Americans' Anger May Threaten GOP Control of Congress

  • davidswanson's picture
    davidswanson
    Want to meet our members? Click 'Join' above!

Published on Wednesday, October 26, 2005 by Knight Ridder
By Steven Thomma

WASHINGTON - Americans have turned so sour about the state of the country and their lives that Republican strategists fear they could rise in a wave of anger and sweep Republicans out of power in Congress in next year's elections, much like they swept the Democrats out in 1994.

Voters haven't yet turned to the Democrats as a viable alternative. But their anxiety about Iraq, the economy, gasoline prices and the overall performance of their federal government has even some Republican strategists fearing the November 2006 elections.

"As angry and pissed off as we were in 1994 about politics, I think it's worse today," said Frank Luntz, a Republican strategist who helped his party capture Congress in 1994. "This House of Representatives' Republican majority is in jeopardy."

"Today," added Republican pollster Ed Goeas, "President Bush and Republicans face a political environment that, as reflected in current polling numbers, is the most negative environment of his presidency."

Beyond that, Bush and Republican lawmakers are hindered in their ability to wage a political comeback. They're torn by internal fights over Bush's nomination of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court and soaring federal spending. And they face a litany of woes beyond their control. Among them: a criminal investigation into White House leaks of a CIA officer's name; a U.S. death toll in Iraq that passed the 2,000 mark Tuesday; and a coming surge in winter home-heating costs.

That leaves Bush in a tough spot. Any time he turns to those issues, he reminds people of things that make them nervous, not happy.

A new bipartisan poll released Tuesday underscored the problems Republicans face one year from midterm elections, when they must defend their 55-44-1 majority in the Senate and their 231-202-1 majority in the House.

The survey was conducted jointly by Goeas, who works for Republican congressional candidates, and Democratic pollster Celinda Lake. It was sponsored by George Washington University.

The poll found that 66 percent of Americans believe the country is on the wrong track, while 28 percent said it was headed in the right direction.

It found 44 percent approve of the way Bush is handling his job, while 54 percent disapprove. A key reason for his low standing: 58 percent of voters said the federal government did a poor job responding to Hurricane Katrina.

Voters also gave slightly higher marks to Democrats than Republicans. Republicans in Congress won a 44 percent favorable rating, and the Republican Party overall 45 percent. Voters were 47 percent favorable to Democrats in Congress; 48 percent were favorable to the Democratic Party overall.

Voters also signaled different ideas about how to pay for rebuilding after Hurricane Katrina.

While Republicans in Congress debate how much to cut spending, 73 percent of voters said they would cut spending on highways that doesn't go directly to road work, 68 percent said they would raise taxes on those making more than $200,000 a year, and 63 percent said they would start withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq and pull all out by the end of next year.

"It is difficult to believe how much the battleground of public opinion has changed in 11 months," said F. Christopher Arterton, dean of George Washington University's Graduate School of Political Management. "After the 2004 election, Bush and the Republicans stood virtually unchallenged in the center of the ring. Now, they're on the ropes, from self-inflicted blows."

The National Republican Congressional Committee, the political operation for congressional Republicans, insisted Tuesday that the party is in good shape heading into the election year. It pointed to a recent Pew Research Center Poll that found 57 percent of registered voters saying they would vote for their local members of Congress. "A lot of these national polls are irrelevant," said Carl Forti, an NRCC spokesman.

Charles Cook, an authoritative independent congressional analyst, notes that fewer House members face truly competitive races than in 1994, leaving fewer targets for the opposition party to pick up. In 1994, Cook says, there were 136 competitive House races, 95 held by the Democrats. Today, after redistricting left most incumbents of both parties in safer districts, as few as 28 are competitive, 17 held by Republicans.

Republicans agree that the state of the Democrats may be their best hope.

"This does not mean that Democrats are soaring with newfound respect from the voters," Goeas said. "... They have done little to project themselves as having the solutions to the nation's problems."

But some warned against assuming that Republican majorities are safe.

"It's true there are less seats in play now," Luntz said. "So you need that much more of a wave. But in 1994, with districts gerrymandered so Republicans could not win, the anger and frustration and desire for change and fear all led to a GOP sweep. ... The conditions exist now - if the Republicans don't change - to overcome the redistricting advantage that the GOP has."

---

For more on the GW-Battleground Poll, go to www.gwu.edu/(TILDE)newsctr/ or www.tarrance.com or www.lspma.com

The GW-Battleground Poll archives since 1991 are available at GW's Gelman Library, www.gwu.edu/gelman

The Pew poll cited by Forti is available at www.people-press.org

The GW poll surveyed 1,000 likely voters Oct 9-12 and had a margin of error of plus or minus 3.1 percentage points.

Comments

Re: American's Anger

  • Hot Young Lib's picture
    Hot Young Lib
    Want to meet our members? Click 'Join' above!

The GOP's not worried. They still have the electronic voting systems and the elections officials on their sides.

Electronic voting machines win elections

  • mac3's picture
    mac3
    Want to meet our members? Click 'Join' above!

I agree. They do what they do because they know they will remain in power and not suffer removal or jail.

Both parties are now one when it comes to removal of liberties, WTO, and war.

"It's not how you count the votes but who counts them that matters." Joseph
Stalin

Do I have to agree with Mr.

  • fjlumia's picture
    fjlumia
    Want to meet our members? Click 'Join' above!

Do I have to agree with Mr. Swanson? Absolutely!!!! The Democrats are not on the radar screen for most Americans. The public is bothered by Bush but there is no leader in the Democratic Party to mobilize that developing anger and use it well. Where are our leaders? The congressional leadership has been in hiding and has supported W in the war and in all of his bad decisions. We need someone to stand up and iterate the beliefs of the Democratic Party. Do we have beliefs?
I am a 64 yr old physician. Demographically, I should be a Republican. I am not. I believe that government serves an important purpose as a safety net for the disadvantaged people. My mother was an immigrant. My father was a poorly paid state employee. My brother is a lawyer. They worked hard to give their kids a better life. Unfortunately, everyone can't do that and some of the reasons are cultural and societal.
We need social security as a guaranteed subsidy for the elderly who never made a lot of money. We need health care that is not based on place of employment.
Sen Clinton worked on this in the 1990s and received bad publicity. Now people are talking about systems remarkably similar to what she was suggesting. Health care needs to be universal, needs to be unrelated to place of employment, needs to be life long. That system will cost money. However, if the group purchasing the insurance consists of millions of people the group rate will not be outrageous. Medicare has the lowest management fees because it has only 1 plan to administer. Insurance companies administer thousands of policies with millions of clauses, exceptions, and requirements. Simplify the system and costs decrease!
We need public education that promotes science and the arts. WE need both. We need more engineers and more scientists to compete in the flat world of the 21st Century.
We need a transportation system, not a hodge-podge of disparate systems that don't work together. European countries have systems that include rail, trolley, bus, and airplanes along with their autostrasse. All we have is super highways that are so congested as to make the speed limit a joke. The trains in the Northeast corridor are crowded. We need more of them and we need to build more lines to follow the population movement. Few new tracks have been laid in the past 100 years.
I could keep going but I won't. The point is that I as a Democrat believe that these are the duties of government. We also need an energy policy that will made us energy independent in the next 10 years--a Manhattan project would do this.
The Republicans under W believe that government has no role in these issues. Let the free enterprise system do the job. Corportate greed will not permit anything but bettering their own self-interest. Government has to do the job!

Bravo! I wish I had your

  • dn33435's picture
    dn33435
    Want to meet our members? Click 'Join' above!

Bravo! I wish I had your literary skills.

Government has a job to do

  • mac3's picture
    mac3
    Want to meet our members? Click 'Join' above!

I agree fjlmia.

If we don't have government...we have anarchy. What we will have under these Neo Cons is world Fascist anarchy. Nothing will function properly because it will be broke or full of corrupt privite contactors...like Iraq.

The Neo Cons will have no place to go on the earth that is safe or has a good quality of life because it was all ruined for profit. We all go down together.

The Roman Empire destroyed civilization so much it took 400 years for society to recover. The infrastructure and educational systems destroyed. It was only because of a few holy men in Ireland that history and learning survived at all.

Is that what they want?

Who will carry the banner?

  • fjlumia's picture
    fjlumia
    Want to meet our members? Click 'Join' above!

Obviously there are others who agree with me. But who will carry the banner for the LIBERAL Democrats in the next congressional and presidential elections? Or will the national Democrats move so far to the right that they are indistinguishable from the rightwind Republicans? If any one saw the debate on the West Wing last weekend they were cheering when Matt Santos (Jimmy Smits) spoke on why the word Liberal is not a dirty word! He was elequent and I was cheering. What did happen to liberal Republican like Clifford Case, Hugh Scott or Nelson Rockefellar?
George HW Bush made the L word a dirty one and everyone let him!
We need someone who is not afraid of the word, the idea, and the philosophy!