Do the Democrats Need to Nationalize the Midterm Elections?

By Stuart Rothenberg

I often get asked whether Democrats will be able to nationalize this year’s midterm elections. It’s both an important and reasonable question, since the answer will determine what kind of year the parties will have in November.

But, alas, it’s the wrong question to ask.

The better question is whether Republicans will be able to localize the midterm elections.

Most election years start off with a bias toward localized elections. When voters are content, they are inclined toward the status-quo and feel no urgency to fire their elected representatives. When they are confused — often because control of the government is divided, and they don’t know who to blame — they also generally stick with incumbents, who are usually better financed.

In both of those general circumstances, voters tend toward inertia, which benefits those already holding power.

But with Republicans holding majorities in both chambers of Congress since 1994, and with voters showing great dissatisfaction with the direction of the nation and with the performance of the president and Congress, this year’s midterms will be about change.

While Democrats can try to feed the electorate’s desire for change, the mood already exists. They don’t need to create it. That means the midterms already have been nationalized, and that’s the main reason why so many Republican incumbents are showing low poll numbers.

If the 2006 elections were about individual Members and their particular challengers, Missouri Sen. Jim Talent (R) would be leading challenger Claire McCaskill (D) by 6 points to 8 points (maybe even more) rather than running even.

If this year’s elections currently were localized, Rep. Deborah Pryce (R-Ohio) would have a large early lead over her opponent Mary Jo Kilroy (D), rather than a narrow one. Rep. Rob Simmons (R-Conn.) would be a strong favorite for re-election rather than only even money. And Democrats wouldn’t even be able to talk with a straight face about threatening Reps. Nancy Johnson (R-Conn.) and John Sweeney (R-N.Y.), or of stealing retiring Rep. Mark Green’s open Wisconsin Congressional seat from the GOP.

Democrats might benefit from a 10-point plan or a coherent, unified strategy on Iraq, but they don’t need it to create a “national” election. The public’s mood has already done it.

Given that, the real question is whether Republicans will be able to “localize” the ’06 midterms between now and November — whether they can re-elect their incumbents despite that general political atmosphere, which strongly favors change and the Democrats.

The answer to that question will determine whether Republicans can minimize their losses in both chambers, and even whether they will still control the House after November.

Localizing would require Republicans to change the nature of the cycle. In other words, the burden is on them to alter the natural path of this year’s midterm elections.

Recently, Republicans have proved better at what they like to call the “blocking and tackling” of elections — raising and spending money, getting out their voters and running the sort of aggressive campaigns that have allowed them to win considerable majorities in Congress. They’ve used their incumbent advantages well.

But this cycle is different. The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee is unusually aggressive, both in tactics and fundraising. And unlike the past decade, it has a strong wind at its back.

So it’s up to Republicans to try to re-create past environments, by turning voters’ attention away from President Bush, the war in Iraq, the control of U.S. ports and Jack Abramoff’s and Rep. Tom DeLay’s (R-Texas) legal problems, and by making the midterm elections about the Democratic candidates in each race.

It’s pretty simple then what the National Republican Congressional Committee and GOP candidates must do. They must make Democratic candidates unacceptable to voters. Whether that means uncovering personal ethics issues involving Democrats or demonizing them on national security or other issues, it’s up to Republicans to change the current trajectory of the elections.

If that happens, it won’t be until late — certainly after Labor Day and probably not until October — when most races truly engage, when voters start paying close attention to races, and when Republican attacks will either discredit Democratic challengers or fall on deaf ears.

NRCC Chairman Tom Reynolds (N.Y.) continues to insist that it’s wrong to portray the ’06 contests as nationalized. “It always gets back to local elections, local politics, and that’s how we are going to win a Republican majority in 2006, again,” he told NBC “Nightly News’” Chip Reid last week.

That’s simply not true. The 1966, 1982 and 1994 midterms certainly were not “local” events, and insisting otherwise doesn’t make Reynolds right or enhance his credibility.

This column first appeared in Roll Call on April 3, 2006. Copyright 2006 © Roll Call Inc. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.

War, What is it Good For?

By Nathan L. Gonzales

If you listen to some conservative evangelicals these days, we are all standing in the middle of the battlefield of a great war. The War on Terrorism you say? Nope. Bigger. It’s the War on Christians. Whose side are you on?

A recent conference sponsored by Vision America entitled, “The War on Christians and The Values Voter in 2006,” and another event, “Justice Sunday III” sponsored by Focus on the Family Action, have once again shown that some conservative Christians revel in their role as victims.

Some Christian leaders have stepped out of both appropriate and rational bounds in their attempt to label the current state of play in the United States a war.

It’s inaccurate and borderline offensive to equate the current “struggle” of Christians to African-Americans during the civil rights era, the plight of Jews during the Holocaust, and even the suffering of Jesus Christ himself on the cross. But that’s what this particular group of Christians has done recently.

During “Justice Sunday III” back on January 8, evangelical leaders like Dr. James Dobson of Focus on the Family and Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council sang “We Shall Overcome,” along with the congregation in attendance, drawing a comparison with blacks a half-century ago.

But back in the 1950s and 1960s, African-Americans were struggling to gain full voting rights, to use whatever bathroom they wanted, and to sit in a seat of their own choosing on a city bus. In comparison with today, Christians certainly have voting rights and even patted themselves on the back for reelecting a Republican president and electing majorities in both the House and the Senate.

During this week’s War on Christians event, conservative author Michael Horowitz, who is Jewish, said, “You guys have become the Jews of the 21st Century.” What? Some Christians may not like the moral direction of this country, but no one in the United States is being killed or sent to a concentration camp because they are a Christian.

Also during the conference, Vision America President Rick Scarborough introduced former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R), stating, “I believe the most damaging thing that Tom DeLay has done in his life is take his faith seriously into public office, which made him a target for all those who despise the cause of Christ.” I don’t seem to recall DeLay’s indictments or admonishments by the House Ethics Committee involving an account of his faith. And did almost 40% of Republican primary voters in DeLay’s own congressional district this spring vote against him because he was a Christian?

After DeLay’s speech, Scarborough offered a piece of encouragement, “God always does his best work after a crucifixion.” Wow. To equate DeLay’s legal, political, and electoral problems with Jesus’ crucifixion is simply offensive, and Christians should be outraged over the analogy. I guarantee if Jim Wallis of Sojourners compared the demonization of Sen. Hillary Clinton (D) at the hands of conservative media outlets to the crucifixion of Jesus, these same evangelicals would be livid.

Evangelicals who agree with Scarborough’s sentiment on DeLay should re-watch Mel Gibson’s “The Passion of the Christ” and then ask themselves if they think that is what the Republican congressman is going through.

This is simply a war with no end because certain Christian leaders and groups have too much to gain monetarily. The war rhetoric is usually accompanied by fundraising pleas through weekly emails and helps spawn events like the War on Christians conference where individuals plopped down $149 each to attend (married couples appropriately got a discount at $259).

The war metaphor is actually a good strategy because it’s so vague. Is the War on Christians a cultural, legal, or electoral battle? To these people it doesn’t matter, it’s more like a moving target depending on the year.

Even when conservative evangelicals win, they lose. They want credit for reelecting the president but then feel ignored. “In the latest election, values voters were used,” said Scarborough, who is upset that Bush and the Republicans have not acted on the constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage and other social issues of concern. So, even though these evangelicals voted for Bush and the Republican majority, the President is apparently now part of the movement against Christian causes.

With a victim mentality, conservative Christians will be able to prolong the war indefinitely, simply by exchanging opponents when necessary. But while some evangelicals are more interested in fighting a war, others want to move beyond inflammatory rhetoric to enact real change in the country.

This column first appeared on Town Hall on March 31, 2006.

Things Continue to Fall in Place for John McCain

By Stuart Rothenberg

It’s still a long time until the Iowa caucuses formally kick off the 2008 race for the White House. But it’s hard not to conclude that events are lining up perfectly for Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), should he decide to make another run.

A weakened President Bush and a damaged Republican Party are more likely than not to convince GOP activists around the country — including some conservatives and party regulars who ordinarily would not warm to McCain — that the Arizona Republican is the only man who can carry the party’s banner in 2008.

The threat of a Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) presidency has always been McCain’s ace in the hole. Even conservatives who worry about McCain’s independent streak — including the Arizona Republican’s support for campaign finance reform and his co-sponsorship (with Massachusetts Democratic Sen. Edward Kennedy, no less) of a guest worker program — might well find McCain preferable to a Clinton victory.

Even if Democrats bypass the New York Senator and turn to an allegedly “more electable” moderate such as former Virginia Gov. Mark Warner, many Republicans may come to believe that only McCain can keep the White House in GOP hands.

What nobody has yet commented on, however, is how the 2006 midterm elections now seem all but destined to boost McCain’s presidential prospects.

Democrats are headed for significant gains in both chambers of Congress in November. Even if they fail to win control in at least one chamber, they are likely to be seen as the clear winners and Bush and his party as the clear losers on Election Day.

That result, no doubt, would produce a wave of stories about the GOP’s troubles, with columnists, politicians (Democratic and Republican) and TV talking heads yammering on about the Republican Party’s demise. There would be plenty of talk about infighting within the party, and there would be even more punditry about how the Republicans are in a sorry state just two years before the next presidential election.

The election results, in other words, are likely to increase panic among some Republicans, who will fear that the Democrats’ success in running on a message of change during the midterm elections is an omen of things to come in ’08.

This kind of reaction from Republicans and the media is likely to enhance McCain’s attractiveness as a presidential candidate. The more gloom and doom surrounding his party, the better McCain looks. The more the GOP needs to counterpunch with its own message of change, reform and leadership, the more attractive McCain appears to Republicans, independents and even some Democrats.

Even Republican critics of the Arizona Senator agree that McCain has broad general election appeal, and his primary foes would have a harder time rallying their fellow Republicans against him if the only thing standing between Democratic control of the entire federal government is McCain.

Remember, the ranks of Senators up for re-election in 2008 include 21 Republicans and only 12 Democrats, giving Democrats an engraved invitation to win a majority in the Senate if they can put together sizable gains this November. You can bet that virtually all of those Republicans would like to have McCain running with them at the top of the Republican ticket.

McCain will be in much demand this year, as Republican incumbents look to inoculate themselves on issues such as ethics, government spending and even the war.

Ethics, government transparency and political corruption could well grow as issues over the next couple of years, especially if Democrats take the House in November and begin to use their powers to scrutinize the Bush administration and other Republicans. Again, McCain, known as an advocate of campaign finance reform, looks like the best antidote for the GOP.

Timing is everything in politics, and while McCain has been making himself more acceptable to Bush loyalists by standing with the president’s general approach to Iraq and the war on terrorism, the administration’s problems and the president’s weakness also have been combining to enhance the Arizona Republican’s appeal within his own party.

How far has McCain come to be accepted by religious conservatives in his party? He will be the graduation speaker at Jerry Falwell’s Liberty University in May.

These are very good times for McCain, whose military background and reputation as a reformer and a straight shooter seem a perfect fit for the issues of the day and the Republican Party’s current problems. And that’s why he has emerged as the frontrunner for the Republican presidential nomination, overtaking my initial favorite, Virginia Sen. George Allen.

This column first appeared in Roll Call on March 30, 2006. Copyright 2006 © Roll Call Inc. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.

Democrats' Security Rebound is More About Bush

By Stuart Rothenberg

Pardon me if I had a feeling of déjà vu, but the sight of dozens of Democratic members of Congress and "first responders" together "rallying" in Washington, D.C. to prove that Democrats are tough on terrorism and the party of "real security" brought back memories of Boston’s Fleet Center and all those senior military men vouching for John Kerry and the Democrats.

With Rep. John Conyers (D-MI), Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-MI) and Rep. Dick Durbin (D-IL) standing in the front row of a throng of Democratic House and Senate members, who in their right mind is going to think of Democrats as "pro-military" or tough on defense and national security matters?

Polling confirms that Democrats look better these days on national security, but it isn’t because of rallies like the one yesterday at Union Station in the nation’s capital. It’s because the war in Iraq has not gone well and President Bush fumbled the ball on the Dubai ports deal. But the party still has long-term problems on the issue because many grass roots Democrats and party leaders simply don’t believe in projecting U.S. power (including military power) the way Republicans do.

The "new" Democratic agenda to achieve "real security" looks remarkably similar to everything Democrats have been saying for years. Only a recent comment by Rep. Nancy Pelosi that Democrats would implement all of the recommendations of the 9-11 Commission immediately upon taking control of Congress sounds like the sort of detailed promise that would constitute a true agenda.

Democrats need more of those specific plans -- promising to "eliminate Osama Bin Laden" and "achieve energy independence for America by 2020" seems like political hot air -- if they truly want to be taken seriously.

This item first appeared on Political Wire on March 30, 2006.