MSM Election 'Analysis'

Thomas Mann of the Brookings Institution has written an op-ed in this morning's Washington Post titled "For Democrats, Wave Is Building". I take Mann's opinions seriously, though I don't agree with this opinion. Here's why:

If history is any guide, we're heading into a major political storm. And that means we could see a national tide in November that will sweep the Democrats back into the majority.

I don't think history is a guide in this election. History tells us that the part who holds the White House loses seats in the first midterm. That didn't happen, with Republicans picking up seats in the House and Senate. History tells us that presidents don't gain seats in back-to-back election cycles. That history lesson went out the window in 2004 as Republicans strengthened their majorities in the House and Senate.

Virtually every public opinion measure points to a Category 4 or 5 hurricane gathering. Bush's job-approval rating is below 40 percent, and congressional job approval is more than 10 percentage points lower.

Mann accurately reported these statistics. The trouble is that they're statistics from junk polls and they're measuring the wrong things. For instance, conservatives and liberals think that the country's heading in the wrong direction, though for different reasons. Liberals think it's going in the wrong direction because they aren't in power. Conservatives think it's going in the wrong direction because spending is out of control and our borders aren't being enforced properly.

Mann appears to think that the numbers indicate a wave building against Republicans, which is understandable. What they should tell him is that conservatives plan on voting for more, not fewer, conservatives. There isn't much chance that conservatives will stay home and let Democrats take power because we know that that's a disaster waiting to happen.

Only a quarter of the electorate thinks the country is moving in the right direction, and voters are unhappy with the economy under Bush. Finally, Democrats hold a double-digit lead as the party the public trusts to do a better job of tackling the nation's problems and the party it would like to see controlling Congress.

The key to this section is in realizing that generic Democrats hold a double-digit lead but that real Republicans hold the race-by-race lead across the nation.

All this leads to the consensus that the Republicans can't lose this fall. But I think they can. When there's no strong national issue at stake, local forces (a district's partisan makeup, the incumbent's reputation, the challenger's resources, etc.) dominate congressional elections.

There are a couple strong national issues at stake here: illegal immigration and the war in Iraq. Democrats are on the wrong side on both. There's still plenty dissatisfaction with Republicans on immigration but most people are 'enforcement-first' voters. That describes alot of Republicans. It doesn't describe any Democrats.

With Jihad John Murtha being the face of opposition to winning in Iraq, they're clearly bucking the tide on the issue. It's true that most people don't think that the war is going well. Those same people think that it's a bad idea to leave early. Democrats are the party of nuance on Iraq, with challengers like Patty Wetterling and incumbents like Jihad Johnnie wanting us out by year's end, with another faction wanting us on the way out in a year and other Democrats kinda undeclared.

The lone exception to this is Joe Lieberman, who's drawn the wrath of the anti-war kook fringe, with considerable amplification being provided by the Kossacks. (For more on that, check out Salena Zito's column titled "Throwing Lieberman under the bus.")

But a sharply negative nationwide referendum on the party in power, causing a national vote swing of five percentage points or more, buffeted local factors in the 1946, 1958, 1966, 1974, 1982 and 1994 midterm elections, producing losses of 26 to 56 seats.

This won't be a referendum election. It's shaping up, again, as a choice election. Mr. Rove is making it a choice election as a choice between liberal judges taking power out of the legislatures' hands; a choice between tax cuts and tax increases; a choice between winning the GWOT or Murtha's cut-and-run. That type of election doesn't bode well for Democrats because they're in the minority on each of those issues.

To be fair, Mann makes some pretty solid observations, too, like this:

What might keep a national tidal wave from developing this year?

Second, polls reveal a Democratic advantage in the level of interest in the midterm elections comparable to what the Republicans enjoyed in 1994. But it's still uncertain whether Republicans' traditionally higher turnout rates, combined with the GOP's vaunted get-out-the-vote operation, will significantly reduce or eliminate that advantage.

Doesn't that sound great? "the GOP's vaunted get-out-the-vote operation". That was unthinkable a dozen years ago but it's reality today. That's yet another piece of 'election infrastructure' that Rove devised and implemented. Furthermore, Republicans don't need to be 'jazzed' to turn out like Democrats do. We're pretty reliable in showing up at the polling places the first Tuesday of even numbered years.

It's also worth noting that Democrats were jazzed about the special election in California's CD-50. They pumped millions of dollars into the race...and got the same percentage of votes as Kerry got in 2004...and Gore got in 2000.

Third, when the president is in political peril, it is easier for the opposition party to recruit strong candidates and raise campaign money. But many analysts have noted the absence of strategic behavior on the part of the Democrats, who have failed to recruit good candidates and have allowed the Republicans to maintain a fundraising advantage.

The truth is that Democrats have fielded some second- and third-tier candidates for their races. Patty Wetterling has strong name recognition but she's a mediocre candidate. Keith Ellison is having a ton of difficulties in usually reliable CD-5.

On the other hand, the GOP has recruited some pretty strong candidates. Michele Bachmann is definitely a top-tier candidate. Ditto with Obi Sium in CD-4, former US Senator Rod Grams in CD-8 and Michael Barrett in CD-7. Diana Irey is definitely a top challenger, running against Jihad Johnnie Murtha in PA CD-12. Expect an upset there. Steve Beren is another impressive candidate, though he faces an uphill battle against Baghdad Jim McDermott. If Diana Irey and Steve Beren get enough funding, they'll win because they're superior candidates with superior messages. Click here to contribute to Diana Irey's campaign, here to contribute to Steve Beren's campaign.

I'll guarantee that quality of candidates and quality of campaigns matter, moreso today than ever before. That gives candidates like Diana Irey and Michele Bachmann a huge advantage.

Energized voters can hold their government accountable and throw the rascals out. Chances are good that, this fall, they will avail themselves of the opportunity.

If they do, is it more likely that they throw cut-and-run Democrats like John Murtha out or a hawkish Republican? That's a pretty easy choice.

---

Posted Sunday, July 16, 2006 12:48 PM

June 2006 Posts

No comments.