In the aftermath of the presidential primaries, stories of unprecedented voter registration and turnout are drifting to the back burner. But with an exceedingly imbalanced electorate, the fight to create access to the voting rolls and enforce the voting rights of all Americans continues. With historic voter registration drives underway and a preview of the types of problems that could occur in November, the focus of the media is beginning to shift towards the less sexy, but crucial elements that work to maximize voter participation while ensuring eligible voters can cast their ballots and have them counted. In Project Vote's view, this is a welcome development since many of the potential issues require more time to sort out than is available if problems are noted only weeks in advance of the election. This week, election officials, advocates and a presidential candidate worked to assist in or restore voting rights for hospitalized veterans in Connecticut, minority citizens in Georgia, and former felons in Tennessee.
But from where I sit, not so much. It was great within the restricted horizons of Versailles, to be sure. But in a broader historical context, it was a rather modest wave election, well below 10%, as one can see from the following chart, which I created slightly before the 2006 midterms:
It's obvious at a glance that House elections as a whole have become a lot less volatile in the last several decades. It wasn't just the post-1994 era, though it certainly intensified in this era. But even though our 2006 wave was relatively modest--about 2/3rds of the GOP's 1994 wave--it built on a relatively high level of Democrats in the minority, and there's good reason to think we'll be in for another wave come 2008.
Although it, too, is likely to be historically modest in size--significantly less than 10%, the last time that even two 5% wave elections went the same way was 1950 and 1952, when the highly unpopular Korean War, the highly popular Dwigth D. Eisenhower, and the highly effective Joe McCarthy combined to wipe out enough of Truman's spectacular 1948 gains to give the GOP control of the House--for a single 2-year session.
There's only one other pair of 5%+ wave elections in the 20th Century: 1930/32, when the Dem waves were a tsunami-sized 11.9% and 22.3% repsectively. We ought to be thinking in terms of this sort of historical time-scale, modified by the recent history of restrained volatility.
Don't expect 1930/32, but look to 1950/52, and heed the warning of the Dem comeback in 1954. The GOP in 1952/54 really had no coherent idea how to rule, even with Eisenhower in the White House. The parallel to the challenge ahead should be obvious, regardless of who we manage to elect to the White House.
I would argue that how we campaign in 2008 will have important consequences for how we govern the next two years, and whether the GOP stages a comeback in 2010. If they don't, then I think that--as Chris and others have argued--we are potentially in great shape for decades to come, with substantial control over 2012 redistricting, and demographic shifts trending our way. It won't be a sure thing, but if we get past the 2010 elections, the wind should be at our backs. Which is why it's so important that we understand the upcoming elections properly, in an historical context.
Via Steve Benen, I see that Bill Kristol is floating the idea of Joe Lieberman as VP on the GOP ticket, which reminded me of something I had forgotten to mention about Giuliani and any supposed 'revolt' against him by social conservatives.
If you look at the last election in Connecticut, it's quite evident that Republican voters don't care about choice or social issues. Schlesinger, Lieberman, and Lamont are all pro-choice; Lieberman was endorsed by NARAL, the League of Conservation Voters, and the Human Rights Campaign. While there was a pro-life candidate in the Connecticut primary, he got an inconsequential number of votes. There are any number of reasons Republicans voted the way they did. Caring deeply about social issues isn't one of them.
Thankfully, the chatter about a third party run by social conservatives has died down.
Here's the thing. I can't guarantee that standing up against a corrupt, unpopular, and incompetent president's right to grant retroactive legal protections to large corporations for their complicity in illegal spying won't lead anyone to electoral defeat. What I can say is that the evidence that it will lead to electoral defeat doesn't seem incredibly compelling. Democratic efforts to hug the GOP on security and fight elections on other issues didn't pay much in the way of dividends when they were tried.
There actually is empirical proof that terrorist-baiting doesn't work. It was tried repeatedly in the 2006 cycle, and didn't work. As Glenn Greenwald noted:
Following along with Rove's scheme, numerous incumbent GOP candidates attempted to exploit Democratic opposition to warrantless eavesdropping in order to save their campaigns. Connecticut's Nancy Johnson, a 12-term incumbent, repeatedly ran an ad accusing her challenger, Chris Murphy, of being weak on terrorism because he opposed warrantless eavesdropping. After 24 years in Congress, Johnson lost by 12 points. Murphy, who proudly opposed warrantless eavesdropping, is now in the U.S. Congress.
Interestingly, though this ad was cited as one of the cycle's best by numerous operatives of both partisan stripes, one GOP strategist noted that Johnson's numbers actually went down after the spot aired -- a sign that while it may have looked and sounded good it may well have not been all that effective in moving votes.
Greenwald points out that the entire premise of the Republican 2006 strategy rested on terrorism and national security. Not one Democrat lost in 2006.
The bogeyman theory of Republican politics doesn't work. It's just wrong.
Arrrrgh. First, some good news. The Senate Intel Committee has delayed the FISA markup for two weeks in response to criticism from the ACLU and the blogs, which is a credit to Reid's political operation. There is no reason to rush this. I'm also told that the House Judiciary isn't going to lie down for this, and we'll see.
In other news, the House is about to condemn the Moveon ad. Why are DC insiders keeping on with this nonsense? Here's Republican Marsha Blackburn, embarrassing herself on the Moveon ad and Iraq.
It is, of course, ridiculous that the United States Senate spent a day debating and voting on a resolution condemning an advertisement while our troops remained in Iraq, fighting a war with no end. And it's doubly ridiculous that Coleman, of all people, is still playing politics with this issue.
After all, he voted last week against a resolution that condemned personal attacks on anyone who had served our nation honorably. That would include Democrats like Max Cleland, John Kerry and John Murtha -- proud American veterans who were the targets of political attacks not just on their character, but on their patriotism. In 2004, when Murtha (a Silver Star winner) called for better armor for our troops, Coleman himself accused him of "emboldening the enemy" and "undermining the morale of our troops."
And as his reelection campaign gets underway, it's worth noting that Coleman has hired the same media consultant who ran ads in Georgia that juxtaposed pictures of Cleland, who lost two legs and an arm in Vietnam, with Osama bin Laden.
I guess now it's my turn to be attacked. I've been to Iraq four times to visit our troops; I know the incredible sacrifice our men and women in uniform make every day in service to our nation. But Norm Coleman is who he is -- so he's accusing me of "undermining our troops."
I'm thoroughly irritated that the Republicans insist on continuing a flame war in the House.
STATE BLOGS
