There's no reason 2006 has to be an off year for Republicans...

In trying to sell his reform agenda this year, President Bush must first overcome history. As everyone inside the Beltway seems fond of repeating, parties that control the White House tend to lose seats in Congress in off-year elections. Some Republicans now fear even worse losses should they embrace Social Security reform or any other dramatic change. More than a few congressional Republicans would rather just play it safe and hold onto power.

So far, Mr. Bush isn't making much headway. House Speaker Dennis Hastert, Ways and Means Chairman Bill Thomas and others have already hinted that the president's Social Security ideas will take a pounding in Congress. Meanwhile, Mr. Bush is reported to have personally asked Rep. Candice Miller to challenge Michigan's Sen. Debbie Stabenow next year. Ms. Miller declined, preferring to play it safe by running for re-election.

Yet conventional wisdom--even when backed up by historical trends--isn't always the best predictor of future events. There's actually a reasonable chance that the Republican will pick up seats in next year's elections. After all, the last time the off-year election rule held was in 1994--when Bill Clinton was pushing an unpopular plan to nationalize much of the health-care industry. It was also a year the conservative movement was looking to reassert itself. That movement had handed the GOP control of the Senate for six years in the 1980s and kept Republicans in the White House from 1981 to 1993. But as George H.W. Bush ran for re-election many conservatives felt betrayed by his tax increases and either stayed home or defected to Ross Perot, handing the presidency to Bill Clinton. Democrats clearly hope that Social Security turns out to be Mr. Bush's HillaryCare--the big policy fumble that will hand them control of Congress. But how resurgent the Democrats turn out to be, and how unpopular personal accounts really are, remains to be seen. For now, we know that for the past two off-year elections, 1998 and 2002, the party in control of the White House picked up seats.

What's more, in 1994 the GOP tide swept several Republicans into office who had no reasonable chance of holding onto their seats for long. One was Michael Flanagan of Chicago, who ousted scandal-plagued Dan Rosetnkowski but lost his seat in 1996. Another was Californian Jim Rogan, who lost his seat in 2000 after serving as one the House Impeachment managers. Now, however, because of redistricting and electoral loses in 1996, 1998 and 2000, there aren't very many unsafe Republicans seats left in the House. Meanwhile there are Democrats who could be picked off. One is Chet Edwards, whose district includes Mr. Bush's Crawford ranch. Mr. Edwards won with just 51% of the vote last year.

On the Senate side there is also reason for Republicans to be hopeful. There were five tight Senate races in 2000 that all broke for the Democrats. One of those seats, in Missouri, is already back in Republican hands. One--and probably two--of the other four Democrats won't seek re-election in 2006. Minnesota's Mark Dayton didn't like the look of recent polls and has bowed out of next year's race, and Jon Corzine plans to run for governor of New Jersey this year. Maria Cantwell, meanwhile, will be the first Democrat to face Washington state voters after last year's contested gubernatorial election. The Democrats won that race, but the lawsuits over vote-counting irregularities are still ongoing and it's anyone's guess whether Ms. Cantwell will be the recipient of voter backlash against her party. Only Ms. Stabenow's seat now appears relatively safe for the Democrats. And the GOP may have other opportunities in states like Florida, Nebraska and North Dakota.

Local political handicapping aside, President Bush must now convince his Republican friends on Capitol Hill that the voters will reward leadership--that winning on Social Security, tax and tort reform will leave Republicans on favorable political ground, much the way FDR set the stage for Democrats to control Congress for decades. Social Security reform alone would take the quintessential Democratic program and turn it into a Republican institution.

That, anyway, is the rosy scenario Mr. Bush must now argue will play out if congressional Republicans will only follow his lead. Mr. Bush is betting that with the campaign machinery he assembled over the past four years--with well over a million volunteers and an extensive grass-roots fund-raising network--he will succeed at not only getting Republicans behind him, but also bringing along more than a few Democrats as well. Whether he is right, history will be the judge.

Very well-written article in my opinion. I also think the Dems are in for a big surprise if they think that 2006 is going to be something like 1986 was for Ronald Reagan or 1994 for Bill Clinton. In the Senate, it's the 6-year cyclical movement since 2000 that the GOP faces. And, guess what? 2000 was a bad year for Senate Republicans and a great year for Senate Dems. That means that it's going to be VERY hard for the GOP to be unseated in their control for the Senate in the way the Dems were in 1994 and the GOP in 1986.

Similarly, the House looks very good for Republicans in 2006. The potential of the GOP's TX redistricting being reversed is a point of concern, but it's hard to imagine the Dems gaining enough seats in the current gerrymandered scenario to recapture the House. Once again, this was totally different in 1994 and 1986 when the President in power's party was ripe to lose.

All in all, 2006 could be a good year for the GOP. One can even point to California as a really good possibility for some interesting happenings when Gov. Schwarzenegger will be heavily favored for re-election and may have some coattails.

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.