State Legislative Gains for the GOP

Nicole Narea and Alex Shephard write at The New Republic:

Look past the GOP takeover of Washington, however, and the outlook for Democrats is even more alarming. In November, the party lost control of state legislatures in Iowa, Minnesota, and Kentucky. The state senate in Connecticut, which had been firmly blue, is now evenly split. Republicans ousted Democratic governors in Missouri, New Hampshire, and Vermont. All told, Democrats surrendered about 30 seats in state legislatures. They now hold majorities in just 31 of the country’s 98 legislative bodies, and only 15 of the nation’s governors are Democrats.

The losses in November are part of a sharp and unprecedented decline for the party at the state level. Since Obama took office eight years ago, Democrats have lost over 800 seats in state legislatures. For the first time in history, they do not control a single legislative chamber in the South. Overall, the party is now at its weakest point at the state level since 1920.

...

The GOP takeover of state governments was no accident. In 2010, Republicans poured $30 million into state races—three times more than Democrats— as part of a deliberate strategy to control the once-in-a-decade process of congressional redistricting. As a result, Republicans picked up 675 legislative seats and gained control of twelve state legislatures. In 2014, the GOP spent another $38 million on state races and picked up ten more legislatures.

...
Republicans have been deliberately building their advantage at the state level since 1994, when they took control of 15 state legislatures. Groups like the corporate-backed American Legislative Exchange Council and the State Policy Network began using state legislatures as laboratories for conservative ideas, funneling policy proposals from Newt Gingrich’s “Contract with America” to state lawmakers. With their first majority in Congress in 40 years, Republicans in Washington could also dictate public policy in a host of states: For the first time in history, as conservative Democrats defected to the GOP, more than half of Southern legislatures tilted red.

“As recently as the early 1990s, the South was very competitive between parties, if not favoring Democrats,” says Boris Shor, a professor of political science at the University of Houston. “But since the landslide of ’94, Republican voting in state legislatures has become a function of what is happening in Congress and the presidency.”

Stephen Wolf writes at Daily Kos:

After the Civil War, federal troops occupied the defeated South and helped enforce civil rights laws, enabling Republicans to win power in many Southern states thanks to the overwhelming votes of newly enfranchised black men. While they controlled many former rebel states during Reconstruction, other Southern states like Kentucky that hadn’t seceded stubbornly resisted the Republican Party. After Reconstruction ended and those troops withdrew, white-supremacist reactionary Democrats retook power in nearly every Southern state, and even the modern pro-civil rights party held every Southern state legislative chamber as recently as 1992.

While the two parties’ voter coalitions and their positions on civil rights have changed massively in the last century and a half, one thing remained constant: Republicans had never held every Southern legislature at once. That streak ended in 2016, when Republicans won control over the Kentucky state House for the first election since 1920, giving them control of both chambers at once there for the first time in state history. Democrats had lost power in Kentucky during part of the Civil War, when pro-Confederate forces tried to form a rival secessionist government, but it was to the Unionists instead of the Republicans.

With Kentucky, Republicans now control both legislative chambers in every Southern state, roughly those that span from the Virginias to Texas. Although the Census Bureau still defines the Democratic-controlled ex-slave states of Delaware and Maryland as Southern, their cultural affinities have drifted much closer to the Northeast in the post-World War II era. Donald Trump won all of these Southern states except Virginia, while Republicans have also aggressively gerrymandered the vast majority of their state legislatures. However, Kentucky’s lower chamber was a rare Democratic-drawn map, helping the party cling to power until 2016.

Would a Senate "Contract with America" Make Sense?

At Politico, Manu Raju reports:

A faction of Republicans including Sen. Lindsey Graham is agitating for party leaders to unveil a policy manifesto in the midterm elections, detailing for voters what the GOP would attempt with a Senate majority its members are increasingly confident they’ll achieve.

Advocates of the strategy, which has triggered a closed-door debate in recent weeks among the party’s current 45 senators, say it would serve as a firm rejoinder to Democrats casting the GOP as the “party of no.” They say voters should know what they’d be getting by pulling the lever for Republicans in November.

...
The policy agenda would be modeled after the “Contract with America,” the 10-bill document that Republicans campaigned on en route to a historic takeover of the House in 1994.

There are several problems with this approach.

First, when the House Republicans crafted the Contract in 1994, they had not controlled the chamber in forty years.  They were writing on a blank slate, since no one could contrast their promises with their past performance.   Senate Republicans, who had a majority just eight years ago, do not have that luxury. We know what a GOP Senate looks like.

Second, the Contract had the virtue of apparent novelty:  most people in the political community could not remember anything like it.  (Actually, there had been something like it in 1980 -- but few noticed at the time and even fewer could recall it fourteen years later.)   In 2014, a Senate Contract would invite comparisons with the 1994 version, and it would be a challenge to make it as specific and appealing.

Third, as Major Garrett explains in The Enduring Revolution, the drafters of the original contract had plenty of material to work with. Many conservative policy ideas had been circulating for years, and leaders were able to find ten that would unify their ranks and sound good to the general public.  Are there ten such ideas today?  A number of the earlier ideas have either gone into effect (e.g., welfare reform) or become politically problematic.  (The line-item veto lost a lot of Republican fans when Clinton used it.)

Fourth although the individual ideas in the Contract were popular, a pre-election poll found that 71 percent of Americans had never heard of the Contract itself.  On balance, it did some good for the GOP, but it was hardly the silver bullet of Republican mythology.

Democrats Were Not Napping in 1994

For months, Democratic leaders have contended that 2010 is not like 1994 because they understand the gravity of their challenge. Speaker Pelosi has articulated this line, as Roll Call reported back in February:

“We will not be taken by surprise,” she said emphatically, echoing a pledge her lieutenants have made to not repeat Democrats’ mistake in 1994 when the GOP caught them napping amid a rising tide of voter anger and swept them from power.

There is one problem with the "we were taken by surprise" theme: it is not true. In July 1994, Michael Barone was the first major journalist to write that Republicans had a serious chance of taking a majority in the House. But even before then, reporters and Democratic activists were warning that the in-party was heading for big losses. And as the campaign progressed, Democratic alarms rang louder and louder. Some excerpts from 1994 newspaper articles:

• Angry White House officials yesterday sharply rebuked the political director of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) after he was quoted as saying Democratic candidates were free to distance themselves from President Clinton in their campaigns if that is what it will take to win. ... In an interview with the Washington Times, [Don] Sweitzer was quoted as saying, "There are clearly some areas of the country where it is not going to benefit a candidate to associate himself with Bill Clinton, and if you want us to stay away, we'll stay away." -- Dan Balz, "DNC Aide Rebuked After Talk About Shunning Clinton," Washington Post, June 9, p. A13.

• "The White House's recent move to shore up the national leadership of the Democratic Party confirms the political scuttlebutt: President Clinton's dwindling popularity has produced high anxiety over the November elections. Concern grows that a fall fiasco in congressional elections -- including a Republican takeover in the Senate -- could cripple the president in the last two years of his term." -- Carolyn Barta, "Democrats Running Scared," Dallas Morning News, August 16, p. 13A.

• "As they take to the stump this Labor Day weekend for the traditional opening of the fall campaigns, politicians of both parties share a like-minded view of the electoral landscape: The prospects for Democrats at all levels are bleak. The only unknown is just how bleak...Senator John Glenn of Ohio said that at a recent private luncheon many of his Democratic colleagues were in such despair -- some fretted that they would in fact lose control of the Senate -- that he wound up scolding them. -- Richard L. Berke, "Democrats Glum About Prospects As Elections Near," New York Times, September 4, p. 1.

• Charles Cook, a veteran election watcher, says Democratic anxiety is escalating with barely two months left before the election. Mr. Cook, editor of ''The Cook Political Report,'' says: ''The question is whether Democrats are going to take a hit, take a big hit, or take the big hit'' - that is, lose control of the House, the Senate, or both. -- John Dillin, "GOP Has a Shot at House Majority," Christian Science Monitor, September 6, p. 1.

• Sixty days before the November elections, the one question ricocheting through the political world is: How bad will it be for the Democrats? ... "Even under the best of circumstances, this would be a hard year for Democrats," Democratic pollster Geoff Garin said. "But frankly, this isn't close to the best of circumstances." -- Dan Balz, "DemocratsAgree They'll Lose Seats -- Worry Is, How Many?" Washington Post, September 8, p. A1.

• "I think it's pretty bad," says Rep. Bob Matsui, D-Calif. "There's just this sense that we could lose significant seats, and some are even suggesting we could lose effective control of the institution. . . . There's a sense that the public is still angry." -- William Welch, "Dour Days for Democrats," USA Today, September 12, p. 4A.

• With little more than five weeks until Election Day, the Democratic Party seems to be headed for one of its worst midterm drubbings since World War II, which would present President Clinton with enormous legislative problems in the last two years of his term. ... "It's bleak, very, very bleak," a leading Democratic campaign consultant in the Midwest said recently, and a senior White House official commented, "We're in the soup up to our neck, and it's hot."-- R.W. Apple, "Democrats See Only Negative Numbers," New York Times, October 2, 1994, p. 1.

Bush Bashing 2010 and Reagan Bashing 1994

In an article earlier this year, I pointed out similiarities between the 1994 and 2010 midterms. The likenesses continue to mount.

Michael Shear reports in The Washington Post:

As they brace for difficult fall elections, dispirited Democrats hoping to get back some of that 2008 magic are turning to the president for inspiration.

President Bush, that is.

Grainy images of the former president flashed across the screen in a recent ad by Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.). Rep. Joe Sestak (D-Pa.) is attacking his GOP rival in a Senate race for his "advancement of the Bush agenda."

Even President Obama has begun taking direct shots at his predecessor, something he had been careful to avoid in recent months.

"They don't have a single idea that's different from George Bush's ideas -- not one," Obama said during speeches this week at fundraisers in Atlanta and Chicago.

In interviews, mailings and television ads, Democratic candidates are again hauling out the specter of the former president to use as a foil. Nearly two years after he left office and virtually disappeared from public view, Bush -- his image, his policies, his legacy -- are being dragged back into the public arena.

Democrats tried the same approach in 1994. On October 13 of that year, the Post reported:

In a memo to the Democratic congressional leadership Oct. 12, [Stanley] Greenberg says this message "is much more powerful when it includes references to Reaganomics and Reagan's trickle-down policies."

Greenberg tested several phrases among voters -- "trickle down," "Reaganomics" and "Star Wars" -- and the results showed that voters had more negative than positive feelings about those phrases. Among undecided voters, 23 percent expressed "warm" feelings about Reaganomics while 48 percent expressed "cold" feelings. But when "Ronald Reagan" and "the 1980s" were tested, the results were not so good for Democrats. Forty-nine percent of voters surveyed had a "warm" feeling about the '80s compared with 20 percent who had a "cold" feeling.

Not surprisingly then, the Democratic message attempts to link the GOP contract to the most negative images of the Reagan years, using language such as "explode the deficit" and "trickle-down economics." The ad campaign focuses on tax cuts for the wealthy, deep cuts in Medicare, education and veterans benefits, and "billions in defense increases."

One ad features GOP congressional candidates signing the contract on the Capitol steps Sept. 27, with a closeup of House Minority Whip Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) as sinister-sounding music plays in the background. Another portrays a similar scene along with footage of senior citizens as an announcer concludes: "The Republican contract is designed to return to the Reagan years... . But why would we go back to that?"

Switchers

At Politico, Jonathan Martin reports:

When Sen. Arlen Specter and Rep. Parker Griffith decided to switch parties, they were welcomed with open arms by their new political families in Washington.

But when each returned home to face the voters of his new party, the door was slammed in his face.

That both were so soundly rejected before they even got to the general election — Griffith's defeat in Alabama on Tuesday wasn't even close — illustrates the growing disconnect in both parties between the national political establishment and the grass-roots activists who typically decide primary elections, and between the conventional goals of the national parties and the loftier aims of the rank and file.

In an era of decentralized power, well-informed voters and heightened polarization, primary voters seem intent on making up their own minds and creating a party in their own image, thank you very much. And they're willing to risk a majority to do it.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0610/38020.html#ixzz0po5KOWkr

The contrast with 1994 is evident. After the GOP takeover of Congress, several Democratic House members and a couple of senators (Shelby of Alabama and Campbell of Colorado) switched sides, bolstering the new majority's strength. There had been speculation that if the Republicans fell just short of a majority in 2010, some moderate and conservative Democrats might cross the aisle to put them over the top. But now they might balk at doing so, for fear of losing their seats in 2012.

Republican Targets

CQ/Roll Call reports:

Controlling the federal purse strings in Washington, D.C., has been a time-honored way for powerful lawmakers to curry favor at home and secure re-election year after year.
But this year, three powerful Democratic chairmen — Budget Chairman John Spratt (S.C.), Appropriations Chairman David Obey (Wis.) and Armed Services Chairman Ike Skelton (Mo.) — face tough races as a surging GOP looks to use the lawmakers’ power against them and turn them into electoral trophies...
The National Republican Congressional Committee is already making the case against Spratt and Obey, running ads against both calling them architects of the Democratic agenda.
“Spratt is [Speaker] Nancy Pelosi ’s budget chairman, and the Spratt budget has a trillion-dollar deficit,” says a narrator in a spot the NRCC cut in January that ran on cable in South Carolina for a week. “And Spratt’s the architect of legislation Democrats may use to ram through a government takeover of health care.” The NRCC’s Obey ad, which also ran on cable in his district last month, called the Wisconsin Democrat “the architect of Obama’s spending.”
“Obey chairs the Appropriations Committee,” the narrator says. “Obama’s spending gets Obey’s stamp of approval. It’s a Niagara Falls of money flowing out of Washington.”

A few weeks ago, Rhodes Cook suggested a parallel:

The Republican tidal wave of 1994 could be considered a “model” election of sorts. The defeated Democratic House members were largely of a type that are viewed as vulnerable – narrow winners in their previous election, stuck in difficult political terrain, and in large measure, freshmen.

To be sure, there were several long-time Democratic heavyweights that were ousted that year – led by House Speaker Thomas Foley of Washington, a 15-term House veteran; former House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Dan Rostenkowski of Illinois, an 18-term veteran; and House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jack Brooks of Texas, who had 21 terms in Congress under his belt.

Their defeats came as a shock, but they should not have been totally unexpected. The trio was part of what is now a closely watched category called “declining incumbents.” Foley, Rostenkowski and Brooks all drew a higher share of the vote in 1990 than they did in 1992, when all three were beginning to show signs of electoral vulnerability.

Echoes of 1994

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD) warned against extreme rhetoric on the other side. Politico reports:

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) said he was “very, very concerned and disappointed” by Minneapolis radio host Chris Baker, who spoke at the rally last week alongside the two Republicans, rallying up the crowd by calling Democrats in Washington “lying, thieving ... bunch of commies.”

“I don’t think that’s very useful, not only do I not think it’s useful, I think it creates an atmosphere and a debate that is neither constructive and can sometimes be dangerous,” Hoyer said at his weekly meeting with reporters.

Hoyer's attack echoes Democratic themes from 1994:

On KMOX radio on June 24, President Clinton said: "I don't suppose there's any public figure that's ever been subject to any more violent, personal attacks than I have, at least in modern history, anybody's who's been President."

In Detroit on August 6, 1994, he said: "The violent, extremist interests in this country that are trying to keep health care out of the reach of ordinary American working people are a disgrace to the American dream."

Party Like It's 2006 (or 1994)

According to The Washington Post, Rep. Kevin McCarthy's (R-CA), lead House candidate recruiter for his party is trying to learn from White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel.

[He] he admits to reading -- and rereading -- "The Thumpin', " a book that recounts how Emanuel, as chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, helped the party prevail in the 2006 elections.

"I'm looking for ideas," said McCarthy, who credits Emanuel with finding the right candidates to run in key races four years ago. "It doesn't have to be from one party or the other."

He is also adapting an idea from 1994.

Now party leaders have assigned McCarthy another key role: framing the House GOP's agenda for the fall. Republican strategists privately say they will take an 80 percent/20 percent approach to the campaign season, spending the majority of their time attacking congressional Democrats and President Obama. But McCarthy will help craft the message that Republicans will deliver to voters about what they will do if they actually win control of the House. He has dubbed the project the "Commitment to America," echoing the 1994 "Contract With America" that many Republican candidates used as a basis for their campaigns.

While not criticizing the original Contract, McCarthy says he wants the current document to emerge from the party's grass roots rather than be written by party leaders in Washington. In an effort likely to start this summer, Republicans will use the Internet and other forums to engage in a listening tour, allowing the public, particularly conservatives, to offer input on the GOP's agenda.