The Washington Post has started a series entitled Eight Issues That Will Shape The 2006 Elections, which focuses on eight questions affecting select congressional races this fall, including:
(1) How big a problem is President Bush for the GOP?
(2) Will the corruption issue go national?
(3) Will pocketbook concerns move voters?
(4) Will the immigration issue save Republicans?
(5) Will the Iraq War come home in November?
(6) Can Republicans win the Northeast?
(7) Can Democrats compete in the upper South?
(8) What ballot issues will drive voters to the polls?
Only one question is applied to select congressional races, and in the case of Connecticut's delegation, two races are being closely monitored:
4th Dist. -- Rep. Christopher Shays (R) vs. Diane Farrell (D) -- Will the Iraq War come home in November?
5th Dist. -- Rep. Nancy Johnson (R) v. Chris Murphy (D) -- Can Republicans win the Northeast?
It has always amazed me how one issue can turn an election. In the case of the 4th District, Rep. Shays finds himself caught in dangerous waters as Ms. Farrell has kept continual pressure on him for his position on the Iraq War, and Ms. Farrell seems to be holding him personally accountable for the legislature's alleged oversight failure of the Bush Administrations strategy. If Rep. Shays loses this election, it is clearly (to me) the result of the 4th District's rejection of the Iraq War and the current policies/strategy (or lack thereof).
As for the 5th District, the Washington Post targets this race as a question of whether a Republican can win in the Northeast. It likens this race (and several other races) to 1994 when Republicans took the South by storm. We all know that the Northeast has been a difficult place for a (conservative) Republican to win office (FYI - I'm not referring to Rep. Johnson as a conservative), but I do not think that the climate in the Northeast has changed to the level that a (moderate) Republican can no longer win here. If it has changed, I think the question really is whether this is an indictment of the Bush Administration rather than a shift in whether a Republican can be successful in the Northeast.
Thoughts? Comments? What about the other races in Connecticut?
Source
The Washington Post, www.washingtonpost.com (date last visited, July 24, 2006)
7 comments:
I think the Democrats would do better in November IF they actually had a plan to go along with their criticisms of the Republicans.
Not one Democrat I have listened to has said anything about what they would do in Iraq or the Middle East for that matter. There is absolutlely no substance behind their anti-war position. Every time I ask on this board for someone to articulate a position of a particular candidate I am told to either look at that candidate's website (that just trashes the President and their opponent) or the post is just ignored.
In 1994 Republicans had the "Contract with America" wheher you agree or not with that agenda the bottom line is that they articualted a plan and voters were receptive to it. Democrats do not have that.
All I am left with is this feeling that Democrats WANT the war to go bad so they can pick up seats. For once can someone please prove to me otherwise?
Of course the Dems want the war to go bad, just as they want the economy to tank and continually harp on smidgens of bad news to justify their criticism. Unemployment is below 5%. Ct will be putting 1,000,000,000 in the rainy day fund. tax receipts are up across the country. Debt is being reduced ahead of schedule. And I bet the evil neo-con cabal will annouce troop reductions prior to November...Iraq ain't good, but it's not nearly as bad as the anti-war zealots would lead you to believe.
How does all this impact state legislative races? Does it at all? Or are those races so local that none of these national trends impact them?
My gut is that most people don't even think about who they are voting for State Senate/Rep, so they just stay on the same line they voted for Gov/Senate/Congress. So in that way it could have an impact if Shays and Johnson are weak.
The problem the Democrats have is that they are perceived as weak on national defense because the far left segment of the party is seen as staunchly anti-military. The Republican problems on this issue are obvious and are listed in the many posts above.
The question, as far as the midterms go, is whether the Democrats can capitalize on Republican problems and demonstrate that Democrats can be trusted with this country's national defense. By a narrow majority the country was unwilling to trust John Kerry with that task. 2008 will be a referendum on that issue and will definitely play a defining role in the upcoming Presidential primaries.
An Open Letter to Alan Schlesinger:
Alan, please bow out of the U.S. Senate race. My worry is that you have more at stake here than simply your pride. What happens when the Courant really starts to find the dirt? How will you keep your livelihood? Who wants a lawyer with gambling debts and a "checkered" social resume? Please stop listening to your staff, who see you as nothing more than a meal ticket, and do the right thing for yourself and those who depend on you.
My gut is that most people don't even think about who they are voting for State Senate/Rep, so they just stay on the same line they voted for Gov/Senate/Congress. So in that way it could have an impact if Shays and Johnson are weak.
Well, you have to figure that more than a few Democrats are going to vote for Lieberman and Rell. So they'll vote line #1 for Rell, Line #4 or Line #5 for Joementum, and then there'll be no one else on that line, so they'll have to jump back to line #2 for the Democrats. But they may look at the candidate for State Senate instead of blindly voting for the Democrat.
Even in the worst case scenario, I still see Lieberman getting 20% of the solid core Democrat vote. Rell will likely pick up some Democrats as well. So don't count on straight ticket voters as much as in the past.
TG - You like marble cake? I knew you were un-American!
Post a Comment