DEMOCRATS MAJORITY IN CONGRESS
With the announcement late yesterday by the AP declaring Webb as the winner in the Virginia Senate election over GOP incumbant George Allen the Democrats now have a majority in both the House and the Senate. There are several underlieing reasons why it happened that have been discussed at great length ranging from discord with the GOP to the war. Each reason has its merits and can be traced back to facts that support them. Yet there has been little discussion as to how the Democrats actually won this election only how the GOP lost it. There is quite a bit of blame for the later but three strong reasons for the former. First the Democrats managed to take what is traditionally a localized election because it does not involve a Presidential run and nationalized the election. Second in most cases Democrats who ran and won did so by talking a conservative game. Throw into the mix the traditional loses during the sixth year of any Presidency in the Mid Terms and you have a menu for a change in the Congressional majorities.
Beginning with the last, the traditional sixth year loses - In 1958 Eisenhower was in his sixth year and Republicans lost 48 seats in the House and 13 seats in the Senate. In 1966 Johnson in what was the sixth year after the Kennedy election of 1960 had a similar loss on the Democrat side. The same happened in 1974 and to a lesser extent in 1986 when Reagan lost seats but not as many as in previous sixth year elections. Historically the losses this year are comparitavely small though this does not change the balance of power that it has brought. The one exception to this six year cycle was a slight gain in 1998 in Clinton's sixth year but the majority was still with the GOP and not the Democrats.
Nationalizing the Mid Terms - In most instances the Mid Term election because it does not involve the election of a President revolves around local issues because the majority of Governorships are in play which brings with it the State elected positions and of course all US House seats. Both run on local issues since they are seeking election on what they can achieve for the local constituency. The only national issues that usually surround a Mid Term election are the third of the US Senate seats in play yet traditionally they to because of the local flavor of the Mid Term run a more localized campaign. This year was far from that. Even in many local campaigns such as Governorships the national picture appeared. In attending a debate for the South Carolina Governors race I was surprised that many of the questions asked of the candidates covered national issues and not just SC issues. Because of the war especially Democrats managed with the help of the media to nationalize this election using negativity about the war to a war weary electorate. It became a referendum on US policy and the President even in House races which usually concentrate only on local issues. In a sixth year election which is traditionally bad news for the party occupying the White House stearing the election to a nationalized tone which is what the Democrats have been doing for the last two years gave them the political momentum needed to win the majority.
Running as conservatives - one of the key strategies that the Demcorats put together for this election was fielding a large number of conservative candidates. Every indicator that judges the moral and political feel of the country has shown that the majority either is or leans conservative. The results of many ballot issues this election also gives evidence to this. This is one reason why the GOP has been so successful in past elections and also why it was part of the downfall of this one. The GOP in the last few years has been sliding away from its conservative base which brought much of the discontent. The Democrats capitalized on both of these factors and ran conservative candidates to appeal to the majority of voters. A large number of the Democrat candidates ran on traditional conservative issues and many even labeled themselves by being pro-life, pro-gun and fiscally conservative. Whether this was a ruse to win the election remains to be seen. As a conservative I tend to think that it was. The traditional liberal and left leaning voter blocks have and will always vote for Democrats but in past elections conservatives and voters who lean conservative have voted for the GOP regardless of party affiliation. This tactic may come back to haunt Democrats in the next two years. The leadership of the party both at the DNC and in Congress is decidedly liberal. Nancy Pelosi who will lead the House as Speaker, Herry Reid who will be the Senate Majority Leader and Howard Dean the DNC Chairman are obvious in their liberalism and state as such whenever possible not by necessarily using the word but in their policy statements and the political atmosphere that they create. Voters who elected Democrats because of the conservative platform that they ran during the election expect their representative to vote on legislation following that platform. The GOP has suffered the consequences of not adhearing to this and now find themselves in the minority. Democrats who are now in the majority leadership believe that they have won the election because of a mandate for their liberal policies and not from a conservative backlash to the GOP. As such as they have already indicated their liberal agenda will be pushed. Pelosi stated yesterday to the President that in the first 100 hours they will raise the minimum wage and look at the repealing of tax cuts which are part of a liberal platform. The conservative Democrats will be expected to vote with the majority on these type of issues which will anger the voters who placed them in office. The backlash that the GOP suffered will hit the Dems quickly. The GOP leadership did not realize this until it was too late and as such that leadership will change . The Democrats will also not understand this especially since they believe they have a mandate for their agenda.
The next two years will be interesting to watch with Democrats in power. Either we will have a shift in policy matching the liberal agenda or grid lock because of a GOP President and Democrat House and only a slight majority in the Senate. I think there will be a combination of both with more of the latter. We shall see.
Ken Taylor
Beginning with the last, the traditional sixth year loses - In 1958 Eisenhower was in his sixth year and Republicans lost 48 seats in the House and 13 seats in the Senate. In 1966 Johnson in what was the sixth year after the Kennedy election of 1960 had a similar loss on the Democrat side. The same happened in 1974 and to a lesser extent in 1986 when Reagan lost seats but not as many as in previous sixth year elections. Historically the losses this year are comparitavely small though this does not change the balance of power that it has brought. The one exception to this six year cycle was a slight gain in 1998 in Clinton's sixth year but the majority was still with the GOP and not the Democrats.
Nationalizing the Mid Terms - In most instances the Mid Term election because it does not involve the election of a President revolves around local issues because the majority of Governorships are in play which brings with it the State elected positions and of course all US House seats. Both run on local issues since they are seeking election on what they can achieve for the local constituency. The only national issues that usually surround a Mid Term election are the third of the US Senate seats in play yet traditionally they to because of the local flavor of the Mid Term run a more localized campaign. This year was far from that. Even in many local campaigns such as Governorships the national picture appeared. In attending a debate for the South Carolina Governors race I was surprised that many of the questions asked of the candidates covered national issues and not just SC issues. Because of the war especially Democrats managed with the help of the media to nationalize this election using negativity about the war to a war weary electorate. It became a referendum on US policy and the President even in House races which usually concentrate only on local issues. In a sixth year election which is traditionally bad news for the party occupying the White House stearing the election to a nationalized tone which is what the Democrats have been doing for the last two years gave them the political momentum needed to win the majority.
Running as conservatives - one of the key strategies that the Demcorats put together for this election was fielding a large number of conservative candidates. Every indicator that judges the moral and political feel of the country has shown that the majority either is or leans conservative. The results of many ballot issues this election also gives evidence to this. This is one reason why the GOP has been so successful in past elections and also why it was part of the downfall of this one. The GOP in the last few years has been sliding away from its conservative base which brought much of the discontent. The Democrats capitalized on both of these factors and ran conservative candidates to appeal to the majority of voters. A large number of the Democrat candidates ran on traditional conservative issues and many even labeled themselves by being pro-life, pro-gun and fiscally conservative. Whether this was a ruse to win the election remains to be seen. As a conservative I tend to think that it was. The traditional liberal and left leaning voter blocks have and will always vote for Democrats but in past elections conservatives and voters who lean conservative have voted for the GOP regardless of party affiliation. This tactic may come back to haunt Democrats in the next two years. The leadership of the party both at the DNC and in Congress is decidedly liberal. Nancy Pelosi who will lead the House as Speaker, Herry Reid who will be the Senate Majority Leader and Howard Dean the DNC Chairman are obvious in their liberalism and state as such whenever possible not by necessarily using the word but in their policy statements and the political atmosphere that they create. Voters who elected Democrats because of the conservative platform that they ran during the election expect their representative to vote on legislation following that platform. The GOP has suffered the consequences of not adhearing to this and now find themselves in the minority. Democrats who are now in the majority leadership believe that they have won the election because of a mandate for their liberal policies and not from a conservative backlash to the GOP. As such as they have already indicated their liberal agenda will be pushed. Pelosi stated yesterday to the President that in the first 100 hours they will raise the minimum wage and look at the repealing of tax cuts which are part of a liberal platform. The conservative Democrats will be expected to vote with the majority on these type of issues which will anger the voters who placed them in office. The backlash that the GOP suffered will hit the Dems quickly. The GOP leadership did not realize this until it was too late and as such that leadership will change . The Democrats will also not understand this especially since they believe they have a mandate for their agenda.
The next two years will be interesting to watch with Democrats in power. Either we will have a shift in policy matching the liberal agenda or grid lock because of a GOP President and Democrat House and only a slight majority in the Senate. I think there will be a combination of both with more of the latter. We shall see.
Ken Taylor
posted by The Liberal Lie The Conservative Truth | 9:18 AM
12 Comments:
America was sick of the corruption and exercised their voting rights to "sweep out the bums."
Now Dems will have a chance. We'll see if they deliver.
However, divided government that suffers from gridlock can be better than one-party rule that results in exploding government spending, deficits, and the national debt (which is what we have had over the last 6 years). At least with gridlock there is no new spending.
By the way Ken, thanks for the congrats note. As I said on my blog, you are a bigger person than many. Looking forward to continuing our long-running conversations.
"We shall see." Indeed we shall, Ken. I don't see how Bush can work with the likes of Pelosi and Dean. I truly can't even imagine it. It should be an interesting two years.
"Bums" like William Jefferson (cash in the freezer) and Alcee Hastings (impeached as a judge by the Senate for bribery) are still in office. Now, Pelousy wants to elevate a known felon to the position as chairman of the House Intelligence Committee.
So much for sweeping out the bums.
Ken: If you come across a link to Graham's statement, drop me a line. It's exactly the actions of folks like Graham who turned off the conservative base.
Rob, I'll give you that one,with grid lock there is no spending or anything else for that matter.
Gayle,That is why I think that there will be a good bit of grid lock, but again we shall see.
Mike, Good point ! I'll see if I can find the Graham quote. I heard it on the radio. But you are right his form of politics and abandonment of conservatism it why the GOP is out!
The Democrats have had years now to criticize and condemn without managing to contribute one single proposal for any solutions -- an enviable position, to be sure.
Now they have the majority in both the House and Senate, they are at the helm, and the proverbial shoe is on the other foot. It's the left's turn in the barrel.
Unlike the Republican majority we've had the last 12 years, I'm sure the Democrats will take total advantage of their position.
If employment falls off, if we endure a successful terrorist attack on our soil, if we leave Iraq and a post Vietnam style bloodbath ensues there ... there will be almost no attachable blame for the Republican party, it will be 100% the "fault" of the Democrats for changing what has worked. Any blood resulting from alterations to the Patriot Act will be as much on the hands of every Democrat and liberal in America as on the hands of the terrorists themselves.
I say "almost" because had our elected Republican officials been doing what we "hired" them to do, they wouldn't have gotten their heads handed to them on Tuesday.
As for the gridlock theory, I'm not as confident as some of my fellow conservatives: But then, many choose to ignore the Bush involvement in what is intended to be a North American Union -- while Bush has worked around Congress in this, knowing that even the most complacent Republican wouldn't stand still for sacrificing US sovereignty, the same cannot be said for the Dems -- they support the amnesty, for example, that W has been pushing, open borders and believe that the "international community" should have a say in how we protect our own country.
The next couple of years should prove very interesting.
Agreed Seth, when things fall off as they will the country will see the result of liberal leadership. They will try to blame it on Bush but the truth will be obvious. Now the GOP needs to revamp with good conservative leaders and stick to the core that they let slip away.
Relax Seth. If Bush doesn't like a proposed new law he can veto it. As for national security, he is still the CIC. Congress doesn't wage wars, they just provide oversight on behalf of the people.
The bottom line is this, the reason that Republicans were voted out is because they did not perform. If Dems don't perform the people will speak and vote them out.
Now that's comman sense, Rob.
In the Clinton years when I was a Democrat, I actually voted for gridlock (before I voted against it, of course!)
The gridlock saved alot of money and felt good not having laws passed against everything for a few weeks.
I lived ten months in Italy. For that whole time there was no government in Rome. It was nice. Not sure the Italians noticed any change when the government came back, though. But, hey, the trains ran on time, what more could one want?!
Flip flopper!
Me, too!
I was a pretty liberal-minded Democrat until Jimmuh Cahtuh came along and turned me into a conservative.
My first sensible Presidential vote ever was for the great Ronald Reagan.
Seth, if there is a terrorist attack, that blood will be on the hands of the democrats? So does that mean the Republicans are to blame for 9/11 or was that Clintons fault?
Post a Comment
<< Home