'6th-year itch,' Iraq spell trouble for GOP
Share with others:
Steve Mellon, Post-Gazette
Union volunteers in a get-out-the-vote campaign gather at the United Steelworkers Building in Pittsburgh yesterday and listen to Democratic congressional candidate Jason Altmire, who is running in the 4th District against U.S. Rep. Melissa Hart.War is hell, and not just for the soldiers. For the majority party during a mid-term election, war ain't so hot either. In 1946, post-World War II, President Harry S. Truman and his Democrats had exhausted America's patience, and Republicans collected 55 new seats in the House and 12 in the Senate. Mr. Truman's Democrats lost 29 House seats and six in the Senate in November 1950, just months after the Korean War started. And in 1974, during the tail end of the Vietnam War, President Richard M. Nixon's ouster and President Gerald R. Ford's pardon helped Democrats add 48 House seats and five Senate seats.
So will American history stay the course? Will the Iraq war define this midterm election?
It seems so, and polls on these specific questions suggest that the Iraq war is issue No. 1 for Democratic and independent voters, the latter intending to support Democratic candidates over Republicans by a margin of 2 to 1. By the same margin, those independents say that the Iraq war is not worth the blood.
The drumbeat of discouraging -- for the GOP, anyway -- war polling has been echoed by the drumbeat of just-as-discouraging predictions of a battlefield strewn with former Republican congressmen. Sophisticated computer models generated by researchers at Indiana State University and Emory University predict that Democrats will pick up between 22 and 29 House seats, which would be a small wave compared with 1946 and 1974, but still large enough to vault the Democrats into control of the House in 2006. (They need to net 15 seats to win control of Congress.)
Forecasters also are predicting Democratic gains and GOP losses in the Senate, but not enough to overturn the 55-44 GOP majority.
Staying clear of president
"It's wearing people down just the way Korea and Vietnam did," said Larry Sabato, a political science professor at the University of Virginia and an expert in mid-term elections. He is writing a book with a working title of "The Sixth-Year Itch," about the elections that arrive in a president's sixth year in office.
It's been almost 31/2 years since President Bush's "Mission Accomplished" appearance aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln, off the coast of San Diego. The American military has suffered nearly 100 deaths this month, and surpassed the 2,800 mark for total war deaths. And last week came news that troop numbers in Iraq may have to be increased -- not reduced, as had been hoped earlier this year.
"In 2004, terrorism was dominating Iraq," Mr. Sabato said. "In 2006, Iraq is dominating terrorism."
The war's continued unpopularity means that many Republicans have distanced themselves over the last several months from Mr. Bush and what until recently has been a "stay the course" Iraq strategy. U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., said last week that Iraq is "on the verge of chaos, and the current security plan is not working. If it means we need more American troops on the ground -- a position I have long been supportive of -- then we need to get it done."
Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., has advised Republican candidates to avoid discussing the Iraq war and to instead focus on "pocketbook issues" -- an ironic reversal of strategies, because it's usually the GOP that campaigns on military and security issues and Democrats who worry about the pocketbook.
And Mr. Bush has adjusted his own rhetoric, avoiding the "stay the course" phrasing and stressing the importance of tactical flexibility and "benchmarks." He used the word 13 times during his Wednesday news conference on the topic.
"When you're talking about the benchmarks, [you're] talking about the fact that we're working with the Iraqi government to have certain benchmarks to meet as a way to determine whether or not they're making the hard decisions necessary to achieve peace. ... And we're working with the Iraqi government to come up with benchmarks," he said.
The implications are obvious -- the war is a radioactive topic for Republicans -- and the ramifications are becoming just as obvious. In House and Senate races across the United States, in Connecticut and Ohio, in Pennsylvania and Virginia, GOP candidates are struggling, and Democrats are pressing ahead on the war. The GOP strategy of linking criticism of the Iraq war to weakness on terrorism isn't working.
"In the district, across the six counties, it comes up all the time," said Democrat Jason Altmire, who is mounting a vigorous challenge to the 4th District incumbent, Republican Rep. Melissa Hart. What's notable, he said, is the shift in opinion about the war over the last year. He's not shying away from it on the campaign trail, discussing his view that the United States should devote more resources to fighting terrorism and less to fighting in Iraq.
"There's so much frustration, you can feel it everywhere you go," he said. "A year ago, I would say that wasn't the case."
Incumbent Republicans must be asking themselves what Election 2006 would look like if the Iraq war were not in play. The Dow Jones Industrial Average has crossed 12,000, gas prices are down from post-Katrina highs and unemployment is at a five-year low. Yet, this year, the economy barely registers as an election issue, except in the parts of the country -- the Rust Belt and the Great Lakes -- where the economy is bad. And this month, a New York Times/CBS News poll found that jobs and economic matters were the "top priority" for only 13 percent of voters, down from about 40 percent in 2003.
"This [war] issue is on most people's minds every day," said Jaclyn Snyder, a teacher at the Pittsburgh High School for the Creative and Performing Arts, Downtown. "I don't see how the war can't be in your thinking," not just on Election Day, but in the days and weeks preceding it, she said.
Midterm dangers
So it's gotta be the war, right?
Maybe. But even without the war, this midterm, like all midterms, would be treacherous. Middle-class voters aren't terribly impressed by the Dow, and they think stagnant wage growth and rising health care costs are a better barometer of economic health. Other than the economy, Mark Foley, Jack Abramoff and whatever Hurricane Katrina hangover still exists might have robbed Republicans of seats, just as the Iraq war seems poised to. Midterms rarely favor the party of the sitting president, although Mr. Bush was able to buck that trend in 2002, still riding the goodwill wave from Sept 11, 2001.
And in addition to nationalized troubles for the GOP, there are non-war obstacles specific to particular districts and states where Republicans are struggling anyway. Pennsylvania illustrates this nicely. Though the war is a backdrop, Rep. Curt Weldon, R-Delaware County, isn't losing ground to U.S. Navy Adm. Joe Sestak just because of Iraq -- the FBI recently raided the homes of Mr. Weldon's daughter and friends. Rep. Don Sherwood, R-Wyoming County, isn't losing just because of the war -- he's losing because he became embroiled in a surreal tussle with his former mistress, who accused the congressman of choking her, then sued him. And Sen. Rick Santorum isn't trailing just because of the war -- many issues factor into his race against his Democratic opponent, Pennsylvania Treasurer Bob Casey.
"In Ohio, California, Virginia, Pennsylvania, there are localized issues, anxiety about the economy," said William Leuchtenburg, professor emeritus at the University of North Carolina. His recent article on the 1946 midterm election, World War II and an electorate ready for change, was published in November's issue of Smithsonian Magazine.
He cautions that, while a war may appear to work against the party in power, if the winners misread why they succeeded in a midterm, electoral victories can be soon reversed, as was the case after Republicans made big gains in 1946.
Then there's the matter of the sixth-year itch, the theory that says the voting public tires of the sitting president, and his party, midway through his second term. In 1938, 1958, 1966 and 1974, the average loss for the president's party was 53 House seats and seven Senate seats. In 1986, President Ronald Reagan's "itch" election, his Republicans managed to lose six House seats as well as the Senate, even though his own approval rating was a remarkable 63 percent.
It's a small sample size, and in each election those big swings can be tied to specific events of the day. (And never mind that President Bill Clinton avoided the "itch.") A 53-seat swing seems unlikely these days, too, as the most recent reapportionment redrew congressional lines, making districts less competitive.
Still, there's lots of ammunition for those, like Mr. Sabato, who say this election might have gone against the GOP, war or not.
"These things happen a lot in the sixth year," he said.
So is it the war?
Yes. And it's a lot of history, too.
First Published October 29, 2006 12:00 am
