Almost unthinkable six months ago, the improving prospects of a Democratic takeover of the House and perhaps even the Senate has many observers trying to gauge what the loss of power for Republicans would mean in the short term as well as how such an event might impact the Presidential election in 2008.
First of all, I feel compelled to point out that we are still five months away from the election, an eternity in politics. As such, prognosticating the results can be compared to trying to predict the weather 100 years from now. This fact doesn’t seem to stop Al Gore from predicting doomsday so I’m going to put my two cents in on what a Democratic House might do both institutionally and legislatively.
As far as the Democrats chances, at this point you would have to say they have a 1 in 3 chance of being successful in capturing the 15 seats necessary to take over the House while their odds are considerably less in winning the 5 seats it would take to force the Senate to change hands. The Republicans have several chances to pick up Senate seats that will offset some of their losses, making a Democratic takeover of the upper house a longshot indeed. Only a seismic shift in the way Americans view government would give the Democrats that kind of victory, something that no poll is suggesting. In fact, many bedrock Democratic ideas are still wildly unpopular in the country – a fact that may turn out to be the saving grace for Republicans in the end.
That said, there is a general feeling of disgust in the country that goes far beyond any negative feelings people have toward George Bush. In fact, if the Democrats persist in trying to make the election into a referendum on Bush, the Republicans would probably still hold on to power in the House. This is because such efforts usually fail. It failed for Republicans in 1998 as it failed for Democrats in 1982 when President Reagan’s approval numbers were in the upper 30’s. The only recent success of such a strategy occurred in 1974 when Democrats gained 52 seats in the House running against Nixonian corruption.
But Americans are restless with incumbents who appear to place themselves in a superior position to the people they purport to represent. The various scandals involving both Democrats and Republicans reinforce that notion with Republicans taking more heat because there are simply more of them.
What this leads to is an increase in the number of House races that are placed in the “competitive” column rather than being considered “safe.” And if the Democrats are smart and can choose which races gives them the best opportunity for a pick-up, they can target resources and perhaps tip the balance in enough of the newly competitive races to bring them victory.
To be sure, most analysts including Evans-Novak, Charlie Cook, Stan Greenberg, as well as pollsters like Rasumussen believe that in order for the Democrats to succeed, just about every seat that is seriously “in play” would have to break for the Democrats on election day. At present, the Democrats have identified 22 such seats and appear to be ready to sink most of their financial and organizational resources into those contests. Considering that Republicans have a chance to pick up at least 5 and perhaps 7 open and competitive seats of their own, one can see why despite all the talk about the Democrat’s large lead in the so-called “generic ballot” for the House, their chances for a takeover remain much less than 50-50.
If the Democrats were to take control of the House, there would, of course, be massive changes ahead. As the Republicans played parliamentary tricks to increase their advantage in Committees, I would expect the Democrats to do the same. This would mean that even though the Democrat’s majority would be razor thin, they would pack Committees with much larger majorities – especially on vital Committees like Ways and Means and Armed Services. I would also expect Democrats to play fast and loose with how floor votes were conducted as well as imitating Republicans in the way that amendments could be offered to bills under consideration. In short, all the the parliamentary shenanigans that Republicans have used over the past decade to maximize their narrow majority will come back to haunt them institutionally on the House floor and in the Committee rooms.
And in those rooms, we will have a parade of Bush aides answering the dozens of subpoenas that many Committees and Sub-Committees will be issuing in conjunction with enough investigations to keep the press and the Democrats busy for years. Both current Minority Leader Pelosi and ranking Judiciary Committee member Conyers swear that they will not initiate impeachment proceedings against the President. This is a crock. Their investigations of the executive branch will inevitably lead them to advancing one or more of their conspiracy theories about Iraq that will almost certainly result in the full House voting to initiate impeachment hearings in the Judiciary Committee. I would predict that the Democrats will give themselves a comfortable majority in that Committee – enough to quickly vote out one or two articles of impeachment by next summer.
As for legislation, forget it. Any Democratic initiatives on health care are doomed to failure. They may seek to strengthen some environmental legislation like the Clean Air Act as well as address global warming with CO2 emission standards – both may pass but probably vetoed by the President.
Minimum wage legislation would get a boost as well as – more veto fodder for Bush. A roll back of the tax cuts would also be attempted (if I were in charge of White House stationary supplies, I would make sure to lay in good supply of veto pens). An attack on some other pet Bush initiatives like No Child Left Behind and the Prescription Drug Plan may succeed in that Bush might agree to some necessary alterations as a compromise.
And unless significant progress has been made in Iraq by next summer, I have no doubt that the Democrats would seek to pull a Viet Nam and try to cut off funding for our operations there. At the very least, they will seek to gain control of the conflict in some way by using the power of the purse strings.
So much for “the unitary executive.” I don’t imagine we’ll be hearing much from our leftist friends about the “balance of power” between the executive and legislative branches as Congress seeks to usurp the executive’s authority on any number of matters.
Would anything good come of a Democratic takeover of the House? Perhaps by 2008, it would make people long for Republicans being back in control – at least, that appears to be one aspect of the so-called Tapscottian strategy (named after Heritage fellow and blogger Mark Tapscott) that gives Republicans a reason to stay home this November. Mark is a very smart fellow, but this is stupid. Without the “culture of corruption” to run against, the rules of incumbency would reassert themselves and even Democrats in marginally Republican districts would be enormously difficult to unseat.
Actually, Republicans would be wiser to run against the “culture of investigations” that the American people are much more likely to tire of – especially when it turns out that most of these investigations will be fishing expeditions that uncover little in the way of real corruption and instead show Democrats to be petty and spiteful politicians. To my mind, that would resonate far more with voters than any grand strategy that envisions Republicans riding to the rescue as Democrats trash the country.
One thing for sure; a Democratic victory in 2006 will make the Republican Presidential race very interesting indeed. Do the Republicans work to nominate a true blue conservative? Or do they try and split the difference in the electorate by nominating a Guiliani or even a McCain? I think that a Democratic victory in 2006 will weaken conservatives and allow for the nomination of a Guiliani or even a Romney as more moderate forces successfully blame stay-at-home conservatives for a 2006 election debacle.
Stranger things have happened in politics.
9:20 am
Very well said.
But I defer to Roger Daltrey:
“Meet the new boss/ Same as the old boss.”
10:00 am
As to the Dems needing 15 seats to retake the house, might as well add 2 or 3 because Republicans are already working with “on the fence” Dems to switch parties in case of a tie or a one member majority.
By the way, like a moth to a light, I came to this site in a robotic trance looking for the latest “24” entry. I still cannot believe that the season is over. Looks like this was a bad week to give up crack.
10:18 am
I am a disgruntled Republican and very upset with some of our senators but I cannot see losing the senate as only 1/3 of them are running for reelection.If they were running as the house does then for sure they would lose mostly because their base will stay home.
The House is another thing and find it hard to believe that the Dems.will take over. The House is much more localized.
10:29 am
First of all why would a republican even if mad at Bush, vote for a democrat. It makes no sense to me. I guess it’s the middle that have no clue anyway that will decide.
If the democrats take the house, senate and the white house. It’s good bye right wing blogs and websites. It’s good bye Rush and talk radio. The democrats will outlaw those to make sure they stay in power. They will call for gun bans and put Al Gore in charge of the weather. The right better shape up and fast.
11:04 am
I wish more people would consider 3rd party and independent candidates. With the rules and districting the Republicans and Democrats have set up, though, it’s about impossible for any ‘outsiders’ to break through their duopoly on the political process. A real grass-roots effort is needed, but the political center just doesn’t have the activisim necessary to make real change.
It’s hard to imagine that the present dominance by the two parties was intended by the framers.
1:31 pm
I wish more people would consider 3rd party and independent candidates.
I sure as hell would! Where are they??
3:13 pm
Were the GOP to lose control of the House, the only downside I see is that Bush would get his immigration bill. I don’t see Bush agreeing to a tax hike, nor do I see him agreeing to anything that smacks of ‘abandoning’ the troops. Sure, domestic and entitlement spending might increase, but with the budget so far in deficit, what’s a few hundred billion more in spending? And, while nothing would be done with Iran, Bush ain’t doing anything about Iran now with a GOP Congress, is he?
Although it doesn’t matter as much, since the Dems and RINOs give the liberals a working majority already, I see less of a downside were the GOP to lose ‘official’ control of the Senate. Bush wouldn’t get any conservative judges nominated, but, then again, he’s not exactly pushing them now, is he?
And who cares if the Dems want to spend time holding hearings on this or that? Bush isn’t running again and, given his anemic ratings, no GOP nominee will position him or herself as the keeper of the flame, so hearings into Bush’s abuses won’t necessarily tar the GOP nominee in 2008. And don’t forget that hearings matter much more inside the Beltway than they do outside (for all the hearings into Clinton’s ‘abuses’, just how much did it help the GOP?).
As for your assumption that, absent a ‘culture of corruption’ to run against, the GOP wouldn’t be able to regain control of Congress in 2008, I think you’re mixing some things up. People aren’t upset per se with ‘corruption’, they’re upset that Congress isn’t doing more of what they want done and they’re grabbing corruption as a handy scapegoat (even if Abramoff and crowd weren’t in the news, the public would be just as ticked off, they’d just cite some other reason).
I think the bigger argument against the GOP looking to retake control is that it’s likely the public wouldn’t have yet given up on the Democrats running things. The Dems would argue that they needed more than 2 years to clean up the mess the GOP made over the previous 12. Heck, they’d probably claim that their reforms were being stymied by Bush, so if the public really wanted Washington running again, they’d give the Dems in Congress a Democratic President as well.
3:57 pm
Middle of the road Republicans and Independents who put J.R. and Da Boyz (aka: Dubya & Co.) into power have been “turning off” by the thousands each week since Katrina. Donations and campaign workers are slowing and will be increasingly tougher to come by in the next 6 months. And, come Election Day, they’ll stay away from the polls by the millions. It IS VERY possible for Crazy Howard, Kommissar Kennedy, “Any-Way-She-Can” Hillary, and old “Miss Insanity” Pill-o-si to take back the House majority. After all, Bush is giving it to them on a silver platter of screw ups; kinda like a boxer deliberately throwing a championship fight. Get the pic?
It’s pathetic! What say we don’t elect anymore Texicans to the White House, OK? They seem to start out like gang busters and end up quitting while still on the job. Remember LBJ and Vietnam? Get the feeling J.R’s going to leave HIS Afghan/Iraq mess for the next guy to clean up? I do! And I voted for him twice! What choice did I have? Gore? Kerry? Be real. Three Hundred Million citizens and, probably, thirty million illegals, AND NO ONE WORTH VOTING FOR. It’s over
Will the last one to leave for Canada please turn out the lights? I’m going fishing!
10:21 pm
As one wise man said, “I’ll drag my sorry ass to the polls and vote”
All together now: VOTE REPUBLICAN
Or we get to listen to Pelosi (not to mention the horror of having to see her on TV) which will cause all to slit their own damn throats for not voting.
12:11 pm
A Democratic Win in 2006 – What Would It Mean?
And now for a little worst case scenario (from a Republican perspective) analysis looking toward the 2006 Congressional elections from Right Wing Nuthouse: WHAT IF TH…
12:20 pm
I’m not a Democrat, but it’s hard to believe they could do any worse than this gang. I broke with these guys years ago when they started aping the Dems in terms of spending, overriding States rights etc.
4:44 pm
Two comments:
First, I don’t think the stationary office will need to order any more veto pens, if they got any to begin with they’re still around.
Second, running against a “culture of investigation” is a wash—the public memory still associates Republicans with Ken Star, Whitewater, Vince Foster, White House Travel Office, Secret FBI files in the west wing, and about 50 other investigations that tied up government for years. And polls show far greater numbers of Americans want investigations into Iraq, 9/11, and energy policy negotioations than ever cared about the topics of most of the Republican investigations.
4:49 pm
“And polls show far greater numbers of Americans want investigations into Iraq, 9/11, and energy policy negotioations than ever cared about the topics of most of the Republican investigations.”
Which polls are those? The ones at the Daily Kos website?
Energy policy investigations? ARE YOU SERIOUS? What poll shows that the public even knows about the Cheney meetings?
As far as Iraq, most people have decided that Bush lied to them – despite the mountain of evidence that dispels that notion. And as far as 9/11, people still want to investigate the Kennedy assassination, Roswell, Bigfoot, and the West Virginia Mothman.
Once we get those others out of the way, maybe we can turn our attention back to the demolition of the towers.
6:48 pm
Major media polls (including gallup) have consistantly shown 40-50% of the public wants full congressional investigations into intellegence before Iraq, and 9/11.
I was glib to lump energy policy in the list as I haven’t actually seen a poll on the question—but given current gas prices, I would not be surprised if it polled a lot higher than Lewinski investigations and Clinton impeachment which never rose above 25% in public support.
However, you ignored my point, which is that the American public still associates abuse of investigative authority with the Rebublican party, and as such, members of that party would be foolish to run against a “culture of investigation.”
I’m not a republican or a democrat, but 5 years ago, I used to say “at least the Republican party has a set of beliefs, the democrats don’t stand for anything”; now, I’m pretty convinced that the Republican party only cares about political victory—they are utterly immoral, ruthless, and dishonest—and I think people who believe in conservative values are fools to support them.
8:48 am
Re: Jason Maxfield Said (6:48 pm)
“I’m pretty convinced that the Republican party only cares about political victory—they are utterly immoral, ruthless, and dishonest—and I think people who believe in conservative values are fools to support them.”
Jason there’s something in the water. Gotta be! If they’re “only interested in political victory”, why are they acting like D.C. Democrats: a bunch of stupid, New-Age, Marxist’s; who don’t give a flying fig what the “majority” of Americans think? They say Rome fell because the upper crust drank water from villa pipes loaded with lead. What kind of slow acting, virtue corrupting, poison do you think is in the pipes inside the D.C. Beltway? Whatever it is, it seems to have had the same effect on the GOP that it did on the DNC. (Think about it! Most of these people were OK Americans before they went to Washington. Right?) Maybe we need to build a new Capital city somewhere in Kansas. Or, start two new political parties; two new, “American” political parties; with Term Limits in each party platform, to keep the electees from getting “poisoned” and trying to hurt the rest of us. Let’s say something like: “No more than 20 years of elected office in the House or the Senate, or any combination thereof between the House and Senate; AND no one may serve in the Senate who has passed the age of 75.” That might work, right? Let’s roll.
12:25 pm
Jason, weren’t you “outted” this week on Rush’s radio program? Yep, you are that deceptive jerk that lies to the screener so you may read your demoCRAPS talking points!
12:29 pm
[...] I predicted this last May: [...]