The Democrats Don't Need a 'Contract with America'
The conventional wisdom among political pundits and strategists is that if the Democrats hope to capitalize on the GOP's current troubles in the 2006 mid-term elections, they will have to come up with a new "Contract with America," the now infamous list of policy proposals that is widely credited as being the key to the GOP's takeover of Congress in 1994. I submit that this conventional wisdom is all wrong, and that the "Contract with America" was nowhere near as important as everyone seems to think it was.
Beltway pundits and political strategists like to think that the results of regional contests are largely determined by political strategies that emanate from Washington. This assumption makes them feel like what they do is far more important and influential than it really is. Although I don't have the empirical data to prove it, Steven Teles and others have convinced me that the outcomes of the vast majority of regional contests have far more to do with the caliber of the candidates themselves than any national party message. The general political landscape is important, but not in the way many people think.
About one year before any Congressional election, important decisions have to be made. Incumbents must decide whether to run for re-election or to retire. New political aspirants must decide whether or not this is the year to run. In 1993, Clinton was off to a very rocky start, and Democrats in Congress were looking more vulnerable than they had in a long time. Many conservatives surveyed the political terrain and decided "if I'm ever going to run for office, this is the year to do it." At the same time, many Democrats with political ambitions looked at the same terrain and thought "maybe I should wait a few years." And many Democratic incumbents decided that they'd rather retire than face a stiff challenge for re-election. As a result, the GOP fielded much stronger candidates, and not surprisingly, did quite well across the country. The "Contract with America" was certainly creative, and it managed to capture the imaginations of a whole generation of political commentators and strategists, but I suspect it didn't make all that much of a difference to the actual outcome. Stronger candidates tend to win, regardless of what the national party is saying.
With the 2006 mid-term elections one year away, the same decisions are being made right now. Democrats with political ambitions are surveying the political landscape, and they're liking what they're seeing. No doubt many have concluded that this is the year to run. Republican hopefuls, on the other hand, are likely very wary of throwing their hats in the ring this time around. They've likely concluded that their careers would be better served by waiting a few years. Republican incumbents in competitive districts may be seriously contemplating retirement.
Does this mean that the Democrats will take back the House in 2006? Not necessarily. Due in large part to partisan gerrymandering, there are far fewer competitive districts now than there were in 1993-94. This is a fairly significant structural obstacle for the Democrats. What remains to be seen is whether quality Democratic candidates will feel bold enough to challenge Republicans in districts that are normally considered a "lock" for the GOP. Not that long ago, Iraq-veteran Paul Hackett came very close to winning a Congressional district that is about as solidly Republican as any in the country. And since then, the President and his party have only sunk further in the polls. Democrats considering running for Congress may have taken that election as a sign that, in this political climate, a strong Democratic candidate can win just about anywhere. If so, the Democrats may be able to mount serious challenges in many more districts than they previously thought possible.
The Democratic party should stop worrying about coming up with their own version of the "Contract with America" and should instead focus on encouraging promising candidates to run in as many districts as possible. The outcome of the 2006 election will hinge not on what the national party is saying, but on the quality of the candidates out in the field.
Beltway pundits and political strategists like to think that the results of regional contests are largely determined by political strategies that emanate from Washington. This assumption makes them feel like what they do is far more important and influential than it really is. Although I don't have the empirical data to prove it, Steven Teles and others have convinced me that the outcomes of the vast majority of regional contests have far more to do with the caliber of the candidates themselves than any national party message. The general political landscape is important, but not in the way many people think.
About one year before any Congressional election, important decisions have to be made. Incumbents must decide whether to run for re-election or to retire. New political aspirants must decide whether or not this is the year to run. In 1993, Clinton was off to a very rocky start, and Democrats in Congress were looking more vulnerable than they had in a long time. Many conservatives surveyed the political terrain and decided "if I'm ever going to run for office, this is the year to do it." At the same time, many Democrats with political ambitions looked at the same terrain and thought "maybe I should wait a few years." And many Democratic incumbents decided that they'd rather retire than face a stiff challenge for re-election. As a result, the GOP fielded much stronger candidates, and not surprisingly, did quite well across the country. The "Contract with America" was certainly creative, and it managed to capture the imaginations of a whole generation of political commentators and strategists, but I suspect it didn't make all that much of a difference to the actual outcome. Stronger candidates tend to win, regardless of what the national party is saying.
With the 2006 mid-term elections one year away, the same decisions are being made right now. Democrats with political ambitions are surveying the political landscape, and they're liking what they're seeing. No doubt many have concluded that this is the year to run. Republican hopefuls, on the other hand, are likely very wary of throwing their hats in the ring this time around. They've likely concluded that their careers would be better served by waiting a few years. Republican incumbents in competitive districts may be seriously contemplating retirement.
Does this mean that the Democrats will take back the House in 2006? Not necessarily. Due in large part to partisan gerrymandering, there are far fewer competitive districts now than there were in 1993-94. This is a fairly significant structural obstacle for the Democrats. What remains to be seen is whether quality Democratic candidates will feel bold enough to challenge Republicans in districts that are normally considered a "lock" for the GOP. Not that long ago, Iraq-veteran Paul Hackett came very close to winning a Congressional district that is about as solidly Republican as any in the country. And since then, the President and his party have only sunk further in the polls. Democrats considering running for Congress may have taken that election as a sign that, in this political climate, a strong Democratic candidate can win just about anywhere. If so, the Democrats may be able to mount serious challenges in many more districts than they previously thought possible.
The Democratic party should stop worrying about coming up with their own version of the "Contract with America" and should instead focus on encouraging promising candidates to run in as many districts as possible. The outcome of the 2006 election will hinge not on what the national party is saying, but on the quality of the candidates out in the field.
posted by A.L. at 4:54 PM
4 Comments:
Perhaps republican voters will one day understand, political parties creating contracts with voters have agendas that inevitably lead to more laws, increasing the size of government. How ironic!
The "Contract with America" was a great stunt and captured several news cycles. It might be important to point out now how the Republicans ignore many of its points, thus proving it was a stunt. Gingrich also captured news cycles by blaming horrible crimes on the Democrats (remember the Susan Smith case). Taken all together, these things created a negative climate for Democratic incumbants. The Democrats should now follow the Gingrich example and blame any and all problems on Republicans. Sometimes the blame may sound absurd, but the tone will be set.
As well as "scientific" gerrymandering, the Dems also must contend with the still repressed issue of cooked computer voting machines. Shading the vote electronically is far easier at a local level than at the national level or even state level, and easier at the primary level than at the general level. In NC last year, the GOP primary for governor was decided by questionable shifting vote totals in the eventual winner's home county. NO ONE in the GOP, including the original presumed winner, protested, and life went on. As it turned out, the Dem won in the general election. Until the country as a whole realizes that the mechanics of voting are currently in deep peril, democracy is at risk. --Beel
The election debacle of 2000 did two important things…(1)taught liberals how to complain even louder and (2) gave them a perfect excuse to whenever they lose an election and how to blame it on the local election process. It must be another one of those “Right Wing Conspiracies.”
Generally, this article is well written and I agree with most of the statements. However, the author has forgotten one important prerequisite to winning any election. There must be a clear and precise plan on how the person running for office will govern. That has been and continues to be the democrat’s main downfall. If they would only present a plan to the American people that is concise and unwavering, they may actually persuade a few of us to vote for them.
The climate is right for a change. The people want to see a plan that will actually help the county get on the right track. But there will be no victory if all the democrats are going to do is run on the mistakes of the present administration. Just ask John Kerry.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home