Posted on 07/19/2002 1:13:04 PM PDT by churchillbuff
July 18, 2002
Republican Outlook For Midterms: Suddenly Dangerous
While polling has not yet recorded a dramatic turn in public opinion against President Bush or the GOP, events of the past few weeks have substantially increased the likelihood that the 2002 midterm elections will resemble other midterms, when the president's party is on the defensive and suffers losses.
None of the individual business scandals or controversies surrounding Harken Energy or Halliburton alone would have been enough to damage the White House seriously. Enron had little or no partisan political fallout, though Democrats tried their best to demonize business and to connect the president and his party to the company's demise.
But, taken together, the recent rash of bad news - including a sinking stock market, concern about the economy's recovery, the demise of WorldCom and Arthur Andersen, and questions about administration officials' past business practices - is much more likely to affect the public opinion about the president.
Bush's overall strength in national polls has rested on public approval of his handling of international and security issues. His job approval numbers have generally tracked with public attitudes on his handling of the war on terrorism, not his handling of the economy.
As attention draws inward, to domestic issues in general and the economy in particular, voters are likely to reassess their evaluation of Bush. Self-identified Democrats are likely to become more partisan and more critical of his performance.
The risk for the Republicans is that some voters, even if they don't hold the president primarily responsible for their stock losses or for corporate fraud and mismanagement, will grow angry, frustrated or merely impatient with the negative news. If they do, they might decide to send a message of change to the president by voting against his party's candidates in November.
Even if GOP voters remain loyal to the president, all of the bad news could depress Republican turnout. And that could be enough to turn a neutral political election into a good Democratic year.
The fundamental problem for Bush is that for the next three and a half months he and his entire party could well be on the defensive, while Democratic candidates around the country press for more White House action and raise questions about the president's leadership.
For months, neither party has found a compelling message to move large numbers of voters. Democrats have been trying to recycle old issues that failed to deliver them a majority in the House in the past three elections. Social Security and prescription drug coverage, the two best Democratic issues, appear to have only limited appeal, especially since House Republicans passed their own prescription drug plan.
Republicans can claim legislative accomplishments, including the tax cut, education reform and airport security, but they have a relatively thin remaining agenda. GOP candidates for November have, so far, been stressing support for the president's leadership on the war on terrorism, but those hopefuls will have to come up with new campaign messages if domestic issues start to eclipse national security concerns among voters.
With accounting and business questions spooking Wall Street - and without a strong, highly regarded secretary of the Treasury (such as Robert Rubin) to calm investors and speak effectively for the administration - Bush has no easy answer to his developing political problems.
The anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks could give the president a breather from negative stories about domestic issues. And a stock market rally in the next few months and new evidence of a rebounding economy would, of course, relieve a great deal of pressure on the president and by implication on his party's candidates. But Bush cannot now assume that he is in control of the national agenda.
If Bush's job approval does drop and a generalized anxiety increases in the electorate, it could increase the number of Republican-held House seats in play this year and improve the prospects of Democratic candidates and open-seat hopefuls. That, in turn, would increase the odds of a Democratic net gain in November, including a gain large enough to win a House majority.
Still, the limited number of competitive House districts continues to cushion the GOP against major losses.
The impact of a "normal" midterm election on the fight for the Senate could be muted as well, though a weaker Bush couldn't be good news for Norm Coleman in Minnesota, Greg Ganske in Iowa, Jim Talent in Missouri, Tim Hutchinson in Arkansas and other Republican Senate candidates.
The bottom line is clear. Democratic prospects for House and Senate gains have improved in the past few weeks. And that should make the White House and the GOP campaign committees increasingly nervous.
At the precinct meeting yesterday turnout was light. So light that if I wished I could be a Republican bigwig today. I'd say there is a lack of enthusiasm. Maybe it's the same with other parties excepting the Greens, because Greens are a fun party even if they don't remember their precinct meeting any better than they remember the 60s.
This is a level-headed translation of his analysis - - and it's a plausible analysis.
Not a good sign.
Most have suffered more than 33% drop in their portfolio, only a fool would hold on to a sinking ship. If you lose 50% you must gain 100% just to get even this probably won't occur in your grandchildren’s life.
The truth is that many people made a lot of money during the Clinton years. Today many of those same people are out of work and holding retirement portfolios that are worth half of what they were worth when Bush was sworn in. Only a blind fool would believe this won’t affect how people vote.
Only if he does it a week before the elections, do you think people really give a rats ass what happens in those hell holes, people only care about the issues that effect them directly, the rest is fluff.
You're absolutely correct. My co-workers lost 50%, 60%, or more in their 401(k)s. For many of them, it was the only savings they had. I love Bush, but if the Democrats can portray themselves as the party of fiscal responsibility, they've got it made in the shade come election time. People don't remember that the NASDAQ was at 5,000 in March of 2000 but had dropped to below 2,300 by January of 2001 -- while Bill Clinton was still in office!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.