Nickdfresh
10-13-2005, 06:18 AM
Democrats See Dream of '06 Victory Taking Form
By ROBIN TONER
Published: October 13, 2005
WASHINGTON, Oct. 12 - Suddenly, Democrats see a possibility in 2006 they have long dreamed of: a sweeping midterm election framed around what they describe as the simple choice of change with the Democrats or more of an unpopular status quo with the Republican majority.
That sense of political opportunity has Democratic operatives scrambling to recruit more candidates in Congressional districts that look newly favorable for Democratic gains, to overcome internal divisions and produce an agenda they can carry into 2006, and to raise the money to compete across a broader field. In short, the Democrats are trying to be ready if, in fact, an anti-incumbent, 1994-style political wave hits.
Already, the response to Hurricane Katrina, the war in Iraq and soaring gasoline prices have taken a toll on the popularity of President Bush and Congressional Republicans; new polling by the Pew Research Center shows the approval rating for Congressional Republican leaders at 32 percent, with 52 percent disapproving, a sharp deterioration since March. (The ratings of Democratic leaders stood at 32 percent approval, 48 percent disapproval.)
A new NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll, released Wednesday night, showed that 13 months before the midterm election, 48 percent said they wanted a Democratic-led Congress, compared to 39 percent who preferred Republican control.
But for Democrats to step into the void, many strategists and elected officials say, they must offer more than a blistering critique of the Republicans in power, the regular attacks on what Democrats now describe as a "culture of cronyism and corruption."
What they need, many Democrats acknowledge, is their own version of the "Contract With America," the Republican agenda (tax cuts, a balanced budget, a stronger military and an array of internal reforms) that the party campaigned on in the 1994 landslide election, when it won control of the House and the Senate.
"I think Democrats understand we have a great opportunity," said Senator Charles E. Schumer, Democrat of New York and chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee. "We've gotten much better at blocking some of the bad things the Republicans would do, but we know you can't be a party of long-term majorities unless you put forward the things you would do."
For all the Democratic optimism, important structural obstacles stand in the way of major Democratic gains, outside analysts and Republican campaign officials say.
Ken Mehlman, chairman of the Republican National Committee, said of the Democrats: "Look, we've heard this talk before. It was always talk then, and it's talk now. If you look at the competitive races, you'll find a playing field that is either relatively even or favors Republicans. They have a huge uphill fight, and there's no evidence they're climbing that hill."
To recapture the House, Democrats need a net gain of 15 seats. That is a difficult feat if - as some predict - the number of competitive seats is fewer than three dozen, thanks largely to redistrictings. To recapture the Senate, Democrats need to pick up six seats, also an extremely high bar given the seats up this year. And while the current political climate is bleak for Republicans, no one knows what it will be a year from now.
Moreover, while the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee had an edge over its Republican counterpart in the last fund-raising reports, Republicans as a whole had a substantial financial advantage. And, Mr. Mehlman said, they will use it.
"There will be no higher priority for the Republican National Committee," he said, "than protecting the majority in the House and the Senate in 2006, meaning that we intend to be very helpful from a resource perspective, an advice perspective, an expertise perspective."
Charles Cook, the influential nonpartisan analyst of Congressional elections, said: "Right now, if I had to bet would the Democrats take the House and Senate back, I'd say no. But are the odds a heck of a lot better than they were three months ago or six months ago? Heck, yes."
Reflecting that shift in assessments, Democrats are preparing for a midterm with broad, national themes and possibilities - like 1982, 1986 and 1994. Democratic leaders from the House, the Senate, the national party and representatives of mayors and governors have met periodically to try to produce their own campaign agenda for 2006, which they hope to unveil early next year, strategists and senators said.
That agenda will deal with energy independence, broader access to health care and college education, government reform, economic security and - the most divisive issue for the Democrats - Iraq and national security, Democratic strategists say.
Whether to offer Democratic alternatives or simply critique the Republicans has been a long-running argument in the party during its years in the minority; earlier this year, that debate was engaged on Social Security. (The Democrats refused to put an alternative on the table during that fight, focusing on the Bush plan.) But several strategists said there was widespread consensus on the need for a general set of alternatives in 2006 to highlight Democratic values and priorities - and to step forward earlier than the Republicans did in 1994, when they unveiled their Contract with America in September.
In the meantime, Democrats are trying to set the stage for an anti-incumbent year, arguing, in a variety of venues: "America Can Do Better." Under that rubric, Senate Democrats have been holding events out in the country this week highlighting the problems of high energy costs as winter approaches.
On another front, Democratic campaign officials are racing to recruit more House candidates in places like Ohio and Kentucky. Representative Steny H. Hoyer, the Democratic whip and a leader in the recruitment effort, said he spent part of last week in Ohio with potential candidates, and his message is simple: "My basic premise is, I think this is the best context for Democrats to be running in for the House of Representatives since 1994."
Mr. Bush's approval ratings are, perhaps, the most closely watched political indicator at the moment. Andrew Kohut, president of the Pew Research Center, said, "In every midterm election season, a president with approval ratings as low as President Bush's has had his party taking it on the chin."
But much can change in 12 months. And Republicans note that while the popularity of Mr. Bush and the Congressional Republicans is down, the ratings for Congressional Democrats have not risen.
In the meantime, the different strategies of the parties are apparent. "These guys represent the status quo, and we are change," said Representative Rahm Emanuel of Illinois, chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. His Republican counterpart, Representative Thomas M. Reynolds, chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee, argued in a recent memorandum that, "in the end, Congressional elections have less to do with current events, opinions and polls, than they do with the fundamentals," which he defined as "money, message and members."
Link (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/13/politics/13dems.html?pagewanted=1)
By ROBIN TONER
Published: October 13, 2005
WASHINGTON, Oct. 12 - Suddenly, Democrats see a possibility in 2006 they have long dreamed of: a sweeping midterm election framed around what they describe as the simple choice of change with the Democrats or more of an unpopular status quo with the Republican majority.
That sense of political opportunity has Democratic operatives scrambling to recruit more candidates in Congressional districts that look newly favorable for Democratic gains, to overcome internal divisions and produce an agenda they can carry into 2006, and to raise the money to compete across a broader field. In short, the Democrats are trying to be ready if, in fact, an anti-incumbent, 1994-style political wave hits.
Already, the response to Hurricane Katrina, the war in Iraq and soaring gasoline prices have taken a toll on the popularity of President Bush and Congressional Republicans; new polling by the Pew Research Center shows the approval rating for Congressional Republican leaders at 32 percent, with 52 percent disapproving, a sharp deterioration since March. (The ratings of Democratic leaders stood at 32 percent approval, 48 percent disapproval.)
A new NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll, released Wednesday night, showed that 13 months before the midterm election, 48 percent said they wanted a Democratic-led Congress, compared to 39 percent who preferred Republican control.
But for Democrats to step into the void, many strategists and elected officials say, they must offer more than a blistering critique of the Republicans in power, the regular attacks on what Democrats now describe as a "culture of cronyism and corruption."
What they need, many Democrats acknowledge, is their own version of the "Contract With America," the Republican agenda (tax cuts, a balanced budget, a stronger military and an array of internal reforms) that the party campaigned on in the 1994 landslide election, when it won control of the House and the Senate.
"I think Democrats understand we have a great opportunity," said Senator Charles E. Schumer, Democrat of New York and chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee. "We've gotten much better at blocking some of the bad things the Republicans would do, but we know you can't be a party of long-term majorities unless you put forward the things you would do."
For all the Democratic optimism, important structural obstacles stand in the way of major Democratic gains, outside analysts and Republican campaign officials say.
Ken Mehlman, chairman of the Republican National Committee, said of the Democrats: "Look, we've heard this talk before. It was always talk then, and it's talk now. If you look at the competitive races, you'll find a playing field that is either relatively even or favors Republicans. They have a huge uphill fight, and there's no evidence they're climbing that hill."
To recapture the House, Democrats need a net gain of 15 seats. That is a difficult feat if - as some predict - the number of competitive seats is fewer than three dozen, thanks largely to redistrictings. To recapture the Senate, Democrats need to pick up six seats, also an extremely high bar given the seats up this year. And while the current political climate is bleak for Republicans, no one knows what it will be a year from now.
Moreover, while the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee had an edge over its Republican counterpart in the last fund-raising reports, Republicans as a whole had a substantial financial advantage. And, Mr. Mehlman said, they will use it.
"There will be no higher priority for the Republican National Committee," he said, "than protecting the majority in the House and the Senate in 2006, meaning that we intend to be very helpful from a resource perspective, an advice perspective, an expertise perspective."
Charles Cook, the influential nonpartisan analyst of Congressional elections, said: "Right now, if I had to bet would the Democrats take the House and Senate back, I'd say no. But are the odds a heck of a lot better than they were three months ago or six months ago? Heck, yes."
Reflecting that shift in assessments, Democrats are preparing for a midterm with broad, national themes and possibilities - like 1982, 1986 and 1994. Democratic leaders from the House, the Senate, the national party and representatives of mayors and governors have met periodically to try to produce their own campaign agenda for 2006, which they hope to unveil early next year, strategists and senators said.
That agenda will deal with energy independence, broader access to health care and college education, government reform, economic security and - the most divisive issue for the Democrats - Iraq and national security, Democratic strategists say.
Whether to offer Democratic alternatives or simply critique the Republicans has been a long-running argument in the party during its years in the minority; earlier this year, that debate was engaged on Social Security. (The Democrats refused to put an alternative on the table during that fight, focusing on the Bush plan.) But several strategists said there was widespread consensus on the need for a general set of alternatives in 2006 to highlight Democratic values and priorities - and to step forward earlier than the Republicans did in 1994, when they unveiled their Contract with America in September.
In the meantime, Democrats are trying to set the stage for an anti-incumbent year, arguing, in a variety of venues: "America Can Do Better." Under that rubric, Senate Democrats have been holding events out in the country this week highlighting the problems of high energy costs as winter approaches.
On another front, Democratic campaign officials are racing to recruit more House candidates in places like Ohio and Kentucky. Representative Steny H. Hoyer, the Democratic whip and a leader in the recruitment effort, said he spent part of last week in Ohio with potential candidates, and his message is simple: "My basic premise is, I think this is the best context for Democrats to be running in for the House of Representatives since 1994."
Mr. Bush's approval ratings are, perhaps, the most closely watched political indicator at the moment. Andrew Kohut, president of the Pew Research Center, said, "In every midterm election season, a president with approval ratings as low as President Bush's has had his party taking it on the chin."
But much can change in 12 months. And Republicans note that while the popularity of Mr. Bush and the Congressional Republicans is down, the ratings for Congressional Democrats have not risen.
In the meantime, the different strategies of the parties are apparent. "These guys represent the status quo, and we are change," said Representative Rahm Emanuel of Illinois, chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. His Republican counterpart, Representative Thomas M. Reynolds, chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee, argued in a recent memorandum that, "in the end, Congressional elections have less to do with current events, opinions and polls, than they do with the fundamentals," which he defined as "money, message and members."
Link (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/13/politics/13dems.html?pagewanted=1)