I’m not much of a voting man myself. I agree with former Washington Post managing editor Howard Simon, who preferred (though he couldn’t enforce it) that his political writers not vote because it might make them feel vested in a candidate they would have to cover once he or she was elected, arguing that a proper journalist should be and observer, reporter and occasionally an analyst with a certain degree of detachment rather than a participant in the political process. In addition, of course, I am loathe to give even the implied consent of participation in the process to “the appalling people who rule us” as my old friend and former NORML executive director Dick Cowan puts it.
Nonetheless, I have a lifelong fascination with the political process – in part because it does have an impact (even though I doubt my own vote would make much difference) in the way we live, and in part, no doubt for reasons similar to those that cause most drivers to slow down and become looky-loos at the scene of an accident, especially a particularly a gruesome or fatal accident. There’s something about catastrophes that fascinates most of us mere humans.
All that said, as I watch the sleaze-dominated, increasingly ugly train wreck the November election is shaping up to be, I find myself rather wistfully hoping – as a detached observer, of course, one who will handle an opposite result with equanimity, remembering there are things more important than politics, like music and family – that the Democrats pull of a big victory. Even more, I hope that this result, if it happens, will be interpreted as a referendum on the war in Iraq.
It’s hardly a slam-dunk that that will be the outcome.
Not Since 1994
There’s plenty to fascinate us out there. The Republicans have controlled Congress (except for a brief time in the Senate after 2000) since 1994. But the war in Iraq is unpopular and the resignation of Florida Rep. Mark Foley has raised both hypocrisy charges against the party of family values and cover-up charges against the GOP leadership.
The Bush administration’s record on spending, done with the enthusiastic consent of most Republicans in Congress, who have taken pork-barrel earmark spending to new heights, has disgusted many conservatives. A significant number of conservative writers – Christopher Buckley, Joe Scarborough, Bruce Bartlett, William Niskanen – have said that it would be good for the country to have divided government and good for the soul of the GOP (assuming such an entity could be said to have a soul) to be turned out of power for a while.
It is difficult most years to make a case that a midterm congressional election is a referendum on an overriding national issue or even on a president. The president is not on the ballot. Although national issues play a role, each congressional election is conducted separately, and many districts are effectively gerrymandered to ensure that one party or the other wins. Local issues or even the personalities or public images of the candidates may have more to do with the outcome than national issues. Elections for the Senate are held statewide so they reflect a broader slice of the electorate than do House districts, but local issues may also predominate.
For example, Ohio, generally considered a bellwether state, is in the midst of a series of scandals perpetrated by the Republicans, who have controlled the statehouse for more than a decade. Polls suggest that Ohio voters will punish the Republicans on Nov. 7. While that reflects some discontent with the Bush administration it seems to stem mostly from disgust with Republicans at the state level.
The last time a midterm congressional election marked a national trend was in 1994, when Republicans won control of both parties of Congress – for the first time in 40 years in the House. That election capped years of Republican organizing, a Republican “Contract with America” and disappointment with President Clinton’s first two years in office, especially the push for HillaryCare.
Is Iraq the Issue?
This year may mark a similar turn, with the issue being the war in Iraq. But the waters could be muddied because so many other issues are in play, from a congressman chasing page boys to Republican spending profligacy to perceived failure to deliver on the social conservative agenda.
American voters have been known to surprise pundits and pollsters, and it looks as if the Republicans have more money available than do the Democrats for the final week-plus of campaigning. But if current projections hold, Democrats are likely to gain significantly in the House and perhaps oust Republicans from the majority. Democrats are projected to take several currently Republican Senate seats, but achieving a majority is considered a long shot.
The Democrats have the intensity this year, crystallized in a widespread distaste for President Bush among the Democratic base. But the Republicans have the machine, an increasingly sophisticated set of databases that seem able to identify soccer dads and NASCAR fans, predict which characteristics lead to voting Republican, and target get-out-the-vote campaigns with laser-like precision. As the race turns toward the home stretch, Republican incumbents in 31 competitive races also have a significant advantage in cash on hand – $32.7 million to $14.5 million according to the Cook Political Report – compared with their Democratic challengers.
However, in a climate of opinion considered hostile to Republicans, some of these challengers might not have to outspend the incumbents to win. A key question is whether even identified Republicans will turn out. In an Oct. 5-8 New York Times/CBS poll, 46 percent of Democrats said they were more enthusiastic about voting this year than in previous congressional elections, compared with 33 percent of Republicans.
Generic Democratic Trend
The generic polls that ask voters whether they would rather vote for a Democrat or a Republican for Congress find the voters increasingly leaning toward Democrats. President Bush’s approval ratings, which trended upward for a few weeks around the fifth anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, have since declined. Last week the Washington Post/ABC poll had 39 percent of Americans approving of Mr. Bush, while the Newsweek poll was at 33 percent, New York Times/CBS at 34 and USA Today/Gallup at 37 percent.
The conventional wisdom is that the Republicans do poorly when the issue is the war in Iraq, but do better when the issue is national security in general and the larger “war on terror.” Thus the president’s campaign, in September, to recast the debate as being about the larger conflict. North Korea’s testing of an atomic weapon may help them, but that’s hard to call just yet.
Just about the only Republicans who seem not to be fretting are President Bush and Karl Rove. A recent Washington Post story had the White House “upbeat” about GOP prospects and a U.S. News and World Report story says Bush has no contingency plan in place if the Republicans lose the House. Why should we not be surprised? This is the crowd that didn’t have a contingency plan in case things went South in Iraq. They have so little sense of irony that they seem to be proud of being devoid of a Plan B.
The Democrats would need a net gain of 15 seats to take over the House and a net gain of six seats to take control of the Senate. Most pundits identify about 50 seats that are genuinely competitive, and most handicappers narrow that to about 25 seats where there’s a realistic chance of the seat changing party hands.
As of last weekend national Republicans were running ads in 29 districts – 26 held by Republicans and only three held by Democrats. National Democrats had ads on the air in 30 districts, only three of them held by Democrats. Democrats are on offense; Republicans, defense.
In the Senate, it seems likely the Democrats will pick up Republican seats in Pennsylvania, Rhode Island and, perhaps, Montana. Ohio and Missouri are considered toss-ups. The Democrats would have to “run the table” to gain control. Virginia, expected to be a safe Republican seat, is in contention because of campaign gaffes by incumbent Republican George Allen, but is still leaning Republican. In Tennessee, Democratic Rep. Harold Ford and Republican Bob Corker are running neck-and-neck to replace Bill Frist. In New Jersey, Democratic incumbent Bob Menendez faces a stiff challenge from Thomas Kean, son of the reasonably popular governor.
The party holding the White House traditionally loses seats in the sixth year of a president’s term, so this might not be surprising in perspective. But it does appear that the Democrats stand to benefit from increasing disillusionment with the war in Iraq, which is not going well. More Americans have been killed there this month than in any month since October 2005. This seems to matter more to voters than the fact that the economy is performing well.
Evidence of War-Weariness
An ABC News/Washington Post poll conducted late last week, for example, found that criticism of the war was not confined to Democrats, 80 percent of whom now oppose it. It also found that 64 percent of self-identified independents, 40 percent of conservatives, 35 percent of evangelical white Protestants and 25 percent of Republicans are critical of the war.
Among the six in 10 who now oppose the war, 78 percent say they’ll vote for Democrats in their congressional districts. All told, 54 percent of registered voters in this poll say they prefer the Democrats in their district, while 41 percent prefer Republicans.
As noted, several issues drive these preferences, including a lingering perception of incompetence from Katrina and scandals involving congressional Republicans, from influence peddling to cyberstalking congressional pages. But the war seems to be the predominant issue.
If this is the case, it’s a healthy outcome. This war was a mistake from the outset, but there never seemed to be a serious debate, outside Antiwar.com and a few other venues, about the wisdom of invading a country that posed no imminent threat to the United States. With the failure to discover WMDs, the lack of a coherent occupation plan and the development of ongoing insurgency that may or may not have developed into a full-blown civil war, disillusionment has widened. But the overall debate still is conducted at a fairly shallow level.
A great deal will depend on how the election outcome is interpreted. I want to believe it will be largely about the war, and I think a strong case can be made. But a case can be made that other issues are driving the electorate as well.
Even if the interpretation is muddied, it seems unlikely that the country will get involved in a serious discussion of the war unless the Republicans are soundly trounced. If it takes Democrats, who don’t have a coherent party position on the war, and many of whom support the policies that undergird the war, assuming control of one or both houses of Congress to get a debate going about how to wind down this war and what principles and policies might prevent future foreign-policy mistakes, perhaps that is an acceptable price to pay.
Whatever the outcome, election night will be entertaining. And low-grade entertainment is about all we can expect from politicians.
