US Election update by Ben Surtees
June 13th, 2006-
Are we seeing a return of the Midterm Blues?
Following the spate of difficulties that the Bush Administration has faced in recent months - Iraq, Katrina, immigration, Abramoff etc - the President has now got to face the midterm elections this November. Then he’ll see the entire House of Representatives, one third of the Senate and a host of statewide posts up for election.
Historically, American voters have seen the midterms as an opportunity to express dissatisfaction with their incumbent presidential and congressional leadership. However, in the last four years, the Republican Party recorded impressive results in 2002/04 and inflicting further losses on the Democratic Party. 2006 is shaping up very differently. The latest poll places support for the Bush Administration at the same level as that enjoyed by Nixon and Carter at the nadir of their administrations.
-
The bedrock of Bush and the Republican’s success has been an energised and motivated conservative base. However, the perceived neglect of issues such as gay marriage, tax cuts and immigration controls has alienated many on the right. In addition, while the Republicans could portray themselves as competent and efficient in the past (in contrast to the Democrats), a string of scandals and failures on the part of the Republican congressional leadership has dramatically undermined that perception.
In contrast, prospects for the Democrats seem good. Polls show a majority of Americans favouring a Democrat controlled congress. Meanwhile, Democrats have also made headway in recruiting a number of strong Congressional candidates at the same time as the Republican’s woes seem to be going from bad to worse.
Yet Democrats face a number of serious obstacles on the way to retaking control of congress. Gerrymandering has dramatically reduced the number of competitive House districts (in 2004, all of California’s 53 Representatives won re-election), while the advantages of incumbency in terms of resources and organisation has, in many cases, allowed Republican incumbents to entrench themselves.
At the same time as the Democrats face structural obstacles this November, they must also overcome serious divisions within their own party over policy. Divisions between assertive liberal activists and the more moderate party leadership have left the party increasingly divided and unable to adopt the kind of clear, disciplined narrative that the Republicans are often able to employ to such effect.
The Economist recently summarised the contrast between the embattled Republican majority and the muddled Democrat opposition thus: “…if the Republicans reek of decay, the Democrats ooze dysfunctionality: divided, beholden to interest-groups and without a coherent policy on anything that matters to America and the world”
Yet despite their weaknesses, the Republican Party can still count on a number of key factors. The strength of incumbency means that most Republican incumbents will go into the elections this autumn with advantages in organisation and fundraising over their democrat opponents. Furthermore, the Democrats continue to seem a long way from developing an arresting narrative with which to define the elections this November and they continue to enjoy only lukewarm support in the polls.
So far, Republican failures are providing the foundation for Democrat success in November. However, the Democrats’ failures to exhibit the mixture of discipline and originality needed to maintain momentum makes the prospect of a dramatic advance (as in 1994) remote, while potentially leaving the Democrats vulnerable should the Republican leadership begin to regain the political initiative.
Ben Surtees began contributing to the site when he was a Labour activist. He’s now become a Tory and maintains a close interest in US politics
MessageSpace Advertising
Bush got a bounce from the latest USA Today/Gallup poll released today, back up to a 38 percent approval rating. So with Karl Rove back in action, it looks like the GOP is finally catching a break.
On the other hand, if Iraq and the economy continue to go south, none of that matters. According to the latest Cook Report, the Dems have 10 seats which could be lost while the Republicans have 35.
Rove is indeed back dog-whistling about god, guns and gays; it really will be very interesting this November. The challenge for the Democrats will be to keep the focus on Republican corruption, incompetence and above all on Bush - Lord knows the Democrats should have enough material on the latter.
My view is that the Democrats will pick up 3-4 senate seats: Rick Santorum looks doomed in Pennsylvania against Bob Casey Jr, Conrad Burns looks very vulnerable to the populist democrat Jon Tester in Montana (The Dems won the Governorship with a very similar type in Brian Schweitzer); and there are two toss-ups in Missouri and Ohio, of which the Democrats could perhaps win one. This of course also pre-supposes they hold their open seats in Maryland, Minnesota and New Jersey - Maryland looks safe, while the other two are close. The only Democrat incumbent in any obvious danger is Cantwell in Washington but again it’s hard to see her losing in the current climate.
In a wave year (and it doesn’t look like that yet) defending Republicans in Arizona, Virginia and Nevada could come into play. In Rhode Island Republican ‘wet’ Lincoln Chafee will probably hold on, assuming he wins his primary, but in a much closer race than previously.
Watch also for the Primary for Connecticut Senate where Democrat foreign policy hawk and previous VP candidate Joe Lieberman is facing a grassroots challenge from Ned Lamont. Joe has apparently threatened to run as an Independent if he loses his Primary!
The House is a different kettle of fish and very hard to predict; Chances are about 15 seats could switch net to the Democrats, but if a wave builds this could increase.
Well thought out Ben
There is also an additional factor which will help the Dems. That is the teh “six year” factor which has been in evidence every 6th year of a two term presidency since 1938, except of course 1998, so perhaps it is evaporating.
However Roosevelt, Eisenhower and Reagan all had bad sixth years.
I look at quite a few site in America for the latest polls rating s- this Democratic leaning site updates daily and is a good source of information
http://www.politics1.com/index.htm
Marcia Check out RealClearPolitics.com. It’s neutral and the best around.
5 Thanks -i’ll bookmark it.
5 - oh, come on! It’s about as neutral as Daily Kos is on the other side.
RealClearPolitics is a right wing site. An important point of view, but neutrality is not what they’re known for.
Doesn’t mean it’s useless as a source of data, of course (like alba.org.uk is a very useful reference on Scottish politics despite having a strong pro-SNP line). But there is an implicit health warning to it, and I’d say the same of its Democrat counterparts too.
Quite apart from the Abramoff corruption scandals it seems that Bush and the Republicans are suffering in exactly the same way as Blair and Labour. A drip, drip of stories which continually place in question the competence of the administration:
WMD and Iraq generally
Katrina
Dubai Ports Deal
Chertoff slashing the anti-terrorist budgets of New York and Washington (and allegedly funnelling money to more Republican friendly areas).
Quite a few Republicans (most recently the New York representatives) now find that they have to attack the Republican government themselves, otherwise they will have no hope in November.
Just when one scandal dies down another one springs up, just like in the UK. I wonder what will be next. It is exactly this sort of process that builds up to a ‘throw the rascals out’ sentiment, irrespective of the merits of the opposition.
If the Democrats *can’t* win the Senate this year (which isn’t gerrymandered) does it not say something about them?
11 Sean - Bear in mind that only 2/3 of the states will have a senate race this year, since the senators are elected in thirds. The senate seats up this time are not conducive to the Democrats winning the Senate as they are defending the majority of them. If the full senate was up for relection, I suspect that the Democrats would be more likely to prevail.
Very interesting Ben. THnaks.
3. It’s right to point out the 1998 results, and also worth noting the 2002 midterms - arguably more remarkable as the Republicans were already in quite a strong position. In something like 37 of the 39 midterms up to and including 1994 the presidential party had lost ground in the House. The Republicans have been astonishingly successful in recent years.
The Democrats need to be careful not to appear at all extreme. Bush must be painted as extreme eg ‘we don’t particularly like gay marriage either but we don’t think it right that the President messes about with our consitution to try and outlaw it even if that’s what states vote for.’ All talk of impeaching Bush and ever such matters that scare the moderates must be cut.
Curtis. It isn’t. Look at today’s offerings; articles from the New York Times, Washington Post, Nancy Pelosi, Ariana Huffington, even David Aaronovich.
Much was made of the Democrat failure in the recent California special election, but I read that much of the late drop in Democrat support was down to the candidate implying that illegal immigrants were welcome to vote for her.
I remember a GOP insider saying in the Economist that the good news was that the Democrats didn’t have a plan, but the bad news was that they might not need one.
But, then again, I remember that wonderful piece in The Onion where a senior Democrat (Harry Reid, I think) assured his party that it wouldn’t lose its ability to snatch defeat out of the jaws of victory.
15 - ok, there is some broad syndication but if you read their blog and their “in-house” articles it is pretty straight conservatism (and doesn’t, I think, claim to be otherwise).
Andy C The Cook Political Report (May 17 assessment) suggests 6 toss up Republican seats in the Senate. Ohio, Montana, Rhode Island, Missouri, Pennsylvania and the open seat in Tennesse caused by Frist’s retirement. Only one democrat seat is rated as a toss up; Minnesota. Conclusion the Democrats would have to ‘run the table’ to get a majority in the Senate which doesn’t look likely. The House is a real possibility for a change of control which would mean the last two years of the Bush Presidency mired in Congressional investigations. The ‘GOP culture of corruption’ line didn’t work in the San Diego special election even in a seat made vacant by a GOP congressman sent to prison for taking whopping bribes. Instead the GOP hung on by making a massive investment in people and money and by hammering away on immigration control in an area near the Mexican border ( not good for Bush’s liberal plans for a guest worker programme and a path to citizenship for illegals because GOP congressmen are likely to be reluctant to strike a deal on a Senate Bill which would be unpopular with their base). If the election is a referendum on Bush and the Congress the GOP lose. That’s why they’ll try to run the election as a serious of local choices using incumbency and whatever national issue plays best for them in a particular district.
11: The Senate isn’t gerrymandered, but there is a representation imbalance because Republicans represent a set of small states, and each state has the same number of seats regardless of size. If you total the last election results for all of the current Senate seats, Democratic candidates have received more votes than Republicans.
If it is of any interest to anyone, here is a message about November prospects recently sent to me by a Professor at San Francisco University (who drew the California state district boundaries by court decree after the parties were locked, and is generally respected as fairly neutral politcially):
“It is hard to say at this juncture. Bush has terrible poll ratings, but the Dems don’t do much better. So, Bush unpopularity won’t have as much effect as it might otherwise. What is critical is what happens in Iraq and on the terror front in the next few months. Also, how immigration legislation plays out. On corruption, DeLay is gone and Dem congressman Jefferson has been, apparently, caught on tape accepting a $100,000 bribe–so that may cancel out the “Abramoff” effect.
As to the Senate, current conventional wisdom is that Reps may lose a couple of seats, but it is even reasonably possible that they will gain a seat or two. Santorum and Burns are the ones considered most at risk, but Santorum is closing the gap at least somewhat and just how threatened Burns is is unclear. DeWine in Ohio and Talent in Missouri are in tight races, though I think at present they are a bit ahead. Dayton is retiring in Minnesota and a Rep. pickup there (a congressman named Mark Kennedy) doesn’t seem out of the question. I think there may be some possibility of Reps defeating Cantwell in Washington state, especially since she voted against beefing up the border with
Mexico to prevent illegal immigration. A real wild-card is Steele in Maryland, if a white Democrat wins the primary. He’s black and is the Lt. Gov. I wouldn’t be shocked if Byrd lost in W.Va, though conventional wisdom is that he is a shoo in. Chafee might lose in R.I., but it wouldn’t change much if he did. (Similarly, if Nelson of Nebr. lost, it wouldn’t change much, though I think he is a favorite.) The Reps in Fla. appear to have blown it against the other Nelson, with Kathleen Harris likely to be his opponent. Lieberman, incidentally, will have a fairly credible anti-Iraq war challenge in the Demo. primary, though L. is favored to win.
As to the House, that is much harder to say. There are only a couple dozen seats in play at best since gerrymandering has made most seats safe. I presume DeLay’s seat is safe enough now that he is out of the race, though he made it more marginal than he needed to to beef up other Rep. seats in Texas and an ousted Dem. incumbent who represented part of the territory is the opponent. In Georgia Reps are likely to pick up a seat (and possibly two) because of a second redistricting.
(This assumes that the Sup. Ct. in the Texas case doesn’t rule against second redistrictings, and I don’t think it is terribly likely that it ill.) Ney in Ohio has been tarred by the Abramoff scandal (an incredibly raunchy and stupid scandal in my view) but his seat has a huge Rep majority. And, Strickland, who is running for Governor in Ohio has vacated what is a very marginal seat now that he isn’t the candidate. There’s a tossup seat in Colo. which, when created, went Rep by only a couple hundred votes (but a higher Rep vote the second time) and the incumbent is running for Gov. so it is back to marginal. Two seats that barely switched from Dem to Rep in Indiana and Kentucky will, I presume, be hotly contested and the Chicago suburb seat that went Dem last time when Crane was ousted as being “ineffectual” is a tough hold for the Dems. A couple of Philadelphia suburb seats are pretty marginal for the Reps.
I think the odds of the House going Dem. are pretty slim, but there is probably a bit more of a possibility than the Senate doing the same.
I also think the electoral climate will look sufficiently different by November to make prognostication today very risky. One of the problems is that the left wing Democrats are sort of out of control and while it isn’t quite like Looney Labour, at least not yet, with Dean as the Democratic Pary chair and the far left websites (Daily Kos, etc.) they seem to be driven to alienate the middle of the political spectrum. But, as I said, events in Iraq and how Immigration plays out will probably have a major effect come November.
Incidentally, there has been rumbling on the Conservative right about Bush’s lack of interest in controlling the budget, and threats (I suspect ultimately empty) to sit this one out and let Dems come in and screw everything up so that a “real” Republican majority can be elected in 2008. (As I recall, that was the view of some Weimar Republic politicians who thought that Hitler would be a bust as leader–not very good strategy, it seems.) One problem with this is that to the degree conservatives are unhappy with Bush, that doesn’t translate as unhappiness with individuals at risk in the 2006 election. Also, someone else than Bush will be elected Pres. in 2008, so trying to “punish” Bush isn’t much of a tactic.
An interesting question is who will be the two party candidates in 2008. I think McCain is the most likely Rep., though I wouldn’t place the odds at over 50%. Romney and Guilani are mentioned, but I think unlikely and highly unlikely. George Allen of Va. might be a dark horse, and Condoleeza Rice an extreme darkhorse. McCain has lots of maverick baggage (and I think he is absolutely wrong on the McCain-Feingold campaign finance laws) but if he were to pick a strong conservative in advance as his VP candidate (Rice? Jeb Bush?) he might pull it off (and I think he’d win the election. Giulani might
also win, but there could be a third party conservative challenge.
Romney might have too much baggage as a Mormon.
Hillary is still the frontrunner in Dem. party though she is getting some sniping from the far left. But, against any but a weak Republican, I think she is unlikely to win the Presidency. She has too many negatives especially in swing states. Beyond her, Warner, recent Va. Governor is probably in second place, and who knows after that. Edwards has said he won’t run if his wife is still fighting cancer, and I don’t think he’d win. Gore may try, Kerry may try, but I wouldn’t put much money on either.
For what its worth, there is a betting website where people can bet on who will win various political offices (as well as bet on other things, such as television contests). It is
http://www.intrade.com/jsp/intrade/contractSearch/
Michael Barone occasionally comments on the 2006 elections at his
USNews website which is
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/opinion/baroneblog/home.htm
The National Review has a website called the “Corner” where various
people comment on current events, including election
prognostications. It occasionally has some talk about conservative
revolts. It is http://corner.nationalreview.com/
Another one, which is particularly useful for the Minn. Senate
election is:
http://powerlineblog.com/
Finally, Real Clear Politics is sort of a clearinghouse with many
articles, some from other publications and others just for it (or so
it seems) and it reports poll results for elections on a somewhat
regular basis, and it is likely to do so on a very frequent basis as
November approaches. (It had daily coverage of polls in 2004.) It is
at: http://realclearpolitics.com/
Possibly you already have these sites on your computer, but if not!
On campaign finance, while I think the situation in the last few years has been appalling, I think every “reform” makes it even worse. ANY reform helps incumbents and makes challenges even more difficult.
The “current” reform, allowing the independent committees has just brought anarchy along with incumbent protection.”
“19 - The Senate isn’t gerrymandered, but there is a representation imbalance because Republicans represent a set of small states”
Its not that simple. From the 10 largest states, Republicans have 9/20 Senators incuding both Texas, Pennsylvania, Ohio and Georgia seats.
From the 10 smallest states, its the same split R9 D11, as the Democrats have seats in small states such as Vermont, North Dakota, Delaware, Montana, Hawaii and Rhode Island
Labour activist but now a tory? Hmm what exactly did he expect labour would do, but didn’t, that the tories would do instead?
Can genuinely say I cannot think of a single reason. Blair has taken Labour to the right in such a way it has risked a breaking point with the party. How can a labour member possibly consider blair’s govt “too left wing”, and in this context go to the tories. Unless they have changed their own views on key issues?
Labour activist but now a Tory - seems reasonable to me!
You are Tony Blair and I claim my £5.
But what will you do if the Tories move to the left of New Labour?
If you were interested in the enviroment, civil liberties etc. - the Tories are to the left of new labour.
And you wouldn’t want to join these Lib Dems who are only interested in cutting taxes.
The Tory Party the choice of the left
Quiet here tonight.
Are we all eagerly awaiting the next opinion poll? It’s great how everyone spins them on here except Mike who is always objective in his take on them.
24 - how exactly are the “let’s get rid of the human rights act” tories to the left of labour in civil liberties?
They didn’t even oppose ID cards!
They want to get rid of it slightly slower than Labour?
11 - The Senate should theoretically always be harder for the Democrats because of the way that their votes are stacked up in the populous states - two senators representing a few hundred thousand in each of Alaska, Wyoming or Utah vs tens of millions in California or New York? It’s especially hard this year because they are defending some difficult ground; with that in mind it’s incredible that the Republicans seem to have given Democrat incumbents in Florida and Nebraska what is effectively a free pass, and that the democrats have been able to go on the offensive with strong candidates in places like Virginia and Montana.
18 - I’m surprised the Cook report has Tennessee as toss-up; It will surely be very hard for a Black candidate (Harold Ford Jr) to win a statewide race in Tennessee.
20 - Minnesota will be close-ish but can’t see Kennedy taking it in the current climate. Klobuchar is apparently well known and well established, and surely should be favourite.
It’s an easy narrative to say that the Democrats are riven by internal division, beholden to special interest groups, have no clear message etc. but surely this is mainly a narrative pushed by the US media, which is itself generally to the right of moderate and has an interest in keeping it going.