GOP Wins If Election Held Today

Newsmax.com ^ | 9/05/06 | Ronald Kessler

[harpu]

WASHINGTON -- If congressional elections were held today, Republicans would hold their majority in the House and Senate, Republican National Committee Chairman Ken Mehlman said in an interview.

Mehlman bases that conclusion on a recent meeting with his regional political directors, on private polling, and on analyses of individual races.

Mehlman conceded that the House is in a "competitive situation." In the House, 35 to 40 seats are in play, he said. In the Senate, 12 or 13 seats could change hands. To tilt the balance, Democrats would have to pick up six seats in the Senate and 15 seats in the House.

Mehlman said, "I believe that the combination of the relatively narrow playing field, the relatively strong financial position our folks are in and the national party is in, the good turnout operation that we have, the motivation of our base, and the lack of motivation of their base as indicated by turnout in a number of recent Democrat primaries," will do the trick.

NewsMax.com articles on Aug. 28 about Karl Rove and on June 12 about Mehlman's Voter Vault detailed the GOP's voter mobilization efforts.

While the public polls indicate that Democrats have an advantage over Republicans, "There's not been a single primary this year where there's been a big increase in their motivation," Mehlman said. "Add all that together and what you say is, we're in a very challenging environment, but I believe that if the election were run today, we would not lose the House or the Senate. That's not a line, that's the honest truth."

Mehlman said the Democrats' biggest problem is the relative lack of open seats and the fact that so many of those open seats are in pro-Bush districts.

"I would argue that this is an anti-incumbent year," Mehlman said. "But if you assume it's an anti-Republican year, the places where they are most susceptible to anti-Republican wins are open seats because there, the Republican congressman doesn't exist."

Candidates like Rep. Nancy L. Johnson, R-Conn.; Rep. Chris Shays, R-Conn.; Rep. Jim Gerlach, R-Penn.; and Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Penn. have "independent brand equity, separate and apart from being Republicans," Mehlman said.

"The year 1994 was the greatest year we had in a hundred years, but we only beat two Democrat incumbents," Mehlman said. "Other than that, it was open seats where we picked up all those seats for the Senate in '94. And the reason was that it's very hard to beat an incumbent who has independent equity separate from the party."

Despite the spin of Washington reporters, Mehlman said, President Bush, first lady Laura Bush, and Vice President Dick Cheney are in big demand by congressional candidates.

"The president has done a historic number of events for these candidates," Mehlman said. "On the ground, what we're finding is there are more requests than we can possibly fill, and he's [Bush] doing events at a level that we haven't seen since 2002."

Laura Bush alone has brought in $10.7 million for Republicans.

Asked about Howard Dean's comments predicting defeat in Iraq, Mehlman said, "I think Chairman Dean is a good spokesman for where his party is today. I think he is a very good chairman of the party of [Ned] Lamont," the Democratic candidate for Senate in Connecticut. "They say that Lamont is the future of the Democratic Party. I agree with them. So does Howard Dean."

Asked if he thinks Democrats who have called for an immediate pullout from Iraq have visualized what would happen and don't care about the long-term consequences, Mehlman said he would not ascribe bad motives to them.

"I think that they care about the country, and they want the best for their country, too," the RNC chairman said. "But you have to look at this in the totality. The totality is, these are the same people who wanted to kill the Patriot Act, the same people that are against the NSA surveillance program, the same people that want to curb the interrogations of the enemy, the same people that have been against missile defense."

The Democrats claim going into Iraq was a divergence from the war on terror. But Osama bin Laden and his deputy Ayman al-Zawahiri don't see it that way, Mehlman said.

"They recognize it as a central front in the war on terror, and they said their goal is to use it to establish an Afghanistan sitting in between Iran and Syria, on the second largest oil reserves," Mehlman said. "They understand it would send the same message that was sent in Mogadishu and Beirut," where American forces withdrew after being attacked. "So while Democrats may be confused about Iraq's centrality to the war on terror, the enemy's not; and America's leaders should not be."

Mehlman said the enemy is not a country like Nazi Germany was, but an ideological movement empowered by technology.

"So on their point that Iraq was not responsible for 9/11, Nazi Germany was not responsible for Pearl Harbor; but President Roosevelt was smart enough to understand that we faced then an ideological enemy that was united by a common purpose of defeating freedom," Mehlman said. "And so if you believe that, then waiting for Germany to attack us wasn't smart. Instead, you wanted to take on the enemy on your terms, and your timetable, in their space. That's what we did in Iraq."

Mehlman said the question of why Democrats are opposed to measures to hunt down terrorists, to continued military support of Iraq, and to efforts to protect the country from a missile attack is not what matters.

"What matters is the effect of their policies," Mehlman said. "They would create a weaker America at a time when we're at war," he said. "Those issues will be absolutely critical in the November elections."

[Clintonfatigued]

This is a hopeful posting. Hope it's prophetic!

[musicman]

Very interesting post, harpu. All I have seen on the TV news all day is how the dems are gonna "steamroll" into majority status in both the House, and the Senate.

IMHO, it is WAY past time to take the gloves off for the RNC.

BTTT !!

[Names Ash Housewares]

My prediction.

Republicans lose a few seats but hold control

MSM screams it is a huge democrat victory none the less.

Moonbats scream election fraud.

Same ol same old.

We are seeing the same pattern before an election as always of the MSM cheerleading for the democrats.

[Bosco]

Economy = Very good. Low unemployment, interest rates.

Gas prices = down across the country.

WWIII = U.S. deaths down in Iraq, more bad guys being caught.

Immigration... 3 out of 4 ain't bad.

[paudio]

I found this link on CrossTab, showing some people's prediction on late August 2002, which includes Iowa Political Market and Cook analyses:

http://www.myelectionanalysis.com/?p=1418#comments

[srmorton]

Thanks for posting this. I have heard so many Dems and pundits compare this year to 1994. It was very instructive to find that only two incumbent Democrats were beaten that year, even though the public reaction to Hillarycare and the Contract with America had a way of nationalizing the election in 1994. It shows the power of incumbency and I hope and pray that this is not the year that we have a "power failure".

[WhiteGuy]

WASHINGTON -- If congressional elections were held today, Republicans would hold their majority in the House and Senate, Republican National Committee Chairman Ken Mehlman said in an interview.

See - all the doom and gloomers are getting their panties in a bunch for nothing.

Go ahead vote for someone with priciple or stay home, it doesn't matter.

Acording to kem mehlman.............

[balch3]

Whoo Hoo!

[Cacique]

"So on their point that Iraq was not responsible for 9/11, Nazi Germany was not responsible for Pearl Harbor; but President Roosevelt was smart enough to understand that we faced then an ideological enemy that was united by a common purpose of defeating freedom," Mehlman said. "And so if you believe that, then waiting for Germany to attack us wasn't smart. Instead, you wanted to take on the enemy on your terms, and your timetable, in their space. That's what we did in Iraq."

The only problem with the analogy is that neither Roosevelt nor congress declared war on Germany, only on Japan. It was Hitler's master stroke of idiocy that he declared war on the U.S. and therefore gave us the excuse to enter the war in the European theater. Had he not done so, the pressure on Congress and the government to concentrate solely on Japan might have changed the course of history.

[KoRn]

"This is a hopeful posting. Hope it's prophetic!"

The interview is of the chairman of the RNC for crying out loud. What would you expect him to say? lol

[Barnyard]

Do not be suprised if the GOP gains in both houses. This is a typical case of wishful thinking on the part of the Dems and the Drive By Media.

These tactics no longer work as witnessed by the incorrect reads of most of the public opinion polls in 2000, 2002 and 2004.

[KoRn]

"Republicans lose a few seats but hold control "

That's what I expect to happen. The liberal momentum is way over hyped.

[okie01]

It shows the power of incumbency...

Which is even stronger now than in 1994 -- because of a.) re-districting and b.) the McCain-Feingold Incumbency Protection & Media Empowerment Act of 2002.

[quantim]

Dead reckoning, nothing one can add.

History would suggest GOP cremation at this point.

The very second these lame-duck mid-term elections are over for the mush in the middle, the battle for '08 begins.

Now that is going to be fun.

'Run, Hillary, run.'

[Sooth2222]

The appropriate analogy might be: "June 5, 1942: The United States of America declares war on Bulgaria, Hungary and Romania" but I doubt that 99% of the Washington press corps even knows that Congress declared war on Bulgaria, Hungary and Romania in 1942. That's an event so esoteric that Newt Gingrich wouldn't use it.

Hitler saving everyone the trouble by declaring War on the US has to be the dumbest of a host of dumb moves on his part. I thought I read that he did so hoping that Japan would then declare War on the Soviets, relieving pressure on his Eastern Front. Why he might have thought that was going to happen without an agreement with Japan was anyone's guess.

[okstate]

Thank you for pointing that out. I have seen many hundreds of discussions of the "Democratic wave" this year but none of them mention how strong incumbency is these days. In decades past, it was NORMAL for elections to shift the House by 20 or 30 seats, but since 1994, 10 seats is a massive shift and 3, 4, or 5 is fairly normal.

I just don't see the 20 seat change that many pundits are predicting.

[therut]

I really hope we hold on to the house. I could not stand JOhn Conyers as head of the Judiciary committee. He would take every firearm I have and purposely destroy them if he could.

[Galactic Overlord-In-Chief]

They seem to be throwing in more veteran Republicans to keep inching that number of competitive seats up, like Steve Chabot, Deborah Pryce, Nancy Johnson, and J.D. Hayworth. For people who are so convinced Democrats have so many seats to chose from, they're not releasing a lot of polling data to confirm it.

Also, if Mehlman is able to deploy that "Voter Vault" of his to good effect, that alone should fish some GOP seats out of trouble. Typically, incumbents lose by narrow margins. In the bad GOP year of 1986, many Senate Republicans that lost did so by one or two percentage points.

[Christian4Bush]

bttt

[Christian4Bush]

"So on their point that Iraq was not responsible for 9/11, Nazi Germany was not responsible for Pearl Harbor; but President Roosevelt was smart enough to understand that we faced then an ideological enemy that was united by a common purpose of defeating freedom," Mehlman said. "And so if you believe that, then waiting for Germany to attack us wasn't smart. Instead, you wanted to take on the enemy on your terms, and your timetable, in their space. That's what we did in Iraq."

BUMP

[Cobra64]

All I have seen on the TV news all day is how the dems are gonna "steamroll" into majority status in both the House, and the Senate.

That's good. Overconfidence breeds complacency.

[Cobra64]

IMHO, it is WAY past time to take the gloves off for the RNC.

I agree. But we won't.

[SquirrelKing]

Well. I feel better. Think I'll go to bed now.

[BenLurkin]

bttt

[Brimack34]

And the TV News and papers will do their part to elect Rats.

[zbigreddogz]

I've been saying for a while: We'll lose 2-4 in the Senate and 7-12 in the house.

Is that good news? No, but it's not catastrophic either.

If you want to see why we'll only lose that many, read the article by frm. Rep. Martin Frost in which he says the D's will gain 25 seats.

He then goes seat by seat and says why they will win. After reading his article, I became convinced that we are in no real danger.

Why? Well, Frost listed at LEAST 8-10 seats that they absolutely will not win (i.e. he thinks they will beat John Porter, Dave Richert, Thelma Drake etc. people that they can scream all they want about, but that they absolutely will not beat.), and he then assumes they will win ALL TWELVE seats they are fighting for in Indiana, Conneticuit, and New York. Problem? I'd be surprised if they won more then four of them. They will not beat Nancy Johnson, period. They are unlikely to beat Rob Simmons. They have, at best, a 50/50 shot at beating Shayes, but Lieberman's I' run helps. They will not beat Chris Chocola, period. I wouldn't be surprised to see Hostettler and/or Sodrul pull through either. etc.

Bottom line: The D's are dellusional. We'll lose a few, no doubt, but we won't lose control.

[TatieBug]

Good grief...I started reading those predictions and you could easily put an '06 behind the very same comments and no one would ever know...same song 2nd verse...oh by the way...how many seats did we actually pick up on '02? These know-it-alls are getting tired and I'm getting tired of their bad predictions. Let's just get out the vote and we'll do just fine.

[musicman]

First, Nice graphic cobra !!

Brimack, I live in Volusia County, Florida, and the main newspaper is the Daytona Beach News Journal (Online). The TOTAL paper is only good for the following :

#1 Obituaries
#2 Marriages & Divorces
#3 Sherrif's Dockett ( who got arrested )
#4 Real Estate Transactions
#5 Selling something in the Classifieds

The Editorial page, with the "Letter's to the Editor", should be used as an industry standard, CONSERVATIVE BLOOD PRESSURE CHECK. If any conservative can read it with out having a circulatory anomaly of some sort, then their blood pressure is PERFECT.

I have re-named the Daytona Beach News Journal (Online). I have re-named it:

"The Anti-Military, USA, Republican, and ALL THINGS BUSH, 24/7 - 365 Non-Stop, Mental Circle-Jerk."

[AntiGuv]

I have heard so many Dems and pundits compare this year to 1994. It was very instructive to find that only two incumbent Democrats were beaten that year...

Umm.. I assume you're referring only to the Senate, because 34 incumbent Democrats lost in the House.

[srmorton]

A quote by Ken Mehlman from the article:

"The year 1994 was the greatest year we had in a hundred years, but we only beat two Democrat incumbents," Mehlman said. "Other than that, it was open seats where we picked up all those seats for the Senate in '94. And the reason was that it's very hard to beat an incumbent who has independent equity separate from the party."

Did you read it?

[Jimnorwellwarren]

Which seats are Republicans poised to pick up?

[Jimnorwellwarren]

Since you seem fluent in the subject, do you predict losses in PA?

[Fresh Wind]

When has a party functionary (ANY party) ever predicted a bad election year for his party?

[George W. Bush]

We have a strong position now. And I'm confident Rove has an October surprise in the works.

This bilge about losing the House is just the wishful thinking of the libmedia.

[eureka!]

fyi

[Dionysius]

Ditto for the St. Louis Post-Dispatch. Crossword Puzzle and Obituaries only -- the rest is to protect the floor when I shine my shoes.

[AuH2ORepublican]

"The year 1994 was the greatest year we had in a hundred years, but we only beat two Democrat incumbents," Mehlman said. "Other than that, it was open seats where we picked up all those seats for the Senate in '94. And the reason was that it's very hard to beat an incumbent who has independent equity separate from the party."

---

I assume he meant in the Senate, where only Sasser of TN and Wofford of PA lost. But there were over a dozen RAT House incumbents who lost that year. What was the exact number?

[zbigreddogz]

Unfortunately, yes.

I predict we will lose PA, RI (not really a loss), and probably one or two of OH, MO and MT, with MO being the least likely and MT being the most likely. OH is a straight toss up.

Then, it comes down to if we win MN, ML or NJ. (or possibly WA, but I doubt it).

We won't lose TN, and it's laughable that the D's think they can win VA or AZ. We won't lose either of those either.

So yah, that's my 2-4 loss prediction.

[HamiltonJay]

Republicans have their problems... and need to be called to the carpet for many things... but no sane person is going to give Pelosi and the cowardly cut and run traitors control of any branch of government.

This "Democratic Sweep" talk has never been anything more than wishful thinking by the drive by media... They have had zero chance of taking either house.

[KenmcG414]

Shhh!! keep this quiet...the GOP base has to be energized. I for one can't wait to vote.

[musicman]

"Ditto for the St. Louis Post-Dispatch.'

I have been a DIEHARD St. Louis Cardinal Baseball Fan since I caught the first game of the 1967 Cardinal Baseball season on KMOX, April 11th against the SF Giants(Cards won 6-0) on my little AM clock radio in SW Michigan. Harry Carey and Jack Buck made me feel like I WAS THERE WITH THEM, and I have been a Cardinal fan ever since.

So, IMHO, I'd maybe add ONE more good thing about SLPD...

[Dionysius]

Okay, you caught me. I do read the Sports Section. But I stay away from the Editorial Page like it was radioactive!

[fieldmarshaldj]

"But there were over a dozen RAT House incumbents who lost that year. What was the exact number?"

There were 33 'Rat incumbents (and Zero Republicans) to lose in the House in the '94 general. The most dramatic losses were in Washington state, where 4 incumbents were brought down.

As follows:
Karan English (AZ-6);

Dan Hamburg (CA-1);
Richard Lehman (CA-19);
Lynn Schenk (CA-49);

Buddy Darden (GA-7);
Don Johnson (GA-10);

Larry LaRocco (ID-1);

Dan Rostenkowski (IL-5);

Jill Long (IN-4);
Frank McCloskey (IN-8);

Neal Smith (IA-4);

Dan Glickman (KS-4);

Tom Barlow (KY-1);

Peter Hoagland (NE-2);

James Bilbray (NV-1);

Dick Swett (NH-2);

Herb Klein (NJ-8);

George J. Hochbrueckner (NY-1);

Martin Lancaster (NC-3);
David Price (NC-4);

David Mann (OH-1);
Ted Strickland (OH-6);
Eric Fingerhut (OH-19);

Marjorie Margolies-Mezvinsky (PA-13);

Jack Brooks (TX-9);
Bill Sarpalius (TX-13);

Karen Shepherd (UT-2);

Leslie Byrne (VA-11);

Maria Cantwell (WA-1);
Jolene Unsoeld (WA-3);
Jay Inslee (WA-4);
Mike Kreidler (WA-9);

Peter Barca (WI-1)

[AuH2ORepublican]

Thanks for the list; 33 was even more than I remembered. The Democrats won in 4 GOP-held House seats that year (Snowe's ME-02 seat when she ran successfully for the Senate, Santorum's PA-18 when he ran successfully for the Senate, Grams's MN-06 when he ran successfully for the Senate (and with the seat being redrawn by the RAT legislature to make it lean RAT), and Machtley's RI-01 seat when he ran unsuccessfully for the GOP gubernatorial nomination), and since the GOP picked up 54 net House seats it means that the GOP picked up "only" 25 RAT-held open seats in 1994; by contrast, the GOP's 8-seat pick-up in the Senate involved only 2 incumbent defeats and 6 victories in RAT-held open seats.

As I've written before, all but 2 of the 58 House seats picked up by the GOP had voted for Bush in 1988, and the 2 that didn't were in Iowa (where the GOP tanked in 1988) and would have been carried by Bush in 1992 had Perot not been on the ballot. In truth, only one district picked up by the GOP that year actually leaned Democrat, and it was Rostenkowski's IL-05 in which Flanagan won a very flukey victory over the scandal-tarred Rosty the Mailman. By 1994, the House was ripe for a massive realignment, and it didn't take much of a push for it to happen; the waters returned to their normal levels by 2000, and the GOP bolstered its advantage in House races with the reapportionment and redistricting following the 2000 Census. It would take a miracle for the RATs to win back the House in 2006 (or in 2008 for that matter).

[fieldmarshaldj]

I was spending the night in Bangor, Maine en route from New Brunswick the evening of the '94 elections (alas, only had CNN to watch, but the looks on the faces of the liberal anchors seeing the results trickle in was priceless).

It was truly bizarre up in Maine with the House seats, as what was predicted turned out to be the reverse. Jim Longley, Jr., of whom had never held office (he was only famous because his dad served a single term as an Independent Governor in the '70s) was expected to lose handily to the State Senate President, Dennis Dutremble, for the seat of the ultraleftist Tom Andrews (who was obliterated by his seatmate, Olympia Snowe).

Conversely, the noted legislator (and briefly, future Senate President) Richard Bennett was expected to handily keep Olympia Snowe's seat in the GOP column, instead losing to a State Senator named John Baldacci.

All the local media the next day were left scratching their heads. Liberal Portland represented by a Republican, and the rural, more Conservative sticks, represented by Baldacci. Alas, had Dutremble won, he'd be the Portland Congressman today instead of Allen, and had Bennett won, he'd probably be Governor.