Posted on 08/12/2002 3:18:02 PM PDT by My2Cents
No Democratic tide
BY MICHAEL BARONE
In a column in the July 18, 1994, issue of U.S. News, I wrote that there was a serious possibility that Republicans would capture control of the House in November. It was, so far as I know, the first article in the national press that foresaw that year's Republican victory. The article cited five non-scandal-plagued Democratic incumbents who trailed Republican challengers in media or partisan polls. It's unusual for incumbents to trail in polls and a sign that a party is in trouble when competent incumbents are behind.
Today, amid much talk–cheerful talk by Democrats, pessimistic talk by Republicans–that issues of corporate wrongdoing are going to help the Democrats, there is no evidence, at least yet, of any such tide. Except for districts where incumbents have been forced to run against each other by redistricting, the number of House incumbents trailing challengers in publicly announced polls is zero. The closest thing is a Republican poll showing Minnesota's Democratic Rep. Bill Luther ahead 35 to 34. But Luther underperformed in 1998 and 2000, and is running in a mostly new district.
Five senators have trailed in publicly announced polls, but there is no partisan trend; they include Democrats Tim Johnson (S.D.) , Paul Wellstone (Minn.), Jean Carnahan (Mo.), and Republicans Tim Hutchinson (Ark.) and Bob Smith (N.H.) . (Smith's primary opponent, Rep. John Sununu, runs better.) In other Senate races, no recent polls show significant changes.
Local politics. All this is not to say that there won't be a Democratic trend by November. It does say that one hasn't appeared yet. An August 6 New York Times story said, "Rising voter concern about the nation's future, driven by an unsteady economy and unrest on Wall Street, is stirring nervousness among some Republicans and lifting confidence among Democratic leaders." But the article doesn't cite any numbers in any districts.
Now it is true that Democrats don't need as big a swing as Republicans needed in 1994 to win the House, and they only need to hold their current seats to maintain a majority in the Senate. A swing toward the Democrats that would show up as statistically insignificant in a poll could give them gains in both houses. But it is also true that changes in attitudes on general questions–whether the country is moving in the right direction, which party's candidate will you favor for the House–do not always move numbers in individual races.
Nor is it clear that Democrats have a big advantage on economic issues. The pro-Democrat Democracy Corps poll, taken July 22-24 (the Dow plunged 840 points July 19-23), shows Republicans ahead on the economy (44-39) and not far behind on standing up to powerful Washington special interests (30-31) or dealing with corporate abuses (34-39). Democracy Corps's Stanley Greenberg and James Carville recommend that Democrats attack Bush for conflicts of interest (though his ratings for honesty remain high), on handling the economy (though their own poll shows voters prefer Republicans on that), pensions, and Social Security.
Greenberg and Carville argue that Democrats can campaign on "major reforms to protect investors and people's 401(k) plans." But what voter expects the government to insure him against any loss in value? Democrats have attacked Republicans for favoring "privatization of Social Security," that is, allowing individual investment accounts as part of the system. But that policy has continued to poll well, if the issue is framed as Bush frames it, despite the stock market drop. Now Republicans are trying to turn the tables by attacking Democrats like Tim Johnson for backing "privatization," by which they mean government investment of Social Security funds.
Naturally, people planning to retire soon are disappointed with their 401(k)'s. But most of the 70 percent of voters who own stock aren't planning to cash in soon and are less concerned with their momentary balance than with whether they can expect progress in the lifelong project of accumulating wealth. And large majorities believe the stock market will be higher one year and 10 years from now. In the meantime, incumbents of both parties seem to be doing well, as they did in 1996, 1998, and 2000. The partisan deadlock hasn't yet been broken.
It pains me to say this, but you just threw your $70 down the drain.
Smith is history. I suggest that you check out the editorial today in the Manchester (NH) Union Leader, at:
http://www.theunionleader.com/articles_show.html?article=13343
A third of the voting population is securely leftist. Another third is securely to the right. That leaves the deciding votes in the hands of the third in the middle.
Just how would you appeal to the middle? Would you tell them how right the right is and how wrong the left is?
The truth is that Bush has done all he can to garner support of the center. Without a majority of the center no election can be won. Bush has approval ratings of near 70 percent. That means he has nearly all the right and nearly all the center. A president can't do more than that.
Maybe because 'Democrat' sounds so much more Maoist than 'Democratic', which may give more of a freedom connotation...either way, try it out on one of your liberal (er...um.....Progressive) aquaintances.
please explain. At least forty percent of the country is going to disagree with us regardless of how glib a spokesman the Republicans put out front. Face it, the congress is evenly divided because the country is and will likely remain that way for some time.
Just so he can lose? Smith made an ass of himself running for President and then running as an independent. Didnt you read the article, Sununu runs much better against the Democrat than Smith. Smith has the most vulnerable senatorial spot this year.
Not according to the posts I read on FR. (He may have 95% of the right; there's a vocal 5% -- which appears to be more like 20% here on FR -- that appears willing to sit on their hands and let the country go to the 'RATS.)
Maybe it wouldnt be so hard for those people to understand that going further to the right limits their appeal, not enhances it, if most of the congressional districts in the country werent as uncompetitive as they are. When a Republican or Democrat consistly wins 65-70% of his district that makes those in the district think that everyone thinks like they do. Duh? Not true nationwide. Seldom true statewide which is why Senators are more centrist than House Members. Also not true in districts which are competitive, roughly same number of Reps and Dems with centrists makeing up the difference.
Centrists dont go for hard conservative or hard liberal appeals. Thats why the Dems have been more successful. They chip away little by little getting a little of what they want here and waiting until a few years later to try and get the rest. The hard conservatives throw a hissy fit if they cant get everything they want right now because otherwise they are ideologically "un-pure" and they would rather be pure than victorious.
Except that 60-70% of the country wouldnt know who Terry McAuliffe is. They would probably think he was a candidate. Twenty percent of the population dont know who the Vice President is.
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.