      |
|
|
 |
|
« Back to Election 94: What's at Stake? main page    Transcript for: Election 94: What's at Stake?Think Tank Transcripts:Election '94: What's at Stake? ANNOUNCER: Think Tank has been made possible by AmGen -- unlockingthe secrets of life through cellular and molecular biology. At AmGen,we produce medicines that improve people's lives today and bring hopefor tomorrow. Additional funding is provided by the John M. Olin Foundation, theWilliam H. Donner Foundation, the Randolph Foundation and the J.M.Foundation. MR. WATTENBERG: Hello, I'm Ben Wattenberg. The November electionsare just around the corner, and it seems the Republicans have theDemocrats on the ropes and that challengers have incumbents in acorner. How come? Joining us to sort through the conflict and the consensus areNorman Ornstein, my colleague at the American Enterprise Instituteand co-editor of the just released 'Congress, Press and the Public';Catherine Rudder, executive director of the American PoliticalScience Association; Larry Sabato, professor of political science atthe University of Virginia and author of the forthcoming book'Corrupt Campaigning'; and Eddie Williams, president of the JointCenter for Political and Economic Studies.' The topic before this house: 'Election 1994: What's at Stake?'This week on Think Tank. Just two years ago, Bill Clinton and the Democratic Congress wereriding high; today, they are very worried. Congress is extremelyunpopular and so is the president. Why? Republicans point to brokenpresidential campaign promises and vacillation, as well as to aseries of mini-scandals in the Clinton administration. Democratsblame intense partisanship by obstructionist Republicans for the sourpublic mood. Whatever the explanation, incumbent politicians of allstripes are running scared, especially congressional Democrats. Today, there are 178 Republicans and 256 Democrats in the House ofRepresentatives. If the Democrats should lose 40 seats, somethinganalysts is say is unlikely but possible, then Republicans would bein the majority for the first time since 1952, more than 40 yearsago. In the Senate Republicans need to win seven seats in order togain a majority, and even if the Democrats lose fewer than 40 seats,the ideological center of the House will almost surely shift somewhatto the right. An incumbent president's party usually does badly in midtermelections, especially when the president is unpopular, and PresidentClinton is unpopular. Since the beginning of this year, Clinton'sapproval rating has dropped from 54 percent to 39 percent as of midSeptember 1994. It is unclear how much of a boost in popularity, ifany, he'll get for averting an invasion of Haiti or for how long itmay last. But what the Republicans are really counting on is the widespreaddissatisfaction with incumbents. Look at this: In a recent poll, only 25 percent of Americans approve of the wayCongress is handling its job, while 63 percent disapprove. At thesame time, when voters were asked, 'Have most members of Congressdone a good enough job to deserve reelection or is it time to givenew people a chance?' 78 percent of Americans said that it's time toreplace Congress with new people. Our first question today, Norm Ornstein: Is the mood of thiscountry now to throw the rascals out? NORMAN ORNSTEIN (American Enterprise Institute): The mood is tothrow the rascals out generally. The public anger is real. The trickis to figure out whether on November 8th that anger will be boilingover, which will mean bodies of incumbents littered all over thepolitical battlefield, or just simmering, which will mean electionslike 1990 and '92, where you get a lot of change but not the dramaticchange. One thing is certain, though, Ben, and that is that we'regoing to have a lot of the political equivalent of drive-by shootingsthis time, as happened to Mike Synar of Oklahoma, a very respectedand tough fellow who lost in a primary runoff earlier this week.We're going to see more of those. We're going to see surprises.People are going to lash out. MR. WATTENBERG: Eddie Williams, Norman Ornstein says drive-byshootings. Is that what you see? Is there going to be a big swinghere? Are people angry? EDDIE WILLIAMS (Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies):The people are angry, and they're very upset, and I suggest that manyof the candidates, however, are likely to adjust to the public mood.Therefore, I think the Democrats will lose some seats, but they willnot lose control of the House or the Senate. MR. WATTENBERG: Okay, Larry Sabato? LARRY SABATO (University of Virginia): Well, Ben, on average in afirst midterm election of a new presidency you have 13 or 14 seatslost by the president's party in the House, you have one or twoSenate seats lost. I think this year the Republicans will dosubstantially better than that, perhaps doubling the norm, and that'spartly because this year, like some previous midterm years, it'sbecoming a referendum on the incumbent president and incumbentpresident is unpopular. MR. WATTENBERG: Catherine Rudder? CATHERINE RUDDER (American Political Science Association): Well, Ithink the public is certainly angry. But I don't think it necessarilyplays out in the election. If you take a look at the number ofincumbents who've lost in primaries, while there's been a bigsurprise as Norm mentioned specifically in the case of Mike Synar,there are only four -- four of the incumbents have lost in primaries.So for an angry electorate it seems to me it doesn't necessarily --it has not so far played out in the way one might have expected. MR. WATTENBERG: Larry Sabato, you seemed to indicate that therewas a possibility that this election could be nationalized, I meanthat the Republicans could make one central issue or several centralissues. Is that -- I mean, you know, Tip O'Neill's famous statementis 'all politics are local.' How do you square that? MR. SABATO: I think they're both local and national, and we'veseen other cases of this. The Democrats did it in 1982, Reagan'sfirst midterm election, when we were in a very serious recession.They were able to make the performance of the national administrationon the economy the central issue and pick up 26 seats. So this ishardly unprecedented. But clearly Clinton is the issue in a lot ofdistricts, in a lot of states. That doesn't mean that the incumbentswon't be able to get around it. Many of them will. They're very agilepoliticians. They wouldn't be in Congress if they weren't. MR. ORNSTEIN: You know, Ben, the biggest -- the single biggestnational effect that you get in a midterm election is people who areangry tend to turn out; people who are not happy but basicallyconflicted Democrats may well sit this one out and stay home. Butthere are a couple of things to remember that mitigate against a kindof dramatic partisan switch in the House. In 1982, as Larry mentioned, the pendulum swung back after a bigswing in the previous election. In 1980, Republicans picked up 33seats in the House with the Reagan landslide. They lost back 26 ofthose the next time. The pendulum didn't swing in 1992. Democratsactually lost 10 seats when Bill Clinton got elected. So that'llprobably limit some of the losses. And then money matters. There are so many seats that are reallycontested now, ironically, that the ability for any challenger toraise enough money to run an effective contest in the House islimited. MR. WILLIAMS: And I don't think you should -- we shouldunderestimate the capacity of incumbents to change their politicalspots, and I think we'll see a lot of shifting and toing and froing,further confusing the electorate in terms of what people stand for. Ithink that is part of the reason for some of the cynicism that manyof the voters see in politicians, that they constantly shift all overthe place to play to special circumstances. Two of the fourincumbents who lost were members of the Congressional Black Caucus,and I think in each of those cases there were some specialconsiderations involved in their jurisdictions. Incidentally, since I went on the limb with a prediction before,I'll predict that there'll be a very modest increase in the size ofthe Congressional Black Caucus this fall. MR. SABATO: Ben, both Norm and Cathy mentioned a very importantcase, though, and that's Mike Synar, a very able, very seniorcongressman who clearly was more liberal than his district but stillhad strong support in a district that's pretty heavily Democratic. Tohave a congressman, an incumbent like Synar, defeated by a71-year-old retired person with no history of public office suggeststo me that we may have more upsets on November 8th than we'recurrently calculating. MR. WILLIAMS: On the point of a national issue, it seems to methat the outcome of what is happening in Haiti may very well play --loom very large in terms of the November elections. MR. WATTENBERG: What -- MR. WILLIAMS: And we don't see fully the outcome at this point. MR. WATTENBERG: Maybe you can tell you me what is happening inHaiti. (Laughter.) I have -- we are broadcasting -- MR. ORNSTEIN: What time is it? (Laughter.) MR. WATTENBERG: I mean, is Haiti going to be a plus for thepresident? MR. WILLIAMS: If things go well for him. Right now they are goingwell. It seems to me he's gotten a slight bump up on that particularissue. And if matters continue and there's a limited amount ofbloodshed or no bloodshed at all, I think that is a plus. If he getsCedras out of there, either out of the office by October 15th,perhaps even out of the country, I think that is a plus. WithAristide going back and taking over, I think that is a plus. It willindicate -- be an indication of his ability to use diplomatic means. MR. SABATO: I would have take another view. I would have todisagree with my distinguished colleague, because I think at best hecan get a wash out of this, and that is if everything goesbeautifully and American troops aren't killed and the plan unfolds asthe agreement suggested that it would and so on. The problem here isreally twofold. First, the American public by and large thinks thatthis Haiti intervention is somewhere between stupid and insane, andover time, as things happen as they inevitably do, whether it'stroops being killed or whether it's the plan not working asprojected, I think it's going to hurt. I really think it's going tohurt Clinton. So we'll have to see what happens, but Democrats dodgeda bullet in not having an invasion with lots of casualties, but thiscould still turn very, very sour for the incumbent party. MR. ORNSTEIN: You know, this shows why it's so tricky to try andmake projections of how many seats will be gained and lost. Eventsbetween now and November the 8th, what Congress does in the next fewweeks in terms of dealing with an agenda that includes GATT andhealth care reform and telecommunications reform and a whole seriesof things is going to matter. If they flop and look terrible, it'llfuel public anger. It'll be like throwing gasoline on the flames. IfHaiti has some disaster, it'll make a real difference, and the timingof it makes a difference, too. MR. WATTENBERG: Would you advise Democratic congressionalcandidates to put some distance between themselves and their ownpresident, which is what the president's own pollster, StanGreenberg, said is perfectly all right? Is that a wise strategy,Catherine? MS. RUDDER: Certainly in the South it is. It's clear that Clintonis not popular in the South, and if you take a look at where theRepublicans have the best chance of picking up seats, in the House inparticular, it's the South. In fact, half the strategy has to bethere, at least I believe. And there's nothing wrong with -- forthese members to distance themselves from President Clinton. Many ofthem have not supported President Clinton down the line, especiallyin the South. So it's a wise strategy. It's just what they should do,and it's not dishonest. MR. SABATO: I don't want to be a total contrarian, because Ibasically -- MS. RUDDER: Go right ahead. MR. SABATO: -- agree with Cathy said. But, you know, there'sanother argument to be made that goes back to a point Norm made aboutturnout. If you embrace your president and you embrace your party'sprinciples and you go full speed ahead in terms of what your partystands for, you might energize your base, and that really is what theDemocrats' basic problem is this year, other than Clinton'sunpopularity -- energizing that base. MS. RUDDER: But, Larry, I don't believe in non-minority districtsin the South you can energize -- MR. SABATO: In the South. MS. RUDDER: -- a base for President Clinton. MR. SABATO: I agree with that in the South. But outside -- MS. RUDDER: It's simply a fact. The South has undergone atransformation anyway, a partisan transformation, and I believe it'sjust continuing -- to the degree parties matter at all anyway. MR. WILLIAMS: One of the things that works against in someSouthern states, of course, is the very large bloc of black votersthat you have that tend to vote overwhelmingly Democratic. MS. RUDDER: I did say non-minority. MR. WATTENBERG: Eddie, are we looking at a further polarization ofAmerican politics and American life, that whites are going to voteone way and blacks are going to vote another way? Is that what we'regoing to continue to see in America, more splitting apart? MR. WILLIAMS: I don't consider it polarization any more than ithas been in the past. People vote their interests, and in goodconscience, blacks tend not to see Republican candidates whorepresent their interests until -- I put the onus on the candidateand on the Republican Party -- until they put up candidates thatblacks in good conscience can support. Yes. MR. ORNSTEIN: Clearly, you've got a lot of differences in theSouth, and the redistricting exacerbates those racial differences,and there are going to be very substantial changes in the South. Oneof the things that that's going to do, though, is it's going tochange the character of the Democratic Party in the next -- the 104thCongress, because basically the Democrats at risk and the Democraticseats at risk are in the South, as Cathy said, and in the West. Theyalso tend to be the more conservative Democrats who are the ones atrisk. And what that means is that the old conservative coalitionwhich relied in the Reagan years on 40 or 45 so-called mainstreamDemocrats isn't going to have that many around; there may be 15 or20. And so the net shift in conservative terms is not going be asgreat as people expect if Republicans pick up 20, 25 seats. MR. WATTENBERG: Norman -- MS. RUDDER: Absolutely right. MR. WATTENBERG: -- you were talking about turnout before, and weare reading lots of stories about the power of the Christian right,the Christian Coalition, in bringing their members out certainly inprimaries. Is there -- is that going to change the dynamic if theDemocrats, disheartened, are not going to turn out -- MR. ORNSTEIN: That's -- MR. WATTENBERG: -- and the Christian right is going to turn out? MR. ORNSTEIN: There's no question it makes a big difference. Whenwe look at the almost inexorable patterns in American politics, thatthe president's party loses seats in the House in the midtermelections, I think one of the key dynamics is that almost invariablysupporters of a president coming in have expectations that are veryhigh and they're never met. They're always somewhat disheartened. Andpeople on the other side get very upset by what's going on and have amuch greater zeal and ability to mobilize and get their voters out. And the question of whether you can get your voters out in anelection -- remember, where turnout drops about 15 points from apresidential election -- becomes critical. And you could look atLarry's state of Virginia in the Senate race, where, you know, we --take the conventional wisdom that Oliver North has a ceiling of about35 percent of the voting population in terms of support, but if the-- he gets his voters out, and that means Christian Coalition peoplewho are organizing and pushing in voter registration drives and therest of the voters are disheartened and don't turn out as much, thatmay be enough to win. MR. WATTENBERG: Larry, there was a poll this morning that I sawafter Doug Wilder dropped out, that instead of that, we assume,mostly black vote going to Chuck Robb, that it apparently split andsome of it went to Oliver North and he is now ahead. I mean, you havea wild race there. What do you make of that, and -- MR. SABATO: Well, there two factors at work. One Norm has justmentioned. The fact is that the Christian Coalition and voters on theright and the Republican Party generally are energized, and they areapparently going to turn out in disproportionate numbers. TheDemocratic coalition is somewhat disorganized because of the split inthe party, and that's hurting. But it's also true that it's too earlyto say for sure. Wilder just dropped out. Robb hasn't had anopportunity yet to consolidate those Wilder voters. MR. WATTENBERG: Who do you think is going to win? Who do you thinkis going to win? MR. SABATO: If the election were held today, it would be North,but it's not by an enormous margin right now. It's relatively close.And I think Robb still has an opportunity to close that gap. MS. RUDDER: I'd like to bring out two things, one that reiteratessomething Norm said, and that is you pointed out that, in fact, inthe 1992 election that was not a great pull for the Democrats or forClinton, and we might reiterate that Clinton only got 42 percent ofthe popular vote. That's going to affect what happens in 1994.There'll be less of the surge-and-decline effect that you weretalking about. MR. WATTENBERG: So you think some of these predictions ofDemocratic apocalypse are overstated? MS. RUDDER: I'd say they're overstated. That's all. Just -- that'snot to say the Democrats won't lose a substantial number of seats. Ibelieve they will, and I think they're going to lose a lot in theHouse -- I mean in the South. MR. WATTENBERG: How substantial? Give me a range. MS. RUDDER: I'd say 25 is not unreasonable in the House. MR. WATTENBERG: And how many in the Senate? MS. RUDDER: I'd say five are not unreasonable in the Senate. But,wait, I want to point one other thing out before we go on with regardto these elections and the Christian Coalition specifically. They dobest in primaries. Any group that's somewhat fringe does best inprimaries. They energize their folks. They get them out. And they canchange elections. MR. WATTENBERG: But isn't -- MS. RUDDER: In a general election, these candidates must go towardthe center, or they're simply not going to win in most cases, evenwith great organization by the Christian Coalition. MR. WATTENBERG: But suppose -- MS. RUDDER: It's suicide to stay to the right or to the left. MR. WATTENBERG: But suppose the public is being galvanized not bythe Christian Coalition, but what you might call a values coalition.The Christian Coalition may be the cutting edge of it, but isn'tthere a feeling that there's something wrong with our value system ingovernment, out of government? You see that in poll -- I know thatTimes-Mirror poll shows that just again and again and again. MS. RUDDER: Sure, but -- MR. WATTENBERG: You see it in the black community. MS. RUDDER: Yeah, but, Ben, it doesn't mean then that people aregoing to turn around and vote for strong right candidates. It simplydoesn't. I mean, there's the Achilles' heel of abortion, if nothingelse, for most women and a lot of other moderates. That alone. So youcan be -- one can be quite worried about values, and I think -- wediscussed this before the show began -- liberals and conservativesboth are concerned about values and where the country's going. Butthat does not then translate into a vote for a right-wing candidate. MR. ORNSTEIN: You know, one point about the black community, atleast you see in the Times-Mirror surveys, and I think Eddie sees itin his surveys, too, the whole notion of an evangelical movement.There's a very substantial evangelical component in the blackcommunity. MS. RUDDER: Yes. MR. ORNSTEIN: On many of the social issues, including abortioneven, the black community is mixed, and there's concern about themoral fabric of the society in both places. But what we see in theTimes-Mirror survey is that it's not of particular benefit really toeither party. MS. RUDDER: Right. MR. ORNSTEIN: In fact, the Republican Party has a huge and growingsplit between those we call enterprisers, whose main concern is thekind of traditional economic one and business-oriented one, and thosewe call moralists, who've almost doubled in number and who areanti-business and whose major concern is moral deterioration. There'sa real give and take there. What's happened is both parties have lostsupport, and the concern about morals and values has extended to aconcern about institutions, which is hurting the Congress as a whole.This time Republicans will reap the benefits -- MS. RUDDER: Right. MR. ORNSTEIN: -- but, believe me, they may reap the whirlwind ifthey're not careful. MS. RUDDER: Well stated. MR. WATTENBERG: All right. Listen,Catherine was brave enough to give a fairly specific prediction. Iwould like to just go around the room to the rest of you and ask foryour predictions, and then I want to go on to one other major topic.She said about 25-seat loss in the House and five in the -- MS. RUDDER: With most in the South. MR. WATTENBERG: With most of them in the South. MS. RUDDER: Eighteen or so in the South. MR. WATTENBERG: Let's just -- real quick, just numbers. MR. ORNSTEIN: We knew you'd do this. (Laughter.) It's a movingtarget. I'd say -- MR. WATTENBERG: Norman? MR. ORNSTEIN: -- maybe around 20 in the House and four or five inthe Senate. MR. WILLIAMS: I'll buy that. MR. SABATO: Somewhere in the twenties in the House, three to fivein the Senate. But he who lives by the crystal ball ends up eatingground glass -- (laughter) -- MR. WATTENBERG: All right. Now -- MR. ORNSTEIN: Ben's eaten a lot of ground glass. (Laughter.) MR. SABATO: Oh, yeah? MR. WATTENBERG: Not as much as some people. Not as much as somepeople. Let us assume that this range of predictions is correct, and thismeans a substantial loss for the Democrats. What would the effect onthe Clinton agenda be if such a change happens? MR. SABATO: Well -- MS. RUDDER: Go ahead. MR. SABATO: I was going to see one thing's for sure. If theRepublicans gained enough seats to actually take control of onehouse, it would be a godsend for Bill Clinton. In politics today,unfortunately, you need a devil figure to run against, and just asHarry Truman ran against a do-nothing Republican Congress, BillClinton would get the opportunity to run against a gridlockingRepublican Senate or whatever the case may be. So you can win bylosing and lose by winning, and Republicans, I think, had better hopethey don't gain control of either house of Congress. MR. WILLIAMS: I think there's that prospect, but also there's theprospect of the reemergence of the 'New Democrat' Bill Clinton, whowould indeed try to reach out to establish some greater rapport withmoderate Republicans, which is what he's been accused of not doing inthe crime bill fight. MS. RUDDER: I don't think that the Republican leadership hasgotten proper credit for what they've done in the last couple ofyears. The movement from sort of the 'Bob Michel approach' ofcooperation -- still partisanship, but cooperation andgentlemanliness -- to the 'Newt Gingrich approach' of fierceopposition has had quite an impact, I think, on the Democratic Partyand on Clinton's success and his lack of success specifically. And Ithink, if the Republicans continue -- the Republican leadership, Doleand Gingrich specifically -- continue this very fierce partisanship,which is matched I would say in equal part on the Democratic side --but if they continue that, it seems to me that we will see a verydifficult next two years and more public disaffection with Congressin general. MR. WATTENBERG: Eddie, is it possible that people like myself whosay he has been running the government too far to the left may bepleased because he will, instead of building this coalition Democratsonly, that he will be forced to go to a centrist coalition? MR. WILLIAMS: Well, you may be pleased if you're a victim of theClinton charm and of his ability to articulate his points of view.(Laughter.) Otherwise, I doubt if you're going to be pleased at all.(Laughter.) But I do think that he has ability to shape issues ofwelfare reform. Blacks are not totally happy with how he hasarticulated his support for welfare reform. They're not totally happywith where he's come out in terms of some of the health issues. Hehas got to learn to play to his strength, which is bridging issuesand reaching constituencies. MR. SABATO: Isn't there a fly in the ointment here, though? AndNorm alluded to it earlier. If you have many of these conservative ormoderate-conservative Democrats in the South and border states goingdown this year, that means the Democratic Caucus will be more liberalin the next Congress. And won't they be pushing Clinton in anotherdirection? MR. ORNSTEIN: What Clinton has to hope for, first of all, is thatthe Democratic Caucus, which will be more liberal, instead of pushinghim in that direction, is chastened enough by a loss of seats torecognize that they've got to move to the middle. And the powerbrokers, I will predict, in the next Congress are not going to be theold boll weevils who, of course, Reagan quoted all the time. It'sgoing to be the so-called gypsy moths. It's going to be the 30 or 35Republicans in the House who are willing to talk, a model being thecrime bill in the end. If he can get the Mike Castles of Delaware and the David Dreiersof California and the Nancy Johnsons of Connecticut and the RalphRegulas of Ohio and the Fred Uptons of Michigan -- 30 to 35 of them-- and get them in the room with him, then Newt Gingrich'sincredibility to keep his own coalition together may not be there.But that requires Clinton to start in the center, as you said, and towithstand the pressure at both extremes. If he can do that, I thinkhe could have a very productive two years and the public would lookmore favorably upon him. If he's pulled in one direction or he triesto have it every which way, then he's going to be in deep, deeptrouble. MS. RUDDER: It seems to me what Norm suggests, which is I thinkthe politically correct strategy, is almost like threading the eye ofa needle. To get those 30 people in the room and get them to vote -- MR. WATTENBERG: All right. We are out of time. I just would liketo do one thing very quickly. Give me a pick in the upcoming Senateraces that will be a surprise to voters on election night. MR. ORNSTEIN: Tennessee. Two seats up. One incumbent, Jim Sasser,running against a newcomer, Bill Frist. A real race to watch. MR. WILLIAMS: Missouri. Alan Wheat winning a Senate seat to becomethe second black Democrat in the United States Senate. MR. SABATO: In Montana, Democrat Jack Mudd has a real chance toupset incumbent Republican Conrad Burns, and that could make itdifficult for Republicans to take over the Senate. MS. RUDDER: In Virginia, Chuck Robb holds on to his Senate seat.Democrat. MR. WATTENBERG: Okay. Thank you, Norman Ornstein, CatherineRudder, Eddie Williams and Larry Sabato. And thank you. As you know, we have enjoyed hearing from you verymuch. Please write with any questions or comments to the address onthe screen. For Think Tank, I'm Ben Wattenberg. END Back to top  Think Tank is made possible by generous support from the Smith Richardson Foundation, the Bernard and Irene Schwartz Foundation, the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, the John M. Olin Foundation, the Donner Canadian Foundation, the Dodge Jones Foundation, and Pfizer, Inc. ©Copyright Think Tank. All rights reserved. 
  Web development by Bean Creative. |