Dreams of 1994, and the Odds Against

James Traub has a long article in tomorrow's NY Times about the Democrats and their efforts to take control of one or both houses of Congress. My take on the article is that the party is deeply divided on the question of whether to let Democrats be Democrats, and that "framing" has taken over for policies and their advocacy.

It took a long time to get to the real point, in the discussion with Rep. Rahm Emanuel, who is the head of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. Emanuel is very bright and knows his stuff, which made it hard to disguise the fact that the House of Representatives elections are fixed in favor of incumbency. No 1994-style sweep seems possible, because there are too few competitive districts. Only the Supreme Court's overturning of the partisan 2004 Texas redistricting could tilt the balance to a level playing field, and I'll let you guess the odds on that occurring: you get two choices (slim or none). 20:1 against the Dems gaining control of the House.

The Senate is a slightly different story: there are enough open seats and competitive races to shift the majority from the 55-44 to something like 50-49 (with Bernard Sanders replacing Jim Jeffords as the Democratic-leaning independent from Vermont). That would be a real victory, even with Ace of Spades Bushite Cheney casting the potential tie-breaking vote, but I'd suggest the odds are about 4-1 against.

We're looking at Rhode Island (CQ: " leans Republican") and Pennsylvania as likely pickups for the Dems (notwithstanding the fact that I have gotten 15 solicitations from prominent Democratic leaders for Bob Casey, Jr., and haven't yet seen his picture or any of his positions on any of the solicitations), and there are some other promising races with strong Democratic candidates: Montana, Ohio, Tennessee (Frist's vacated spot), and Missouri. I think we're headed for heartbreak, though, on election day--one or two incumbent Democrats will be upset, and Ohio and Missouri will disappoint (as usual). In other words, this year's election will be much "sound and fury, signifying nothing".

Unfortunately, I'm getting used to this. Despite the desperately obvious failure of "the tyranny of Bushite misrule", these elections will be "localized" in most states, with Republican candidates frequently successfully diverting attention away from the federal government's shortcomings under their party's control and focusing on those rare cases where they have been able to separate themselves from the administration (like the Dubai port fiasco).

The stage will be set for 2008 as follows: reduced majorities for Republicans in both houses, the Senate close enough to ensure a near stalemate. The 3-D Presidency of 2007-2009 (Dumb Duck Dubya) will continue with neo-con judicial activism being the principal feature of governance. Hillary will have an enormous warchest going into 2008, as the Republicans can't seem to field an opponent credible enough to require her to spend any of the huge amount she already has. She will need it, as there is no lobbyist, electoral, or campaign reform in sight.

There will be some interest in whether the Republicans will go with an Establishment candidate (as they have in every election since 1940) or whether a neo-Establishment anti-Bushite like McCain will be permitted to win the nomination by the Powers That Be. I'd bet against the latter (what are the odds on George Allen? That's a bet I might take), but I'll admit I'm worried: McCain's got integrity and guts (or did, until his recent sucking up to party power that commenced in 2004); he personifies credibility on national security (so he'd be attractive to swing voters), and his troglodytic positions on domestic and social issues will cause him little harm (being very close to the status quo, and therefore not sounding very revolutionary). His biggest obstacle will be convincing the Republican moneymen that he means it when he offers his support to the Bushites (he doesn't); I'm not convinced they're nimble enough to get the point of an anti-Bushite Republican candidacy (despite its clear potential appeal), simply because Dubya is so close to their heart that they can't believe how badly he is "screwing the pooch".

My tactic this year is to tell the telemarketers from national party organizations and their front groups that I'm investing locally. As for the local races, Bill Richardson should win in a landslide as governor, and Congressman Tom Udall and Senator Jeff Bingaman should both win handily. The one seriously contested local race of importance is for the Second Congressional District, based around Albuquerque, where Republican Heather Wilson is running away from her President and is in a tight race with Attorney General Patricia Madrid--one of the dozen or so truly competitive races in the country, as things now stand. Unless Heather makes a dramatic announcement and switches party (100:1 against), I could see throwing a few bucks into Madrid's hat.