Changing horses in midstream: Why it's harder
By Ronald Brownstein and Janet Hook
Los Angeles Times
WASHINGTON — In this year's midterm election, control of Congress may turn on whether the public's clear desire for change is powerful enough to overcome the resistance to change built into the political system.
Public-opinion surveys show approval ratings for President Bush and the Republican-controlled Congress falling to their lowest levels.
On many measures, Bush and the GOP are facing at least as much dissatisfaction as Democrats and President Clinton did just before the 1994 midterm landslide that swept Republicans into control of the House and Senate.
But today's wave of dissatisfaction is crashing into a political structure that is much more stable than in 1994. It now is tougher to beat House incumbents or to win Senate seats in states that usually back the other party in presidential elections.
To gain a majority in the House, Democrats need a net gain of 15 seats. To capture the Senate, they need a net gain of six seats.
Hunkering down
It won't be easy for them to reach either number, experts in both parties agree. But analysts say it is no longer inconceivable Democrats could capture one — or both — of the chambers.
As a result, some Republican incumbents who thought themselves secure are girding for the worst by stockpiling campaign cash and, where necessary, spending it early. To coordinate political strategy, House GOP leaders have begun holding weekly meetings for staff members of about a dozen of the most vulnerable Republicans.
Democrats, meanwhile, are trying to broaden the battlefield, recruiting serious challengers to House Republicans who have not been targeted in the past. The political action committee associated with the liberal group MoveOn.org already has aired advertisements attacking four such incumbents — including Nancy L. Johnson, R-Conn., a veteran lawmaker who has responded with ads of her own.
With voters unhappy over high gasoline prices, the war in Iraq and scandals in the Capitol, Democrats are looking to frame the race as a national referendum on the country's direction and to tie Republicans to Bush.
Standing apart?
In states as different as Arizona and Pennsylvania, Democratic Senate challengers are highlighting statistics that show GOP incumbents supporting Bush on legislation almost all of the time.
"The idea of Republicans being a rubber stamp for Bush is pretty powerful," said Democratic pollster Geoff Garin.
By contrast, most Republicans are trying to localize and personalize their races. They believe the GOP will fare better if the election is seen not as a retrospective referendum on Bush and Congress, but as a choice about which party has better ideas for the future.
"We are going to have to make this into [an election] ... where people say, 'I might not be happy with Republicans overall, but this Democrat is too risky,' " said GOP pollster Glen Bolger.
Another element is apparent in the subtle — or sometimes overt — efforts of Republican candidates to distance themselves from Bush.
Sen. Mike DeWine, R-Ohio, facing a tough re-election race, recently had a fundraiser featuring Bush but avoided being photographed with the president because the event was closed to reporters. DeWine's latest television ad ends with a line calling him an "independent fighter for Ohio families."
Notwithstanding low poll numbers, no expert in either party is forecasting Democratic gains comparable to the 52 House and eight Senate seats the GOP won in 1994.
One reason is that Republicans have discouraged retirements more effectively. The party this year is defending one open seat in the Senate and 18 in the House; Democrats 12 years ago were defending six open Senate seats and 31 open House seats.
The larger challenge for Democrats is that there are far fewer competitive House districts than in 1994, giving the party a much smaller battleground.
At roughly this point in 1994, the nonpartisan Cook Political Report identified 100 House seats as competitive; now, it finds only 35.
Redistricting
The decrease in competitive seats partly reflects the way district lines were redrawn after the 2000 census — with precision aimed at preserving safe seats for most incumbents of both parties.
"Voters get to choose their congressmen, but in redistricting, congressmen get to choose their voters," said GOP pollster David Winston.
Another key difference separates today from 1994. In that earlier contest, about three-fifths of the Democratic House losses came in districts, many of them in the South, that had voted for President George H.W. Bush two years earlier. But now, each party already controls the vast majority of House seats that usually support their side in presidential elections. Republicans represent just 18 House districts that Democratic Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts carried in the 2004 presidential election.
For Democrats, maximizing their gains in these districts — and in other House races in the mostly Democratic-leaning states of the Northeast and Midwest — is a priority.
State by state
In New York, for instance, Democrats are targeting five districts held by Republicans. The effort to capture these seats could benefit from strength at the top of the ticket: Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., is facing only token opposition, and Democrat Eliot Spitzer is expected to win the gubernatorial race handily.
In Connecticut, Democrats are gunning at two frequent targets — moderate Republican Reps. Christopher Shays and Rob Simmons — as well as Johnson. In Pennsylvania, Democrats hope to defeat four Republicans in districts that voted for Kerry in 2004. Ohio offers another cluster of targets.
But to build a House majority, Democrats must pick up seats in other regions, including "red" states that backed Bush in 2004. In Indiana, the party recruited a sheriff, Brad Ellsworth, to take on perennial target Rep. John Hostettler, and mounted more-longshot challenges against Reps. Mike Sodrel and Chris Chocola.
To win the Senate, Democrats need even greater gains in states that ordinarily lean Republican in presidential races.
Democrats hold 28 of the 36 Senate seats in the 18 states that voted for Kerry in 2004 and the party's 2000 presidential nominee, Al Gore. This year, two GOP senators from such "blue" states top the Democratic target list.
In Pennsylvania, incumbent Rick Santorum — a longtime champion of GOP conservative causes — is locked in a high-profile race with Democratic state Treasurer Bob Casey Jr.
Turning back tide
The more critical test for Democrats in the battle for the Senate is reducing the Republican advantage in seats from states that Bush carried in the 2004 and 2000 presidential races. The GOP controls 44 of the 58 Senate seats in those 29 states.
The three red-state Republican senators seen as most vulnerable are Conrad Burns in Montana, DeWine in Ohio and Jim Talent in Missouri.
Even if Democrats win all five of these competitive Senate races — a problematic prospect — they still must score surprise victories in even more challenging red-state terrain to take over the Senate.
The most likely upset victims are Sens. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., and George Allen, R-Va. Democrats also are hoping a divisive GOP primary battle in Tennessee could pave the way for their party's candidate, Rep. Harold E. Ford Jr., to win the seat being vacated by Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist.
Any Senate pickups this year would be gravy for Republicans, who recognize that in years when polls found a strong desire for change — such as 1986 and 1994 — almost all close Senate races fell to the party out of power.
Copyright © 2006 The Seattle Times Company
seattletimes.nwsource.com |
