Could the 2008 Election be Like the 1932 Election? (Part 2)

A couple weeks ago I looked at the possibility that the 2008 election could be a huge and transforming election, similar to the 1932 Democratic landslide that brought in FDR and led to the solidification of the New Deal electoral coalition of Southern White protestants, Northern ethnic Catholics, African-Americans, and union members that dominated American elections for decades.  In 1930, as the Wall Street Crash led to the early days of the Great Depression, Democrats won big.  Just like 2006, the 1930 election ended 12 years of Republican control in both chambers of Congress.  Just like in 2006, the 1930 election was a massive repudiation of the Republican party and the performance of it’s deeply unpopular President who had two years remaining in his term.  So, could the trend continue, with the 2006 election being not an isolated peak, but the first of two massive Democratic landslides?  Could we win the presidency, and significantly add to our Congressional margins, while most likely sweeping Democrats in to offices up and down the ballot?  At this point, all indications are that we very well might.  

As discussed in part 1 of this essay, partisan divisions and tactical elections had led to several consecutive close elections.  The country was ripe for a big swing against one of the parties.  But unlike most previous swings against a party, there was little chance of a Dem backlash, because the party that got pounded still controlled the White House and the president remains deeply unpopular.  Whereas some experts might look at the historical record and expect a swing back against the Democrats or at least no major gains in 2008, I think the historical record suggests it’s more likely that 2006 was simply the first stage of at least a two-stage major Congressional realignment, especially since in 2006 the Republicans were protecting few open seats, but retirements are leaving competitive GOP-held seats without an incumbent.  In the Presidential race--the first since 1952 without an incumbent or an outgoing vice president on the ticket—we could also have a decisive and possibly even blowout victory.  This scenario may not play out, but with the economy now teetering on the brink of a recession, it’s likely the Republicans’ woes will get worse.

Anyone paying attention to the news over the last several months has seen story after story about how the leading Democrats running for President consistently poll ahead of the Republicans in head-to-head matchups.  Generic ballots show wide Democratic leads.  And the Democrats are destroying the Republicans in the money race, which if it continues—which is likely—will take away what typically has been one of the Republicans major advantages.  But what about the deeper numbers?  The trends in Congressional races, the other money races, the issue polling, the generic ballots and party identification?  Just about every measure you can find points to major Democratic gains in 2008.  

Democracy Corps provides some of the best data and analysis for House watchers, because in addition to national and single state or district polling, they also poll in 70 competitive Congressional districts, 35 held by Democrats, 35 held by Republicans.  This was their read on the state of play as of a few months ago:

As the Congress heads into the August recess, the Democratic members hold a comfortable 18-point electoral advantage (55 to 37 percent), in position to hold all but a handful of seats. The Republican members, by contrast, are in trouble, behind on average by 5 points, 44 to 49 percent, with more than half of the 35 members facing possible defeat. The Republican members have lost ground in the most recent period, pushed by even greater dissatisfaction with the Iraq war. The perception of gridlock is actually worsening the situation for the Republican incumbents...

While Congress’ approval rating is low, the approval rating of the individual Democratic members asked by name is much higher and 5 points higher than for the Republicans, who are long-time incumbents. There is no evidence that the Congressional battles are having a negative impact on the personal standing and electoral prospects of the so-called
marginal Democrats.

[...]

On the other hand, the Republicans are in trouble – almost as much trouble as they were
in 2006. Democrats are not only ahead in the most competitive Republican districts (Tier 1), but they also lead by 3 points in the second tier, less competitive Republican seats, which means there might well be additional Congressional seats at risk beyond the 35. The extent of Republicans’ vulnerabilities suggests that Democrats can take their advantage far into Republican territory in 2008. This pattern that allowed the Democrats to take 30 seats in the last mid-term election could well take Democrats up to 20 in the Presidential, unless confounded by intervening events. There really could be another wave election.

[...]

The Democrats are in a strong position to hold on to their majority in the House and make significant inroads into Republican territory. Indeed, Democrats hold an 18-point electoral advantage in their own districts while Republicans are losing their districts by 5 points overall – 7 points in their most vulnerable districts, 51 to 44 percent. The Democratic electoral advantages are reinforced by two dynamics – the war in Iraq and the sense of continued Republican resistance to change.

One of the keys to the 2006 wave was Democratic success in hitting Republicans hard in their "second tier" and even in some of those seats they never expected to have to contest.  Not only does that spread GOP resources more thinly than they would want, it also imposes on incumbents the need to campaign and fight hard.  Often these incumbents have never had to fight hard against a Democrat, or they may have lost the fire in their belly.  In his infamous Power Point presentation to the General Services Administration, Karl Rove identified six Congressional race in which he attributed the GOP loss in part to "complacent incumbents."  If Democracy Corps is correct, and Democrats will be able to go hunting for seats in previously uncontested Congressional districts, they will surprise some complacent incumbents, but they’ll also find several open seats, because Republicans are now retiring at a much faster rate than they did in 2006.  

Retirements are contributing greatly to the equally promising situation in the Senate, as this article from September explained:

[T]his is an election cycle that puts the Senate Republicans at a distinct disadvantage. The GOP is defending 22 seats versus 12 for the Democrats. The only vulnerable Democrat is Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, while the Republicans are playing defense in three other states, besides the three already mentioned [Colorado, Nebraska and Virginia]: Maine, Minnesota, and New Hampshire. And two other states could become vulnerabilities for the Republicans – New Mexico, if Sen. Pete Domenici retires, and Alaska, where Sen. Ted Stevens is under investigation for corruption.

Suddenly, says [Cook Report Senate elections expert Jennifer] Duffy, the Democrats reaching a 60-seat filibuster-proof majority is not impossible. (The ninth state that could become vulnerable for Republicans is Oregon, where Sen. Gordon Smith is not considered safe.)

"The Democrats hate talking about it – they think it sets expectations too high," says Duffy. But now that she can see seven Democratic takeovers, with two others "hanging out there," she won't rule it out.

For the Democrats to reach 60, "it means everything has to go right for them, but everything went right for them last time," she says.

Of course since September, Nebraska looks tougher with Bob Kerrey not running, but Domenici has announced his retirement, and Mississippi could be in play now that Trent Lott is resigning before the end of the year.  

According to the Democracy Corps memo already cited, the Republicans are blamed for the gridlock in DC, and the Democratic message of accomplishments and priorities, even though many of them will not be realized with Bush in office, is far more effective than the Republican message (although cost-cutting in the federal budget does have some potency with independents).  In such a situation, resources will loom large.  As already mentioned, the Democratic presidential candidates are raising far more money than their Republican counterparts, a pattern reflected in the most recent reports for the Congressional and Senatorial campaign committees.  After subtracting debts, combined the DSCC and DCCC had $48 million on hand, while the NRSC and NRCC only had $8.5.  

Democratic strength stems from many factors.  Obviously George W. Bush is killing the Republicans right now.  Full Republican control of all branches and chambers of the Federal government for the first time in over 50 years exposed the incompetence and corruption at the core of the GOP’s philosophy and practice of federal governance.  But Democrats are also gaining tremendously on perceptions of their positions and trust on almost every issue important to voters.  

The two most important issues in the minds of most Americans are Iraq and health care.  Americans want out of Iraq.  Democrats and some independents are deeply disappointed that Congressional Democrats haven’t ended the war.  Most Americans want out of Iraq, but only about a third are clear that they want it immediately.  Another third, depending on the way the questions are asked, want out but have ambivalence about how and under what conditions we leave.  But whatever the case, most Americans  are far from punishing Democrats for putting too much pressure on Bush over Iraq; if anything, they want more pressure.

On health care, Democrats are favored 2-1.  And in general, the issues Americans care about strongly favor the Democrats, and on the important issues, Americans place greater trust with the Democrats.

These polling results show that Bush and the current GOP have sullied the "conservative" brand.  Three quarters of independents and even half of Republicans believe the country needs is a change of direction.  It’s so bad for Republicans that White conservative evangelicals are dissatisfied with their presidential choices, they’re less susceptible to respond to appeals on socially conservative issues, and younger evangelicals are becoming less likely to identify themselves as Republicans.

At the same time the GOP appears to be melting down, an analysis of hundreds of Democracy Corps surveys shows that the Democratic base is holding firm with the party.  In fact, groups that were generally pro-Democratic are becoming more intensely so; White voters from households with at least one union member typically vote Democratic, but now they are polling Democratic by a 2-1 margin.   And key swing constituencies are moving strongly Democratic.  Independents are leaning Democratic by 19 points in the generic presidential preference, and 14 points for Congress.  For president, White Catholics are leaning Democratic by 13 points, and even among those Catholics who attend mass weekly—normally a reliably Republican group—the Democrat has a slight lead.  

All of these trends are showing up in measures of party identification.  There have been many reports of large pro-Democratic movement in partisan registration.  Some of it has been that Republicans are losing many more people to the ranks of independents than are Democrats, so while the Democratic percentages may not have moved, the spread between Republicans and Democrats has changed in a direction that favors the Democrats.  But in some places the percentage of people who register as Democrats has also grown.  In the mid-range, Rasmussen has seen a partisan identification deadlock in 2004 turn in to a consistent 5 point Democratic advantage.  In 2002 Pew showed the parties even at 43%.  Since then the Democrats have opened up a 15 point advantage, 50-35.  Going back to 1990, never has that Pew survey shown a party favored by as much as 50% or as little as 35% of the electorate.

The Democrats’ current positive standing and good prospects for the 2008 election are a product of Republican rule, the dislike of George W. Bush, Iraq, persistent concerns about health care, rising concerns about the economy, a party appealing to a wide swath of the electorate as opposed to a GOP appealing to the far right, and access donors betting that the Democrats will be in full control of the Federal government in 2009.  But there are longer-term trends, ideologically and demographically, that will loom large in determining Democratic successes next year and the permanence of any winning electoral coalition.  There are also demands on the Democratic leadership and elected officials to make full use of the opportunity.  I will examine those issues in the final installment of this essay next weekend.