Mired in the electoral swamp

Oh dear readers, I made a frightful blunder - Foreign thoughts on the mid-terms - which was overlooked by my regular critics. In trying to understand the dynamics of a US mid-term election I accepted the following as having some veracity:

Until now, Republicans consoled themselves in this worsening political environment with the belief that congressional elections are local popularity contests.

On further reading it becomes clear that the 'local popularity contests' was a piece of tactical puffery which some Republican candidates have accepted as gospel. They have fallen for their own bullshit!

I've been trying to tease out the reality of the much trumpeted threat to incumbents. That is appears is another groundless myth.

But first the local angle. It seems that was dreamed up as an antidote to the anti-Bush factor, deny deny! One article headed the Republican campaign tactics - There's No "We" in Team.

Once you take away the local personality issues, most polls show national security is just about the only issue where Democrats don't have a substantial lead.

So Bush's crew, content to butt out at the start have ridden back in with the old admin terror theme, confusing the campaigners, if not the voters.

CNN [well we are talking national] says:

Individual Republicans in tough swing districts will still try to run local races and pretend they've never met either Jack Abramoff or the president. But the new White House strategy virtually guarantees that voters will see the midterms as a national election.

Well that clears that up for me. Now to these incumbents...

A governor, two House members, 17 state legislators in Pennsylvania, a U.S. senator -- maybe two.

What do they have in common? They're all incumbents who lost (or may well lose) a primary. As they say in the news biz with barely contained lust: "Is this a trend?" [CNN again]

The Anti-Incumbent Mood Is Exaggerated, claims Human Events Online.

CNN agrees: The trouble with extrapolating from these and other incumbent defeats, though, is that there seems to be no common explanation. Sometimes it's a question of character or personality.

Lieberman lost in Connecticut for not being enough of a "real" Democrat, for being out of step with his party's antiwar sentiments on Iraq, as well as for views he's held on everything from affirmative action to school vouchers to the Terri Schiavo case.

In Rhode Island, Chafee is being pushed for not being Republican enough. He's the most independent, or least loyal, Republican in the Senate. He didn't even vote for President Bush in 2004, announcing he'd written in Bush's father. And on and on...

What seems to be coming clearer is a widespread antipathy towards the whole Middle East debacle; that despite the 'national security' fears, across the country.

Now here is where I would claim that Iraq, security et al were merely presenting issues, and the underlying issue is economic. But I can't do that with any confidence in the absence of reliable data.

Although I would cite: Federal Reserve chief Ben Bernanke estimated that the economy grew nearly 5% in the first quarter, while unemployment has fallen to 4.7%, the lowest since 2001.

With an additional quote: But gas prices are hurting consumers because real wage growth has declined over the past four years. [TIME]

The real question is who do the voters blame; Bush? Congress? A mixture of the two - and even crossing party lines? It seems the pollsters and analysts are locked into the presenting thorns and not looking far beyond, not asking the tough economic questions.

Well, to be fair, some are: Independent pollster John Zogby said gas prices have help sour voters on the direction the country is headed in but the negative numbers are "mainly about Iraq and anxiety about health benefits, pensions and downward mobility."

To repeat another quote from Time: ..the price of gas isn't a mere macroeconomic figure. It's a pocketbook item that consumers feel every week.

So my gut still says economy, still says a Democrat majority. If the Democrats don't try and steer their primaries and accept some sacrificial attrition among incumbents that majority could be a full ten seats, but a simple majority will probably suffice.