The Democrats Mistake in 2006
When the history of the 2006 campaign is written, I think it likely that the Democratic Party will be taken to task for not doing better in this election. Even if they take the congress, they will do it narrowly. This despite this being the sixth year of a two term president (always bad for the party in the White House), a foreign policy seemingly without direction, and significant unhappiness with President Bush's domestic policy. How is it that this late in the campagin the Democrats have not taken control of this election?
I think it is their failure to run a unified campaign and nationalize the congressional elections.
Sometimes a massive change that shifts control of the Congress there has been the result of cataclysmic political mandate (1936 or 1964 presidential election) or a reaction from the same (1938 or 1966 echo election), or a one shot deal (Watergate). More often than not when one party is able to wrip control from the other it has been when the opposition has run a unified, national campaign to gain control. Examples include:
1946-GOP runs on theme "Had enough?"-wins Senate and House for first time since 1931.
1958-Democrats run on the "Eisenhower Recession" and make large gains in both houses of congress.
1980-GOP runs the Tip O'Neill satires attacking a congress that is fat and out of control-takes the senate and and enough house seats that in concert with the boll weevils creates effective conservative control of the House.
1986-Democrats run in a non-presidential year on the Bork Hearings and Iran-Contra and take back the senate and strengthen their hold on the House
1994-GOP runs the Contract with America, and takes both houses of Congress.
Why is the national campaign so important? Because it creates an umbrella that allows other issues to take root. A national theme that attempts to exploit some systemic failing in the opposition sets a tone that typically gives credence to other claims. It creates a constant pressure that the incumbent party has to guard against, and creates openings to then attack on smaller, local issues...which find more fertile ground to take root.
Instead, in 2006 the Democrats have assumed that the discontent was so high they did not need to nationalize the election...and I think whomever made had that bright idea is going to get a big kiss on the lips from President Bush come November 9.
The Democrats had a big opportunity this year. They could have tried to nationalize the election. But they did not...and with it they lost an opportunity.
I think it is their failure to run a unified campaign and nationalize the congressional elections.
Sometimes a massive change that shifts control of the Congress there has been the result of cataclysmic political mandate (1936 or 1964 presidential election) or a reaction from the same (1938 or 1966 echo election), or a one shot deal (Watergate). More often than not when one party is able to wrip control from the other it has been when the opposition has run a unified, national campaign to gain control. Examples include:
1946-GOP runs on theme "Had enough?"-wins Senate and House for first time since 1931.
1958-Democrats run on the "Eisenhower Recession" and make large gains in both houses of congress.
1980-GOP runs the Tip O'Neill satires attacking a congress that is fat and out of control-takes the senate and and enough house seats that in concert with the boll weevils creates effective conservative control of the House.
1986-Democrats run in a non-presidential year on the Bork Hearings and Iran-Contra and take back the senate and strengthen their hold on the House
1994-GOP runs the Contract with America, and takes both houses of Congress.
Why is the national campaign so important? Because it creates an umbrella that allows other issues to take root. A national theme that attempts to exploit some systemic failing in the opposition sets a tone that typically gives credence to other claims. It creates a constant pressure that the incumbent party has to guard against, and creates openings to then attack on smaller, local issues...which find more fertile ground to take root.
Instead, in 2006 the Democrats have assumed that the discontent was so high they did not need to nationalize the election...and I think whomever made had that bright idea is going to get a big kiss on the lips from President Bush come November 9.
The Democrats had a big opportunity this year. They could have tried to nationalize the election. But they did not...and with it they lost an opportunity.
posted by Bwana | 4:21 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home