead Republicans significantly on the presidential and congressional generic ballots. In 1995, Bill Clinton was somewhat unpopular, but his approval rating rebounded significantly in 1996, and Democrats were even or slightly ahead on congressional generic ballot questions all through 1996.

Second, the political climate has contributed to Republican retirements, resulting in competitive open seats. So far, 12 Republicans and two Democrats have indicated they will not run for their House seats in 2008. Both Democratic seats are safe, but seven of the Republican seats gave under 55 percent of their votes to Bush in 2004, making them competitive. Compare this to 1996, when 29 Democrats and 21 Republicans retired from the House and Republicans picked up 10 open seats and Democrats four.

The 1996 election moved nine seats back to Democrats because they knocked off 15 more incumbents than Republicans, but Republicans picked up six more open seats. The competing trends for 2008 make a small shift in seats the most likely result.

Fortier is a research fellow at the American Enterprise Institute.