Posted on 10/26/2005 3:36:43 PM PDT by aceintx
Warning Signs Frank Luntz says Republicans could be in danger in 2006. by Fred Barnes 10/26/2005 12:00:00 AM
IF YOU'RE A REPUBLICAN and already worried about your party's prospects in 2006, pollster Frank Luntz, a Republican himself, has a message for you: It's worse than you think.
Luntz, who worked with Republicans in 1994 to draft the Contract With America and win a realigning election, said political conditions are as bad or worse now--only this time for Republicans, not Democrats. Republicans won 52 House seats in 1994 and have held the House since then. In 2006, he said, Republican control of the House--currently 232 seats to 203 seats--is "in jeopardy." Democrats need a net gain of 15 seats to take over.
"Republicans have a whole year to get their act together," Luntz said, though they've shown no signs of doing so. "As angry and p-----off as we were about politics [in 1994], I think it's worse today," according to Luntz, who spoke yesterday at a breakfast sponsored by the Christian Science Monitor. "The saving grace for the Republican party is Nancy Pelosi." The House Democratic leader, he said, "is being handed the perfect political storm on a plate," but she's failing to take advantage.
Luntz said there were six components of the Republican triumph in 1994: change, economic anxiety, fear, anger, betrayal, and the prominence of national issues. All of these should be working today for Democrats, he said, and could fuel a Democratic landslide in 2006.
In focus groups, Luntz measures the desire for change by asking voters if they are "basically satisfied" or think the country is on the wrong track,
causing them to prefer "a different approach." Luntz said more voters today say wrong track than he's seen "in a long time." Other Republican strategists, such as White House adviser Karl Rove, regard the right track, wrong track result in polls as politically meaningless.
Because of high economic anxiety, Luntz said, Democrat John Kerry should have won Ohio last year and captured the presidency from George W. Bush. This component has a better chance of helping Democrats in House races, he said, if only because voters may be willing to cast a protest vote against Republicans. Protest votes are uncommon in presidential races, he said. As for fear about personal and national security, it has been spurred by terrorism and the war in Iraq, Luntz said, and it, too, is now a negative factor for Republicans.
Luntz said the anger of voters is "palpable, emotional, intense." And Republican voters, the conservative ones anyway, feel betrayed by wasteful spending in Washington and Bush's nomination of Harriet Miers for the Supreme Court.
In 1994, the election was nationalized over crime, guns, healthcare, taxes, and a few other issues. Now, Luntz suggested, national issues are paramount, but that doesn't automatically mean they still will be in November 2006. Republican House members, he said, want local issues to prevail next year.
Luntz said an examination today of each of the 435 House districts doesn't indicate a Democratic breakthrough in 2006, but the same was true for Republicans in 1994. If House races are nationalized, however, that may produce "a wave" that jeopardizes all Republican incumbents less than five percentage points ahead in polls. For Democrats to gain control of the House, "you need a wave."
Voters have not been galvanized by scandals in Washington, but they are alarmed about illegal immigration, Luntz said. The president's insistence on creating a "guest worker" program to employ illegals puts him "on the wrong side of the solution." When he raises illegal immigration in focus groups of 30 people, Luntz said, "you can't shut people up."
Bush suffered from Hurricane Katrina, Luntz said, in a fundamental way. Before Katrina, the president was seen as "a great leader in terms of [handling] a great crisis. In 2004, when push came to shove, we trusted him. Katrina threw that into doubt."
The good news for Republicans goes beyond Pelosi, the mention of whose name prompts groans from focus groups. Democrats are too negative, don't have an agenda, and lack a national leader. "As pathetic as Republicans are, Democrats are worse," Luntz said.
Fred Barnes is executive editor of The Weekly Standard.
This will give us all nightmares if the dems win the House back and the Senate too. 1) Impeachment hearings against President Bush (Nadler is salivating and has the articles written.) 2) Slave reparations: dems just waiting for a majority in the House. 3) NONE of President Bush's judge nominees will get through. A lot may say "well, he nominated Harriet Miers", but she will be the rule if the Dems take over the House and Senate.
Quite frankly, I don't get those who moan and groan about imperfect conservatives and Republicans like we all are. If the conservatives sit on their hands in the 2006 elections, they do NOT have the right to complain. They didn't vote.
Every Postage Paid envelope I receive goes back with a message printed onto NEON colored paper.....
Ususally something like my above rant....or whatever is in my craw that day. I suggest that all the grassroots conservatives do the same thing. They'll get the message if enough of us do it.
There are over 130 Freepers who said they would vote for Hillary -- how many of the whiners are 3rd party types or actual democrats pretending to be conservative.
I am with you -- if you don't vote, then you have no right to complain. I do not think that FR is representative of conservatives in recent months or at least the ones I come in contact with. Don't know any that whine and threaten to stay home and not vote like the ones on here which makes them suspect to me.
This Conservative Republican is not staying home and will continue to work to send conservatives like Dr. Tom Coburn to the US Senate. Some on here should spend more time working to elect conservatives and less time whining about something not going their way.
"Clinton's spokesperson(whose name escapes me)"
Mike McCurry
Also, when people are polled about how their Congressman is doing, most strongly approve. Add that to redistricting in states like Texas and Georgia and it makes Democrats capturing the House a very long shot.
I don't know where I said political environment equals Iraq.
and 5 of the things on your list have virtually no impact....and 3 are years old.
How about some different aspects of your list.:
First President to TRY to reform Social Security--with lukewarm support from the base and Congress.
I don't remember the administrations supporting LOST
Lots of conservative judges appointed.
Standing behind Bolton and then recess appointment to stand up to the UN about reform.
You can talk about spending, but the Congress proposes. The Pres. went along and I'll give you he's not right about that.
He kept Spector because in Rove's judgement Toomey couldn't win. Another 'rather be right than win' scenario.
So he likes Harriet and may be mistaken about her past positions. Bad vetting. You want to throw out the GOP majorities because of that?
I'm not a RINO, just an old pol who wants to win and rule.
"definitely there is reason to be concerned.
And it is not because of the Miers "betrayal." It is because conservatives have no faith and the rest of the political environment is slipping against us.
People are just getting tired of Iraq etc. That is an environment primed for change, and that means Democrats win next year."
The operative sentance there is:
People are just getting tired of Iraq
Whats worse in the White House NOW and 2008, a RINO or a Democrat.?.
Answer: A RINO.. A Rino can get MORE republican votes in Congress.. for legislation..
Because Rinos are democrat moles and vote with democrats as often as not..
ANY big government republican is a RINO.. because that is what a democrat is.. a big government politician.. RINOs are Poseur's, shills, ringers, fakes, phonies, stealth democrats..
Please explain to me the point of "being in charge" if "our" side doesn't do what is RIGHT when it IS in charge?
I couldn't agree more. We have made some progress in legislative areas, we are making progress in some media outlets. The change seems slow, but we must accept our incremental gains, while we try to convert more to our side.
It would be terrible to surrender the house or senate to a bunch of rats because we think we're not winning fast enough, or our SCOTUS nominee is sub-par or Scott McClellan is worthless.
If we have to tolerate the RINOS while we work on their voters to convince them to remove them in favor of conservatives, then that is our job to do. But let's not cut off our nose to spite our face.
PLEASE, let's not go back to those days of Rats in control. We must not let this happen.
Iraq etc. :)
Can you say President Hillary? Have fun sitting with your feet propped up and saying "I told you so."
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.