Democrats should shine in 2006
It’s hard to tell who’s in worse political shape right now: President Bush or Congressional Democrats. Polls show deep skepticism with Bush, but it’s not clear Democrats can take advantage.
Historically speaking, the 2006 midterm elections should be a bonanza for Democrats. Since World War II, the party out of power has picked up an average of 34 House and five Senate seats in a president’s sixth year in office. Polls indicate Bush is now presiding over an unpopular war, and that’s almost always bad for the incumbent party.
An early August Gallup poll showed that, by 54 percent to 44 percent, Americans now think it was a mistake to invade Iraq. Fifty-seven percent believe the war has made America less safe in the war on terrorism. Fifty-six percent want to withdraw some troops and 33 percent, the highest percentage yet, want full withdrawal.
Incumbent parties also tend to lose big when the public is dissatisfied with the economy. In the midst of a recession in 1958, Eisenhower’s Republicans lost 48 House and 13 Senate seats.
The United States certainly is not in a recession right now. To the contrary, as Bush pointed out after meeting with his economic advisers last week, the economy grew 3.4 percent in the second quarter of 2005 — the ninth straight quarter of growth exceeding 3 percent.
The economy has added 4 million jobs since the current recovery started in mid-2003 and, contrary to Democratic propaganda, Bush has presided over net growth during his presidency of 1.3 million jobs. Even in his first term, 350,000 new jobs were created.
But somehow Bush has been unable to make Americans think the economy is in good shape. According to an August ABC News/Washington Post poll, the public, by a 59 percent to 41 percent margin, considers the economy “not good” or “poor,” although 59 percent believe their own personal finances are “excellent” or “good.”
All this should be good news for Democrats. And there’s more. The RealClearPolitics.com average of polls on approval of Congress is just 31 percent, and Democrats enjoy an average 6-point advantage on the generic Congressional ballot question.
So, what’s wrong with Democratic prospects? First, Bush and Congressional Republicans are in power, can get things done and have lots of bully pulpits. If they can figure out how to better communicate their achievements, they can highlight their energy and transportation bills, tort reform and the Central American Free Trade Agreement.
Communications won’t improve Bush’s Iraq problem. That will depend on political and military successes that, for now, seem elusive.
The Democrats’ dilemma is this: Even if the public is fed up with the GOP and anxious to scratch a six-year itch, Congressional district gerrymandering — in which the Democrats are complicit — makes only 35 or so House races truly competitive under normal circumstances.
That’s certainly enough to deliver power to the Democrats, but it’s going to take a massive pro-Democratic wave to achieve a turnaround akin to what the Republicans accomplished in 1994.
Worse, two recent studies show that Democrats are in trouble with key groups. The liberal Democracy Corps concluded from focus groups that “a large chunk of white non-college voters, particularly in rural areas, will remain simply unreachable for Democrats.”
Democrats should be able to make gains in 2006 based simply on history. But for now, significant gains seem out of reach because they’re trying to fight something with nothing.
Morton Kondracke is executive editor of Roll Call, the newspaper of Capitol Hill.