Posted on 05/23/2004 1:22:17 PM PDT by Aetius
After U.S. troops captured former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, the Gallup poll found Bush’s approval rating was over 60 percent. It is now down to 46 percent. Six months ago more than half of those surveyed were satisfied with the direction of the country; now, almost two-thirds are dissatisfied. The precipitous slide gives the Democrats improved electoral prospects this fall in the House and Senate, according to a report in the LA Times.
In the House, where 218 seats constitute a majority, there currently are 228 Republicans, 205 Democrats, one independent who routinely votes with the Democrats and a vacant seat. In the Senate, there are 51 Republicans, 48 Democrats and one independent who usually sides with the Democrats.
Just a year ago Democrats doubted they could recapture either chamber – despite the relatively narrow margins.
But the continuing grim headlines from Iraq and a yet wavering confidence in the economy are not only impacting Bush but working to the detriment of Republicans in Congress -- generally.
What a Difference a Year Makes
Just a short year ago, confident GOP leaders looked to expand their narrow control of the House and Senate to establish a durable majority that would dominate national politics into the next decade.
But that was then --
“The psychology has changed from one of [achieving] a permanent victory to maintaining the status quo,” said Michael Franc, a Republican who is a vice president of the conservative Heritage Foundation think tank in Washington.
Despite the opem window of opportunity, Democrats must still somehow morph the general voter discontent into key victories.
Abetting the party in the struggle for the Senate is the unexpected strength of Democratic candidates in several Bush strongholds, as well as retirements by GOP incumbents. As for the bid to take over the House, a good dose of momentum would come if they won an open seat in heavily Republican South Dakota — a potential second Democratic victory in a special House election this year.
Many Republicans are relieved that Election Day is not right around the corner, reports the Times.
“This is just the beginning of the summer,” said Rep. Zach Wamp, R-Tenn. “But if we get to Labor Day and we have these numbers in the polls, we have a big problem.”
Part of that big problem is already here, however.
Recent polls indicate that the Democratic Party had gained an edge over the GOP when people were asked how they would vote in congressional elections.
A Time/CNN poll found that 53 percent said they would vote for a Democratic candidate for Congress in their district, compared with 40 percent who said they would back the Republican.
A survey for the Associated Press reported that that 50 percent wanted Democrats to win control of Congress, compared with 41 percent favoring the Republicans.
Andrew Kohut, director of the Pew Research Center for People and the Press, said such results probably reflected weakening support for Bush rather than a solid indication of voting intentions, adding, “No president gets turned out of office without taking some of his brethren in Congress with him.”
Harbinger of Political Swing
Furthermore, some Republican strategists say such soundings of public opinion are too generic to predict the outcomes in specific House races, which often are determined by local concerns. Other GOP leaders, however, worry that if these polls are the harbinger of a political swing that lasts into the fall, House seats not now competitive will become so.
“If that really is the mood of the country … we’ll have races that turn from monkeys into gorillas,” said Rep. Thomas M. Davis (R-Va.), former chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee.
In the meantime, First Lady Laura Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney have been stumping for congressional candidates -- hoping to prevent the evolution of a hostile Congress to dog the president’s second term if successful at the polls in November.
Other Factors in the Mix
In the House, new district lines drawn after the 2000 census made safe seats even safer and reduced the potentially competitive ones to a few dozen, according to the Times report. Furthermore, Texas legislators redrew House districts in the state to give Republicans the potential to gain as many as six seats there.
In the Senate, the fight also began with a disadvantage for the Democrats because they had to defend 19 seats up for election, compared with the GOP’s 16.
Adding to the grim picture, Democratic senators from the South, a region Republicans have come to claim, opted not to seek reelection.
But some breaks are cutting to the advantage of the Democrats.
Last month, Republican Rep. Jack Quinn of New York announced he would retire, opening a House seat that Democrats have a chance to win.
A Democrat won a special election in Kentucky, taking over a GOP-held seat.
In South Dakota’s looming special election, Democrat Stephanie Herseth has been leading Republican Larry Diedrich in the polls. The vote will fill the seat vacated when Republican Rep. William J. Janklow was convicted of a lesser degree of manslaughter after running a stop sign and killing a motorcyclist.
Flipping back to the other side of the coin, Democrats suffered a hit when party incumbents in Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, North Carolina and South Carolina decided to retire.
However, reports the Times, the GOP appears to have garnered a clear advantage only in Georgia.
According to battle plans, Democrats hope to gain seats in Colorado, Illinois and Oklahoma — seats opened by GOP retirements. The Democratic candidate in Illinois is favored to win there, and the party has fielded strong contenders in the other two states.
Republican stronghold Alaska is going down to the wire. Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski faces a primary challenge from the right and. Even if she prevails, she will then face strong Democratic opposition from former governor Tony Knowles.
Dimming GOP Prospects
Taking a hard new look at the overall developments, Jennifer E. Duffy, an analyst with the nonpartisan Cook Political Report, said that in her estimation, the GOP chances of keeping control of the Senate has fallen to about 60 percent. Earlier this year, she had rated that prospect at 90 percent.
“We are in an extremely volatile environment,” said Sen. Jon Corzine, D-N.J., chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee. “There has been a major failure to manage the occupation in Iraq, which opens up people’s minds to the question of whether there has been competent management on a bunch of other issues.”
“It’s an object lesson in how quickly things can change in this environment,” said GOP pollster Whit Ayres, “and how event-driven they are.”
How can the GOP only have a clear advantage in just Georgia, while floundering in NC, SC, and Louisiana?
And someone please explain South Dakota to me. This isn't NY or California where overall liberal states elect several Republicans to the House from less-liberal districts; South Dakota has one district! The same people who voted overwhelmingly for Bush will send this Stephanie Herseth to the House. Who doubts that she will turn out to be as liberal as Daschle? Hell, she'll probably be in the Senate some day just like Daschle.
I hate to sound so pessimistic at such a premature stage, but I just have a bad feeling that Bush's decision to go to war in Iraq will not only cost him the Presidency, but will also throw the House into a virtual tie and give the Senate back to the Democrats, where they will put into place every Ginsberg/Breyer type that Kerry nominates.
I live in the South. I saw John Edwards win election in 1998. Trust me, I know how Dems work in the South. They talk like a moderate, while they either avoid or mislead when it comes to their posistion on social issues. Then once in office they vote against the conservative social values of their constituents. In other words, Bush may very well be responsible for electing a half dozen new John Edwards' to the Senate.
You forgot to preface the title of this article with "Liberals hoping that..."
I think this article is just plain wishful thinking.
As for the House, the Dems are absolutely in denial. In the first place, redistricting has already added a slew of new GOP seats. Yes, there are some retirements (natural ebb and flow). But I've been hearing since 1994 about how the GOP "could lose" the House, and we have about as many seats now as we did then.
I do think that the GREAT recruitment job Bush/Rove did in 2002 is having an effect now, in that it siphoned off a lot of candidates and there are no "names" or "stars" to run in places like NV, MT, or FL.
Yep, wishful thinking from the left. But Bush does need to get his act in gear. He has let the media beat him up for months with little response.
Oh, and let me add that so far MOST of the House members retiring are the infamous "moderates" who are shut out of power. So it's not too much of a loss.
Please do not Panic!!!
The only solution is to stop reading the Election speculation from CNN, AP and CBS.
Wait'll you see the difference the next five months make.
The Republicans' secret weapon is the Democrats' candidate. You wait until the mainstream start paying attention, and get a good close look at John Kerry!
As a North Carolinian, the Burr number is disappointing to me as well. But I am not worried too much about that one yet because of name recognition. Bowles lost a heated and prominent race to Elizabeth Dole in 2002, so his name is well known. Also, many polls suggested he might pull off an upset, but ultimately Dole won easily. They are both vulnerable on the NAFTA issue that may have cost thousands of textile jobs in the state as Burr has voted for free trade while Bowles was with Clinton when he signed them all into law.
Maybe this is the case in SC as well as Tanenbaum has won statewide office, but so has one of the potential Republicans. I forget his name, but he was Governor from 94-98 and lost largely because of the lottery issue. Also, I think Linday Graham was thought to be in a closer race than what actually materialized on election day.
Nevada is a disappointment because Reid won by a hair last time, so he would have been vulnerable. But the GOP did need a star candidate to make up for what has most likely been demographic changes in favor of the Dems.
I just think the Dems have an economic message that for many in the South trumps their conservative views on social issues. That is how we ended up with Edwards. That and an incredibly inept campaign by Lauch Faircloth.
Like the Chris Mathews Show today, with Howard Fineman, Gloria Borgia, NBC White House reporterette O'Donnell, and Tucker Carlson, it's gloom and doom for Bush. Which emboldens Nancy Pelosis to go off on a rant, which spawns more negative reports.
It's a never-ending cycle, and it's the democrat strategy to browbeat the electorate into surrender. Why vote, why fight, why bother, all is lost. SUCKERS!!!
Nary a mention in this article about Kerry's missteps, about the booming economy, about Bush sticking to his guns on the turn-over date. You wanna fall for the cataclysmic predictions of the left, go for it, but remind yourself in November just how easily you folded your tent when the going got tough.
But no, just like Factless Leader, we do not admit to mistakes . . . .
Just when the dims thought it was all going their way ...
I caught John Loftus on FoxNews today, 5/21/05, and here is a summary of what he said.
Here is how the nuclear bomb making network divided the tasks up ...
N. Korea --- the nuke material
Pakistan --- via Kahn network the centrifuges and other machines
Libya --- the hollowed out mountain facilities
Iraq --- the money and the nuclear scientists
Loftus said the British had wire intercepts from N. Korea that said if we went into Iraq we would find it all out and the countries involved would be in big trouble.
Loftus said we were developing a nuclear bunker buster bomb to try and take out the mountain facility in Libya.
Loftus summed up by saying the network would have produced a single 'Islamic' nuclear bomb by now, which would then be used to blackmail the west.
Note how no one in the partisan media is connecting the dots back to Iraq. But it is curious that Libya coughed up soon after Baghdad fell.
Talk about DOTS.
more links ...
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/23/international/asia/23NUKE.html
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/international/AP-Nuclear-Agency-North-Korea.html
http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/news/news-korea-libya-report.html
I wonder when Bush is going to drop this on the dims head?
Who do YOU think should be POTUS?
Don't be gutless, answer the question.
The fact is, the war has already been won. It may be a complete surprise to the Democrat media and all of the leftists that were praying for disaster (does the left actually pray?) but we are victorious in Iraq. Iraq has been liberated. The brutal dictator is awaiting trial. His army and his party have been completely destroyed. The people are free and are about to install a democratic government.
All of America, in fact all of the world should be cheering. France, Germany, Russia, the UN, et al, are scumbags and the full brunt of that scandal has not yet hit the news.
And despite the liberal media's attempts to torpedo the economy, it's not happening. Thanks to Bush's tax cuts and the Fed's interest rate cuts, the economy is on an upswing and could be booming before the elections.
Bush will be fine. The Republicans will continue building their majority in both houses of Congress and in state and local governments as well, including in California!
Liberalism is a complete failure. Kerry/Kennedy/Clinton and their asinine anti-American Democrat Party are going down in flames.
Go Bush!!
If Bush looses, it will be because the entire mainstream news media adn the hollywood enterainment crowd has campaigned against him. Not even right wing radio can overcome that.
some links for you to file in my post #15
Looks like the nuclear bomb was closer than the partisan media would like us to know about.
Thats a great point. Its simply shows the bias of the media reporting on it.
However, Bush's campaign has been abolutely awful, just awful so far. The left and the media have attacked him for 9 straight months and Bush has either not answered them or stood by looking paralyzed. Only twice in the last 9 months has he looked good - when we caught Saddam in November and when he ran ads a couple of months ago. I fully expect his speech tomorrow to be another dud, where he capitulates and apoligizes when he just needs to be Bush.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.