E-mail a friendAmy Walter
airdate June 26, 2006
Amy Walter is Senior Editor for the Cook Political Report, a nonpartisan newsletter that analyzes elections and campaigns. She has an extensive background in electoral politics and also does analysis for CNN, where she provided Election Night commentary the last two general elections. In '00, she won The Washington Post Outlook section's Crystal Ball competition for her accurate predictions of election outcomes. Walter was previously adjunct professor at American University's School of Communication.
Amy Walter
Tavis: Amy Walter is the senior editor and political analyst at the 'Cook Political Report.' She's also a frequent political contributor for CNN and commentator on CBS' 'Face the Nation.' She joins us tonight from Washington. Amy, nice to have you on the program.
Amy Walter: Thanks, Tavis, glad to be here.
Tavis: Glad to have you. So, what did not surprise me is that the Democrats tried to get votes passed on a couple different occasions that would set a timetable for the withdrawal, or certainly the reduction of troops in Iraq. That did not surprise me. What does surprise me, and you'll have to explain to me how this dog is gonna hunt come November, as they say down in Texas.
Tell me how this dog hunts. That the Democrats said they wanted to get the troops out of Iraq, and yet Democrats didn't vote for the measures that they were sponsoring to draw down the number. Does that make sense to you?
Walter: No, yeah, well, the whole, you just (laughs) very quickly summarized the probably right now for Democrats on this issue of Iraq, which is there is not a consistent message, and there is not one messenger. And so, for the general public, they saw exactly what you saw there, Tavis, and what I think even folks in Washington saw, which there is no sense that Democrats are going into this election not only with a plan, but with a confidence to sell something.
And I think that's really what voters are looking for. We heard so much in the 2004 election about the differences between President Bush and John Kerry, and one of those was this idea about who looked like they were a stronger leader. Who were people going to be able to trust, in terms of their overall just sense of understanding, right? That voters were looking for a measure of those two men, and where they were gonna come from on this very important issue.
And with Democrats, the issues that you just raised, I think what it did for Democrats was put it back to this place where we were in 2004, with voters that said well, the Democrats still can't quite figure out where they are, and where they wanna be. Should we be able to trust them on these issues?
Tavis: I've had these Democrats come on the program regularly, and Howard Dean, of course, chief among them, the chairman of the party. But help me, maybe you understand better than I do what the message is. Let me phrase it this way. Maybe they think they're delivering a message that obviously ain't getting through to people like me. But if they think they're delivering a message, what is that message?
Because I don't get it when you say that the President's wrong, and you beat this guy up every day, you kick him in his behind every single day, and then you try to pass legislation that you guys don't support that says, we gotta set some date certains here. What is the message they think they're trying to send? Is that a fair question?
Walter: (Laughs) Okay, I'll try to answer that, which I think what they're trying to do, or message they're trying to send is look, it's clear that the majority of Americans right now are frustrated with what's happening in Iraq, and do not support what's happening in Iraq. Now, that is the easy part. The hard part is okay, what do we do now? Now, part of the problem that Democrats have had is they've spent so much time sort of doing the revisionist piece.
Let's talk about how we got here. What about the weapons of mass destruction? What about the intelligence? What about this and this and this to the lead up on the war? I think where voters are, though, is they said yeah, we get all that. But now what? Now what are you gonna do? Now what are we gonna do, not just with the troops day in and day out or next week or next month, but what are we gonna do as a country?
What sort of message are we sending internationally about the role that we're going to play militarily and otherwise in other parts of the world? And so, that, I think, is what voters are, that's what they wanna hear. I'm sure that's what you wanna hear. And that message is not getting across. But you're right, the bigger message that I think that they're sending, or they're trying to send, is we're gonna do something differently than President Bush.
What we need to be able to do as a Democratic party is come in, because there has not been any sort of serious look at not just the policies but the plan for Iraq, because it's been a one-party control in Washington. And what you need is some oversight, and that's why you should elect Democrats.
Tavis: I wanna talk more in a moment here, Amy, about the House and the Senate specifically, and get some projections and some thoughts, at least, as we move into this midterm election cycle. Before I do that, though, let me stay with this one more time and ask another question here. If I am a Democrat running for reelection, and specifically a member of the Senate, say nothing of running for President in '08.
But let's just stay with the midterms. If I'm a Democrat and I'm running for reelection, and I happen to be a Democrat, 'cause quite frankly, almost all of them fall on this category. Maybe Russ Feingold falls outside of it. But almost every Democrat I know falls in this category where they've gotta run for reelection this year saying, or being asked by the voters, why did you vote to authorize President Bush to do almost everything he asked for on Iraq, yet you criticized him for the way it's been handled.
But I don't have a plan from you on what ought to be done, including the reduction of troops. Now, it's one thing for the party to be lost on that front, but I wanna break this down to the individual running for reelection as a Democrat. How do you sell the fact that you voted to support the President, but you did not vote to set a timetable to bring the troops home. How do you sell that?
Walter: Well, you sell that by saying look, we all know that military decisions should be determined by the folks on the ground, by military leaders, and not by folks in Washington, D.C. And I think you sell that as saying that's part of the problem in the first place, which is too many people in Washington making decisions that really should be decided on the ground, and that clearly, the decision should be made by, ultimately, by the ability for the Iraqis to take control (unintelligible).
Tavis: But Senator, you're in charge of oversight, are you not?
Walter: And the response to that would be well, we're not the party in control. Remember, it's Republicans who get to hold hearings. (unintelligible)
Tavis: But Senator, when that vote came to the floor, I looked at the register and you did not vote to set a timetable to bring the troops home, Senator.
Walter: That's right. And I say to that, there cannot be, I think, an arbitrary timetable. It's dangerous. (Laughs) I think, you know what you're gonna hear. It's the same. You got it right there.
Tavis: But...
Walter: And it's not satisfying. I think what Democrats are doing here is they're trying to say look, we get it. There is a concern among voters, and I think it is very true. This is a very complicated issue, that there is not simply a, "We should be there" or "We shouldn't be there" answer to this question. It is all right, we're not happy with the fact that we went there.
We're not happy that we're there right now. But what can we do now that is not going to be problematic, not just for a month down the road, but years down the road. And that understanding that there's some nuance. I think voters are smart enough to know that there's nuance in all of this, and that there has to be a discussion about Iraq that is not a simple black and white.
The problem is, once you get into nuance, then we're back to the place where we started this conversation. It is very difficult to deliver nuance in a campaign. Campaigns are about contrasts. There are very clear differences between the parties. This is an issue where it is just, there's just too much fluidity. And that makes it very difficult to run on.
Tavis: Well, I gotta tell you, before we move on, it's tragic to me, quite frankly, that youand I could sit here and really play a game. This is an exercise in futility, you and I going back and forth. We know how the game is played, we know what's gonna be said. The American voters still don't get a straight answer come November, and what we just did is the same thing that's gonna happen in November.
That said, I digress. Let me move on. When you talk about the House specifically, if I had a dime for every time I've heard my Democratic friends say to me, and I say this respectfully. I love all these guys. But if I had a dime, Amy, for every time I've heard a Democrat say to me, certainly in Black America, if the Democrats take back the House, John Conyers of Michigan is the head of the House Judiciary Committee.
If the Democrats take back the House, Charlie Rangel of New York is the head of the House Ways And Means Committee. I've been hearing that speech for 15 years of my life, of what will happen if the Democrats take back the House. Are they gonna take it back this time?
Walter: Oh. So you start with a tough question. Here's where we are. They're 15 seats short, and everything in the political climate points to a good year, a big year, for Democrats. Everything we just, taking the beginning of our conversation aside, just the low approval ratings of the President, the pessimism among voters about the direction of the country.
Seventy percent or so voters think it's off on the wrong track. Democrats leading on the Congressional ballot test. There is a sense, too, that Democratic voters, more energized than Republican voters to come out and vote. All right, so by all those empirical, all the empirical evidence suggests that if there were a year for Democrats to take control of Congress, this is it.
At the same time, there are some structural barriers here that really are to the benefit of Republicans. Some of it's redistricting. Some of it is candidate quality. Some of it's the fact that there are just very few of these open seats that you really, for Democrats to take control of Congress, they're gonna need to knock off I would say at least a dozen incumbents.
That's very, very hard to do. So structurally, it's different. And the other big difference, there's a lot of talk here in Washington, you're talking about for the last 15 years, you've heard this refrain. Remember, 15 years, or it's a little bit less than that, but back in 1994, that's when Republicans took control of Congress. Fifty-two seats switched hands. Going back and looking at the numbers, all those numbers I just went through, that litany there, looks very similar to where Democrats were, going into 1994.
The one difference, and the very big difference in this - goes back to the original point you were making at the start of this - is that neither party is particularly well liked by the American public. So while voters are definitely saying right now, I don't like the status quo, what they're not saying is, and I can't wait to vote for Democrats in November. All right? They're saying, 'I don't like either party right now. I just like Democrats, I just dislike Republicans more.' And that's where we're starting.
Tavis: So tell me right quick what happens in the Senate.
Walter: Structurally, again, Republicans do have some advantages. I think Democrats look for both sides. They're gonna pick up seats in the House and the Senate. The question right now is, can Republicans pick up six seats in the Senate? That's what they need to take control. That means knocking off five incumbents and picking up an open seat, or knocking off six sitting incumbents. That is a very, very tough math. So if one house is more likely to go, it would be the House. I think that is much more tenuous right now.
Tavis: Let me ask you right quick how the President's troubles are going to, how badly they're going to hurt Republicans. Am I wrong to even make that assumption, that they will hurt Republicans?
Walter: No, you're not wrong about that. And listen, this is what we started to see probably April, May. The President's troubles started to show up in Congressional polling. All right, so if you went and talk to just any Republican incumbent, you said how does your polling look? They would tell you, privately, (laughs) probably, that I'm about 10 points or so lower than where I was at this point in 2004.
Or where I was at this point in 2002. So literally, the President's low approval rating, frustration about voter, it was a drag. The difference, though, is that what we're seeing, I think, are a whole lot of voters, maybe the Republicans are soft Republicans or independent voters. They're not moving over to the Republican as they would normally do. But they're sitting back and waiting. What they're waiting for, that's really the big question. And can Democrats deliver them something to make them move?
Tavis: Well, I'll wait for the next time to get a chance with Amy Walter to talk about these things, which we'll have a chance to do any number of times between now and November. Amy Walter, senior editor for the 'Cook Political Report.' Nice to have you on, Amy.
Walter: Thanks a lot.
Tavis: Appreciate your insight. Up next, singer-songwriter Corinne Bailey Rae. Stay with us.
Back to June 26, 2006