|
 Gifts
for all occasions in the Galleria!September 24, 2006 The Multi-Level Election By Jan A. Larson The conventional wisdom in the past year or so has been that the Democrats will make significant gains in representation in both the House and Senate in November, primarily due to the public's dissatisfaction with progress in Iraq and secondarily due to high gas prices and border security issues. The problem with this thinking is that unlike "conventional wisdom," congressional and senatorial elections aren't national in scale. Each House and Senate race comes down to two (or more in some cases) individuals attempting to appeal to voters in a particular district or state. I don't believe a significant number of voters step into the booth and decide, "I don't like the way Bush is handling the war in Iraq, and so I'm going to vote for Democrat challenger Jones over Republican incumbent Smith." The decision, at least for the voter that is paying attention, is more likely to be along the lines of, "Smith voted for a bill that provide amnesty for illegals, therefore I'm going to vote for Jones." Of course, you always have the voter that stares at the ballot and says, "I've never heard of Jones. I'm voting for Smith." Given the reelection record of incumbents, well over 90% are routinely returned to Washington, it seems that the majority of voters fall into the later category and therefore, a wholesale turnover in seats seems unlikely for that reason alone. For the sake of discussion however, let's assume that the majority of voters in November fall into the first category - those that would base their voting decision in House and Senate races based on the respective candidates' alignment or non-alignment with the President's policies and the record of the current House and Senate. That is, the decision on who to vote for would be mostly separated from the two candidates themselves, but based almost entirely on party affiliation, i.e. voting based on the "conventional wisdom." If we were talking about the decision to vote against a Republican incumbent, the voter would have to decide that the Democrats' plan for winning in (or simply getting out of) Iraq is better than the President's plan. It would take a remarkable leap of faith to come to this conclusion for the simple fact that the Democrats have not articulated any plan for Iraq, never mind a plan that is better than the President's plan to stay until the Iraqis can defend themselves. A party-line vote against a GOP incumbent would also suggest that the voter would prefer higher taxes and a less robust economy than we have now. It is a virtual certainty that a Democrat controlled Congress would raise taxes. With the threat of inflation easing, unemployment at 4.7% and with a record over the past three years of strong jobs growth and the recent decline of gas prices, it seems inconceivable that significant numbers of voters would vote Democrat for economic reasons to turn over the House or Senate. Recent events, specifically the breaking up of the plot to blow up U. S. bound planes from London, the wrangling over the rights of terrorists under the Geneva Conventions, the North Korean missile launches, the Israel-Hezbollah war and the ranting of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Venezulean President Hugo Chavez before the United Nations, have shifted the primary focus of the public to terrorism and national security. Here the GOP wins again. A wildcard for the Republicans is to point out how things would change (for the worse) if the Democrats would gain control of the House and Senate. Nancy Pelosi would become third in line for the Presidency? Alcee Hastings, a former federal judge impeached and removed from the bench on charges of bribery and conspiracy, but now a Florida congressman, could be in charge of the House Intelligence Committee? My conventional wisdom says that few will choose to take that route. The Democrats cannot win by focusing on terrorism and national security. They cannot win by focusing on the economy. They can only win by focusing on Iraq, but even then, they offer no alternatives other than to "change course." Elections are won and lost on multiple levels. In November, most voters undoubtedly will make their picks based on the individuals in the respective races. That favors incumbents. If voters focus instead on the big picture, that is, what a change in control of the House and/or Senate would mean, that favors the GOP. I don't believe there will be the Democratic landslide that the "conventional wisdom" has been predicting and for that, we can all be thankful. -- Send feedback to the author. The "What is the Deal?" column will appears weekly on the Pie of Knowledge website. Guest submissions are welcome and encouraged. To submit an article to "What is the Deal?" click here. To subscribe to the "What is the Deal?" mailing list and receive early notification when a new column is available, click here. The Pie of Knowledge will never, ever divulge email addresses to any third party for any reason unless so ordered by a court of law. Contributions to the Pie of Knowledge are greatly appreciated. 
Visitors:
|
|||||||||||||
