Winds of war stirring U.S. Senate races - Candidates have difficulty gauging Iraq affect on election

INDIANOLA, Iowa As 2,000 of U.S. Sen. Tom Harkin's best Democratic friends swayed to the beat of a country band and munched on Iowa beef, the prospect of war with Saddam Hussein seemed as far away as Iraq itself.

Hosting his annual steak fry at a farm country fairground, the Democrat seeking his fourth Senate term said voters know that both parties will do whatever they can to protect the homeland. Voters also know, he said, that Democrats and Republicans have stark differences on health care, education spending, prescription drugs and Social Security.

"So what they're saying is, 'Please, Mr. Candidate, tell us what you want to do about those - that's how we'll make our decisions,' " Mr. Harkin said as smoky steaks simmered on massive grills.

But while Mr. Harkin and Democrats across the country try to make the Nov. 5 elections turn on domestic issues, Republicans have increasingly made national security a cornerstone of their bid to reclaim a Senate majority.

And even some of Mr. Harkin's supporters worry that the GOP - once decided underdogs in the battle for Senate control - may be succeeding with undecided voters.

"They think they're protecting the country, and they won't have another 9-11," said Bev Coleman, a longtime Harkin supporter.

The war clouds over Iraq have created a politically charged atmosphere that burst onto the Senate floor this week when Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle criticized Mr. Bush for seeking to politicize war.

Mr. Bush said his most important job is "to protect the American people" and he would do so "regardless of the season."

In this election season, the Iraq political storm may determine whether the Democrats can keep their one-vote Senate margin.

Mr. Harkin's Republican opponent, U.S. Rep. Greg Ganske, spoke for many when he said he didn't know how Mr. Bush's push on Iraq would play out politically, especially in a state like Iowa where farm prices and Medicare payments are also big issues.

"I think they're all cumulative," Dr. Ganske said before addressing a candlelight march against leukemia in downtown Des Moines. "I don't think voters are going to be making this decision just on Iraq. That will be a factor."

Similar uncertainty shrouds Senate races across the country, from New Hampshire to Oregon, Minnesota to Texas. Polls and analysts indicate that at least one-third of the 34 Senate races are in varying degrees of doubt. That includes four Midwest seats held by incumbent Democrats and five Republican-held seats without incumbents, including the Texas seat being vacated by retiring GOP Sen. Phil Gramm.

In normal times, analysts generally agree, this would be a good year for the Democrats. The presidential party - in this case Mr. Bush's Republicans - often loses seats in off-year elections, especially when the stock market is sliding and unemployment has risen.

According to a recent CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll, 49 percent of respondents cited Iraq as more important to their vote than economic conditions; 42 percent picked the economy in the poll, which had a margin of error of 3 percentage points.

That does not necessarily bode well for Republicans, said CNN analyst William Schneider. Voters who said Iraq was a priority were evenly split between Republicans and Democrats, because a number of anti-war voters ranked the issue as important."It's not only rallying people to support the president and the idea of a war, it's also creating a lot of anxiety and a lot of doves are getting upset," Mr. Schneider said.

On the other hand, the news coverage of Iraq has washed away Democratic attempts to "nationalize" the election around economics, including corporate wrongdoing and the return of federal budget deficit.

"Iraq itself doesn't become an issue that decides the election," said Stuart Rothenberg, publisher of a Washington-based newsletter. "But the existence of a war issue made it harder for any other issue to get a lot of traction."

Still, many analysts expect the Senate and the House to pass resolutions authorizing the use of force that could take Iraq off the political table well before Election Day.

Pollster John Zogby noted that corporate earnings reports in late October could bring more bad domestic news - and bad political news for incumbents, Republican or Democratic.

"When all is said and done, voters may feel more insecure today than they did two years ago," Mr. Zogby said.

As a result, any issue could tip the balance in any state, any of which could decide who runs the Senate. The chamber currently has 50 Democrats, 49 Republicans, and one independent.

The tenuous nature of Senate control came vividly into focus in the spring 2001, when that one independent - James Jeffords of Vermont - defected from the Republican Party, giving the Democrats that one-seat margin.

Now Mr. Jeffords is campaigning for Democratic candidates, making a guest appearance at Mr. Harkin's steak fry. After greeting Iowa Democrats in the dining tent, Mr. Jeffords said he doesn't know what effect Iraq will have on political races and doesn't think the two should be mixed.

"I think that we have to think about the country first and worry about the politics later," Mr. Jeffords said.

In a sense, analysts said, the increased talk of war with Iraq makes it more likely that the closest Senate races will be decided on local issues, state-by-state. The Iowa race, for example, now features a flap over the secret taping of a private meeting between Dr. Ganske and his supporters.

Special circumstances are also at work in New Jersey, where Democrats find themselves in unexpected trouble. Sen. Robert Torricelli, D-N.J., is struggling in the wake of his rebuke from the Senate Ethics Committee over gift taking.

Republicans have similar worries in Arkansas, where Sen. Tim Hutchinson's divorce from his longtime wife and remarriage to a former staff member have alienated some Christian conservatives, a key source of Republican support.

In seeking to regain control of the Senate, Republicans are looking toward the heartland. Though Mr. Harkin is favored to win again in Iowa, Republicans have high hopes of defeating Democratic incumbents Paul Wellstone of Minnesota, Jean Carnahan of Missouri and Tim Johnson of South Dakota.

In countering with economic issues, Democrats believe the slowdown can hurt Republican incumbents Gordon Smith in Oregon and Wayne Allard in Colorado.

The South Dakota race, in many ways, mirrors the national tug of war between Mr. Bush and that state's top politician, Mr. Daschle. Republicans want to deal Mr. Daschle an embarrassment by defeating his Senate Democratic colleague, Mr. Johnson, with Republican U.S. Rep. John Thune.

The reverse is happening in Texas, where Democrats would love to embarrass Mr. Bush in his home state by electing former Dallas Mayor Ron Kirk over Attorney General John Cornyn.

Though the possibility of war with Iraq could play a part in all of these close races, it is difficult to determine how it will play in any individual state. Mr. Harkin, for example, voted against the 1991 Gulf War - but so did his conservative Iowa colleague, Republican Sen. Charles Grassley.

At the Harkin steak fry, JoAnn DeCamp said Republicans could just as easily hurt themselves by trying to politicize Iraq.

"We should be concerned with domestic issues," Ms. DeCamp said. "Look at the stock market. Look at the number of people who lost their jobs and look at the people who are robbing their companies blind."

Republican Richard Crano, an Ames physician who marched with Dr. Ganske against leukemia, said he can't help thinking Iraq will be taken into account.

"It's obvious Bush is very aggressive with his stance and I imagine the Republicans will go along with him," Dr. Crano said. "It will be interesting to see how the Democrats respond."

Winds of war stirring U.S. Senate races - Candidates
have difficulty gauging Iraq affect on election

Excerpt:

How big a factor?

"I don't know."

Of course, these are not normal times.

Please let me know if you want ON or OFF my General Interest ping list!. . .don't be shy.

Good Grief! Would somebody tell these jerks to simply vote the way that they really believe?

I got so mad the other day listening to Hannity when he had some former Senator of the Perjury Party on to talk about a resolution on Iraq before the election. That bozo wanted to postpone a vote so no pressure would be on Congress. Hannity corrected him and told him that it was about being held accountable.

Are Liberal Democrats suggesting that they might sell out their "anti-war" principles so that they can get elected? (Like they sold out to support Bubba Bin Lyin in Kosovo.) Or are they banking on clueless swing voters who don't know their true colors to vote for them and then to diss Dubya after the election, knowing that they have 2 years to make the voters forget their shameful vote?

MEMO TO THE DEMOCRIMINALS-- If you want to end the debate on Iraq-- hold the vote now!

What so LOFL funny is the idea that the economy and other domestic issues belong to the democrats. What are the democrats espousing to "lift" the economy? Why raising taxes, that's what! So can they make the case that rolling back the tax cuts or even raising taxes will help a sluggish economy? Maybe, but in fact, doing that would hurt, not help. I'm sure you can demagogue people into believing that the tax cuts caused the recession, but you'd be lying. Republicans shouldn't soley rely on the war to win votes. IMHO, the democrats are more than vunerable on domestic issues.

Big media is having a field day getting out the message that democrat "kitchen table" issues are being ignored. Well the republicans need to go on the attack on "kitchen table" issues, too. They really shouldn't be letting big media get away with this. So far, they are. Watching the various big media news shows, all, except Fox, are saying that the war is clouding economic and domestic issues that the democrats would rather be running on. They've subtlely raised the thought that republicans are not concerned with domestic/economic things. The republicans have to fight on this front, too.

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.