2006: A Race Odyssey

Abstract

As domestic issues handcuff Republicans, Democrats sense an opportunity for electoral gains.

After dominating the 2004 congressional elections and winning the presidency, Republicans are optimistic that they can further bolster their majority in the 2006 midterm elections. Meanwhile, shell-shocked Democrats are placing their hopes for 2006 on the so-called six-year itch, which historically yields big gains for the opposition after a sitting president's first one and a half terms in office.

But 18 months prior to the November 2006 elections, it appears as though neither party will see substantial congressional gains. That said, Democrats do have an opportunity to make some political inroads. The opening months of President George W. Bush's second term have been filled with stumbles. Most notably, his attempt to revamp Social Security has found only middling support. With the proper dose of cunning, Democrats could convince the American public that Bush's plan would transform guaranteed benefits earned from a lifetime of hard work into a welfare program for the poor.

It's an argument that dovetails nicely into the charge that the GOP, which currently controls the White House, Congress, the Senate, and (some maintain) the Supreme Court, is overreaching for power. The Terri Schiavo case and House Majority Leader Tom DeLay's ethics quagmire provide the perfect fodder for political advertising to underscore this point. (Polls showed that an overwhelming number of Americans, no matter their political leanings or religious beliefs, disapproved of the government's intrusion into the Schiavo ordeal.) If the strategy seems familiar, it's because Republicans successfully executed it in 1994. During those midterm elections, Newt Gingrich used President Bill Clinton's overreach on health care reform and the Democrats' monopoly of power in Washington to obtain control of Congress.

“Despite rising casualties and a seemingly never-ending Iraqi insurgency, Democrats have failed to connect with voters on the Iraq War or, more generally, on national security.”

Better still for Democrats, this steers the discussion away from the Iraq War. Despite rising casualties and a seemingly never-ending Iraqi insurgency, Democrats have consistently failed to connect with voters on the Iraq War or, more generally, on national security. Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry's heroic service in Vietnam was supposed to check Bush's forceful response to 9/11, but the election's results proved otherwise. Since Democrats have not been winning on national security, their best strategy is to refocus on domestic issues. But the rough and tumble nature of political campaigns may require that they insulate themselves from criticism by offering credible alternatives to GOP defense policies.

Open seats without incumbents generally provide the best opportunity for the opposition party to win a seat. So far, two Democratic senators and one Independent (who votes like a Democrat) have announced they will not seek reelection: Minnesota Democrat Mark Dayton, Maryland Democrat Paul Sarbanes, and Vermont Independent Jim Jeffords. Only one Republican–Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, who has presidential ambitions–has said he will step down.

Two other seats might open because Democratic Sen. Jon Corzine is favored to win the New Jersey governorship and Texas Republican Kay Bailey Hutchinson is contemplating a gubernatorial run. Every other senator has indicated they plan to run for reelection, but it's possible that 87-year-old West Virginia Democrat Robert Byrd or deposed Republican leader Trent Lott of Mississippi might bow out. Other surprises should not be discounted either.

With these caveats in mind, look for the following Senate races to be 2006's marquee contests:

New York. Even if Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton coasts to reelection, this race will be watched closely for clues to the 2008 presidential slugfest. Clinton has been shoring up her national security credentials by serving on the Armed Services Committee, supporting higher military spending, and voting for both the Iraq War and national missile defense.

If former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani runs, New York will be 2006's prizefight. More than likely, however, Giuliani will make a 2008 presidential run, leaving Richard Nixon's son-in-law Edward Cox as the Republicans' candidate. (In a twist of historic fate, Clinton served on the Watergate committee that examined President Nixon's misdeeds.) No matter who runs, Republicans view the race as an opportunity to damage Senator Clinton's credibility, in hopes of preemptively derailing her potential presidential campaign. She is the one Democrat–aside from her husband and Massachusetts Sen. Edward Kennedy–that Republicans love to hate. Love or hate her, she's the early favorite for the 2008 Democratic nomination.

Pennsylvania. The Keystone State hosts the most-watched race at this point. Controversial Republican Sen. Rick Santorum, a rising Republican star and leader of the right, will oppose popular state treasurer Bob Casey, the son of a former governor. The Democrats gave Casey a pass in the primary, allowing him to focus on Santorum. Casey, like his father, is anti-abortion, neutralizing this contentious issue. And he's picked his positions on national issues–including security–carefully, frustrating Republicans ready to pounce. Early polls show Casey with a double-digit lead, but Santorum is a resourceful politician.

Vermont. With the popular Jeffords leaving office, Independent Cong. Bernie Sanders is the early favorite to replace him. Democrats are likely to endorse Sanders, a former mayor of Burlington, rather than force a three-way contest that could elect a Republican.

Republicans have some potentially strong candidates, including Lt. Gov. Brian Dubie and Richard Tarrant, a wealthy businessman. Sanders should appeal to liberals. He proudly declares himself a Democratic socialist who is a strong opponent of the administration's preemptive war strategy. He also advocates cuts in the military budget. Moreover, he is not afraid to tangle with Republicans on national security issues. He might be the senator who shakes Democrats from their national security slumber.

Maryland. Sarbanes has been an important progressive leader in the Foreign Relations Committee. Republicans hope to capture the seat in a heavily Democratic state with a pro-Bush, African-American candidate, Lt. Gov. Michael Steele, who hasn't decided to run yet. Another candidate to replace Sarbanes might be Democratic Cong. Chris Van Hollen, one of the few new candidates with a strong background in national security, having previously served as a Foreign Relations Committee staff member. If Van Hollen runs, he will face two strong Democrats–former NAACP chairman and former Cong. Kweisi Mfume and Cong. Ben Cardin. Both are progressives but neither has focused on national security issues.

Rhode Island. Incumbent Republican Sen. Lincoln Chafee is a moderate in a party that frowns on moderation and a Republican in a Democratic state. He is the only Republican senator who voted against nuclear bunker busters and opposed the Iraq War. In an unusual move, he declared before the 2004 election that he would write in the name of another Republican for president instead of voting for Bush. Chafee, the son of a moderate Republican, always sees a need to balance his votes. In mid-May, he reluctantly declared his support for John Bolton's nomination to be U.S. ambassador to the United Nations.

Thus far, Chafee has been fortunate. Two prominent Democratic congressmen, including Senator Kennedy's son Patrick, declined to run. Instead, two lesser-known officials are running. The contest will be an interesting test to see if moderate Republicans, who once dominated the region, can still win in the Northeast.

Across the country, moderate Republicans face the challenge of staying relevant–both inside and outside their party, which has been tracking increasingly more conservative. Of the new Republicans voted to Congress in 2004, most leaned far right. The 2006 midterm elections may be less a contest of red- versus blue-state values than an early indicator of whether voters continue to prefer candidates who think only in black and white.