Posted on 08/13/2013 8:02:52 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
When asked about their prospects for 2014, most Republicans will say that whatever happens with the Senate, the GOP is a virtual lock to keep control of the House. The House majority is the GOP's single hold on power in Washington, and the only way the party has been able to shape national policy during Barack Obama's presidency.
Republicans haven't worried about losing the House because, first, having won by a landslide in 2010, they got to control the redistricting process, and they have used that power to draw districts that give them an advantage. Second, Barack Obama, having won re-election, is not particularly popular, and his ratings could slip further by November 2014. And third, history teaches that the presidential party just doesn't gain seats in the mid-terms of a president's second term. So, the thinking goes, Obama's Democrats can't win. The House will stay Republican.
Unless it doesn't. Behind the scenes -- in whispered asides, not for public consumption -- some Republicans are now worried that keeping the House is not such a done deal after all. They look back to two elections, 1998 and 2006, in which Republicans seriously underperformed expectations, and they wonder if 2014 might be a little like those two unhappy years.
"The majority is at risk," says one well-connected Republican strategist. "It should be a good year, but you need to run like you're trying to win, and you need a good, solid strategy."
In 1998, Republicans, with a narrow majority in the House, expected to pick up at least 20 seats. It was a weird year, with the Lewinsky scandal consuming Bill Clinton's presidency. But Clinton wasn't on the ballot -- a fact that didn't stop House Republicans from campaigning against him. "We were going to make the race all about Bill Clinton," the strategist recalls.
It didn't work. Instead of picking up 20 seats, the GOP lost five. (So much for the president's party never picking up seats in the second term.) Republicans kept control of the House, but by a margin so small it made governing difficult.
In 2006, another president was in his second term, this time Republican George W. Bush. The GOP controlled the House and saw itself heading toward another victory. "The whole focus was on attacking Democrats," recalls the strategist. "There was the belief that the districts were structurally Republican, Bush had carried a number of them, and we had a financial advantage."
But instead of cruising to a win, the GOP lost 30 seats and ushered in the era of Speaker Nancy Pelosi.
In both years, '98 and '06, Republicans concentrated more on going after Democrats than on laying out a solid plan for governance. They were the opposition party more than the alternative party. And they suffered for it.
What is the GOP plan for 2014? It's not clear. But there are indications some Republicans believe that, with a weakening president, a strategy based mostly on opposing Democrats will be enough to keep control of the House. But voters are sending some warning signals.
They're still not happy with the economy. How could they be, with unemployment at 7.4 percent? Whatever Barack Obama does, whatever Republicans do, unless something huge happens, the public's top issue will remain the economy for quite a while.
GOP strategists look at the president's job approval rating on the economy and see an opportunity. A recent Quinnipiac poll, for example, found that 54 percent of those surveyed do not approve of Obama's handling of the economy. Yet when the pollsters asked who respondents trusted to do a better job with economic issues -- Obama or Republicans in Congress -- respondents chose Obama, 45 percent to 39 percent.
Lots of other polls have shown similar results. Voters don't approve of the way Obama is handling the economy. Yet they prefer him over Republicans.
What that should tell the GOP is that Republican candidates don't need to tell voters what a bad job the president is doing. They already know that, and besides, Obama won't be on the ballot in 2014. What GOP candidates need to do is convince voters that they would do a better job than Democrats.
If they don't -- if Republicans stick to being an opposition party on the attack rather than the alternative party offering an agenda -- then Obama's much-discussed dream of retaking the House in 2014 might come true, despite all the odds. And that would be a nightmare for Republicans.
-- Byron York is the Washington Examiner's chief political correspondent
Since they have given me every reason to go fishing on Election Day, they have a right to be worried.
That agenda had better include defunding Obamacare.
The GOP has needed an agenda other than WOT since before Clinton.
Rick Santorum was on to something when he setout to meet voters vs hiding waiting for a handout.
You mean the Republican majority house that is set to pass an amnesty bill? You mean we may lose that majority? Does that mean we’ll have to rely on Democrats to pass democrat legislation rather than Republicans? OMG!
The GOP already has two agenda; 1. bendover by the establishment RINO side 2. Conservatism from the other side.
It is time for the conservative side to break away from the Bendover side of the GOP.
Well, setting out an agenda guaranteed to enrage the base - such as amnesty - is far worse than no agenda at all.
I will only vote for a Republican who has a proven record of accomplishment.
I am sick of symbolic votes, and I am sick of talk, instead of action.
No action, no vote.
I don’t care. Which is better, a Republican controlled House that will capitulate to the Democrats, and give the media a scapegoat for any failed policy? Or, a Democrat controlled House that will hasten our demise, but make it clear who is taking us down?
The GOP does have an agenda, its named “we will do whatever obama wants”.
It’ll be alright after amnesty has passed.
All the illegal immigrants will vote Republican and the GOP will capture the Senate and the Presidency, and solidify their hold on the House.
I know that because the Democrats told us so...
RE: That agenda had better include defunding Obamacare.
Well, they DID repeal Obamacare... 37 times ( the latest bill introduced by Michelle Bachmann ). ALL TO NO AVAIL.
The playing field needs to be leveled first. If a poor Democrat gets government money to make more poor Democrats, then middle class conservatives should also get the same amount of money for their children.
If a poor Democrat gets government money for a house to hold their poor Democrat children, then middle class conservatives should also get money to house their kids.
And if one is opposed to direct subsidies, then at a minimum there should be a tax credit for these amounts that offsets any income tax.
Middle class conservatives shouldn't have to feed/cloth/house Democrats that hate them while at the same time trying to feed/cloth/house themselves.
Which puts FR’s GOP supporters in a hell of a pickle.
Time they either get their crap together or just admit what they really are.
The deafening silence from the Republicans after getting Obamacare subsidized for them leaves me to wonder if they want to stay in the majority.
They do have a agenda...too bad its almost the same as the democrats.
The Establishment Republicans do have an agenda, two-pronged, as it were.
One is to enable the liberal agenda, to retain and extend its gains over recent years, and the other is to choke off and shut up the “T.E.A. party” activists, as these upstarts threaten what the Establishment consider to be the “status quo”.
But there is this huge army out there, ready and willing to take up the fight at the street level, if only given the least encouragement from the Establishment. And the sign they are looking for, is the Establishment will at least listen to and consider the vast potential for this country to shift back to center-right once again.
I think they are still reeling from the pain of gilding.
A vote to repeal Obamacare is symbolic and meaningless. As such, it will receive whole-hearted support from GOP Congress-critters.
A vote to defund Obamacare is serious business that requires the possession of certain anatomical accoutrements (i.e., spine, balls). As such, GOP Congress-critters will run away from it screaming like little girls.
Nah, but they are still screaming bloody murder that we have to keep supporting the GOP no matter what.
The stupid. It burns.
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.