congressional elections

NOTE:  Cross Posted at Political Capital

It has become very obvious over the last month or two that Barack Obama is on the verge of a monumental landslide, and the democrats in congress are poised to push the envelope on supermajorities as well.  We are looking at a one party state, and not only that - its one that has been thirsting for power and will have a great deal of it in January.

Because of this reality, I think it is more than appropriate that we consider what has happened in the past when one party has taken over control of all levels of government.  This is important, because whenever one party gets beat that badly, they always feel as though the world is ending, and they will be permanently relegated to irrelevance.

What is interesting, though, is that this is hardly the case.  When you look back at history, one party dominance does not maintain itself for very long, and it often leads to utter disaster for the party that commands said unbridled power.

Why is that?  Perhaps its because the party in power over-reaches, believing they have more support of the American people than they actually do - as detailed here.  Perhaps it is because the minority party ends up looking at themselves in the mirror and diagnosing their issues, actually addressing the problems that caused them to be so roundly defeated - as I recommended here.  Perhaps its a little of both.

But one thing is for sure - one party controlling the government is not something that the American people tend to like very much.  Lets take a gander at some examples.

(Full disclosure: one of my friends produced this ad)

CT 2, which was the site of the nation's closest House race in 2006, has been a snoozer to date. Democrat Joe Courtney is a dry but likable guy who does little to offend people, which given he won by 83 votes was wise on his part. One of the people Courtney is most unctuous towards is Speaker Nancy Pelosi, whom he supports 98% of the time. While CT 2 is a lean Democratic district, this rural, blue collar military oriented area is a far cry from San Francisco.

The GOP recruited a good man to run here, former sub base commander Sean Sullivan, but frankly he has been poorly served by his campaign staff. But at long last a professional was retained to focus the message. Here's the result.   

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ujezSyWhGh4

Rubber stamp Democrats should be forced out of their constituent service comfort zone and be forced to defend the achievements of the current Congress.

This is an uphill climb; polling shows Courtney over the 50% mark and Sullivan is largely unknown.  But we'll see how many angry voters think re-electing an incumbent is a good way to express anger.

An enthusiasm gap has dogged the GOP this election cycle like nasty virus.  Measured by money, new registrants, the number of voters excited by the election – you name it – Republicans struggled. Stephen Hayes summed it up well back in July here and here.

But then came Sarah Palin. 

I wrote about how she helps with down ticket in a Washington Times piece.   She’s energized the party like a Caribou Coffee jolt of caffeine.  Down ticket congressional Republican candidates will realize the benefits from this new source of enthusiasm.

GOP campaign operatives tell me money is still a problem in some critical congressional races. But improvements in the generic ballot, the party’s image and a growing number of energized volunteers will save some vulnerable Republican candidates who were sure political road kill without the Alaska governor on the ticket.

Skeptical?  Don’t take my word for it.  Even the Washington Post  ran a front-page story about how Palin improves the congressional battleground by infusing the GOP with a new source of enthusiasm.  So now you know it HAS to be true!

Last night, KTUU (the NBC affilliate in Anchorage) held two separate primary election debates for Alaska's lone congressional seat, one for the two Democrats and the other for the three Republicans. I don't have the whole debate yet, but you can see some detailed coverage from the Anchorage Daily News and KTUU. (Sidenote: The ADN and KTUU essentially have a media duopoly in Alaska, and both are as liberal as you get in a red state.)

By now everybody knows two of the three Republican candidates: incumbent Don Young and Lt. Gov. Sean Parnell. The unknown factor is Gabrielle Ledoux, a former mayor of Kodiak and currently a state legislator. Although she's a long shot, and has been known to have liberal tendencies in the state legislature, Ledoux is a very good fundraiser and has been running ads statewide for three weeks. After a couple weeks of ads, her poll numbers jumped from 1% to 10% in the horserace, with most of that vote probably coming from the "anti-Don" crowd. Those who are supporting Sean Parnell are concerned.

The two Democrats who are running couldn't be any more different. Diane Benson is a Native Alaskan who has a son who was injured in Iraq. She ran against Don last year and received 40% of the vote. Although she was the former standard-bearer of the Alaska Green Party, which opposed drilling in ANWR (something that the Alaska Democratic Party won't go near), she has now modified her position. Benson seems to have a solid constituency with rural Alaskans and those within the party that feels that she deserves the nomination based on the last cycle's result.

Ethan Berkowitz is a former five-term legislator, four of those terms as Democratic Minority Leader in the State House. He is the odds on favorite. When I was talking to a reporter whose family is involved in the Alaska Democratic Party, she described Ethan Berkowitz as essentially a carbon copy of former Governor Tony Knowles and current senate candidate Mark Begich: someone who comes off as a right-leaning moderate Democrat in order to be pragmatic, but is actually very liberal at heart.

The primary is on August 26th. Sarah Palin's primary victory two years ago produced a 35% turnout, one of the highest primary turnouts in state history. Two contested house races as well as plenty of ballot initiatives will probably get 35-40% out again. Watch closely!

Saturday's print edition of The Orlando Sentinel featured an AP article with the headline "Stuck on gas, Congress heads home".   At the very end of the article, a whole two sentences were devoted to late Friday's Republican protest on the floor of the house over failure to handle important energy legislation.   Two sentences.  A swing voter in Congressman Tom Feeney's district may not even make it that far in the story, seeing only a headline that Congress has -yet again- done nothing.    

Yet in Washington, the feeling is different.  The Twitterers among us (myself included) are giddy like Chris Matthews at an Obama rally, thrilled that technology was able to give word of the revolution to the masses.  Members of Congress connected directly with "followers".   Drudge made it his top headline.  The whole affair has been given the tag "#dontgo" on Twitter, drawing on the way in which conferences and major events get referenced using the micro-blogging site.  For us political junkies who have watched too much West Wing, the idea of a Congress gone rogue in defense of the American people is too romantic, too fantastic not to spend the weekend gabbing about.

So, then, the question arises - to what extent is "#dontgo" actually going to move voters?  If Congressional Republicans do something exciting and important but nobody really knows about it, does it matter? (If a tree falls in a forest, and all that jazz.)

My answer is an emphatic "yes".

He makes a good point. We need to find a top-tier replacement for Ted Stevens. -Patrick

Ousting the sticky fingered Ted Stevens is rather obviously a GOOD IDEA.

But, its far from enough. Our track record in 2006 shows abysmal execution in getting good replacement candidates up on the ballot.

Needless to say, the ones we stuck by through think and thin got shown the door, too. But we failed to take advantage of our fresh start in many races through piss poor execution and planning.