Posted on 07/19/2002 1:13:04 PM PDT by churchillbuff
July 18, 2002
Republican Outlook For Midterms: Suddenly Dangerous
While polling has not yet recorded a dramatic turn in public opinion against President Bush or the GOP, events of the past few weeks have substantially increased the likelihood that the 2002 midterm elections will resemble other midterms, when the president's party is on the defensive and suffers losses.
None of the individual business scandals or controversies surrounding Harken Energy or Halliburton alone would have been enough to damage the White House seriously. Enron had little or no partisan political fallout, though Democrats tried their best to demonize business and to connect the president and his party to the company's demise.
But, taken together, the recent rash of bad news - including a sinking stock market, concern about the economy's recovery, the demise of WorldCom and Arthur Andersen, and questions about administration officials' past business practices - is much more likely to affect the public opinion about the president.
Bush's overall strength in national polls has rested on public approval of his handling of international and security issues. His job approval numbers have generally tracked with public attitudes on his handling of the war on terrorism, not his handling of the economy.
As attention draws inward, to domestic issues in general and the economy in particular, voters are likely to reassess their evaluation of Bush. Self-identified Democrats are likely to become more partisan and more critical of his performance.
The risk for the Republicans is that some voters, even if they don't hold the president primarily responsible for their stock losses or for corporate fraud and mismanagement, will grow angry, frustrated or merely impatient with the negative news. If they do, they might decide to send a message of change to the president by voting against his party's candidates in November.
Even if GOP voters remain loyal to the president, all of the bad news could depress Republican turnout. And that could be enough to turn a neutral political election into a good Democratic year.
The fundamental problem for Bush is that for the next three and a half months he and his entire party could well be on the defensive, while Democratic candidates around the country press for more White House action and raise questions about the president's leadership.
For months, neither party has found a compelling message to move large numbers of voters. Democrats have been trying to recycle old issues that failed to deliver them a majority in the House in the past three elections. Social Security and prescription drug coverage, the two best Democratic issues, appear to have only limited appeal, especially since House Republicans passed their own prescription drug plan.
Republicans can claim legislative accomplishments, including the tax cut, education reform and airport security, but they have a relatively thin remaining agenda. GOP candidates for November have, so far, been stressing support for the president's leadership on the war on terrorism, but those hopefuls will have to come up with new campaign messages if domestic issues start to eclipse national security concerns among voters.
With accounting and business questions spooking Wall Street - and without a strong, highly regarded secretary of the Treasury (such as Robert Rubin) to calm investors and speak effectively for the administration - Bush has no easy answer to his developing political problems.
The anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks could give the president a breather from negative stories about domestic issues. And a stock market rally in the next few months and new evidence of a rebounding economy would, of course, relieve a great deal of pressure on the president and by implication on his party's candidates. But Bush cannot now assume that he is in control of the national agenda.
If Bush's job approval does drop and a generalized anxiety increases in the electorate, it could increase the number of Republican-held House seats in play this year and improve the prospects of Democratic candidates and open-seat hopefuls. That, in turn, would increase the odds of a Democratic net gain in November, including a gain large enough to win a House majority.
Still, the limited number of competitive House districts continues to cushion the GOP against major losses.
The impact of a "normal" midterm election on the fight for the Senate could be muted as well, though a weaker Bush couldn't be good news for Norm Coleman in Minnesota, Greg Ganske in Iowa, Jim Talent in Missouri, Tim Hutchinson in Arkansas and other Republican Senate candidates.
The bottom line is clear. Democratic prospects for House and Senate gains have improved in the past few weeks. And that should make the White House and the GOP campaign committees increasingly nervous.
In a random poll, could more than 10% even tell you who Robert Rubin is?
Visit his site on where he stands:
http://www.bundgaard.com/issues/ontheissues.asp
How can a guy like this lose?
Sure beats the heck out of John Keegan who is also running for this house seat! He's just been accused of plagiarising with regard to where he stands on the issues! I wonder how Mrs. Graham-Keegan (former Supt. of Public Instruction-AZ) feels knowing what her husband has done?
The Republicans would do just fine if they got the following message out:
Show charts of the stock market pre-election 1994 and post-election 1994.
The big boom in the economy and stock market for which Bill Clinton took credit only occurred AFTER the Republicans took control of Congress.
While I understand the sentiment, I don’t think that message is going to convince fence-sitters to go Republican, considering the current state of the stock-market.
If you’re going to give the GOP credit for the boon, they have to get credit for the bust, as well.
I'd disagree with both of these sets of odds, although of course it's still speculation this far out. I think the GOP's greatest risk is at the governor level. They have 23 incumbent seats to defend, and a ton of incumbent governors of both parties are not doing well in the polls. Voters are apparently blaming them, not the President, Senate and Congress, for their problems right now. Will this hurt the House or Senate races? Sure, it could. Or close governor races may improve turnout in various races, helping either party.
Having said all that, I think in Nov the GOP will still end up with governors of the nation's four largest states, even if it may no longer have a majority.
OK, you can out yourself now. What are you odds?
Disclaimer: We still have a long way to go. This prediction expires August 15th.
But I'd say the GOP's chance at taking back the Senate is 50/50, and for holding onto the House it's about 75/25. I've been impressed with the Dem Senator fundraising, but unimpressed with their performance in the polls. They've simply got more incumbents on life support (to borrow a phrase from Sen. Frist, I think) than the GOP does. I think the GOP benefits from three things: redistricting bought them a couple of seats, redistricting also protected all but a handful (relatively speaking) of seats, and the GOP does and will have more money to spend. (I could see the GOP losing House seats, but not losing control of the House.)
There. Aren't you impressed with my highly scientific predictions?
Since the GOP has only a 7 seat pad, your precision is impressive.
Sorry to have offended you.
The perception is that Dubya couldn't, and can't, move forward on tort reform (originally planned to be included in the first State of the Union speech) because of Cheney's connection with Halliburton.
Cheney engineered the purchase of a company while he was at Halliburton that ended up having huge liabilities wrt asbestos lawsuits. (This was as a result, if I understand correctly, of an intervening legal descision that basically allowed asbestos litigators to go after any company with even the most tenuous, indirect or historical connections to asbestos production or installation.) THIS is one of the main factors (probably something like 50 percent responsible) that caused Halliburton stock to crash in 2000/2001.
The perception is that if Bush pushes tort reform he will be seen as defending big business and CEOs like his own V.P. Cheney. But, if Bush does push tort reform, and the Dims squeal about Bush comming to the rescue of big business, this will provide an opportunity to do what the media by and large refused to do (with a few exceptions such as the Wall Street Journal): to clue the public in to the huge role out-of-control tort actions have had in destroying hundreds of businesses, thousands of jobs, AND BILLIONS OF DOLLARS OF STOCK VALUE.
Trial lawyers donate overwhelmingly to Dims. Along with the NEA, other federal unions, and big labor, they are THE major constinuency of the Dims. This is a GOLDEN OPPORTUNITY to tie the Dims to loses in corporate value, and thereby in the value of Americans' IRAs!!!
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.