President Bush summed it up succinctly in a post-election press conference when he said that Republicans had taken “a thumpin’” in the midterms.
After more than a decade dominating Capitol Hill, the Republicans were swept from power. Any assessment of where the GOP goes from here must begin with a realistic assessment of what the voters said on Tuesday. Exit polls have made it fairly easy to discern.
By the Numbers:
Two issues dominated this election, the war in Iraq and official corruption/ethics.
Iraq & GWOT:
Despite two election cycles since 2001, Tuesday’s results may be seen as the first, genuine post-September 11th election where voters found the voice to express nuance on national security policy, specifically Iraq and the War on Terror.
Like the elections of 2002 and 2004, last Tuesday was also a national security election. Interestingly for midterms, a majority of voters cast their votes on national as opposed to local issues. 72% of voters said that terrorism was extremely or very important to them. When asked which Party would make America safe, 59% chose the GOP.
However, recognizing the importance of terrorism as an issue did not stop voters from a candid and unambiguous assessment of the war in Iraq. 67% of voters said that Iraq was extremely or very important to their vote. 56% of voters disapproved of the war in Iraq and 80% of those who disapproved voted Democratic. By a margin of 59%-35%, voters did not believe that Iraq improved US security, and in a concrete sign of diminished patience in dealing with Iraq, by a margin of 55%-35%, voters approved withdrawing some or all of American forces from Iraq. It is a clear indication that the status quo is no longer acceptable.
Corruption:
Polling before the election missed it, but Republicans could hardly be surprised that after the scandal and high jinks that dogged the Party through 2006, voters would express disapproval of Congress and its conduct. 74% of voters said that ethics/corruption was important, and a majority of these voters went with the Democrats. 61% disapproved of the way Congress did its job and of these voters, 69% voted with the Democrats. The result is a painful verdict for a Republican Party that attained majority status in part because of the perceived corruption of the Democratic majority back in the early 90s.
New Political Contours:
The dominance of Iraq and corruption on Tuesday eroded the Republican coalition that has prevailed through three election cycles.
First, 15% of voters who had previously cast ballots for President Bush in 2004, voted for Democratic candidates. What’s more, 20% of self-identified conservatives cast ballots for Democratic candidates. A significant rebuke.
In addition, “Base-based” politics may be seeing its nadir. With the defection of 20% of Conservatives, the GOP lost self-styled Independents 57% to 39%, and moderates by a whopping 60%-38%, margins which provided the Democratic victory in many races.
Republicans lost the Latino vote, 69%-30%, a key constituency that the Party had been courting. Republicans also lost the Catholic vote, 55%-44%, a group that President Bush had won in 2004. The soccer Moms of 2000 and the security Moms of 2004 split evenly between the GOP and the Democrats, 49%-49%.
Geographically, Democrats made up significant ground, which might have interesting implications for the 2008 election. In the Midwest, Democrats bested Republicans 52%-47%. And the West may be becoming friendlier to Democrats. They beat the GOP 54%-43% in this region. Only in the South did the Republicans prevail, 53%-45%.
And, for the first time since Bill Clinton’s election, Democrats not only held the cities by wide margins, they also beat the Republicans in the suburbs (50%-48%). Additionally, they nearly tied the GOP in small towns (49%-48%) and trailed the GOP in rural areas only by three points, a very significant development.
Given the “nationalization” of the election, it would have been hard for the Republicans not to lose ground. The results offer a roadmap of where to start in attempting to rebuild a Republican majority.
The Next Congress – Fear or Fallacy:
Democratic leaders, strategists, campaign workers are all to be congratulated in their victory. Even unfavorable political settings do not automatically translate into gains for the opposition Party, and taking both houses of Congress beat the conventional wisdom up to Election Day. By comparison, consider that Richard Gephardt, running on peace and prosperity, with Bill Clinton in the White House, Bob Dole as the opposition nominee and Newt Gingrich in the Speaker’s chair could not pull of a similar feat in 1996.
But it is also important to put the Democratic victory in perspective. This was a significant election, even a consequential election, but it wasn’t an historic election as most of the hyperventilating drive-by media have been reporting. In fact, Democratic gains are slightly less than average for a presidential term in its sixth year.
Also a look at the various ballot initiatives is instructive here in getting a broader sense of the electorate.
Democrats have opposed efforts to make English the official language of the US. However, an Arizona initiative to that effect was approved 74%-26%. Democrats have also been ardent defenders of affirmative action. In Michigan, a ballot initiative voted to restrict affirmative action. And while national Democrats have been supportive of same-sex unions at a minimum, same-six marriage bans were approved by significant margins in six states. Had this been an historic election, a different outcome might have been more likely on these various ballot initiatives.
The Democratic Majority – House:
Recognizing that a few races still to be decided, Nancy Pelosi will likely assume the Speaker’s Chair having gained 28-30 seats in the House for a majority of 10-12 members (218 being the magic number). It is a majority far too small to implement some of the bolder and frankly more liberal ideas that have been proposed by the Party’s base.
Consider that 11 new Democrats were elected from places where President Bush carried both the district and the state in 2004, in some cases by significant margins. As freshmen Democrats in culturally Republican areas, these new members will be vulnerable in 2008 and will need to be careful to support moderate-conservative legislation as a result that will be agreeable to constituents back home. This count does not include the six sitting Democrats who also represent areas where President Bush won the district and the state, who face home-town political dynamics similar to the new freshmen.
Without these 17 votes from potential “Blue Dog” Democrats, Mrs. Pelosi cannot pass Party-line legislation, which will restrict what she can bring to the floor. And perhaps ironically, having targeted and beaten so many moderate Republicans, the new GOP minority will be significantly more conservative, and will have few if any members who would cross lines to support the Democrats on less that conservative legislation.
The Democratic Majority – Senate:
The same is true here where the Democrat’s will have a one seat majority. Harry Reid, the likely new Majority Leader, will have to contend with John Testor, a Montana rancher, a newly liberated Joe Lieberman, and Jim Webb, a former Republican. Assembling a majority on controversial legislation – not even factoring in Republican filibuster ability – will be difficult.
President Bush:
Lost in all the pre-election hype was the President’s veto. Republicans who were so irritated that the President used the veto only once in six years are likely to be very happy over the next two years. The narrow Democratic majorities in the House and Senate will make it virtually impossible for the Democrats override the President.
What’s Next:
Divided government poses opportunities and challenges. For instance, given the strong support for minimum wage ballot initiatives across the country, and the priority that the Democrats placed on it in the election campaign, it is likely the President will work a deal with the Democrats on this issue.
A bigger opportunity presents itself with immigration reform. Ironically, President Bush is likely to get more of what he wants from a Democratic Congress than a Republican one, though he will have to take significant fire from his own conservative troops to get the deal done.
And despite the toxic rhetoric from Democrats, there may be an opportunity to pass the reauthorization for the No Child Left Behind act.
A much longer shot opportunity presents itself with entitlement reform. Divided government, where both parties have an equal stake in the outcome, may be the only political construct that will allow the government to deal with this simmering financial problem.
Other issues will not be as easy. While the White House and congressional Republicans understand the need for progress on Iraq, and the Democrat impatience with the status quo, this is a fundamental issue to both sides and may be more difficult to bridge, particularly if the Baker Hamilton Commission doesn’t come through as hoped.
Also difficult will be the status of the warrantless wiretapping program. John Conyers, the incoming chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, has already said that the existing program is illegal and wants to make significant changes, many of which will no doubt be non-starters with the White House.
The Real Change & the Real Power:
Hobbled in the full range of policy options by a narrow majority and presidential veto power, the Democrats nevertheless do have significant authority that can make a difference over the next two years; oversight authority. Used wisely and appropriately, subpoena power and oversight activity can restore balance between the legislative and executive branches, and both Republicans and Democrats should have an interest in this.
But given the radicalization of the Democratic “netroots” and liberal grass roots activists, and their strong opinions about President Bush and the war, there will be pressure to move beyond legitimate oversight into the realm of a “witch hunt” in search of proof of the foul play that has illuminated liberal blogs for years. How the Democratic leadership chooses to proceed on this will say much about the potential for any genuine bi-partisan cooperation over the next two years and the fate of the Democratic majority in 2008.
Retrospective:
In 2006, Democrats did not so much win the election as Republicans lost it. By design or accident however, the voters rebuke to Republicans has resulted in a new, intricate and subtle balance of power that restrains each Party’s base and plays to their perceived strengths.
President Bush will remain pre-eminent in national security and foreign policy as President and Commander in Chief, but will no longer have latitude for action without provocation. He will have to compromise on Iraq to find a more rapid solution, but remains trusted in the fight against terror in general.
The Democrats will be able to see modest, incremental improvements in domestic programs and ethics, but new, large-scale spending will be curtailed by the President’s veto. While additional tax cuts and conservative judicial appointments will likely be a thing of the past, enough common ground exists on several issues to allow for progress on some pressing problems.
In sum, in setting out a governing strategy for the next two years, the voters have placed the Democrats on a leash and the Republicans on probation. They will come back in ’08 and let us know which Party did a better job in its new role. It may be galling to partisans, but its proof in an uncertain time that our democracy works.