A bad year for Democrats?

Townhall.com ^ | 22 May 2006 | Dustin Hawkins

[Aussie Dasher]

Given the current political climate, Republicans should take heavy casualties during the upcoming mid-term elections. President Bush is lucky when he breaks 30% in approval ratings, conservatives are infuriated with the Republican leadership in the Senate over immigration and spending, the GOP has allowed itself to be blamed for high gas prices, and Democrats dominate "generic" congressional ballots by double digits.

So, it’s going to be Black November for the Republicans, right? Well, not really.

The Democrats are acting like it is going to be their version of 1994: Then, Republicans made a 54-seat gain in the House and netted 8-seats in the Senate to take control of Congress. But their confidence is also their error. If the Democrats fail to recapture either chamber, which is the most likely scenario, then what does that say about the future of a party that cannot win when its opponent is at its worst? If Democrats manage to stay in minority status after November it says far more about Democrats than it does about Republicans. If they manage to take control it’s no big deal; after all, they are supposed to win, right?

It would take a miracle (and, I’m talking $30 a gallon gasoline here) for Democrats to take the Senate. Their best shot at pick-ups are in Pennsylvania, where Rick Santorum has trailed Democrat Bob Casey for months by large margins, and in Ohio, where incumbent Republican Mike DeWine is in a dead-heat with Sherrod Brown but still favored. Conrad Burns of Montana has fallen in the polls due to his ties to a scandal-plagued lobbyist, but has six months to regain his image in the Republican-heavy state.

In Missouri, first-term Senator Jim Talent will be in a close race with his Democratic challenger, State Auditor Claire McCaskill, and Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island will have to fend off a primary opponent before heading into a tough general election battle. Democrats would have to take all five of these seats and manage to pick-up a sixth seat elsewhere while avoiding losing any incumbents of their own.

And Democrats will definitely have some defending to do. In Minnesota, Republican Mark Kennedy is running dead even with the likely DFL nominee Amy Klobuchar in a seat being vacated by Democrat Mark Dayton. New Jersey features favorite son Tom Kean, Jr. (R) against appointed incumbent Robert Menendez (D). Kean, the son of a very popular former governor, may enter the November match-up as the favorite and has led many of the head-to-head polls against Menendez.

In Washington, incumbent Maria Cantwell (D) has seen her sizeable lead over Mike McGavick (R) all but disappear and Wisconsin voters are waiting to see if Tommy Thompson, the drama-intense ultra-popular former governor, will hop into the Senate race against incumbent Herb Kohl (D). Earlier in the week, Thompson said he would not run for the governorship but remained silent on his intentions for the Senate race. The much-anticipated answer will likely be given at the Wisconsin Republican State Convention this weekend.

Prospects for the House aren’t much brighter for Democrats. The Congressional Quarterly projects that only 24 seats currently held by Republicans are competitive and 16 of those still favor the Republican incumbents. Again, with just 8 toss-ups, and needing a net gain of twice that, things aren’t looking all that good for the Democrats. The Quarterly also lists 11 competitive Democratic seats.

So, what is the problem? For one, dissatisfaction with Republicans has not turned into support for Democrats. When the Republicans swept the nation in 1994 they did so with a very specific agenda laid out in their Contract with America. The contract featured eight government reforms and 10 bills that they promised to get passed within the first 100 days of being elected. Democrats lack the vision and clarity that the Republican class of 1994 successfully drove to a major electoral victory.

Democrats have recently tried to run on supposed Republican corruption, high gas prices, impeaching the president, and figuring out why Dick Cheney waited 12 hours to brief the press following a hunting accident. The front page of the official Democratic Party website drowns on about the "CIA leak scandal" and attacks Bush for not "reducing America’s dependence on foreign oil." It then reads like a National Enquirer feature when ranting about "new revelations about Bush’s secret domestic NSA programs." These are issues that are pleasing to the liberals of the party but not so much with middle-class Americans.

Second, the national party is moving further and further to the left as each election passes. In Pennsylvania, the Democratic candidate for the U.S. Senate, Bob Casey, has come under attack by liberals for being pro-life. Joe Lieberman will face a non-threatening primary opponent for his support of the war effort. Al Gore was once a pro-life moderate from Tennessee but has since morphed into an ultra-left moveon.org type. The former won Senate elections in his state, the latter lost a presidential one there.

The campaign themes laid out by the Democrats are less of the Contract with America variety and more of the wild-conspiracy and threat-of-impeachment variety, delivering a message that does not resonate with middle America. The result is that Americans may want change, but are incapable of relating with the alternative choice.

Republicans have no business walking out of November with control of the government, but Democrats seem all too willing to take themselves out of the game.

[Owen]

All Politics Is Local

Find the vulnerable seats, find among them a GOP candidate whose positions you like -- and work to help him or her. Send some money to that campaign. If you can drive there, volunteer your time.

Here are the vulnerable seats (see article and post 49 within):

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1631282/posts?page=15

All politics is local. If you're upset about immigration, then that ire points at the party leadership -- not at all the candidates in tough races. Help those candidates whose positions you support.

Another very important consideration. Principle. Those that make a point of "principle" ignore another sort of principle that matters. Members of Congress are elected to represent their district. The RINOs from Blue states have moderate stances not just because they are afraid of losing, but because they have a principled obligation to represent their district or state. If that district is bluish, they are following a principle. To replace them with a Democrat would deepen the blueness of that seat in the WORST possible way -- the vote for Speaker or Majority Leader would switch. In a given session it is those votes being red that matter most because they deny the agenda to the opposition.

[Free Dominoes]

Not to be a party pooper, but here are the potential problems since redistricting will be decided by those who are in power in 2010 not 2006.

1 California will probably be controlled by Rats and they may turn from incumbency protection and target up to 5 Pub seats

2 Ohio, Penn and Michigan had excellent Pub gerrymandering (not so much Ohio) with all R control. Even partial Rat control could lead to neutral or maps drawn up by judges that could cause massive loss of seats. These states are all going to lose 1 or 2 seats and since the majority of seats in all these states are R it'll will probably be one of ours.

3 By 2010 the NY state senate could be controlled by the Rats which means no more incumbency protection and another possible R massacre. NY is losing 2 seats and the it's upstate (where I think most of our seats are) that is going to take the hit.

4 Illinois could be a massacre in 2012 as you noted.

5 Iowa is losing a seat, seeing how we have 4 out of 5 it'll probably mean 1 less R.

6 Louisiana will probably lose a seat, seeing how it's 5-2 for us probably cost us one.

7 Missouri is losing a seat, since it's 6-3 could be one of ours.

[RobFromGa]

Good post, I don't know the details of the various state gerrymanders so I can't really comment further.

[NYC Republican]

The RATS need new blood from a red state to compete in 08. My pick is Warner/Richardson.

My pick is Bayh and whoever. If Bayh gets the nomination, he's our next President, regardless of who the GOP puts up, IMHO

[CPT Clay]

One pick up in the house and 1 in the senate.

[Free Dominoes]

Check this site out. Tells the composition of state legislators from every state.

http://www.ncsl.org/ncsldb/elect98/partcomp.cfm?yearsel=2006

[Republican Red]

In little noticed or reported analysis, the latest Fox Dynamic poll restates findings from a Pew poll a few weeks ago. A wide majority of people disapprove of Congress. However the same wide majority seem to disapprove of everyone else's representative but not their own. The incumbents of both parties will probably do okay.

Overall Congressional approval is at 27% approve to 56% disapprove. However, approve/disapprove "My Own Rep" is at 53% to 28%

Also, in the Fox poll it showed more Dems are disapproving of Congress than Republicans. Dems approval of Congress is at 23% while the Republicans approval of Congress is at 36%.

If these numbers are to be believed than I don't see how this would ever translate into a Democrat takeover.

[CPT Clay]

This will be the 4th election in a row that the dems will be filling the air waves with "What Happened?"

[OldArmy52]

Well, sure hope you're not depending on the Senate Repubs for that.

[lepton]

Well, there was also the rather pronounced actual culture of corruption, between Clinton himself, the House Post Office Scandal, the House Bank Scandal, Rostenkowski apologists, and a dozen more.

As far as I recall, not a single Republican involved in the scandals made it through the primaries.

[Lee N. Field]

So, what is the problem? For one, dissatisfaction with Republicans has not turned into support for Democrats.

R.s need to be paying attention to this too.