Robert Novak explains why it may get worse for the Republicans before it gets better:
Private House Democratic polls of the 50 most competitive congressional districts project a gain of 9 to 11 seats in the 2008 elections that would be an unprecedented further surge by the party following its 2006 gain of 30 seats that won control of the House. All previous major surges of House seats have been followed by losses in the next election. The 54-seat Republican gain in 1994 that produced GOP House control was followed by an eight-seat loss in 1996. However, the current Republican political slump, fueled by President Bush’s unpopularity, would reverse that pattern if the election were held today, according to the Democratic polls.
Maybe Novak means all previous recent surges, since after their landslide victory in 1932, the Democrats increased their House majority in 1934 as well, from 310 to 319 seats. (Now that was a majority!) Still, he's right that Dem gains in '08 would be a historically unusual result - but then again, as Daniel Larison notes, so is the current foreign-policy situation:
There has never been a President elected twice in his own right who presided over a war this long. Normally, Presidents either get re-elected before they get us into wars (Wilson), the wars are relatively brief (Tripoli, War of 1812, Mexico, Spain, Gulf War, Kosovo), or the wars are concluded successfully shortly after the President’s latest re-election (War of Secession, WWII). The unpopular, less successful and/or unconstitutional wars of the modern era normally end up forcing Presidents into early retirement (Truman, Johnson). Bush’s victory in 2004 has really thrown a wrench into the punditry works, because by all rights and according to the relevant precedents it should not have happened.
The closest parallel to how the Iraq War has intersected with U.S. politics, to my mind, is actually the Civil War, where Lincoln faced re-election with the outcome of the war decidedly in doubt, and indeed might not have defeated McClellan without some timely battlefield successes in the summer of 1864. Michael Barone, among others, drew exactly this parallel during the '04 race. The difference, of course, is that the Civil War was over about six months after Lincoln was re-elected, whereas here we are more than two years on in Iraq with no end in sight. Perhaps in David Petraeus, Bush has found his U.S. Grant, but Grant assumed command of the Union armies in March of 1864, six months before Lincoln stood for re-election, whereas both the '04 race and the '06 midterms came and went before Petraeus was given the command. Which is one of the many reasons why there's less public patience for waiting nine months to see if a new military strategy works than there was during, say, Grant's Wilderness campaign.
I don't see Iraq as the only reason that the Republicans might do poorly in the next election cycle. I think corruption was important in this last election and will continue to be important. Indeed, prior to the last election, efforts to investigate corruption were hampered extremely by the fact that the President and Congress were of the same party. Neither had a motivation for investigating the actions of the other (aside from a desire to do the right thing, which wasn't much in evidence). But what corruption cases did come to light (Cunningham, Abramoff, Mark Foley) really hurt the Republicans.
Far from ending the stream of scandal for the Republicans, the elections have accelerated them, partly because of administration ineptitude (the U.S. Attorney firings), inertia (the continuing investigations surrounding Cunningham and Abramoff), and sheer accident (Randall Tobias getting caught in the "D.C. Madam" scandal). But the main engine of this acceleration has been Congressional oversight. Getting people under oath and having them testify has had a devastating effect, and there seems to be no sign of it slowing. So between now and 2008, we are likely to have at least one cabinet member resign in disgrace, and possibly three Republican Congressmen (who also may end up in jail).
The "culture of corruption" and Iraq are a one-two punch. The only way the corruption issue can be negated is if Democrats are shown to be equally corrupt, and a "pox on both houses" attitude becomes common. But there will have to be a lot of William Jeffersons for that to happen, and vigorous investigation by the DOJ of Dems will look like just more politically motivated dirty tricks, and will backfire (especially if such invvestigations result in convictions as spurious as that of Georgia Thompson in Wisconsin). In other words, it's hard to see how corruption won't hurt Republicans in 2008.
Posted by RWB | April 28, 2007 6:03 PM