archived: 2 - 8 Apr, 2006         Back                 Next

                        IN SEARCH OF AN ISSUE 

The Washington Times features claims it has inside reports that Bush will start touting the economy as an issue to salvage his low poll ratings: 

Growing consumer confidence and a stronger job market are spurring calls from Republican strategists for the White House to begin aggressively promoting the economy's performance to boost their party in the upcoming elections.

Former White House advisers predict that Joshua B. Bolten, President Bush's new chief of staff, will step up a strategy to sell the economy's progress to voters, a majority of whom still perceive it as weak.

"It's crucial that Republicans focus on the economy and begin telling the story about how strong it is, and I think we'll see that reflected in a possible new focus by the White House on the economy" when Mr. Bolten takes over, said Cesar Conda, Vice President Dick Cheney's former domestic-policy adviser. 

The Republican strategy is to pick one or two positive economic numbers and spin those numbers into a “strong economy.” 

The harsh reality for those who work for a living is that corporate profits are up, but workers are not sharing in those profits.  As the Economic Policy Institute (emphasis added) adroitly documents: 

[T]he Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) . . . show that in the fourth quarter of 2005 corporate profits claimed the largest share of gross domestic income (GDI) in 37 years.  The last time profits claimed this large a share of GDI was in the 4th quarter of 1968. Since the last business cycle peak (the first quarter of 2001), the share of GDI going to corporate profits has risen by 3.9 percentage points, while the share going to labor compensation has fallen by 1.4 percentage points. 

One EPI chart makes the case:

Is it any wonder Bush cannot get any traction in the polls?  Corporate profits are up and wages are lagging. 

The Republicans keep spinning.  Democrats need to be stating the facts.

_____________________________________________

                        SIGNS OF INTELLIGENT LIFE IN THE DEMOCRATIC UNIVERSE

Democrats appear to be edging toward the intelligent strategy that can make a profound difference in 2006 and beyond.

First, Democratic Underground (a TPJ favorite) is featuring an article that Gov. Dean has stood his ground with Congressional Democrats and is committed to rebuilding a 50 state Democratic Party.  The report from Hotwire: 

Will Howard Dean's Democratic National Committee be ready for the November elections? Party leaders and congressional campaign strategists are nervously pressuring Dean to stop spending money to staff organizers in states and instead commit to transfer the bulk of the DNC's kitty to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.

At a tense meeting in February, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid urged Dean to give to the Senate committee the same amount as the Republican National Committee was expected to transfer to the GOP's Senate committee. Reid argued that the DSCC's historically rare fundraising advantage could be wiped out with a single check from RNC chairman Ken Mehlman. If Republicans shuffled their cash, Reid said, the outcome of several critical Senate races might be jeopardized.

According to three sources familiar with the meeting, Dean said no. Of course, he said, the DNC will spend millions on the midterms. His argument was this: While the DSCC and DCCC's role is rightfully incumbent protection, Dean, on the other hand, was elected chair to tend to overall health of the party. And that includes his responsibility to hundreds of non-federal candidates as well. His investment in state parties, Dean promised Reid and House Min. Leader Nancy Pelosi, would pay off and the benefits would accrue to Democrats at all levels.

Dean’s vision for the Party is entirely correct.  Dean’s vision of the Party has, by report, won Pres. Clinton’s support:

And Dean has one supremely important new ally who, when he goes public, will almost certainly help with donors. In late February, Dean traveled to Harlem and sat down with former President Bill Clinton, often said to be privately disparaging of Dean.

But as Dean walked Clinton through his 50-state capacity-building project, Clinton became a convert. He vowed to help Dean win the attention of donors.

Second, Congressional Democrats have fashioned a consensus policy on national security.  It is a solid statement of principles, the major points being:

Rebuild a state-of-the-art military by making the needed investments in equipment and manpower so that we can project power to protect America wherever and whenever necessary.

Eliminate Osama Bin Laden, destroy terrorist networks like al Qaeda, finish the job in Afghanistan, and end the threat posed by the Taliban.

Eliminate terrorist breeding grounds by combating the economic, social, and political conditions that allow extremism to thrive; lead international efforts to uphold and defend human rights; and renew longstanding alliances that have advanced our national security objectives.

Immediately implement the recommendations of the independent, bipartisan 9/11 Commission including securing national borders, ports, airports and mass transit systems.

Ensure 2006 is a year of significant transition to full Iraqi sovereignty, with the Iraqis assuming primary responsibility for securing and governing their country and with the responsible redeployment of U.S. forces.

Achieve energy independence for America by 2020 by eliminating reliance on oil from the Middle East and other unstable regions of the world.

Democrats everywhere should start discussing the Democratic Party plan.

AVOID EXCESSIVE EXUBERANCE

Bush approval ratings returned to their low point in March as the chart below demonstrates. Bush’s average approval performance, 37.10%, is the lowest TPJ has recorded, exceeding slightly the previous low in November 2005.  The average of those who disapprove of Bush’s performance is 57.30%, the highest percentage TPJ has recorded.  Finally, the average between those who approve and disapprove is -20.20%, exceeding twenty percent for the first time.  By any standard, Americans are repudiating the Bush administration.

Commentators in the main stream media and blogs are openly discussing the possibility, in not probability, that Democrats will win sufficient Senate and House seats in Congress to recapture control of one or both chambers.  As Bush’s approval ratings fall, Democratic exuberance grows proportionally.  A recent analysis in Time magazine is indicative of the exuberance:

The midterm contests in a President's second term are almost always treacherous, but this time around, Republicans thought it would be different. The 2006 elections, coming on top of their gains in 2002 and 2004, would make history and perhaps even cement a G.O.P. majority in Congress for a generation. George W. Bush's credibility on national security and the states' aggressive gerrymandering, they believed, had turned the vast majority of districts into fortresses for incumbents. But that's not turning out to be the case. In recent weeks, a startling realization has begun to take hold: if the elections were held today, top strategists of both parties say privately, the Republicans would probably lose the 15 seats they need to keep control of the House of Representatives and could come within a seat or two of losing the Senate as well. Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich, who masterminded the 1994 elections that brought Republicans to power on promises of revolutionizing the way Washington is run, told TIME that his party has so bungled the job of governing that the best campaign slogan for Democrats today could be boiled down to just two words: "Had enough?"

The central question for Democrats is whether the public repudiation of Bush will spill over to Congressional Republican candidates specifically and Republican candidates generally.  Several facts suggest that the Republican Party is not yet being dramatically affected and perhaps most importantly, the Democratic Party has not yet gained from a macro perspective.   Dr. Charles Franklin, publisher of Political Arithmetic (a TPJ favorite), recently analyzed partisan identification of voters in public polling.  He concludes that:

I estimate that Republican identification was 34.6% on January 1, 2005 and 31.0% as of March 12, 2006. That is a small change compared to shifts in presidential approval over the same period, but is a statistically and substantively significant shift in the relatively more stable partisanship measure. . . .

In contrast to Republican identification, the percentage of Democrats has remained quite stable in most polls since January 2005. . . .   [T]he estimate is that Democratic identification is statistically flat over this time period, with a non-significant decline of 0.4%. By these estimates, Democrats made up 32.9% of the adult population on January 1, 2005 and 32.5% on March 12, 2006. . . .  In the last 14+ months, the Democrats appear essentially unchanged, despite the bad times for President Bush and the losses suffered by the Republican identifiers. So what about Independents?

Independents have grown in size across most of the polls. . . .  Based on the model, Independents have moved from 29.2% at the start of 2005 to 33.8% as of March 2006, a 4.6 percentage point increase.  . . .

What about the Democrats? The 2004 election was one of the most polarizing elections in the last 60 years. It would seem plausible that some Independents who lean towards the Democratic [P]arty were convinced to declare themselves “Democrats” as a result of this polarization. When the election period was over, we might normally expect these people to drift back into independence as well, resulting in some decline in Democratic as well as Republican identification. However, the bad year for President Bush has produced political forces consistently disadvantaging the Republicans, and hastening the departure of especially weak identifiers. At the same time these forces should act to hold the most marginal Democrats in the party, keeping them from drifting against the tide of partisan forces over the last year or so. . . .

To conclude this look at party over time, as Galileo said, “it moves.” Right now that is working to disadvantage the Republicans, but not so much in favor of the Democrats. The rise in Independents may itself change if they are pushed more strongly towards one party or the other.

Franklin’s detailed analysis demonstrates the “rub” for Democrats.  It appears that voters who describe themselves as Republicans is falling slightly as Bush’s approval ratings reach new lows.  One would suspect that these Republicans would not switch their identification to Democratic, but would identify themselves as Independents.  Yet, one would suspect that if American’s have indeed had enough of Republican governance as suggested by Newt Gingrich, Democratic Party independents that lean toward the Democratic Party would be increasingly identifying themselves as Democrats.  To date, that movement has not started, but signs are emerging that it could. 

A Gallup poll measuring Party support reaches these conclusions, confirming Franklin’s analysis. 33% of Americans identify themselves as Democrat, while 32% identify themselves as Republican. Gallup finds that over the past year, Democratic identification has not risen.  For Republicans the findings are worse.  Fewer people describe themselves as Republicans over the course of the last year.   

Gallup does find that independents are leaning Democratic.  In the most recent quarter measured 49% of Americans identify themselves as Democrats or they lean to the Democratic Party.  By the same measure of identifiers, 42% identify as Republicans or lean to the Republican Party.  In the first quarter of 2005, Democrats started at parity with Republicans  In 2005, second quarter, Democrats opened a 47% to 43% edge.   

Additional factors also suggest that Bush’s low approval ratings will not necessarily transform Democrats to majority status in either House of Congress or produce a Democratic Party sweep at the State and local level.  Ruy Teixeira, publisher of The Emerging Democratic Majority (a TPJ favorite), has authored a wonderfully detailed article projecting the forces that weight for and against major Democratic Party gains in November.  Teixeira contends that in order to “sweep” Democrats must “nationalize” the election.  He concludes: 

Certainly one can go far in terms of nationalizing the election simply by concentrating on the sins of the other side and, in particular, on Bush himself and the need to change course from his direction for the country. This case is argued, with supporting documentation, in the latest Democracy Corps memo, “Defining the 2006 Election”.

And this is an off-year election, less conducive than a presidential contest for laying out an elaborate set of ideas about what Democrats stand for. Moreover, the persistent Republican taunting of the Democrats for having no ideas suggests an interest on the GOP’s part in shifting the conversation away from their considerable problems and onto (hopefully complicated and vulnerable) ideas that Democrats put forward.

But it’s hard to avoid the sense that voters still would like to know what Democrats stand for and that, if Democrats could convey a few clear and simple things they stood for, that would help nationalize the election further to their benefit. “Together, we can do better” doesn’t really do that job.  . . .

This suggests Democrats may need to throw a few big ideas into the mix at this point to clarify what they stand for and further nationalize the election in their favor. One idea should a responsible but definite exit strategy and timetable for ending the Iraq war. Another might be moving toward universal health care.

Sure, big ideas like these, even pitched at a fairly high level of generality, might give the other side something to shoot at. But it would also give the voters some of the answers they’re looking for about what the Democrats stand for. At this point, I’d say the Democrats should err on the side of giving the voters what they want. 

Viewing both Franklin and Teixeira’s analysis together suggests obvious directions for Democrats. 

1. Nationalizing the election is critical to Democratic Party prospects.  The mantra for Democrats should be Gingrich’s “Had Enough?” which clearly encapsulates and defines the Republican Party failure to lead America at every level.
    

2. Democrats desperately need to have a unified plan for America that incorporates the big ideas that Teixeira suggests.
    

3. The Democratic Party has to market itself as a Party and to start recruiting new members.
    

4. The Democratic Party effort will take time.  Democrats must look not only to 2006, but into the future.  Democrats need to build the infrastructure that will take the Party well into the next decade.

Ultimately, Democrats need to avoid excessive exuberance and dedicate themselves to the daily steps that will build a Party that can not only govern today, but can capture the support of future generations.  

                        A FREUDIAN SLIP? 

Democracy Corps’ (emphasis added) latest polling provides an upbeat assessment of the possibilities for the 2006 elections and comprehensive analysis of voting groups that Democrats should be targeting. The lead paragraph of their assessment: 

We believe now is the moment for Democrats and progressives to take charge of the 2006 election – by taking the initiative, expanding the electoral battlefield, crystallizing the choice before voters and presenting their agenda. The goal is an upheaval in 2006, now a genuine possibility. The moment is right because Bush’s problems are now so clear, deep and long-standing, and because Republicans too are now part of the problem. A large majority of the country is determined to vote against candidates who support Bush’s direction for the country. Even now, the Democrats have near landslide leads in the races for the House and Senate, but to consolidate that position and translate it into congressional majorities, Democrats can now take this election to a new stage. 

Catch the Freudian slip in the highlighted sentence?  Are Greenberg and Carville, who authored the analysis, stating that “progressives” are distinctive from “Democrats?”  

The term “Democrats” is used throughout the balance of the article. 

Democracy Corps’ analysis is a must read – even for progressives!

NEXT- MICHAEL CARMICHAEL

Last Update: 04/15/2006