Why the Democrats prevailed in the 2006 Congressional Elections

[CARLHAYDEN]

There are many reasons why the Democrats prevailed in the 2006 Congressional elections, but I have yet to see a balanced analysis of the numerous factors, so I will (with considerable trepidation) essay an attempt.

First, Republicans will claim that what occured was simply the normal result of the off year election in the second term of a President where the President's party had controlled both Houses of Congress.

Republicans will alledge that their losses in 2006 where in line with typical losses.

While the notation that the Republican losses where more or less typical in a historical sense, they do NOT really address why the voters turned out the Republicans.

Second, many Democrats will alledge that the election was simply a referendum on the war in Iraq.

While there is some truth in this allegation (it motivated lefties to turn out in higher percentages than normal), its net impact on most races was negligible (ask Senator Lieberman).

Third, and generally overlooked, the Democrats recruited (and in most instances nominated) candidates better than their norm and better than the Republicans.  Montana is probably the classic example.

Fourth, the Republicans engaged in internectine civil war.  Bush and the corporate liberals made war on conservative Republicans in places like Rhode Island and Arizona.

Fifth, many conservatives voters abstained from the election in anger at the antics of the Republicans. 

Social conservatives discovered that all they have gotten from Bush and the Republicans was empty rhetoric.

Fiscal conservatives were understandabily angry at the Republicans in Congress who went on a spending spree.

Opponents of illegal immigration where angered when the border fence bill not only had NO funding, but when the Speaker of the House and the Senator Majority Leader sent a letter to the Secretary of Homeland Security saying in effect to ignore the bill, and when Bush belatedly signed it, he made it clear he had absolutely NO intention whatsoever of actually implementing it.

Sixth, the Republicans lost a couple of seats in the House which they would normally have retained but for peculiar circumstances (Texas and Florida).

Seventh, the Democrats did NOT self-destruct (although Kerry tried).  The Republicans were so used to the Democrats engaging in stupidity that when it didn't happen (aside from Kerry's stupid remark) that they did not know what to do.

[MarkWarner08]

There are many reasons why the Democrats prevailed in the 2006 Congressional elections, but I have yet to see a balanced analysis of the numerous factors, so I will (with considerable trepidation) essay an attempt.

First, Republicans will claim that what occured was simply the normal result of the off year election in the second term of a President where the President's party had controlled both Houses of Congress.

Republicans will alledge that their losses in 2006 where in line with typical losses.

While the notation that the Republican losses where more or less typical in a historical sense, they do NOT really address why the voters turned out the Republicans.

Second, many Democrats will alledge that the election was simply a referendum on the war in Iraq.

While there is some truth in this allegation (it motivated lefties to turn out in higher percentages than normal), its net impact on most races was negligible (ask Senator Lieberman).

Third, and generally overlooked, the Democrats recruited (and in most instances nominated) candidates better than their norm and better than the Republicans.  Montana is probably the classic example.

Fourth, the Republicans engaged in internectine civil war.  Bush and the corporate liberals made war on conservative Republicans in places like Rhode Island and Arizona.

Fifth, many conservatives voters abstained from the election in anger at the antics of the Republicans. 

Social conservatives discovered that all they have gotten from Bush and the Republicans was empty rhetoric.

Fiscal conservatives were understandabily angry at the Republicans in Congress who went on a spending spree.

Opponents of illegal immigration where angered when the border fence bill not only had NO funding, but when the Speaker of the House and the Senator Majority Leader sent a letter to the Secretary of Homeland Security saying in effect to ignore the bill, and when Bush belatedly signed it, he made it clear he had absolutely NO intention whatsoever of actually implementing it.

Sixth, the Republicans lost a couple of seats in the House which they would normally have retained but for peculiar circumstances (Texas and Florida).

Seventh, the Democrats did NOT self-destruct (although Kerry tried).  The Republicans were so used to the Democrats engaging in stupidity that when it didn't happen (aside from Kerry's stupid remark) that they did not know what to do.

Evangelical turnout was actually slightly higher than in 2004 and the GOP turnout rate barely declined. The GOP lost because of incompetence, corruption, war and because they forgot the independent voters.

[CARLHAYDEN]

There are many reasons why the Democrats prevailed in the 2006 Congressional elections, but I have yet to see a balanced analysis of the numerous factors, so I will (with considerable trepidation) essay an attempt.

First, Republicans will claim that what occured was simply the normal result of the off year election in the second term of a President where the President's party had controlled both Houses of Congress.

Republicans will alledge that their losses in 2006 where in line with typical losses.

While the notation that the Republican losses where more or less typical in a historical sense, they do NOT really address why the voters turned out the Republicans.

Second, many Democrats will alledge that the election was simply a referendum on the war in Iraq.

While there is some truth in this allegation (it motivated lefties to turn out in higher percentages than normal), its net impact on most races was negligible (ask Senator Lieberman).

Third, and generally overlooked, the Democrats recruited (and in most instances nominated) candidates better than their norm and better than the Republicans.  Montana is probably the classic example.

Fourth, the Republicans engaged in internectine civil war.  Bush and the corporate liberals made war on conservative Republicans in places like Rhode Island and Arizona.

Fifth, many conservatives voters abstained from the election in anger at the antics of the Republicans. 

Social conservatives discovered that all they have gotten from Bush and the Republicans was empty rhetoric.

Fiscal conservatives were understandabily angry at the Republicans in Congress who went on a spending spree.

Opponents of illegal immigration where angered when the border fence bill not only had NO funding, but when the Speaker of the House and the Senator Majority Leader sent a letter to the Secretary of Homeland Security saying in effect to ignore the bill, and when Bush belatedly signed it, he made it clear he had absolutely NO intention whatsoever of actually implementing it.

Sixth, the Republicans lost a couple of seats in the House which they would normally have retained but for peculiar circumstances (Texas and Florida).

Seventh, the Democrats did NOT self-destruct (although Kerry tried).  The Republicans were so used to the Democrats engaging in stupidity that when it didn't happen (aside from Kerry's stupid remark) that they did not know what to do.

Evangelical was actually higher than in 2004 and the GOP turnout rate barely declined. The GOP lost because of incompetence, corruption, war and because they forgot the independent voters.

Er, Mark, where do you get the idea that the "evangelical" turnout rate was higher in in 2006 than in 2004?

[MarkWarner08]

There are many reasons why the Democrats prevailed in the 2006 Congressional elections, but I have yet to see a balanced analysis of the numerous factors, so I will (with considerable trepidation) essay an attempt.

First, Republicans will claim that what occured was simply the normal result of the off year election in the second term of a President where the President's party had controlled both Houses of Congress.

Republicans will alledge that their losses in 2006 where in line with typical losses.

While the notation that the Republican losses where more or less typical in a historical sense, they do NOT really address why the voters turned out the Republicans.

Second, many Democrats will alledge that the election was simply a referendum on the war in Iraq.

While there is some truth in this allegation (it motivated lefties to turn out in higher percentages than normal), its net impact on most races was negligible (ask Senator Lieberman).

Third, and generally overlooked, the Democrats recruited (and in most instances nominated) candidates better than their norm and better than the Republicans.  Montana is probably the classic example.

Fourth, the Republicans engaged in internectine civil war.  Bush and the corporate liberals made war on conservative Republicans in places like Rhode Island and Arizona.

Fifth, many conservatives voters abstained from the election in anger at the antics of the Republicans. 

Social conservatives discovered that all they have gotten from Bush and the Republicans was empty rhetoric.

Fiscal conservatives were understandabily angry at the Republicans in Congress who went on a spending spree.

Opponents of illegal immigration where angered when the border fence bill not only had NO funding, but when the Speaker of the House and the Senator Majority Leader sent a letter to the Secretary of Homeland Security saying in effect to ignore the bill, and when Bush belatedly signed it, he made it clear he had absolutely NO intention whatsoever of actually implementing it.

Sixth, the Republicans lost a couple of seats in the House which they would normally have retained but for peculiar circumstances (Texas and Florida).

Seventh, the Democrats did NOT self-destruct (although Kerry tried).  The Republicans were so used to the Democrats engaging in stupidity that when it didn't happen (aside from Kerry's stupid remark) that they did not know what to do.

Evangelical was actually higher than in 2004 and the GOP turnout rate barely declined. The GOP lost because of incompetence, corruption, war and because they forgot the independent voters.

Er, Mark, where do you get the idea that the "evangelical" turnout rate was higher in in 2006 than in 2004?

Here you go: "When it came to turnout, white evangelicals and born-again Christians made up about 24 percent of those who voted, compared with 23 percent in the 2004 election. And 70 percent of those white evangelical and born-again Christians voted for Republican congressional candidates nationally, also little changed from the 72 percent who voted for Republican congressional candidates in 2004."

http://www.azstarnet.com/allheadlines/155137

[minionofmidas]

Not the same thing as turning out in higher numbers than in 2004, though. They made up a larger share of the much smaller electorate - though within MoE, these are polls after all - but, given that partisan Democrats and Republicans tend to turn out better than indies in midterms, and there's a sizeable overlap between evangelicals and partisan Republicans (by no means a perfect match, mind you, but obviously there is a correlation) that would pretty much be to be expected.
The relevant comparison point would be the 2002 midterms.

[MarkWarner08]

Not the same thing as turning out in higher numbers than in 2004, though. They made up a larger share of the much smaller electorate - though within MoE, these are polls after all - but, given that partisan Democrats and Republicans tend to turn out better than indies in midterms, and there's a sizeable overlap between evangelicals and partisan Republicans (by no means a perfect match, mind you, but obviously there is a correlation) that would pretty much be to be expected.
The relevant comparison point would be the 2002 midterms.

Let's go back to the past. Headline from CNN circa November 5th 2002: "VNS cites problems with exit polls -- Service finds exits polls unreliable."

[CARLHAYDEN]

Sorry Mark, but your source is without credibility.

Gans, is a spinmeister for the left for several decades.

Although it is nice to see you revise your statement from the turnout being up to being relatively up.

[Alcon]

Was there any 2006 exit poll that asked the Evangelical question?  I know CNN didn't, unfortunately.

[Gabu]

Was there any 2006 exit poll that asked the Evangelical question?  I know CNN didn't, unfortunately.

What?  Yes they did:

BORN-AGAIN OR EVANGELICAL CHRISTIAN?
TOTAL               Democrat        Republican
Yes (34%)             41%                58%
No (66%)              59%                39%


WHITE EVANGELICAL/BORN-AGAIN?
TOTAL                Democrat       Republican
Yes (24%)              28%               70%
No (76%)               60%               38%

[Gabu]

Fourth, the Republicans engaged in internectine civil war.  Bush and the corporate liberals made war on conservative Republicans in places like Rhode Island and Arizona.

One question I had about the above: are you asserting that it would have been better to run conservative Republicans in Rhode Island?

[Nym90]

I find the notion that Republicans lost because they went too far to the left a bit preposterous, but otherwise not a bad analysis.

The American people prefer divided government, all else being equal. Come 2008 we will have had 40 years in which neither party will have been in complete control of the Presidency, Senate, and House for more than 4 years consecutively, and both of those 4 year runs ended in a massive defeat for the party in power, as did another 2 year run, the only times we've had one party control since 1968 (excepting the Jeffords party switch ending a brief 5 month stretch).

All of the Karl Rove talk about a massive realignment and the Republicans becoming the dominant party for a generation was pure rubbish.

[Nym90]

Fourth, the Republicans engaged in internectine civil war.  Bush and the corporate liberals made war on conservative Republicans in places like Rhode Island and Arizona.

One question I had about the above: are you asserting that it would have been better to run conservative Republicans in Rhode Island?

Yeah, not to mention how well Graf did in AZ-08. Laffey would've lost almost as badly as Alan Keyes.

[Alcon]

Thanks, Gabu.

It was 23% in 2004 for white evangelicals, and Bush received 78%.

Can you find the 2002 numbers?  I can't seem to.

[Gabu]

Thanks, Gabu.

It was 23% in 2004 for white evangelicals, and Bush received 78%.

Can you find the 2002 numbers?  I can't seem to.

The 2002 numbers are hard to find because they don't exist.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Fourth, the Republicans engaged in internectine civil war.  Bush and the corporate liberals made war on conservative Republicans in places like Rhode Island and Arizona.

One question I had about the above: are you asserting that it would have been better to run conservative Republicans in Rhode Island?

I recognize that Rhode Island is rather liberal and that it would be understandable to Republicans there to nominate a moderate.  However, Chafee went out of his way to his hatred of conservatives.

[MarkWarner08]

Thanks, Gabu.

It was 23% in 2004 for white evangelicals, and Bush received 78%.

Can you find the 2002 numbers?  I can't seem to.

The 2002 numbers are hard to find because they don't exist.

THANK YOU. Thanks so much for clearing this up. I'm sorry Carl Hayden, but I don't really trust the insights of a man who idolizes J.D Hayworth.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Fourth, the Republicans engaged in internectine civil war.  Bush and the corporate liberals made war on conservative Republicans in places like Rhode Island and Arizona.

One question I had about the above: are you asserting that it would have been better to run conservative Republicans in Rhode Island?

Yeah, not to mention how well Graf did in AZ-08. Laffey would've lost almost as badly as Alan Keyes.

You really don't understand (or are deliberately misrepresenting) my point.

If you go out of your way to exhibit your hatred of the base of your party (as Chafee did) you will lose.

Now the national Republican party unleashed a torrent of hate filled propaganda in the primary in a futile effort to nominate a liberal.  This effort severely injured Graf.  

[MarkWarner08]

Fourth, the Republicans engaged in internectine civil war.  Bush and the corporate liberals made war on conservative Republicans in places like Rhode Island and Arizona.

One question I had about the above: are you asserting that it would have been better to run conservative Republicans in Rhode Island?

Yeah, not to mention how well Graf did in AZ-08. Laffey would've lost almost as badly as Alan Keyes.

You really don't understand (or are deliberately misrepresenting) my point.

If you go out of your way to exhibit your hatred of the base of your party (as Chafee did) you will lose.

Now the national Republican party unleashed a torrent of hate filled propaganda in the primary in a futile effort to nominate a liberal.  This effort severely injured Graf. 

Hoffmann was a liberal in comparison to Graf. Kyl is also a liberal in comparison to KKKrazy Graf.

[Gabu]

I recognize that Rhode Island is rather liberal and that it would be understandable to Republicans there to nominate a moderate.  However, Chafee went out of his way to his hatred of conservatives.

74% of conservatives still voted for Chafee, which is statistically identical to the 76% of liberals who voted for Whitehouse.  Chafee would have won had he carried 100% of conservatives, all else being equal, but saying "all else being equal" is ridiculous, because liberals and "moderates" (in New England, this usually means people who are liberals but don't want to admit it) would then have gone for Whitehouse in droves.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Fourth, the Republicans engaged in internectine civil war.  Bush and the corporate liberals made war on conservative Republicans in places like Rhode Island and Arizona.

One question I had about the above: are you asserting that it would have been better to run conservative Republicans in Rhode Island?

Yeah, not to mention how well Graf did in AZ-08. Laffey would've lost almost as badly as Alan Keyes.

You really don't understand (or are deliberately misrepresenting) my point.

If you go out of your way to exhibit your hatred of the base of your party (as Chafee did) you will lose.

Now the national Republican party unleashed a torrent of hate filled propaganda in the primary in a futile effort to nominate a liberal.  This effort severely injured Graf. 

Hoffmann was a liberal in comparison to Graf. Kyl is also a liberal in comparison to KKKrazy Graf.

Huffman was a liberal.

Now its interesting to see that instead of dealing with facts you engage in rather peurile ad hominem attacks.

[MarkWarner08]

Fourth, the Republicans engaged in internectine civil war.  Bush and the corporate liberals made war on conservative Republicans in places like Rhode Island and Arizona.

One question I had about the above: are you asserting that it would have been better to run conservative Republicans in Rhode Island?

Yeah, not to mention how well Graf did in AZ-08. Laffey would've lost almost as badly as Alan Keyes.

You really don't understand (or are deliberately misrepresenting) my point.

If you go out of your way to exhibit your hatred of the base of your party (as Chafee did) you will lose.

Now the national Republican party unleashed a torrent of hate filled propaganda in the primary in a futile effort to nominate a liberal.  This effort severely injured Graf. 

Hoffmann was a liberal in comparison to Graf. Kyl is also a liberal in comparison to KKKrazy Graf.

Huffman was a liberal.

Now its interesting to see that instead of dealing with facts you engage in rather peurile ad hominem attacks.

There was a KKK website supporting Minute Man Graf. Enough said.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Fourth, the Republicans engaged in internectine civil war.  Bush and the corporate liberals made war on conservative Republicans in places like Rhode Island and Arizona.

One question I had about the above: are you asserting that it would have been better to run conservative Republicans in Rhode Island?

Yeah, not to mention how well Graf did in AZ-08. Laffey would've lost almost as badly as Alan Keyes.

You really don't understand (or are deliberately misrepresenting) my point.

If you go out of your way to exhibit your hatred of the base of your party (as Chafee did) you will lose.

Now the national Republican party unleashed a torrent of hate filled propaganda in the primary in a futile effort to nominate a liberal.  This effort severely injured Graf. 

Hoffmann was a liberal in comparison to Graf. Kyl is also a liberal in comparison to KKKrazy Graf.

Huffman was a liberal.

Now its interesting to see that instead of dealing with facts you engage in rather peurile ad hominem attacks.

There was a KKK website supporting Minute Man Graf. Enough said.

So, if a communist publication supports schumer then he's a communist?

[MarkWarner08]

Fourth, the Republicans engaged in internectine civil war.  Bush and the corporate liberals made war on conservative Republicans in places like Rhode Island and Arizona.

One question I had about the above: are you asserting that it would have been better to run conservative Republicans in Rhode Island?

Yeah, not to mention how well Graf did in AZ-08. Laffey would've lost almost as badly as Alan Keyes.

You really don't understand (or are deliberately misrepresenting) my point.

If you go out of your way to exhibit your hatred of the base of your party (as Chafee did) you will lose.

Now the national Republican party unleashed a torrent of hate filled propaganda in the primary in a futile effort to nominate a liberal.  This effort severely injured Graf. 

Hoffmann was a liberal in comparison to Graf. Kyl is also a liberal in comparison to KKKrazy Graf.

Huffman was a liberal.

Now its interesting to see that instead of dealing with facts you engage in rather peurile ad hominem attacks.

There was a KKK website supporting Minute Man Graf. Enough said.

So, if a communist publication supports schumer then he's a communist?

CARL, I highly doubt a communist would support Schumer. Schumer's actually to the right of many Democrats on economics.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Fourth, the Republicans engaged in internectine civil war.  Bush and the corporate liberals made war on conservative Republicans in places like Rhode Island and Arizona.

One question I had about the above: are you asserting that it would have been better to run conservative Republicans in Rhode Island?

Yeah, not to mention how well Graf did in AZ-08. Laffey would've lost almost as badly as Alan Keyes.

You really don't understand (or are deliberately misrepresenting) my point.

If you go out of your way to exhibit your hatred of the base of your party (as Chafee did) you will lose.

Now the national Republican party unleashed a torrent of hate filled propaganda in the primary in a futile effort to nominate a liberal.  This effort severely injured Graf. 

Hoffmann was a liberal in comparison to Graf. Kyl is also a liberal in comparison to KKKrazy Graf.

Huffman was a liberal.

Now its interesting to see that instead of dealing with facts you engage in rather peurile ad hominem attacks.

There was a KKK website supporting Minute Man Graf. Enough said.

So, if a communist publication supports schumer then he's a communist?

CARL, I highly doubt a communist would support Schumer. Schumer's actually to the right of many Democrats on economics.

Thanks for the humor.

[Alcon]

I don't see much evidence for severely deflated conservative turnout in Rhode Island.  The 3-to-1 disapproval of Bush in the electorate sample was not dissimilar to the 3-to-1 disapproval of Bush in most Rhode Island approval polls.  That being said, I think national turnout was a little less Bush-disapproving than most national polls (hardly surprising, since hardcore Republicans consisted more of the electorate - as they always do/will in most any off-season).  That might suggest that Chafee annoyed, or uninspired, enough conservatives to stay home, but considering the turnout, Chafee did very well.

However, when self-identified conservatives accounted for less than 1-in-5 people in the electorate, and Chafee only narrowly carried independents, would it have been worth it to not piss off conservatives?  Probably not.  Anything he did to appease conservatives would probably have bit him among moderates, independents and liberals (all so self-described).  The 1-in-5 figure is very low, but not unreasonably far from what polls imply the general electorate in Rhode Island is.  This is just not a state where the Republicans do much in the way of existing right now.

It's hard to imagine that Chafee wasn't pretty much damned either way by election night.