
Probably not the tone of things to come.The coming of a new year always results in the usual columns and television news segments, "The Year in Review", "Best and Worst of the Year", and so forth (see Matt Tully for
an example). This year is no exception. It is also a time for predictions of what will come, resolutions of what to change, and the like (Terry Cummins has
a humorous prediction column with the News & Tribune). Now it's my turn.
Looking BackI recently read that when Ronald Reagan was governor of California, his staff had a motto. They said, "When we begin to talk of government as 'we' instead of 'they,' we've been here too long." I think that a lot of Republicans, who held control on Capitol Hill for fourteen years, had come to think of government as "we," a dangerous thing for a party whose base (divergent as it sometimes is) is united in its opposition to various aspects of government, be that taxation, gun control, balanced budgets, interventionist judges, or whatever else.
In 2006, the Republican Party was punished for two things. The first was for being the anti-government party that became (by corruption, intellectual laziness, big spending, earmarks, and a dangerous sense of entitlement) the party of government. The second was for the lack of progress in Iraq, and their willingness to sit still for the President, the leader of their party, making no progress in the war. Casualties are terrible, but I think that Americans are troubled more by the growing perception (right or wrong) that their sons and daughters in the military dying for no reason.
The faults and failings of the national party permeated every level of government. In Louisville, it was George W. Bush and the war that did in Anne Northup and sent to Congress somebody that not even the DCCC thought could win (they gave John Yarmuth no money and ran no ads for him). It was a Democratic year. Yet even in this Democratic year, the results are surprising.
For all of Mitch Daniels' unpopularity and all of the national factors in their favor (to say nothing of the map being drawn to their benefit; though their mapmaker lost his reelection bid), the Democrats gained only the narrowest of majorities in the State House. The Republican majority in the State Senate was never seriously in danger. Republicans easily won the three statewide races for Treasurer, Secretary of State, and Auditor.
John Hostettler ran an even more quixotic and anemic campaign than normal, and was defeated for it. Chris Chocola, a high-water Republican in a swing district, was defeated. Mike Sodrel had the narrowest race of the three defeated Hoosier Republican Congressmen. He got more votes than either Hostettler or Chocola. Quite an achievement, for a campaign with so many problems.
In Harrison County, the tide of the year swept a lot of Democrats to victory when Republicans would likely have won in any other year. The Democratic margin of four hundred in straight-ticket voting in Harrison County is not likely to be repeated.
Many candidates lost through no fault or failing of their own, and certainly not from any shortcoming in campaigning. Others won in spite of lackluster campaigning and often shockingly dismal records in office.
The Democrats benefited greatly from a perfect storm. The wind isn't likely to be at their backs next time.
Looking ForwardThere were many ads run in the election campaign. For the Democrats, I found their most effective ad by far to be one that ominously intoned, "George W. Bush and the Republicans control everything. Democrats have a better way." An effective message for the Democrats. They won, and this is no longer the case. The ad is itself a lesson for the future.
Having campaigned exclusively in opposition to the Bush administration and a Republican Congress that no longer exists, the Democrats must now actually come up with ideas. They must deliver. In Congress, they must work with the President and must accomplish things.
History has shown that the most dangerous time for a party newly in power in the House are its first two years (just as it is for House incumbents in general). Republicans gained House majorities in 1946 and 1952, only to lose them two years later because they could not get anything done. Democrats gained power in 1954, survived in 1956, and held on to power for forty years. Republicans won in 1994, survived in 1996, and held the majority for twelve years.
If the Democratic majority in the House is to be undone any time soon, it will be undone in 2008. The Republicans would have to regain sixteen seats. This is not as difficult as it sounds. There are seventeen seats gained by the Democrats this year that were carried in 2004 by George W. Bush by more than six points (see
here), and many seats are so gerrymandered as to not be competitive to the other party save in wave years such as 2006. The so-called "scandal seats," like the Foley and DeLay seats, are heavily Republican and will likely revert in 2008.
The Republicans have their work cut out for them, if they wish to regain the majority. The Democrats, meanwhile, should learn lessons from the Republican Congress of 1946 (the infamous "Do Nothing Congress") that spent most of its time investigating "communist infiltration" of the Truman administration and trying to roll back the largely popular achievements of twelve years of prior Democratic Congresses. There is a lesson there for the Democrats today, for the Republicans were thrown out of power in 1948 in a landslide.
The Senate is an entirely different animal. In 2008, the Republicans must defend 21 seats, the Democrats only 12. They are protecting the gains of 2002, a high water year for the GOP. As it stands now, the Republicans are unlikely to gain even the one or two seats that they need to swing the Senate back in their favor here.
Within Indiana, the State Senate remains Republican for some time to come. It isn't competitive, but the House is. Even if Mitch Daniels were to lose in a bid for reelection, the narrow margin is such that Republicans could very well pick up control of the House anyway.
Speaking of the governor, Mitch Daniels has his work cut out for him. When they elected him, Hoosiers voted for change. Daniels has changed things, yet he now runs the risk of having only one term if he changes things too much.
The governor's situation is still quite strong. He has accomplished much, even if it was controversial, and will likely accomplish more. And those accomplishments will, by their very nature, be more bipartisan (and thus more popular with the broader electorate) by virtue of the outcome of the 2006 election.
Mitch Daniels' fate is not in the hands of Richard Young, or any Democratic challenger. His fate is in his own hands.
For the Republicans, there remains a dangerous political possibility. January will bring a speech from the president on a change in Iraq war policy. He has already rejected many of the suggestions of the Iraq Study Group. Another two years of the same, or the same with little more than cosmetic changes, with regard to the war will result in further political consequences. George W. Bush will never face the American people again, but virtually every Republican currently in office at every other level most likely will.
In 2007 and 2008, more of the same is not an option for George W. Bush. Simply staying the course is no longer an option. More of the same is also not an option for the Democrats. Complaining will no longer cut it.