Will Anger At Congress Sway Voters?

Public Approval Of Congress Is At Its Lowest Level In More Than A Decade

(CBS)  By David R. Jones and Monika L. McDermott

---

In the wake of the Mark Foley congressional page scandal, Congress' already dismal job performance ratings are at their lowest point during an election season in more than a decade — just 29 percent in the most recent CBS News/New York Times poll. But what effect, if any, will low congressional approval ratings have on Election Day?

Democrats fervently hope that voters will take out their frustration with Congress on candidates from the majority party. Republicans hope that Americans' disapproval of Congress will not lead to any significant losses.

With Republicans clinging to only a slim margin in the House of Representatives — a change of only 15 House seats out of 435 would tip the balance to the Democrats — disapproval of Congress could prove pivotal in determining which party controls the next House.

Despite its potential importance, very little is commonly understood about the role played by public evaluations of Congress. Nevertheless, history does contain a few significant clues for what we might expect on November 7.

Since 1980, four Congresses clearly stand out as the most unpopular — all averaging below 34 percent approval in the months preceding the election — 1980, 1982, 1992, and 1994. At first glance, these elections don't appear to offer a clear verdict on whether the majority party should worry about public disapproval of Congress. On one hand, despite intense congressional unpopularity, the majority party lost only a small number of House seats in 1992 (eight), and actually gained 28 House seats in 1982. If the 2006 elections are like either of these, Republicans can be confident that they will retain power in the House.

On the other hand, congressional unpopularity also coincided with the two biggest electoral disasters for the majority party in the last 30 years — the elections of 1980 and 1994. In 1980, the Democratic majority lost 30 seats in the House; in 1994, the Democrats lost 52 seats and majority control. If the 2006 elections are like either of these two, Republicans should prepare for life as the minority party once again.

This begs the question: Which of these types of elections is the model for 2006? It turns out that the biggest difference between status quo elections and minority party landslide elections is the difference between unified versus divided party control of government. Both of the "landslide" elections occurred when both the presidency and the Congress were controlled by one party, while both of the "status quo" elections occurred when the House was controlled by a different party than the presidency.

The effect of unified and divided government revolves around a party's ability to deflect blame. When the president is from a different party than the majority in the House, as in 1982 and 1992, the House majority can mitigate the damage done to their party by blaming the opposition party in the White House. This is precisely what enabled the Democratic majority to gain seats in 1982, at a time when Ronald Reagan was saddled with low approval ratings as well.

But when the majority party in Congress also controls the White House, the buck stops at that party's door. Americans' negative view of the majority party’s handling of Congress is reinforced to the extent that they also hold a negative view of that same party's handling of the presidency. In 1980 and 1994, Americans disapproved of Democrats' performance in both the White House and Congress — and Democratic congressional candidates suffered dearly as a result.

If there's a lesson to be drawn from these four elections, it is that the most dangerous electoral environment for a party is to control both branches of government and be viewed as performing poorly in each. With President Bush's own approval ratings at 34 percent in the most recent CBS/NYT poll, Republicans can only hope that history does not repeat itself.

---

David R. Jones is an associate professor of political science at the City University of New York, Baruch College. Monika L. McDermott is an assistant professor of political science at the University of Connecticut.

[rharrin1]

If charles manson was running for office as a republican ANGRYliberal would vote fo him thats how far right this jerk is

[bluestardad]

We got da TATER the DICKTATER

[mjv2944]

We really have only one party "Demlicans", as there isn't a nickle worth of difference, they are all crooks. They spend millions to get elected to a job that pays less than $200,000, I wonder why!!! The only agendas they have are for self gain. Vote out every single incumbent, hopefully the ones who win get the message, but I doubt it. Lawyers making laws for lawyers and we're the losers.

[bluestardad]

Dictators is that a Washington Dish that Republican Mark Foley was covertly serving the Congressional pages, Or Is that a Texas Style potato dish that the Bush administration has been feeding the American people for the last few years? Served with a side order of Stay the Course.

[j-whitman]

Cheney's Bechtel is abandoning Iraq,, Is it the contract abuse? Or Increasing disasters in Iraq???

[tonyger68]

Why doesn't CBS give much coverage to Democratic rallies/candidates ? Yet again, CBS led Thursday's News with extensive Republican friendly propaganda. It is unfair if CBS is going to devote every evening towards presenting Bush and the GOP in such a positive manner. CBS News should give equal time to both parties. CBS never leads with a Democrat rally or with Bill Clinton addressing the faithful. Miss Couric sees her role as spin doctor in chief for Karl Rove, Rush Limbaugh and Mark Foley. CBS News will continue to lead the News with Republican friendly spin thereby serving the Whitehouse agenda and letting the viewers down.
Edward R. Murrow would turn in his grave at CBS's craven surrender to these cynical operators.

[pakaal]

OK j-whitman, see you on the comments boards....

[j-whitman]

pakaal,,, yes, for Reagan's innaugeration,,, George HW, was CIA

[j-whitman]

pakaal,, I'm missing too much news, talk later

[pakaal]

Yeah, data mining is big business these days. Unfortunately, most of our financial / personal / demographic info is available to whoever has the $$ to buy it.

[pakaal]

The Tehran situation was Reagan actually. The story is he promised Iran arms in exchange for them putting pressure on Lebanon/Hezbollah to release the hostages AFTER the election in '81. The sale of weapons did indeed happen after elections, but Reagan denied it being an exchange. They then turned the $$ from the sale around to fund the Contras in Nicaragua. We even had Oliver North red-handed, but Reagan pardoned him....

[j-whitman]

pakaal,, Are you aware how both parties use Data Mining?? All of our financial, voting information, how much is left on your mortgage, your credit card spending patterns, the school your kids go to, thier ages,,,, on & on,,, being used for statistics on shaping thier spin for campaigning & more... That's Both Party's then they sell the info to PAC's & others.

[j-whitman]

pakaal,,, I used to like George HW, untill my 92 year old aunt clued me in on him,, a little research I found out about the origional October Surprise,, George HW, in Paris delaying the release of American hostages in Tehran.

[pakaal]

Yeah, I know. And he's a Bush family member, which puts him in the thick of things for a lot of reasons. Friends with the Saudis, friends with Rice....

Well, we know one thing, and that the buck ultimately stops with him one way or another. Pelosi may have taken impeachment off the table, but I wonder if the American people will ultimately tell her to reconsider....

[j-whitman]

especially years & years of Rumsfield,, another Prince of the industrial military machine & Cheney also.

[j-whitman]

pakaal,, that's the Alpha side,, don't forget he's longtime friends with Rice & others.

[j-whitman]

pakaal,,, Maybe that's what happened to Angryliberal,,, he's off praying or something,,

[pakaal]

Yeah, I know, and I have nothing to back it up other than it just seems that way. I just can't seem to wrap my head around an image of Bush scheming along with the New American Century folks and masterminding the Iraqi invasion. I don't think he could have come up with that. I think they brought him in for name recognition.

[j-whitman]

pakaal,, that view is shared by many others,, maybe a little black mail involed whit Bush's Enron & Saudi connections,,, but that would be another consperacy theroy, wouldn't it?

[pakaal]

Wow, that was fast! I just read about the scandal this morning. It was developing at that point. It just looks so much worse when it's a member of the clergy. Embarassing doesn't even come close to a description.