If you have a political bone in your body - even if you're usually a cynic
about elections - you're undoubtedly holding your breath right now. With the
2006 US mid-term elections on us, the question is: Will the Democrats recapture
at least the House of Representatives and maybe even take the Senate by the
narrowest of margins?
There is very little agreement about what might happen if a change in
congressional control takes place. The Republican administration of President
George W Bush, of course, has
trumpeted the direst of warnings, predicting (in sometimes veiled ways) nothing
less than the demise of the country. Less apocalyptic predictions include an
expectation among 70% of potential voters (as reported in the latest New York
Times poll) that "American troops would be taken out of Iraq more swiftly under
a Democratic Congress". The more cynical among us hope for at least a few
challenging congressional investigations of administration activities at home
and abroad.
So we will go into Tuesday looking for that tell-tale count that will indicate
a Democratic gain of 15 or more seats in the House, and - a much bigger if -
six seats in the Senate. We probably face a long night sorting out so many
disparate races - and America's traditional counters, the television networks,
won't even begin their task until the polls close on the east coast. So we
could face a long day's journey into night, if we don't have some other
"benchmarks" - to use a newly favored administration word - and issues to
ponder.
Before the polls close
Voter turnout is crucial: the TV networks have grown skilled at predicting
elections using exit polls and they begin collecting their numbers first thing
in the morning. Even for close races, they often have a very good idea what
will happen by early afternoon. They are, however, sworn to secrecy until those
polls close, because early forecasts of results have, in the past, affected
voter turnout later in the day.
But they are willing to reveal one very important fact during daytime
newscasts: voter turnout, which is generally the determining factor in close
races in the US. Here's why.
By the time election day arrives, just about every voter has made up his or her
mind about whom to vote for. Even for that vaunted category, independent voters
(who, so many experts are convinced, will determine this election), fewer than
15% were undecided a week before the election.
True enough, those who hadn't by then made up their minds are expected to be
splitting two-to-one for the Democrats even as you read this, thereby making
some previously secure Republican seats competitive. But by election day
itself, the handful of independent "undecideds" who remain will not be enough
to tip the close races one way or the other, no matter what they do.
The determining factor in winning those "too close to call" seats is: how many
already committed voters actually go to the polls. Traditionally, in a mid-term
election as many as two-thirds of a candidate's supporters may stay home, so
whoever moves the most people from the couch to the polling booth will win.
And this year there is real intrigue about which party can get its supporters
to the polls. Since the 1990s, the Republicans have been hands-down better at
this. Leaving aside the question of fraud for the moment, most observers
believe this "get out the vote" effort was critical in the elections of 2000,
2002 and 2004. But this year may be different.
Republican superiority has been based on two factors - much better
on-the-ground organization and far greater enthusiasm among the rank and file.
Such enthusiasm means potential voters are more likely to brave cold weather or
long lines to vote; and it also means more volunteers to encourage people to
get out and, in some cases, to transport them to the polls.
The Democrats have been working since 2004 to build up their on-the-ground
organizations in key states such as Ohio and Pennsylvania. Because President
Bush is so unpopular and the Republicans obviously so vulnerable, opinion polls
tell us that there is tremendous electoral enthusiasm among the Democratic rank
and file - and concomitant gloom and disillusionment on the Republican side.
So check the news early for turnout reports from key areas. Look for whether
turnout is higher this year in Democratic urban strongholds, and lower in
Republican suburban or rural ones. This will tell you a lot about each party's
congressional (and gubernatorial) possibilities.
What about fraud? In 2000 in Florida and 2004 in Ohio, fraud made a world of
difference in close contests. As early as noon US time on Tuesday, you should
begin to get a sense of how much of a problem fraud will be this time around.
Many people are terrified that the new electronic voting machines will be the
means to falsify vote totals (as was apparently done in Ohio in 2004) and so
steal elections - especially with no paper trails available for recounts.
However, the biggest threat is old-fashioned indeed: legal and illegal methods
that block eligible voters from voting.
Two examples will illustrate how this can be done. In the 2000 election,
Republicans in Florida disfranchised more than 10,000 voters, by purging names
from the voting lists that happened to match the names of convicted felons.
When these voters showed up at the polls, they were simply declared ineligible;
and by the time they took their case to court, Bush was already president. (The
excluded voters were largely black and would have voted overwhelmingly in the
Democratic column.)
In Ohio in 2004, election officials simply did not provide enough voting
machines in predominantly Democratic areas, so many potential voters waited all
day in endless lines without ever getting the chance to vote, while others grew
discouraged and left. There seems little doubt that the excluded voters would
have tipped the state to Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry - and
this act of voter suppression wasn't even illegal.
This year, Republican state officials in as many as a dozen states have already
made good use of the legal system to exclude otherwise eligible voters. They
have, for instance, passed laws that will disqualify people who think they are
eligible to vote. One common way to do this is by requiring a state-issued
picture identity document (a driver's license), which many old and poor people
(guaranteed to fall heavily into the Democratic column) do not have.
These potential voters will simply be turned away and, by the time anyone can
register a meaningful complaint, the election will be a fait accompli. Watch
especially for complaints in the following states that have passed such laws
(or similar ones to the same end): Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Georgia,
Indiana, Missouri, South Dakota, Texas and Virginia.
But Ohio will probably be the worst, since Republican officials there have
developed an ingenious electoral "purging" system. State-appointed officials
are allowed (but not required) to eliminate people from the voting rolls for a
variety of minute irregularities - without notifying them. This year, only
strongly Democratic districts had their rolls purged, while strongly Republican
districts, not surprisingly, went untouched. On election day, many voters,
possibly hundreds of thousands statewide, are going to show up at the Ohio
polls and be told they are not eligible.
So start looking for news reports early in the day reflecting the following
symptomatic problems: (1) voting sites with tremendous long lines because there
aren't enough machines to accommodate all the voters; (2) people in enough
numbers to catch reportorial eyes who claim they have been declared ineligible
on appearing at the polls. Expect virtually all affected people to be
Democratic.
Election night
Contested races: of the 14 contested Senate seats, the Democrats currently hold
six (Connecticut, Maryland, Michigan, New Jersey, Minnesota and Washington
state) and are favored in all of them except Connecticut, where Senator Joseph
Lieberman, the defeated Democrat, is leading as an Independent. If Lieberman
beats Ned Lamont, but then caucuses with the Democrats (not exactly a given,
despite his promises), then in addition to holding those six, they have to win
six of the eight Republican races.
Right now the Democrats seem likely to win three of these - Pennsylvania
(ousting the odious Rick Santorum), Ohio (barring massive disfranchisement and
fraud) and Rhode Island (replacing the most liberal Republican in the Senate,
Lincoln Chafee). The latest polls indicate that they are behind (but not out of
it) in Tennessee (see below) and Arizona (where incumbent Jon Kyl is leading
shopping-center magnate Jim Peterson).
Their best chances to get those crucial three more seats are Virginia (where
incumbent George Allen has given away the lead with verbal gaffes), Missouri
(where Michael J Fox and a statewide referendum on stem-cell research may put
underdog challenger Claire McCaskill over the top), and - most surprising of
all - Montana (where challenger Jon Testor has a slight lead).
Among the approximately 60 House seats now generally agreed to fall into the
category of "contested", all but six are currently held by Republicans. The
Democrats need just 33 of these, a little over half, to claim the House. It's
obvious why so many people are predicting that the Democrats will win.
Three states to watch: New York (at least five contested seats) may be a real
bellwether, since the results will come in early. All five of them are upstate
Republican, and if even three go to the Democrats, that could mean a genuine
sweep to come (barring massive fraud elsewhere) - as well as being a signal of
the emergence of a solid Democratic north that might in the future help offset
the solid Republican south.
Ohio (five contested seats) is at least as interesting, because polls show at
least three of the four contested races, all with Republican incumbents, to be
really close - and so especially sensitive to fraud.
If all of them go Republican, this might be a strong signal of success for the
various Republican voter-suppression schemes in the state - and for fraud in
the rest of the country. If the Democrats win at least two, it will probably be
a long night for the Republicans.
And then, keep an eye on Indiana. Three Republican House seats are up for grabs
in districts that were supposed to be Republican shoo-ins. Miraculously,
Democrats are leading in all three, and the lead is approaching double digits
in one of them (the Second District). If one or two of these actually go
Democratic, you're seeing a small miracle, a tiny sign of tidal change in the
electorate - and the good thing is, the polls close early in Indiana, so what
happens there could be a bellwether of change.
But take note that Indiana passed "the strictest voter-identification law" in
the country; so watch out as well for frustrated Democratic voters turned away
at the polls and a Republican sweep of these seats.
Three elections to watch, for very different reasons: first, keep a close eye
on the Tennessee Senate race. Black Congressman Harold Ford, the Democratic
candidate, was in essence written off early in a generally blood-red (heavily
Republican) state - until, that is, he caught up and even pushed ahead in some
polls. Now, he is slipping back a bit and probably won't win (in the 10 polls
since October 20, he is, on average, lagging by about 3%).
But even if he loses, the margin by which he goes down will be an interesting
indicator of the national mood. It seems that white southerners have this habit
of telling opinion pollsters and exit-poll workers that they favor a black
candidate, even though they vote for the white opponent. This peculiar racial
trait has resulted in black candidates losing big in "close" races. So if
Harold Ford stays within 5% of his opponent, businessman Bob Corker, it may
indicate that white electoral prejudice in the south is waning (or that anger
over the president and his war in Iraq simply trumps all this year).
Second, make sure to keep an eye out for the results of the anti-abortion
referendum in South Dakota. This is a draconian measure making virtually all
abortion illegal. It is meant as a full-frontal challenge of Roe vs Wade
(a landmark 1973 US Supreme Court decision establishing that most laws against
abortion violate a constitutional right to privacy) offering the new Bush
Supreme Court a future chance to weigh in on the subject. The latest poll
suggests that it is losing, 52% to 42%, with only 6% undecided.
Third, Connecticut is fascinating because Joe Lieberman, defeated by anti-war
Democrat challenger Ned Lamont in the primary election, is leading as an
Independent. He says he will caucus with the Democrats, but we should have our
doubts. If the final tally in the Senate, for instance, is 50 Democrats and 49
Republicans, think what his vote would mean and what kind of horse-trading
might then go on.
After all, the Republicans could then retain the ability to organize the Senate
and appoint committee heads as long as he voted with them and the vice
president cast the deciding vote to break any 50-50 ties. The pressure would be
huge, and so would the temptation for honest Joe to take a Republican dive.
Remember, he has already shown himself more loyal to his own career than to the
Democratic Party through his refusal to accept defeat in the primary. If things
are close, this is a story that will eat up media time in the days to come.
The morning after
What do the Democrats stand for? But what if, as some pollsters, pundits and
even Republican prognosticators are suggesting, those New York seats go
Democratic, along with moderate Republican ones in Connecticut and previously
red-meat Republican ones in such states as Indiana? What if the Democrats win
by 20-35 seats or more, as some are suggesting, decisively gaining control in
the House?
From the opinion polls, we already know that most Democratic voters this time
around will see the taking of the House, or all of Congress, as a mandate to
begin a draw-down of US troops in Iraq and to bring the US part of that war to
an end in some undefined but rather speedy fashion. As it happens, however,
Democratic leaders do not see it this way. Their strategy has been to "lie low"
and let anger toward Bush sweep them into office.
An indicator that voters know the Democrats ran on a non-platform is the fact
that independent voters favor them in polling by 2-1 mainly because they are
incensed with the president and the Republicans. As the Washington Post put it:
Independent
voters may strongly favor Democrats, but their vote appears motivated more by
dissatisfaction with Republicans than by enthusiasm for the opposition party.
About half of those independents who said they plan to vote Democratic in their
district said they are doing so primarily to vote against the Republican
candidate rather than to affirmatively support the Democratic candidate. Just
22% of independents voting for Democrats are doing so "very enthusiastically".
A Democratic victory, if it actually occurs, will be a statement by independent
(and other) voters that they disapprove of Bush administration policy on a wide
range of issues, not an ideological tilt in support of the Democrats. But then
how could it be? Today's Democrats in essence stand for nothing. They are the
not-Republican Party.
Will a Democratic victory mean a "mandate" for change? Do the Democrats need to
avoid political positions? Those of us who are actively hostile to the Bush
administration tend to excuse the absence of a Democratic program as a
necessary ploy to win the election. Lying low and not being too "left wing"
are, the common wisdom goes, the keys to winning independents - and thus the
election. Many of us expect that the Democrats, once in control of all or part
of Congress, will see themselves as having a mandate from the people to be much
more liberal than their campaigns have suggested. This, I suspect, is an
illusion - and this cynicism is, unfortunately, supported by recent political
history.
Remember, as a start, that Bill Clinton's 1992 election as US president was
based on a similar "anti-Republican" appeal. Yet, once in office, he proved
himself to be a "modern Democrat" by, for instance, advancing the Republican
agenda in eliminating much of the welfare system, adopting a "don't ask, don't
tell" policy on homosexuals in the military, and abandoning a national health
plan.
Then, of course, came the Republican "revolution" of 1994, which really did
drastically alter policy. The Republicans made an explicit and vociferous break
with the failing policies of the Democrats, began the most serious drive of US
times to roll back history to the days before Franklin Delano Roosevelt's New
Deal, and never flinched from taking strong stands.
Since that year, the Democrats have found themselves increasingly locked out of
power, while the Republicans have finally inherited the mantle of the
established party with the failing policies. Instead of riding back to power on
a dramatic set of alternative policies as the Republicans did, however, the
Democrats - like Clinton - are mimicking parts of the Republican platform,
while arguing that the Bush White House administered it in an inept, extreme
and corrupt way.
This strategy may indeed get them elected if the Karl Rove system of political
governance finally comes apart at the seams, but it won't work to generate the
changes in policy that so many of us desire.
Instead, we can expect Democratic leaders, suddenly invested with the power of
the subpoena (but probably little else), to investigate past Republican sins
while attempting to prove that they can, indeed, pursue a less overtly
offensive Republican program more honestly and efficiently than the Bush
administration has.
Just as the Democratic leadership has promised, they will probably continue to
support fighting the disastrous wars in Iraq and Afghanistan more
"effectively". They are also likely to continue the essence of Bush tax policy
(more cuts, just not as favorable to the very rich), and to serve money to the
Pentagon more or less on demand, but not to domestic "reconstruction" programs.
Could the Democrats win in 2008 on the basis of actual differences in policy?
Only if they tried to win over the American people (including independents) to
a genuinely different platform. On the Iraq war alone, look at how close
ex-marine Paul Hackett came to winning a 60% Republican congressional district
in Ohio in 2004 on a simple platform of withdrawal from Iraq.
Or look at the actual attitudes held by independents. According to a typical
recent poll, only a third believe the war is "worth fighting"; three-quarters
think the US is "headed in the wrong direction"; only 37% approve of the job
Bush is doing. Doesn't this suggest that such voters might indeed be receptive
to ideas that dramatically challenge Bush administration policies?
But let's face it, even if such a strategy could win, the Democratic leadership
will not follow the path laid out by the Republicans from the 1970s through the
1990s as they toppled an entrenched Democratic establishment. They may want to
win on Tuesday, but what they don't want is a mandate to lead Americans in a
new direction. In the end, they prefer to hang in there as the not-Republican
Party, pick up old-hat and me-too policies, and hope for the best.
What's at stake
As in 2004, there is no mystery about what the voters think when it comes to
this election: it is a referendum on Bush administration policies in which
unhappiness over the war comes first, second and third.
And this is why, no matter what the Democrats do afterward, the 2006 mid-term
elections whose results we will all be anxiously watching on Tuesday are so
important. If the Democrats prevail, however narrowly, against a world of
massively gerrymandered seats, Republican finances, blitzes of dirty ads, the
presidential "bully pulpit" and well-planned campaigns of voter suppression, US
- as well as world - public opinion will interpret it as a repudiation of Bush
administration war policy.
And this will become a mandate for those who oppose these policies to speak and
act ever more forcefully. With or without Democratic Party leadership, this
added momentum might even make a difference.
Michael Schwartz is professor of sociology and faculty director of the
College of Global Studies at Stony Brook State University. For years he was
part of the polling world, measuring attitudes and attempting to predict the
political, economic and social behavior of Americans. His current work, which
has appeared frequently on Tomdispatch.com, is focused on the equally
problematic goal of understanding the war in Iraq. His e-mail address is
ms42@optonline.net.
