Post by Freehold Resident on Oct 27, 2006 14:41:07 GMT -5
Worth Reading Before Voting....
The CQPolitics Forum:
What's the Source of the GOP's Woes?
By Bob Benenson | 3:34 PM; Oct. 26, 2006 |
Last Friday, CQPolitics.com asked its Board of Advisers the following:
Politics watchers who have grown used to the strong campaign-closing skills of the national Republican Party political organization have watched in amazement as a tough campaign year has gone from bad to worse for the GOP in October.
Barring a “game-changing” message generated by party leaders and candidates, or a news development that is extremely positive for the Republicans, it appears Democratic gains are certain on Election Day — and a Democratic takeover of the House and possibly the Senate a much stronger prospect that it appeared even a few weeks ago.
Should the latter scenario emerge, will it be the result of an accumulation of things that have gone wrong for the GOP over the past two years? Or are there one or two issues — perhaps Iraq, ethics scandals, legislative gridlock in Congress or others — that dominate in creating this extremely difficult electoral environment for the party?
Today, six professional political analysts — David P. Rebovich, Lawrence Jacobs, Bruce E. Cain, Charles S. Bullock III, Aubrey Jewett and Susan A. MacManus — provide their views.
David P. Rebovich: If the Republicans lose their majorities in the House or the Senate or both, it will be because some of the administration’s and Congress’ policies and inaction have undercut their party’s historic strengths and core values.
Liberals will never love Republicans, and moderates will always be wary of the GOP’s views on social issues. But both would have to admit that the Republicans have long been regarded as more capable than the Democrats on national security issues and on managing the economy. And, if traditional values are a priority for you, the GOP would beat out the Democrats there, too.
But not this fall. The problems in Iraq and the intransigence of the president, the new threat posed by North Korea, economic uncertainty, budget deficits, the Foley scandal [referring to the inappropriate behavior toward congressional pages of resigned Florida Republican Rep. Mark Foley], and the administration’s surprisingly accommodating views on illegal immigration have combined to raise serious questions about why the Republicans deserve to continue to control Congress along with the White House.
Moderates who previously may have been willing to give Republicans a pass and some votes because of the party’s good performance on national security and the economy are not so supportive this fall.
Democrats previously discouraged and marginalized because of some too-liberal social views are now energized and mobilizing folks who simply want to check the Republicans.
And loyal Republicans, especially conservatives, are embarrassed and not enthusiastic about the upcoming elections. That’s because their party’s leaders have shot themselves in the foot not once, but several times.
David P. Rebovich, Ph.D., is the managing director of the Rider University Institute for New Jersey Politics in Lawrenceville, N.J.. He is a columnist for PoliticsNJ.com and New Jersey Lawyer, and a contributor to Campaigns and Elections magazine.
Lawrence Jacobs: The Republican woes stem from 3 factors.
First, the blowback from its past policies. This is a common problem for second-term presidencies, and one reason that midterm elections during the second term often go badly for the incumbent’s party. The big blowback for the Republicans in 2006 is Iraq.
Second, Ronald Reagan’s coalition of economic and social conservatives is fraying as each partner sees itself as jilted. The Democratic Party split apart after its Great Society run in the 1960s as economic and social liberals collided and the Vietnam War drained the money need to fund LBJ’s “butter.” The parallels between 2006 and the 1966 midterm elections are striking — bitter war and intraparty battles.
Third, the [Karl] Rove strategy of playing to the [Republican] base always rested on the unstated assumption that enough independent voters would side with the Republicans.
Two problems are now emerging:
(1) The highly visible catering to the base has not lined up with what independents were looking for. For a while, it didn’t seem to matter. Now it does. So, the big story in 2006 is the Flight of the Independent Voter.
(2) The apparent drowsiness of GOP voters makes independents more important to make up for under-turnout of Reps. The result is that GOP candidates are searching for ways to re-present themselves to independent voters.
The last 2 weeks of the campaign is a difficult period to reinvent your identity. And, efforts to play up independence from the President and the Republican Party feeds into the disaffection of the GOP base.
Prediction: A slew of books and articles on the shortcomings of Rovism are about to hit.
Lawrence Jacobs is Mondale Chair at the University of Minnesota’s Humphrey Institute and Department of Political Science.
Bruce E. Cain: If the election were only about [convicted Washington influence-peddler Jack] Abramoff, Foley, the failure to produce an immigration bill and the like, the GOP would be facing losses, but it would probably not have to worry about losing control of either the House or Senate.
The congressional majority has tied itself closely to this president, loyally passing his agenda. When the president was doing well, they flourished, and now that he is floundering, so are they.
The polls are pretty clear about what is on people’s minds, and the Democratic strategy of linking Republican incumbents with the president says all that we need to know about what this election is about.
The president lost most of the Democrats in 2004 over the rationale of the war and the failure to find WMD. He lost the rest of the Democrats, independents and an increasing number of Republicans in 2005 over competence: the failure to deliver on his Iraq promises, which then made every other administrative failure (Katrina, [the failed Supreme Court nomination of Harriet Miers] etc.) more salient.
Had the rebuilding of Iraq gone well, the accumulation of other mistakes would have mattered less, or been dismissed because the president was focused on the more important task of democracy building.
Bruce E. Cain is the director of the University of California Washington Center and longtime director of the Institute of Governmental Studies at University of California, Berkeley.
Charles S. Bullock III: Timing compounds the challenge facing the GOP. Early voting and absentee voting is already well under way. Since voters like to cast ballots at their convenience rather than queuing up on a specific date, the size of the electorate that could be moved even by the most creative message is shrinking with each passing day.
While many factors have contributed to the situation in which the GOP finds itself, the most immediate causes are the recent setbacks in Iraq and the Foley scandal. October’s high casualty figures coupled with the release of the [Bob] Woodward book [criticizing Bush on Iraq] feed discontent with the war effort.
This news, along with the finger-pointing among GOP leaders as they seek to avoid responsibility for Foley’s longevity in the House, have drowned out the president’s security-from-terrorism message.
Charles S. Bullock III is the Richard Russell Professor of Political Science and Josiah Meigs Distinguished Teaching Professor at the University of Georgia.
Aubrey Jewett: Ultimately the swing if it occurs (and it certainly appears likely right now) is a result of the big issues: Iraq and to a lesser but still important degree the scandals.
Republicans could survive if they had done little and we were at peace with a reasonably strong economy — in the absence of the war, the economy would likely be a centerpiece of the debate this year and the Republicans would most likely prevail in that debate with a majority of voters.
But Iraq hangs like a cloud of smoke over everything else. And while Republicans looked for a while like they might refocus voter attention on terrorism (and tying Iraq to the broader war on terror) the Foley scandal has knocked them off of message.
Aubrey Jewett is a political science professor at the University of Central Florida who specializes in American and Florida politics. He is a co-founder and board member of the Lou Frey Institute of Politics and Government at UCF, and served as a 2003-2004 American Political Science Association Congressional Fellow in Washington, D.C.
Susan A. MacManus: All available signs point to a big win for Democrats on Nov. 7. But as we learned in 2004, few predictor models can accurately gauge turnout — and that was a presidential election. Turnout in midterms typically plunges. The questions this year, as always, are “but by how much?” and “among whom?”
Polls tell us that Democrats are angrier and more likely to turn out than Republicans. (Actually, the poll question wording focuses more on enthusiasm about voting than about the likelihood of turning out). It is assumed that Republican turnout will be lighter and that many will cross over and vote for Democratic candidates.
While this may be true, there are enough signs that Republicans who do plan to vote are just as angry as Democrats to make one a bit wary of these assumptions.
Nationally, Democrats are angry first and foremost with President George W. Bush sitting in the White House, followed by the War in Iraq, then corruption.
But Republicans are increasingly angry over their entire party being cast as “predators” due to the sins of former U.S. Rep. Mark Foley. They are also moved somewhat by the thought of Nancy Pelosi and other liberals in high leadership posts.
For GOPers who may cross over to vote for Democrats or just take a pass and not vote in a congressional race at all, they are most disgusted with the failure of Congress to address immigration and to control spending. The question is how many of these voters will really stray from their party when it comes right down to casting a ballot.
The most interesting unknown this election season is turnout among independent voters who tend to be young and tend not to vote in midterm elections. Yet to be discerned is the extent to which this year’s record negativity in ads and media coverage will prompt them to turn their backs on both parties and leave the election to the ardent partisans on both sides of the aisle.
Susan A. MacManus is Distinguished University Professor of Government and International Affairs at University of South Florida and political analyst for NBC affiliate WFLA-TV in Tampa.
The CQPolitics Forum:
What's the Source of the GOP's Woes?
By Bob Benenson | 3:34 PM; Oct. 26, 2006 |
Last Friday, CQPolitics.com asked its Board of Advisers the following:
Politics watchers who have grown used to the strong campaign-closing skills of the national Republican Party political organization have watched in amazement as a tough campaign year has gone from bad to worse for the GOP in October.
Barring a “game-changing” message generated by party leaders and candidates, or a news development that is extremely positive for the Republicans, it appears Democratic gains are certain on Election Day — and a Democratic takeover of the House and possibly the Senate a much stronger prospect that it appeared even a few weeks ago.
Should the latter scenario emerge, will it be the result of an accumulation of things that have gone wrong for the GOP over the past two years? Or are there one or two issues — perhaps Iraq, ethics scandals, legislative gridlock in Congress or others — that dominate in creating this extremely difficult electoral environment for the party?
Today, six professional political analysts — David P. Rebovich, Lawrence Jacobs, Bruce E. Cain, Charles S. Bullock III, Aubrey Jewett and Susan A. MacManus — provide their views.
David P. Rebovich: If the Republicans lose their majorities in the House or the Senate or both, it will be because some of the administration’s and Congress’ policies and inaction have undercut their party’s historic strengths and core values.
Liberals will never love Republicans, and moderates will always be wary of the GOP’s views on social issues. But both would have to admit that the Republicans have long been regarded as more capable than the Democrats on national security issues and on managing the economy. And, if traditional values are a priority for you, the GOP would beat out the Democrats there, too.
But not this fall. The problems in Iraq and the intransigence of the president, the new threat posed by North Korea, economic uncertainty, budget deficits, the Foley scandal [referring to the inappropriate behavior toward congressional pages of resigned Florida Republican Rep. Mark Foley], and the administration’s surprisingly accommodating views on illegal immigration have combined to raise serious questions about why the Republicans deserve to continue to control Congress along with the White House.
Moderates who previously may have been willing to give Republicans a pass and some votes because of the party’s good performance on national security and the economy are not so supportive this fall.
Democrats previously discouraged and marginalized because of some too-liberal social views are now energized and mobilizing folks who simply want to check the Republicans.
And loyal Republicans, especially conservatives, are embarrassed and not enthusiastic about the upcoming elections. That’s because their party’s leaders have shot themselves in the foot not once, but several times.
David P. Rebovich, Ph.D., is the managing director of the Rider University Institute for New Jersey Politics in Lawrenceville, N.J.. He is a columnist for PoliticsNJ.com and New Jersey Lawyer, and a contributor to Campaigns and Elections magazine.
Lawrence Jacobs: The Republican woes stem from 3 factors.
First, the blowback from its past policies. This is a common problem for second-term presidencies, and one reason that midterm elections during the second term often go badly for the incumbent’s party. The big blowback for the Republicans in 2006 is Iraq.
Second, Ronald Reagan’s coalition of economic and social conservatives is fraying as each partner sees itself as jilted. The Democratic Party split apart after its Great Society run in the 1960s as economic and social liberals collided and the Vietnam War drained the money need to fund LBJ’s “butter.” The parallels between 2006 and the 1966 midterm elections are striking — bitter war and intraparty battles.
Third, the [Karl] Rove strategy of playing to the [Republican] base always rested on the unstated assumption that enough independent voters would side with the Republicans.
Two problems are now emerging:
(1) The highly visible catering to the base has not lined up with what independents were looking for. For a while, it didn’t seem to matter. Now it does. So, the big story in 2006 is the Flight of the Independent Voter.
(2) The apparent drowsiness of GOP voters makes independents more important to make up for under-turnout of Reps. The result is that GOP candidates are searching for ways to re-present themselves to independent voters.
The last 2 weeks of the campaign is a difficult period to reinvent your identity. And, efforts to play up independence from the President and the Republican Party feeds into the disaffection of the GOP base.
Prediction: A slew of books and articles on the shortcomings of Rovism are about to hit.
Lawrence Jacobs is Mondale Chair at the University of Minnesota’s Humphrey Institute and Department of Political Science.
Bruce E. Cain: If the election were only about [convicted Washington influence-peddler Jack] Abramoff, Foley, the failure to produce an immigration bill and the like, the GOP would be facing losses, but it would probably not have to worry about losing control of either the House or Senate.
The congressional majority has tied itself closely to this president, loyally passing his agenda. When the president was doing well, they flourished, and now that he is floundering, so are they.
The polls are pretty clear about what is on people’s minds, and the Democratic strategy of linking Republican incumbents with the president says all that we need to know about what this election is about.
The president lost most of the Democrats in 2004 over the rationale of the war and the failure to find WMD. He lost the rest of the Democrats, independents and an increasing number of Republicans in 2005 over competence: the failure to deliver on his Iraq promises, which then made every other administrative failure (Katrina, [the failed Supreme Court nomination of Harriet Miers] etc.) more salient.
Had the rebuilding of Iraq gone well, the accumulation of other mistakes would have mattered less, or been dismissed because the president was focused on the more important task of democracy building.
Bruce E. Cain is the director of the University of California Washington Center and longtime director of the Institute of Governmental Studies at University of California, Berkeley.
Charles S. Bullock III: Timing compounds the challenge facing the GOP. Early voting and absentee voting is already well under way. Since voters like to cast ballots at their convenience rather than queuing up on a specific date, the size of the electorate that could be moved even by the most creative message is shrinking with each passing day.
While many factors have contributed to the situation in which the GOP finds itself, the most immediate causes are the recent setbacks in Iraq and the Foley scandal. October’s high casualty figures coupled with the release of the [Bob] Woodward book [criticizing Bush on Iraq] feed discontent with the war effort.
This news, along with the finger-pointing among GOP leaders as they seek to avoid responsibility for Foley’s longevity in the House, have drowned out the president’s security-from-terrorism message.
Charles S. Bullock III is the Richard Russell Professor of Political Science and Josiah Meigs Distinguished Teaching Professor at the University of Georgia.
Aubrey Jewett: Ultimately the swing if it occurs (and it certainly appears likely right now) is a result of the big issues: Iraq and to a lesser but still important degree the scandals.
Republicans could survive if they had done little and we were at peace with a reasonably strong economy — in the absence of the war, the economy would likely be a centerpiece of the debate this year and the Republicans would most likely prevail in that debate with a majority of voters.
But Iraq hangs like a cloud of smoke over everything else. And while Republicans looked for a while like they might refocus voter attention on terrorism (and tying Iraq to the broader war on terror) the Foley scandal has knocked them off of message.
Aubrey Jewett is a political science professor at the University of Central Florida who specializes in American and Florida politics. He is a co-founder and board member of the Lou Frey Institute of Politics and Government at UCF, and served as a 2003-2004 American Political Science Association Congressional Fellow in Washington, D.C.
Susan A. MacManus: All available signs point to a big win for Democrats on Nov. 7. But as we learned in 2004, few predictor models can accurately gauge turnout — and that was a presidential election. Turnout in midterms typically plunges. The questions this year, as always, are “but by how much?” and “among whom?”
Polls tell us that Democrats are angrier and more likely to turn out than Republicans. (Actually, the poll question wording focuses more on enthusiasm about voting than about the likelihood of turning out). It is assumed that Republican turnout will be lighter and that many will cross over and vote for Democratic candidates.
While this may be true, there are enough signs that Republicans who do plan to vote are just as angry as Democrats to make one a bit wary of these assumptions.
Nationally, Democrats are angry first and foremost with President George W. Bush sitting in the White House, followed by the War in Iraq, then corruption.
But Republicans are increasingly angry over their entire party being cast as “predators” due to the sins of former U.S. Rep. Mark Foley. They are also moved somewhat by the thought of Nancy Pelosi and other liberals in high leadership posts.
For GOPers who may cross over to vote for Democrats or just take a pass and not vote in a congressional race at all, they are most disgusted with the failure of Congress to address immigration and to control spending. The question is how many of these voters will really stray from their party when it comes right down to casting a ballot.
The most interesting unknown this election season is turnout among independent voters who tend to be young and tend not to vote in midterm elections. Yet to be discerned is the extent to which this year’s record negativity in ads and media coverage will prompt them to turn their backs on both parties and leave the election to the ardent partisans on both sides of the aisle.
Susan A. MacManus is Distinguished University Professor of Government and International Affairs at University of South Florida and political analyst for NBC affiliate WFLA-TV in Tampa.