Why Republicans Remain Optimistic

by: Phillip Martin

Wed Oct 18, 2006 at 02:14 PM CDT

In a month, the [Republican] party completed more than a million phone calls and door contacts conbined...

These are the numbers that motivate Karl Rove's optimism...Right now, a strong volunteer corps on election day working to turn out voters is the only hope they've got. If the volunteers detect a shred of defeatist cross-talk or come across a newspaper article suggesting that Rove is panicked, then they'll start to panic, too.

The point is that top-level Republican optimism is pragmatic, not ignorant.

Back in the middle of the summer, the people who establish the conventional wisdom were saying that Democrats would pick up at least four legislative seats, and possibly as many as seven. I think it's more likely that several incumbents in both parties will be defeated, ending in a small gain for one party or the other. And I'm betting it will be the Republicans. They have more money than the Democrats, better organization, superior political talent at the consultant level, and much superior get-out-the-vote techniques. Texas needs two strong political parties, but the Democrats have a long way to go to hold up their end of the deal.

Here are my own thoughts on the situation:

Congressional redistricting has allowed elected officials to choose their voters, lowering the emphasis on voters choosing their elected officials. In places where there is a tremendous candidate -- like in President Bush's home district, TX-17, where Democrat Chet Edwards is prepared to win re-election in three weeks -- it won't matter. But not everyone is Chet Edwards, here in Texas and across the country. Incumbency is an incredibly strong card to play, and it takes a trifecta of circumstance to overcome it: (1) an incredible candidate, (2) a national mood for change, and (3) the money to carry the candidate and the candidate's message for change to the voters.

Across the country, the national mood for change is there. But the stars haven't aligned on circumstances (1) and (3) in plenty of places. I know the polls point towards huge Democratic victories -- but polls also showed Senator Kerry defeating President Bush. Remember how you felt around 3:00pm on November 2, 2004? Remember how you felt at 3:00am on November 3, 2004?

For me, rooting for the Democrats will forever be like rooting for the Houston Astros: I'll be there, 100% in support, but there will always be doubt until I see some sustained deliverance. In fact, don't be surprised if this election looks a lot like the Astros (Democrats) and Cardinals (Republicans) at the end of this year's baseball season: Astros close the gap, look unstoppable...then botch it at the end by going back to their old weaknesses.

Would a National Sweep Help/Hurt the Democratic Party?

If the Democrats take back the House but can't take back the Senate, then in two years Republicans can point to Speaker Pelosi and say, "they didn't offer you anything" as the Republican Senate guts out any substantive Democratic bills. Think people won't notice? Remember, the shelf-life of political memory for most voters is never more than one election cycle...

If the Democrats take back the House and the Senate, they will still have a large number of moderate Democrats that can't support the broader, bolder ideas of the Democratic Party. That means that those moderates will either (1) vote with Speaker Pelsoi and lose in the 2008 General Election, thereby having the Democrats lose the House even if we win the Presidency, or (2) the moderates will force legislation to be entirely balanced/toothless by voting moderate-to-conservative in order to keep their seats, thus negating any real bolder change envisioned and promised by the Democratic Party.

In my honest opinion, it would be best for Democrats to draw within a close enough margin that they can pull over some Republican moderates on their side on good legislation, and thereby ultimately gutting the vision of the Republican leadership. I think that better sets up the Party to win back the Presidency, gain more seats in 2008, and then be able to gain some actual traction on the bolder vision we all want to see come true.

Political Science Can't Account for Current Passion

With the understanding of my previous points, I still believe there is something that both Karl Rove and Paul Burka (sorry to lump them together like that) ignore: political science always comes with an asterisk.

Political science courses, theories, and ideas only point to what worked in the past. However, if you study political history, you also know there's always an upset or exception. Is this the year for that exception? Is this the year that we write a new chapter in those political science textbooks? Maybe, maybe not. But if ever the time was right, it would seem that the time would have to be now.

If not, we're going to feel a lot like we did that morning of November 3, 2004 -- hungover, dumbfounded, and kicking ourselves for all the opportunities we missed.