User talk:John Broughton/Democratic Deluge of 2006
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Democratic Deluge of 2006 refers to the triumph of Republican Party in the 2006 U.S. midterm elections, which resulted in a net gain of 24 seats in the House of Representatives, and a net gain of five seats in the Senate.
The gains in seats in the mid-term election resulted in the Democrats winning enough seats to gain control of the House in January 2007. Democrats have been out of power the House for twelve years, since the 83rd Congress (elected in 1994), when the Republican Revolution took place. With the Senate split 50-50 (including two "independents" who will caucus with the Democrates - Socialist Bernie Sanders of Vermont and former Democratic Vice Presidential candidate Joseph Lieberman), Vice President Richard Cheney will need to be present to break any votes along party lines.
In addition, Democrats picked up a net gain of six governor's seats in states around the country, giving them the majority again.
Contents |
[edit] Origins of the phrase
The first known use of the phrase was in early June 2006, in the Rothenberg Political Report, commenting on a special election in California:
- ... a strong Busby showing (say, near 50 percent) would be evidence that the Democratic Deluge of ’06 has begun.
Democrat Francine Busby lost to Brian Bilbray, 49.3% to 45.5%, in the special election, in a district where she had received 36.5% of the vote in 2004. [1]
[edit] Factors in the election
Just before the election, Glen Bolger, a Republican pollster working in many of the top races, said "It’s the worst political environment for Republican candidates since Watergate."[2] A number of major factors have been cited as reasons for the success of the Democrats in the 2006 election:
- Increasing opposition to the war in Iraq (Washington Post)[3] "Iraq cost Bush 5, 6 percent of the vote in ’04," John Samples, an analyst with the Cato Institute said in November 2006. "It wasn’t noticed closely because he won anyway. But it has been a festering problem and now it is nationalizing the race."[4]
- Declining approval of President Bush[5] (Washington Post)[3] Bush's approval rating among independent voters was below 30% at the time of the election.[6]
- Historically low ratings for a Congress [7] which the Washington Post said "struggled to produce notable achievements and that was often mired in partisanship." (Washington Post)[3]
- Scandals during 2005 and 2006 involving Congressional members, most of them Republican, which hurt the Republicans in general as well as cost specific seats. On the Republican side, House Majority Leader Tom DeLay had been indicted, while Representatives Randy Cunningham and Representative Bob Ney both pleaded guilty of corruption in association with the Jack Abramoff scandal). The Mark Foley scandal caused Foley's resignation, and touched others in the GOP House leadership. In addition, there were FBI investigations involving Republican Representatives Curt Weldon, John Doolittle, Jerry Lewis, Rick Renzi, Katherine Harris, and others. Rep. Don Sherwood was the subject of revelations of a five year affair with a mistress, and allegations of spouse abuse surfaced with the revelations of a 911 call by the wife of Rep. John Sweeney
- The recruiting strategy by Representative Rahm Emanuel, chair of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, for Democratic candidates to run against Republican incumbents in the House, and by [Charles Schumer]], chair of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee: no litmus test on such things as pro-abortion/pro-choice. (New York Times)[8]
- Campaign contributions to the three national Republican Party committees, as a ratio to that of the three Democratic committees, was lower in 2006. [Numbers would be good]
In 2006, there were were 34 incumbent House members and one Senator (Richard Lugar, R-IN) running for re-election without any opponent, including opponents from minor parties;[2]. Of the 34 in the House, only three were Republicans: Gary Miller (CA), Mike Conaway (TX), and Tom Petri (WI). [9]
[edit] Comparison to prior elections
The U.S. House of Representatives has been remarkably stable beginning in 1986, with no more than ten seats changing hands each year. The sole exception in the past 20 years was the 1994 election,[10] in which the Republicans won a net increase of 54 House seats, 8 Senate seats, and 12 governorships. Even then, when 387 members of the House sought reelection, only 4 were defeated in primaries (versus 2 in 2006) and 34 in the general election, for an overall re-election rate of more than 90%.[11]
Stability of elections (typically, more than 95% of incumbents running for re-election in the House win their re-election bid) is due to a number of factors:[12]
- Improvements in the ability to do gerrymandering, because of cheaper and better computer hardware and software.[13]
- Increasing political segregation - liberals tend to move to liberal places and conservatives tend to move to conservative places [14]
- Money is far more concentrated. Incumbents in the House outspend challengers by a ratio of 5:1 or more, and this has become increasingly important as campaigns have become increasingly dependent on media buys.
Two additional factors increase the stability of both the House and Senate:[12]
- An increase in constituent service: those who are helped tend to vote for the people who helped them regardless of party affiliation or ideology[11]
- An increase in pork-barrel spending and earmarks, which incumbents point to as demonstrated accomplishments within their a district or state, and which they argue depends to some extent on seniority (i.e., their re-election).
[edit] How long will it last?
Republicans have said that newly elected Democrats will, as freshmen, be vulnerable to defeat in 2008. Democrats have said that if they have a strong presidential candidate in 2008, the party could be just fine: it could be in power for a decade or even two.[4] One important factor will be Iraq: will the U.S. troop strength have dropped significantly by November 2008? Will the general public believe that progress has been made, or will more voters believe that occupying Iraq was a mistake that Republicans in general should be held responsible for?
[edit] Notes
- ^ Rothenberg Political Report, June 8, 2006, first printed in Roll Call, June 5, 2006
- ^ a b Adam Nagourney and Robin Toner, "G.O.P. Glum as It Struggles to Hold Congress", New York Times, November 5, 2006
- ^ a b c Dan Balz and David S. Broder, "Democrats, on the Offensive, Could Gain Both Houses", Washington Post, November 5, 2006
- ^ a b Joyce Purnick, "Asterisks for the Political Rulebook", New York Times, November 5, 2006
- ^ President Bush: Job Ratings, PollingReport.com, accessed November 5, 2006
- ^ Ronald Brownstein, "Voters in center may get their say: The GOP's reliance on its base may not be enough this time", Los Angeles Times, November 5, 2006
- ^ Congress: Job Ratings, PollingReport.com, accessed November 5, 2006
- ^ Jeff Zeleny, "Democrats Fight for the Right to Say, ‘You’re Welcome’", New York Times, November 5, 2006
- ^ Note: Six Republicans faced only minor party opposition: Jeff Flake (AZ), Adam Putnam (FL), Richard Baker (LA), Chip Pickering (MI), Randy Forbes (VA), and Bob Goodlatte (VA). A larger number of Demcrats had a similar situation. (See United States House elections, 2006 complete list for details.)
- ^ Kevin Drum, Political Animal, September 16, 2006, the Washington Monthly blog
- ^ a b Eric O'Keefe and Aaron Steelman, "The End of Representation: How Congress Stifles Electoral Competition", Cato Institute, August 20, 1997
- ^ a b Kevin Drum, Political Animal, June 7, 2006, the Washington Monthly blog
- ^ Charles Krauthammer, "A Duel, but Not Decisive". Washington Post, November 4, 2006
- ^ Bill Bishop, The schism in U.S. politics begins at home: Growing gaps found from county to county in presidential race, Austin American-Statesman, April 4, 2004
Political eras of the United States of America
|
