Posted on 05/09/2006 3:28:34 PM PDT by RWR8189
MONROEVILLE, PA.--With the war in Iraq, $3-a-gallon gas, and Jack Abramoff dogging Washington Republicans, it might seem a good bet for an ambitious Democrat like Chad Kluko to give up a six-figure salary and campaign for a seat in the House of Representatives. After all, he was a top executive at Verizon Wireless, started his own technology company, and makes a convincing case for bringing the lessons he's learned from business to bear on government. But Kluko was hardly the Democratic Party's first choice to run in Pennsylvania's 18th District, which fans out east and west from southern Pittsburgh. He has close to zero name recognition, entered the race late--in January--and has no political experience. "Don't you usually start in city council?" a reporter with Monroeville's Times Express recently asked. Despite his business credentials, political analysts say, Kluko has little chance of winning.
Next week, Kluko will face off with primary opponent Tom Kovach, a risk-control engineer and Navy veteran whose campaign faces an even steeper climb. His only big donor is his father, who gave $2,000. "I refuse to ask people for money," he says, "because they'll expect something in return." Instead, Kovach is spending Saturday afternoons knocking on doors. "He seems like a friendly guy," says Renee Beasley, a 38-year-old mother of three, after meeting him in her Westmoreland County driveway. A Republican who backed Bush in 2004, Beasley sounds ready to support a Democrat for Congress this fall. "Spending is out of control and on the wrong things," she says. "I'm open to change."
It's the kind of sentiment that Kluko, Kovach, and hundreds of Democratic candidates nationwide are seizing on in their quest to wrest control of the House from Republicans this November. Like most of the challengers, though, whoever wins next week's primary here must face what has become a nearly insurmountable obstacle: an incumbent, a fact of modern political life that is making it all but impossible to change the balance of Congress. Republican Rep. Tim Murphy has represented Pennsylvania's 18th District since 2002. His ties to Bush may be a drag on his poll numbers, but Murphy will have some major advantages in the midterms. Southwestern Pennsylvania has long been Democratic territory, but his GOP-friendly district was drawn up for him by the Republican-controlled state legislature. As of April 1, Murphy's re-election campaign had raised more than $1 million, 50 times as much as Kluko and Kovach combined.
Plus, Murphy's House perch has allowed him to deliver for constituents. At a banquet for local officials in Coraopolis, Pa., Murphy distributes fact sheets detailing $7.8 million in construction projects he won through last year's highway bill, including $1.6 million to widen and repair the local interstate. Over a plate of ravioli, Coraopolis Police Chief Alan DeRusso, a Democrat, says he has been a supporter since Murphy helped him claim a grant that let him hire two new officers. "If you don't have a safe town," DeRusso says, "you don't have anything."
Murphy's strengths, and his challengers' weaknesses, help explain why, six months before Election Day, the Democrats' plan for seizing the House still looks like a long shot. Polls would seem to indicate otherwise. A report last month by the Pew Research Center says current polls "reflect anti-incumbent sentiment not seen since late in the historic 1994 campaign." That was the year Republicans picked up 52 seats, taking control of the House for the first time in 40 years. Asked which party could best tackle the nation's problems, more than half the respondents in a Washington Post/ABC News poll said Democrats; just 37 percent said Republicans
And yet with Democrats needing to pick up 16 seats to take back the House--a fraction of what the GOP managed in '94--few political handicappers are predicting a Democratic revolution this November. In fact, the Cook Political Report rates just 35 of this fall's 435 House races as competitive. Other analysts put the number at 25, or fewer than 6 percent of races. That's down from more than 100 competitive races in 1992, leaving the Democrats virtually no room for error.
But almost all Democratic House incumbents are safe this November, too. Two years ago, nearly 98 percent of House incumbents seeking re-election won, capping a decade of partisan stasis unmatched in U.S. history. "House elections ... are starting to take on all the suspense of contests for the old Soviet Union's central committee," writes Juliet Eilperin, author of the new book Fight Club Politics: How Partisanship Is Poisoning the House of Representatives. What happened to the institution the Founders designed to be more responsive to voters than any other? The answer has to do with redistricting, money, and an increasingly polarized "red"/"blue" America. At a moment when the Bush administration is aggressively pushing democracy abroad, there are serious questions about the health of the American democratic experiment at home.
Line drawings. Congressional redistricting has long been done with an eye toward maximizing partisan advantage. The word gerrymander was coined in 1812, when Massachusetts partisans allied with former Gov. Elbridge Gerry crafted a salamander-shaped House district. But beginning in the 1960s, when the Supreme Court ruled that all congressional districts must include roughly the same number of residents, the art of manipulating the demographic map took off. Usually done by state legislatures once a decade after the census, congressional redistricting often had the effect of increasing the number of competitive House races. After the 1982 round, for example, the tally jumped from 69 to 79.
But with the introduction of sophisticated redistricting software in the 1991 round, the number of competitive races--where the winner took less than 52 percent of the vote--began to drop. "In 1982, the lines in upstate New York were drawn on Mobil Oil maps," recalls New York Rep. Tom Reynolds, chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee. "In 1992, I went to a Park Avenue mainframe computer, made requests, and they brought out [maps]. In 2002, you did this on a laptop with $140 software." That software allows redistricters to tote up the ballot choices of individual voters in previous elections and to carve them up block by block. In crafting Murphy's Pennsylvania district, for example, Republican state legislators wove lines to take in Republican-leaning bedroom communities while avoiding the Democratic industrial towns. The result: a district that resembles a crudely drawn M and that slices through towns like Monroeville.
After the post-2000 redistricting, the number of competitive House races tumbled from 53 to 38. With Republicans in control of more state legislatures and governorships than at almost any time in the previous 40 years, they redrew maps in Michigan, Pennsylvania, and elsewhere without consulting Democrats, who'd long dominated the process in states like California. In Pennsylvania, home to half a million more Democrats than Republicans, GOP-led redistricting turned a congressional delegation comprising 11 Republicans and 10 Democrats to a 12-to-7 Republican advantage (the state lost two seats because of slow population growth). "Gerrymanders in Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Florida pretty much account for the Republican advantage in Congress," says George Mason University Prof. Michael McDonald. "If we had neutral maps, we'd be talking about a much different nation."
Democratic legislatures and governors drew Democrat-friendly maps in Georgia and Maryland following the 2000 census, though Republicans enjoy a natural advantage because Democratic voters tend to be concentrated in cities, easier to pack into single districts. The national political parties supplied their state redistricting allies with up-to-date software and lawyers to help ensure that the new maps would hold up in court. In California, where Democrats controlled the state Legislature and the governor's seat, the party struck a deal with Republicans to draw districts that protected all but one of the state's 52 House incumbents. In 2002, not a single California incumbent lost re-election.
The proliferation of safe "red" and "blue" districts has complicated the parties' recruitment efforts. The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee tried for months to recruit a formidable candidate to take on Murphy, making dozens of calls to former Pennsylvania Treasurer Barbara Hafer and State Sen. Sean Logan. The DCCC even brought them to Washington to meet with Chairman Rahm Emanuel. But the gerrymandered lines of Murphy's district helped thwart the effort. "I saw communities broken up and raped for Republican voters," Logan says of the 2002 creation of the 18th District.
Some experts believe the proliferation of safe seats has shifted the action toward party primaries, pushing Democratic candidates further left and Republican candidates right, as they cater to the party bases. "We're destroying the center," says Tennessee Rep. John Tanner, a Democrat who has introduced a national redistricting reform plan. "The system has produced gridlock in Washington because of lack of competition in the districts. Compromise is now considered a sign of weakness."
Pandora's box. But if the mid-decade redistricting in Texas engineered in 2003 by former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay is any indication, congressional lines may be subject to even more partisan agendas in coming years. The Texas scheme broke with precedent because it was directed by the newly elected Republican Legislature after a state court had already drawn the map following the 2000 census. The U.S. Supreme Court is scheduled to rule on the matter this spring. But the Texas action has already helped prompt attempts at mid-decade redistricting in Georgia and Colorado. "DeLay opened a Pandora's box," says author Eilperin.
But redistricting isn't the only culprit. The skyrocketing cost of running for Congress is also stifling competition. In 1990, successful House challengers spent an average $282,000 on their campaigns, as measured in current dollars. In 2004, winning challengers shelled out an average $1.6 million each. At the same time, the chances of winning plummeted. In 1990, 16 challengers won. In 2004, just five did. "In the last election," says Sheila Krumholz, acting executive director of the Center for Responsive Politics, "a challenger who spent less than a million dollars technically had zero chance of winning."
Average incumbent spending, meanwhile, topped $2 million in 2004, more than twice what it was in 1990. Rising campaign costs have probably favored incumbents, who took in 83 percent of campaign contributions from business groups in 2004, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. "Donors who give to advance their economic interests," says Krumholz, "give to incumbents because they're in a position of influence and are proven winners."
Even incumbents who face no competition are able to amass huge war chests with relative ease, scaring off potential challengers. Asked why he has collected more than $1 million when he appears to face token competition, Pennsylvania's Murphy says, "It's not enough. I want my voters to know what I've done for them, and that takes money for TV, radio, and mailings."
Stan Savran, a Pittsburgh sportscaster the DCCC tried to recruit to run against Murphy, says the money burden helped him to decline. "They told me I'd need to spend two or three hours a day on the phone, calling people for money," Savran says, recalling a trip to Washington to meet the DCCC's Emanuel. "I don't know how comfortable I'd feel calling people I know or barely know and asking for contributions. I also had concerns about wiping out my savings."
Red and blue. But the biggest reason for the collapse of congressional competition may be growing polarization among American voters and the political parties. More than at any time in the past half century, voters are casting ballots like true partisans, rather than splitting votes between parties. After World War II, says political analyst Rhodes Cook, as Americans became more suburban and more politically independent, the country witnessed a rise in ticket splitting, with voters supporting one party at the presidential level and another for Congress. In 1984, nearly 44 percent of districts split their presidential and House vote between the two parties. By 2004, the figure dwindled to less than 14 percent, making most districts solidly red or blue. Much of the change is due to the South's Republican realignment after the Civil Rights Act, and it has most likely been exacerbated by the rise of hot-button social issues like abortion and school prayer.
Some political scientists argue that such geographic homogenization makes it easier for elected officials to represent their constituencies. The Washington Post/ABC News poll that found 62 percent of Americans disapproving of Congress also showed that nearly 60 percent approved of their own House member.
But many veteran election watchers are alarmed at the spike in noncompetitive House races. "To the degree that diminished competition renders members of Congress ... immune to electoral retaliation," says University of California-San Diego Prof. Gary Jacobson, "democratic accountability is impaired, and elections lose their point." The 2006 midterms could be the best test of Congress's electoral immunity in a decade. "If people can't change the direction of the country, you really have a problem," says Tanner. "You either have a dictatorship or a revolution."
Of course, voters aren't storming the barricades just yet. A handful of states have passed so-called clean election laws, which restrict lobbyist donations and offer public financing to candidates for offices like governor or state legislator. Good-government groups like Common Cause are meeting with congressional offices to push for federal public financing for congressional candidates, though no action is expected in the near term. A bipartisan group called Americans for Campaign Reform recently launched a public-education effort called "Just $6," calculating that public funding for House, Senate, and presidential contests would cost just $6 per American. Public financing is already available for presidential candidates, though George W. Bush and John Kerry opted out in 2004 because of associated fundraising limits.
Other states have adopted independent or bipartisan redistricting commissions, though most are beholden to state legislatures, producing bipartisan gerrymanders to protect all incumbents. In Arizona, where voters passed a ballot initiative in 2000 to create more-competitive districts, the redistricting commission had to balance so many competing criteria--like keeping "communities of interests" together and conforming to the Voting Rights Act, which forbids diluting minority votes--that it succeeded in creating just one competitive district out of eight.
Voters in California and Ohio, meanwhile, rejected ballot initiatives last year to take redistricting out of partisan hands, largely because both were seen as partisan schemes. According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, at least 20 states considered redistricting reform in 2005, but none actually passed it. Tanner's federal reform bill, which would bar mid-decade redistricting and establish nonpartisan commissions, has attracted 50 Democratic cosponsors but just two Republicans. Reynolds of the NRCC sees such reform as a product of Democrats' sour grapes over losing at the ballot box: "They don't want Republicans to be able to draw lines like Democrats have for 40 years." Which means district lines in states like Pennsylvania may not change substantially until Democrats can take control of the state legislature, seeking revenge--and starting the cycle all over again.
So if incumbents are SO hard to beat, why do we have this counter example in the very same article?
Republican Rep. Tim Murphy has represented Pennsylvania's 18th District since 2002. His ties to Bush may be a drag on his poll numbers, but Murphy will have some major advantages in the midterms. Southwestern Pennsylvania has long been Democratic territory, but his GOP-friendly district was drawn up for him by the Republican-controlled state legislature.
2002 isn't so very long ago. If the territory is historically Democrat at some point there was an incumbant democrat there- right?
Who writes this crap?
Solution: term limits:
12 years in each house (6 full House terms and 2 full Senate terms).
This highest reelection rate for incumbents ever achieved was not in the 21st century, the 20th, or the 19th. It happened in the second House election ever held, in 1792. 100% of the incumbents running, were reelected. But turnover in Congress that year was 30.8% because that many Members of Congress retired and chose not to run again.
Term limits, which many states have, are the only solution. They create the "rotation in office" that many of the Framers highly favored in their writings about national politics. Anyone who wants a thoughtful review of that subject can send their snail mail address to me, and I'll send a signed copy of my 1994 book, Why Term Limits? by return mail.
John /Billybob
1.term limits (as advocated here by others)
2.scrap all campaign finance law, replace with single rule: only those legally allowed to VOTE for the candidate, may CONTRIBUTE to the candidate
Term limits will keep the corruption down and they will not cave in for re-election purposes. (well unless they seek a higher office I suppose) Single term works for me. No more career politicians.
Im for it.
"Voters in California and Ohio, meanwhile, rejected ballot initiatives last year to take redistricting out of partisan hands, largely because both were seen as partisan schemes."
lol, probably because they were. There is no such thing as 'nonpartisan', the sooner people realize that the better.
Completely unenforceable, and depending on the definition of "contribute" likely blatantly unconstitutional. (Not that either factor stopped the last round of incumbency protection reform).
Makes sense to me. This guy had to be financially responsible in his job with Verizon. That's hardly the kind of guy that the DemonRats want in congress.
I don't see how it would disenfranchise anyone. It would certainly stop all those stealth foreign contributions channeled through US citizens/corporations/companies etc...
What the author doesn't mention in the article is that this very same thing was happening in the 1980's, yet the lamestream media didn't think it was a problem.
It only became a problem after Republicans won control of Congress.
We HAVE term limits -- it is called the Ballot Box.
I know the article says it is "just too hard" to defeat incumbents, but they can be beaten. It is a question of will and the intelligence (or lack thereof) of the electorate.
We all get the government we deserve. That is what the USC says. Term Limits are like Campaign Funding Laws -- a slap in the face of the USC.
Polls I read just this weeks showed that people think that most of the rascals need to be thrown out; but not THEIR rascal. Let me summarize the poll results if I may.
Should most Congressmen be replaced: Yes
Should your Congressman be replaced: No
I predict that the GOP will NOT lose control of either house.
Didn't SCOTUS shoot down term limits for our federal congress some years ago?
Anyone got any hard data on the % of Congress Critters who currently running who have had 3 or more terms? Looking at Minnesota out of 10 Federal office holders (8 Congress 2 Senators) only 4 of the current office holders (1 Republican and 3 Democrats) were in office in 1994. We have an open seat election for US Senate and for one House so when 2008 is over we may be down to at least 3 and maybe as low as 2 of the 10. One of the long term Democrats has retired and is not running this year and one has a good chance of losing his seat.
I keep hearing how terrible Incumbency is but cannot see it here in Minnesota. Anyone got some data? An of course leave it to the Junk Media to ignore the obvious. This is largely a result of the utter stagnation in the Democrat Party since the 1970s. They are a party run by a leadership of McGovernite extremist with NO political agenda beyond "Hate all Conservatives Always". Democrats have not advanced a serious agenda "except we want power" for about 30 years. Sorry but the reason Democrats keep losing has NOTHING to do with anything other then their complete failure to advance a coherent, serious political vision to the voters. Their FDR/LBJ legacy of "Give us your money and your freedoms and we will take care of you" is not selling anymore.
[Solution: term limits]
The only term limits which count are voting incumbents out of office who don't do what the voters want. Encouraging as many people as possible to be informed, educated and ambitious voters is the real solution.
There are people who say that most of the public is too stupid to live up to this standard. Those people are responsible for empowering Democrats.
12 years in each house (6 full House terms and 2 full Senate terms).
I am ALL for that...and would vote for a rock if they could implement it.
TERM LIMITS NOW!!!!
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.