Issues in Search of a Campaign

NY Times ^ | 10/14/02 | ANDREW KOHUT

[Tumbleweed_Connection]

Rarely has the mood of American voters been as inscrutable as in the current election cycle. What issues will the midterm election turn on: a new war with Iraq, the war on terrorism, a sagging economy, a stock market boom gone bust, one of the biggest business scandals in American history, or the old domestic agenda lost in the fog of the shattering events of the past 13 months?

Republicans are hoping that the focus on Iraq and the war on terror will help decide a handful of close Senate races and perhaps two dozen toss-up House races. Democrats want to see the economy, corporate scandals and seldom-discussed domestic issues like health care and Social Security reform at the top of voters' minds. Yet neither party has the advantage at this point. The presumed Republican issues, especially Iraq, have dominated the headlines, but domestic issues may still influence voters more. In the end, this could be an election filled with major issues but not driven by them.

The polls find voters acknowledging the importance of a wider than usual range of concerns this year. An ABC/Washington Post survey at the end of September found 74 percent of respondents saying that the war on terrorism would be a very important factor in their choice of a House candidate — but the very same percentage said that about the economy and also about education. Almost the same numbers of people rated the situation with Iraq (71 percent) and health care (70 percent) as very important factors in their vote. And a solid majority of respondents judged five other issues as potentially key considerations on election day: Social Security, the federal budget, prescription drug benefits for the elderly, taxes and corporate scandals. A Pew Research Center survey conducted in early October found similar results when respondents were presented a similar laundry list of issues.

When voters are asked to come up with their own list of issues without prompting, however, there is a more decisive tilt. Domestic concerns dominate. In particular, the economy dwarfs all other issues when people are asked what they would most like to hear the candidates talk about. In Pew's recent survey, 40 percent cited the economy. In contrast, only 4 percent cited the possible war with Iraq and only 11 percent mentioned terrorism.

This may sound like the Democrats have an advantage — but it's not necessarily so. Polls this year also show that voters have about as much confidence in Republicans to improve the economy as they do in Democrats. And more respondents think Republicans would better handle the domestic terrorist threat (44 percent compared to 28 percent for Democrats) and make wise decisions about Iraq (46 percent compared to 30 percent for Democrats.)

So while domestic issues that might give Democrats the edge are generating strong voter interest, Democrats have not been able to capitalize on them. Some of this may be due to Washington's focus on Iraq and terrorism and the accompanying news coverage of it. But even that does not explain why Democrats are not much better regarded than Republicans on handling the economy — or, for that matter, on addressing corporate scandals.

We have not seen the kind of anger and blame that led to a shift in control of Congress in 1994 or the anti-impeachment backlash of the 1998 midterm elections. Americans do not give President Bush good grades for the economy. Since the early summer a majority of those surveyed say he has not paid enough attention to the economy. Yet the public does not blame President Bush or his party for the weak economy or the stock market tumble. Instead, most people see these events as a result of the Sept. 11 attacks or the business cycle. By the same token, while voters may have less confidence in the Democratic Party on national security, it is unlikely they will reject its candidates on that basis.

Despite an atmosphere of war and economic angst, next month's midterm elections may turn out to be like others of the past — dictated by local issues rather than driven by national trends. Americans are not yet assigning blame for the foreign and domestic challenges the country faces — and it is that impulse that usually boosts voter turnout and turns political tides.

[Callahan]

There's a tear in Howell Raines' beer.

[Callahan]

A Newspaper in search of credibility with anyone other than left-wing loonies.

[advocate10]

Now that the "concurrent receipt" issue has been killed for the year by Hastert and Dubya, veterans are pissed. That's one big issue for disabled and retired vets.

[NativeNewYorker]

Rarely has the mood of American voters been as inscrutable as in the current election cycle.

Translation: The dogs aren't eating the dog food.

[MannMade]

Great point Callahan!

[KC_Conspirator]

The election is still 4 weeks away, but its clear that Republicans have the advantage, despite what this crap from the NY Times says. Historically, the opposition party should do well in an off year election. However, since the democrats are percieved to be weak on terror and national defense (and rightly so), now they have thrown away any advantage they might have had. Even if the democrats pick up minimal gains, this election would still have to be seen as a disaster for them.

I know that higher ups in the DNC like James "the Serpent" Carville damn well knew that things changed after 911, but their strategy has all been pre-911 thinking. However, the democrat party has slipped farther to the left over time instead of more to middle; especially on issues like national defense. Instead they have Cynthia McKinney attackign Jews, and Hillary Klinton attacking Bush, and Baghdad Bonior and Jihad Jim McDermott attacking America. And we are supposed to believe that the democrats care about national security?