2006 Will Be An Intriguing Election Year
July 28, 2016 at 4:25 p.m.
The 2006 election should be quite interesting.
The Democrats are chomping at the bit. They believe - and they may be right - that W has made the Republicans vulnerable.
W's popularity is falling. Support for the war in Iraq is dwindling and the economy, while still strong, is being threatened by rising gas prices.
There is an outfit in Washington, D.C. called Democracy Corps. It boasts members such as notable liberal political strategists as James Carville, Stanley Greenberg, Karl Angle and Robert Shrum.
Basically, the group conducts surveys to get a feel for what Americans are thinking.
They're looking for ideas and issues that they can use to get more Democrats elected.
I was looking over a couple recent memos from the group - one from July 6 called "The Democrats Moment to Engage" and one from Aug. 4 called "Creating a Change Election."
Here's an excerpt from the July 6 memo:
The Republican revolution, deeply entrenched in Washington, has lost its hold on the American people who are looking for change. All the moorings have been loosened: Iraq, Bush's frontline in the war on terrorism, is deeply unpopular (56 percent not worth it); Bush's economy, led by tax cuts, is seen to leave most Americans stuck with limited opportunities (58 percent); his supporters' partisanship and religious zealotry, most think, have gone miles too far; and his efforts to "reform" the New Deal welfare state, Social Security privatization, are supported by only a third of the country.
The numbers came from a Democracy Corps survey of 1,078 likely voters, conducted June 20-26. The survey had a margin of error of +/- 3 percent.
The memo continues:
As a result,, this is a country almost settled on the need for change. Over three surveys in three months, Democracy Corps national surveys show 55 percent wanting to go in a different direction than President Bush, with only 41 percent wanting to continue with his course - 10 points below his vote of eight months ago. Other key indicators for the Bush presidency continue to worsen. By a 20-point margin - a near-record for Bush - voters think the country is seriously off on the wrong track (56 to 36 percent). And for the first time in Bush's second term, disapproval of his performance exceeds approval. That has allowed Democrats to move into a consistent 5-point lead in a hypothetical congressional contest, again, confirmed in the last three surveys.
Now that sounds pretty darn bleak for Republicans, doesn't it? But the next part is rather telling:
But for all that, Democrats are at risk of making only modest gains in 2006. The Democrats' gains in the congressional battle have come more from Republican slippage than Democratic gains and, alarmingly, the president's deep troubles have produced no rise in positive sentiment about the Democrats. Their thermometer ratings are significantly below 2004, with equal numbers offering warm and cool response to the party. The positive ratings (38 percent) are 5 points below that for the Republicans.
The August memo says Democrats need to make gains in areas where support for Republicans is crumbling - white rural voters, white mainline Protestants - and in areas of "change-protest" voters - midwestern voters, white older non-college, white seniors, devout white Catholics and unmarried women.
The August memo again notes the Democrats image has not improved and any gains are because of Republican slippage.
I think I know what's going on here. It reminds me of last November.
It was the Democrats election to lose and they lost it. It's not as if W was sailing along in a worry-free political environment. There were some serious negatives - War, missing WMDs, deficits, Enron, Halliburton, corporate downsizing, outsourcing, joblessness.
Heck, "Farenhype 9/11" was "film of the year" at Cannes.
All this and John Kerry still can't win? Why?
Well, I think I have an idea. First of all, I really don't think a liberal senator from the East coast is probably the best candidate to sell across the U.S. (Hear that, Hillary? Of course, if Hillary runs she'll sell herself as a moderate from Arkansas.)
But beyond picking the wrong guy in 2004, I think the Democrats have a couple problems.
First, some of them are just really, really negative. I asked one of my liberal friends if there was one thing W has done right?
Nope. Not one thing. Everything W has done is wrong. Of course, that's just not rational. But sometimes that's the feel I get from the Demos.
They are obstructing W every step of the way. Average people don't like that. They like bipartisanship. Even if it's just an appearance of bipartisanship.
Republicans were plenty obstructionist during the Clinton years, to be sure. But they were able to appear bipartisan. Lots of pretty impressive things passed through Congress during the Clinton years - balanced budget, welfare reform. Lots of photo ops with Clinton and congressional Republicans patting each other on the back.
Beyond that, Republicans seem able to define themselves while simultaneously defining the Democrats.
And Republicans continue to define themselves - especially on things like security, taxes, abortion, gay marriage and family, cultural and social issues. Those are the issues that carried W in 2004.
On the flip side, Democrats are good at defining Republicans, but not so good at defining themselves.
This is a sentiment Carville and his buddies at Democracy Corps seem to get.
Democrats can define the Republicans in this (2006) election and do moderately well, but they will not gain a decisive advantage unless their battles leave the Democrats defined as a party ready to clean house, empower the middle class over the big corporate interests in Washington, make the economy work for everyone, not just the privileged, and bring wholly new priorities that secure retirement and reverse the health care mess.
Bottom line? The potential for dramatic gains in the House and Senate is real for the Democrats in 2006.
The key for them is to define themselves - to shake the obstructionist and liberal labels and and become known as champions of the middle class.
Republicans are going to have some pretty significant negatives to overcome with regard to W's policies.
Taxes, security and cultural issues will remain strong for them, but they also need to convince voters that they are the best choice on healthcare, social security and the economy.
These are all tall orders for both parties.
The 2006 election should be quite interesting, indeed. [[In-content Ad]]
The 2006 election should be quite interesting.
The Democrats are chomping at the bit. They believe - and they may be right - that W has made the Republicans vulnerable.
W's popularity is falling. Support for the war in Iraq is dwindling and the economy, while still strong, is being threatened by rising gas prices.
There is an outfit in Washington, D.C. called Democracy Corps. It boasts members such as notable liberal political strategists as James Carville, Stanley Greenberg, Karl Angle and Robert Shrum.
Basically, the group conducts surveys to get a feel for what Americans are thinking.
They're looking for ideas and issues that they can use to get more Democrats elected.
I was looking over a couple recent memos from the group - one from July 6 called "The Democrats Moment to Engage" and one from Aug. 4 called "Creating a Change Election."
Here's an excerpt from the July 6 memo:
The Republican revolution, deeply entrenched in Washington, has lost its hold on the American people who are looking for change. All the moorings have been loosened: Iraq, Bush's frontline in the war on terrorism, is deeply unpopular (56 percent not worth it); Bush's economy, led by tax cuts, is seen to leave most Americans stuck with limited opportunities (58 percent); his supporters' partisanship and religious zealotry, most think, have gone miles too far; and his efforts to "reform" the New Deal welfare state, Social Security privatization, are supported by only a third of the country.
The numbers came from a Democracy Corps survey of 1,078 likely voters, conducted June 20-26. The survey had a margin of error of +/- 3 percent.
The memo continues:
As a result,, this is a country almost settled on the need for change. Over three surveys in three months, Democracy Corps national surveys show 55 percent wanting to go in a different direction than President Bush, with only 41 percent wanting to continue with his course - 10 points below his vote of eight months ago. Other key indicators for the Bush presidency continue to worsen. By a 20-point margin - a near-record for Bush - voters think the country is seriously off on the wrong track (56 to 36 percent). And for the first time in Bush's second term, disapproval of his performance exceeds approval. That has allowed Democrats to move into a consistent 5-point lead in a hypothetical congressional contest, again, confirmed in the last three surveys.
Now that sounds pretty darn bleak for Republicans, doesn't it? But the next part is rather telling:
But for all that, Democrats are at risk of making only modest gains in 2006. The Democrats' gains in the congressional battle have come more from Republican slippage than Democratic gains and, alarmingly, the president's deep troubles have produced no rise in positive sentiment about the Democrats. Their thermometer ratings are significantly below 2004, with equal numbers offering warm and cool response to the party. The positive ratings (38 percent) are 5 points below that for the Republicans.
The August memo says Democrats need to make gains in areas where support for Republicans is crumbling - white rural voters, white mainline Protestants - and in areas of "change-protest" voters - midwestern voters, white older non-college, white seniors, devout white Catholics and unmarried women.
The August memo again notes the Democrats image has not improved and any gains are because of Republican slippage.
I think I know what's going on here. It reminds me of last November.
It was the Democrats election to lose and they lost it. It's not as if W was sailing along in a worry-free political environment. There were some serious negatives - War, missing WMDs, deficits, Enron, Halliburton, corporate downsizing, outsourcing, joblessness.
Heck, "Farenhype 9/11" was "film of the year" at Cannes.
All this and John Kerry still can't win? Why?
Well, I think I have an idea. First of all, I really don't think a liberal senator from the East coast is probably the best candidate to sell across the U.S. (Hear that, Hillary? Of course, if Hillary runs she'll sell herself as a moderate from Arkansas.)
But beyond picking the wrong guy in 2004, I think the Democrats have a couple problems.
First, some of them are just really, really negative. I asked one of my liberal friends if there was one thing W has done right?
Nope. Not one thing. Everything W has done is wrong. Of course, that's just not rational. But sometimes that's the feel I get from the Demos.
They are obstructing W every step of the way. Average people don't like that. They like bipartisanship. Even if it's just an appearance of bipartisanship.
Republicans were plenty obstructionist during the Clinton years, to be sure. But they were able to appear bipartisan. Lots of pretty impressive things passed through Congress during the Clinton years - balanced budget, welfare reform. Lots of photo ops with Clinton and congressional Republicans patting each other on the back.
Beyond that, Republicans seem able to define themselves while simultaneously defining the Democrats.
And Republicans continue to define themselves - especially on things like security, taxes, abortion, gay marriage and family, cultural and social issues. Those are the issues that carried W in 2004.
On the flip side, Democrats are good at defining Republicans, but not so good at defining themselves.
This is a sentiment Carville and his buddies at Democracy Corps seem to get.
Democrats can define the Republicans in this (2006) election and do moderately well, but they will not gain a decisive advantage unless their battles leave the Democrats defined as a party ready to clean house, empower the middle class over the big corporate interests in Washington, make the economy work for everyone, not just the privileged, and bring wholly new priorities that secure retirement and reverse the health care mess.
Bottom line? The potential for dramatic gains in the House and Senate is real for the Democrats in 2006.
The key for them is to define themselves - to shake the obstructionist and liberal labels and and become known as champions of the middle class.
Republicans are going to have some pretty significant negatives to overcome with regard to W's policies.
Taxes, security and cultural issues will remain strong for them, but they also need to convince voters that they are the best choice on healthcare, social security and the economy.
These are all tall orders for both parties.
The 2006 election should be quite interesting, indeed. [[In-content Ad]]