Posted on 03/07/2002 5:23:26 PM PST by Jean S
The prevailing assumption, on both sides of the aisle in Washington, is that President Bush’s continuing high popularity and job approval will bring about a Republican victory in the congressional elections.
This premise is fatally flawed.
Generically, voters don’t vote that way anymore. They not only refuse to vote straight tickets, but they go out of their way to set up the checks and balances implicit in awarding different parties control of the executive and legislative branches of government.
Just follow the past 20 years of elections. In 1986, voters gave the Democrats control of the Senate with Ronald Reagan in the White House and two more years to run on his term (the election, remember, was before the Iran Contra scandal broke). In 1988, with a Bush victory certain, they kept the Democrats in charge. Only amid the recession and the three way split of 1992 did the voters give one party control of both Congress and the White House.
Two years later, and for the balance of the Clinton presidency, voters opted for divided control again. In 2000, with a Bush victory seeming far more certain than it turned out to be, voters broke even in the Senate, leading to a loss of GOP control.
Why do voters inflict such frustrations on their politicians? Part of the reason taps into the fundamental conundrum of American politics. There are two parties and three groups of voters: Democrats, Republicans and Independents. Dividing three into two is the basic equation of our electoral math.
But both parties richly deserve voter distrust. The scars of 1993-94 assure that Democrats will not soon again be trusted with total control lest they raise taxes once more and try to monkey around with the healthcare system.
The memories of 1995-96 bar the GOP from control of both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue because voters fear that they might emasculate environmental protections and dismantle Medicare. Voters want checks and balances, not blank checks.
But to assume that the dynamics of Bush’s popularity will automatically trigger a GOP congressional victory misses the more specific point that Bush’s high approval rating comes exclusively from his work on the war on terror.
As long as Democrats are careful not to challenge him on the war, the conflict will be inadmissible in the congressional races of 2002. Voters will not feel that they need to back Republicans to empower Bush to win the war on terror. They will realize that either way, the war will go on, under Democratic or Republican congresses.
Rather, they will focus on the remaining list of domestic issues in determining how to vote for Congress and, here, the Democrats hold all the cards.
There is not a single national issue, now in play before Congress, on which the Republican Party has the advantage in national polls. All the issues break the other way. On campaign finance reform, the energy/environment tradeoff, the right to sue health maintenance organizations (HMOs), Medicare drug coverage, more tax cuts, Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI), and Social Security reform, the public backs the Democratic position over the views of the congressional Republicans.
Bush is the president for foreign policy. The only aspects of his domestic policy that were popular — the current level of tax cuts and education reform — have already passed and are off the table. Unless the Democrats either challenge Bush on the war — as Sens. Tom Daschle (S.D.), Joe Biden (Del.) and Robert Byrd (W.Va.) unwisely started to do last week — or overtly move to repeal his tax cuts — as Sen. Teddy Kennedy (Mass.) urged last month — the Republicans will not be able to convert Bush’s lead into congressional victories.
Bush will not be able to wade into the electoral waters to slash and burn his Democratic opponents. Voters expect — and discount — the normal level of partisan campaigning. But anything beyond that and he will fall victim to the Woodrow Wilson syndrome.
In 1918, in the months before the World War I armistice, Wilson campaigned vigorously for a Democratic Congress to help him “win the war.” Voters reciprocated with a GOP majority in both houses, which torpedoed the Versailles Treaty and the League of Nations in retaliation.
Bush is headed for Mt. Rushmore if he wages the war on terror well and thoroughly, but the GOP cannot count on his popularity to win. They will need to do it by floating issues on their own.
Free Republic is funded solely by donations from readers.
Donations and official correspondence should be mailed to:
Free Republic, LLC, PO Box 9771, Fresno, CA 93794
Support Free Republic by secure credit card.
Send PayPal direct to JimRob@psnw.com
HAHAHAHA! Morris thinks that the electorate actually has a strategy that they've considered in advance and that they all got the memo. He thinks that the electorate knows what constitutes the branches of government. He thinks they know what "checks and balances" means. Hell - he probably thinks most Americans know who the Speaker of the House is, or who their state senator is. Why, I'll bet Dick still believes in the tooth fairy.....
I sure would like to see poll numbers proving this. The public trusts the Rats more than the Rs on tax cuts??? hmmm.
Morris must have missed all the polls which show Bush also has rather high numbers for the economy (64% economic approval rating/Gallup) and domestic issues.
For example, from an article on the Super Poll;
"But even if Gore should run for and win his party's nomination, the ''Super Poll'' suggests an unprecedented tidal wave of hard-core Democratic support for President Bush. When asked ''How likely are you to not vote for a Democrat in 2004 and re-elect George W. Bush as president?'' at least 15 percent of the respondents said ''very likely,'' with another 21 percent saying they were ''somewhat likely.'' These are truly amazing numbers given the fact that those responding are proven Democrats. What makes these numbers even more amazing is the fact that so few of the Democrats who responded considered safety and the current war on terrorism to be a significant issue."
(from; "Poll turns up surprising views on Bush and more" Florida Times-Union | 03/06/02 | Matt Towery)
He said the GOP would win big in '98. He said that Hillary would lose her Senate race.
If he's predicting the Republicans will take a bath in the fall, then I'm that much more optimistic, and that's already pretty dern optimistic, being the Reagan man that I am.
That's so much DemocRAT Bull $hit, that it's pathetic. The Toe Sucker knows that it matters how you ask the question. The task for the Republicans is to make sure that the questions are asked correctly.
As for Social Security reform, the "voters" will eventually learn that if they don't support privatization soon, there just won't be a Social Security system as we know it. It will be another welfare program where the productive will be supporting the non-productive.
It appears that the Independents are breaking towards the Republican side, in a cultural shift that I think will become very clear in the not too distant future. I expect that it is quite possible that W's willingness to take responsibility for his actions and the actions of the Government will probably convince many Independents that W is the balance to a Republican House and Senate.
The American electorate trusts this man to do the right thing and to represent them in Washington.
My prediction....Republican House and Senate...with good working margins for President Bush.
I recall seeing a Wall Street Jounral about 2 weeks ago that said (according to opinion polling) that the Democrats have lost the edge to the Republicans on all the major issues: education, defense, even social security (if I recall correctly). The gist of the article was that this will NOT be the typical off year elections, and that with redistricting, the Republicans should pick up several seats. So - I believe Morris to be factually wrong. Now if I could just find that darn article....
Control of the house is based on who got to Gerrymander last. If the nation is even 53 /47 Democrat this year the Republicans hold the house. Back in the 1980s the nation could vote 55 /45 for Republicans and the Democrats still held on to the house. It is what Gerrymandering is all about What happened in the 1990 redistrictiong, was enhanced in the 2000 redistricting. It is bad for Democrats. They have been grouped into heavily Democratic districts. There are a large number of Democrats districts that are 70 / 30 Democrat. There is a larger number of districts that are 55 /45 Republican. And there are less that 30 that are very close. The Republicans only have to win a portion of the close ones. The Democrats have to win nearly all the close ones and some of the 55/45 Republican districts. They are not going to be able to do that.
Most voters in the middle don't have a clue about issues. The have impressions. Controlling impressions is how elections are won. The issues Morris talks about only motivate the activists on the left and the right. They vote the same in every election. They don't decide anything. The complex issues don't even figure in the middles decision about for whom they will cast a vote. The middle which decides the Senate, votes based on who has the image of trying to fix the problems. That is, when there are problems people vote for a united goverment to fix the problems. This is indeed, a year with problems. In every case where a popular president failed to carry the Senate you will find he did not have a clear plan about fixing problems or there were no pressing problems.
When there are no problems the public votes to divide government. When things are rosy they want divided government so nothing gets done. If the politicians can NOT do anything they can't screw the good timess up. When things are not so rosy, or the memory of not so rosy is still vivid, people want united government to fix the problems. If there are problems and the president is trying to fix them the public will elect the people he wants.
Those old enough to remember the co-operation the Democrats under Tip O'Neil gave Reagan understand why O'Neil did that. Had he obstructed Reagan in 1981, the Republicans would have won the house in 1982. It is not party based. It is an image of being united to fix problems that would keep the Senate for the Democrats. Daschle is far to stupid to understand that simple fact. His actions are very counter productive.
The memeory of the recent recession in 1992 resuled in a United governnemt for Clinton's first 2 years. A mess in Korea in 1952 Resulted in a United governement for Eisenhower. Peace and prosperity in 1986 resulted in a divided government.
Dachle has it backwards. He fails to understand what motivates voters. That is why he tries stupid things and then has to back track. He does not understand the rules.
Dick Morris knows exactly what is taking place. But,
Plus, the GOPs hold a 30-50 point lead on national defense and homeland security. With the economy turning around, this will be the number one issue.
I'm no big political consultant. But I taste the breeze and smell victory.
Davis in CA is V-U-L-N-E-R-A-B-L-E. He's gonna smear Simon and label him an extremist. I wish I were doing Simon's attack ads.
Indeed, I wish I was directing the GOP's attack ads in general for the '04 cycle. I think Hillary is going to be the Dem nominee for Pres. The Republicans will probably flub this golden opportunity. An embarassment of riches for "negative" advertising.
Conservatives could clean their clocks--if we develop the killer instinct, the scorched-earth attitude. They have lots of earth to scorch.
--Boris
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.