The GOP's Best Weapon In 2010

(Weekly Standard)  Gary Andres is vice chairman of research at Dutko Worldwide in Washington, D.C., and a regular contributor to The Weekly Standard Online.

---

Inclement political weather rocked President Obama and his party this summer. Falling poll numbers and growing voter misgivings open the door for big Republican gains in next year's midterm elections.

But more storm clouds gather. With Democrats controlling the White House and Congress, the GOP can now use voter distrust of unified party control (the same party in charge of the presidency and Congress) as a tool to make major gains in next year's elections--a political weapon both parties could only unsheathe irregularly over the past half century.

That's because Americans installed mixed governments in Washington a lot more in recent years compared to earlier in the 20th century. For example, from 1900-1952 unified government was the norm in Washington. During those years, the same party controlled the presidency and at least one branch of Congress 22 times, while Republicans and Democrats split power only four times, according to political scientist Morris Fiorina in his book Divided Government.

But since 1952, unified party control--the conditions we face now--are more rare. Voters split control in 17 elections between 1952-2008 and opted for unified control only eight times. For the past 50 years, not too long after one party achieves unified control, Americans almost reflexively put the other in charge of at least one branch of government.

Interestingly, the preference for checks and balances is not just a Washington phenomenon. Fiorina also shows a striking increase in divided legislatures and governors in states and a rise in the frequency of split U.S. Senate delegations in the post-World War II period.

Why are voters choosing to neuter a political party after it consolidates power? "Policy balancing" is part of the explanation, according to Fiorina. Does this mean voters say something like, "I voted for a Democrat for president, so now I'll choose a Republican to balance things out." Probably not. He believes voters engage in something a little less premeditated. "While not consciously choosing divided government, people may have a vague appreciation of the overall picture that plays some role in how they vote. People could be voting as if they are making conscious choices to divide government even if their individual decisions are well below the conscious level," Fiorina writes.

Polling data also supports the "balancing" theory. According to the 2008 American National Election Study (ANES), a majority of Americans prefer different parties controlling the presidency and Congress. The preference for split party control is consistent in ANES surveys and other polls asking similar questions going back to at least 1952.

But given the higher incidence of divided government over the past 50 years, neither party could consistently use the balancing argument. Republicans had a chance to apply it in 1994 after two years of unified Democratic control. Democrats used it effectively in 2006 after Republicans controlled Congress and the presidency for most of the time after 2000.

If Democrats and Obama continue pass legislation that looks like it lacks bipartisan cooperation, the GOP's call for more checks and balances become increasingly potent. Fiorina, for example, observes that ticket splitting (evidence that voters want divided government) increases during periods when partisanship is high. Voters believe it's an antidote to polarization. Highly partisan battles on stimulus, the budget and now health care may again encourage voters to send a balancing message to Washington. How? By voting for more Republicans than they otherwise would.

Trends in the generic congressional ballot--particularly among independent voters--also support this thesis. Rasmussen polls during all of 2008 found independents consistently siding with Democrats while George W. Bush was president, suggesting a preference for divided government. But in 2009, those same polls suddenly flipped. For most of this year, following the election of a Democratic president, Republicans have led consistently among independents on this crucial ballot question.

Balancing doesn't always prevail. Democrats failed to convince voters in 2002 and 2004 that they should stop Republicans' unified control. Nor did it work in 2008 when John McCain offered himself as a check on the current Democratic majority. But it did succeed in 1994 and 2006.

While the president will blame Republicans and vice versa for the lack of bipartisanship, the absence of balance in Washington is not in doubt. If the president won't include Republicans in key governing decisions, Americans may take matters into their own hands. The GOP's best weapon about the need for checks and balances might fit nicely into the hands of many Americans, resulting in citizen-imposed bipartisanship and big Republican gains in 2010.



By Gary Andres
Reprinted with permission from The Weekly Standard

[cameraphone]

Death Panels are a lie. Just the thing to give me confidence in a Political Party.

[smoknmirrors]

Highly partisan battles on stimulus, the budget and now health care may again encourage voters to send a balancing message to Washington. How? By voting for more Republicans than they otherwise would.
------
The more partisan the voters perceive Washington to be, the more partisan they make it? And they do it in the name of balance? Making war to demonstrate the need for peace, killing doctors to protect the sanctity of life, and now sending partisans to achieve balance leads me to believe that Orwell is alive and well in 2009.

[suzyku]

I still wouldn't trust the GOP, they've been caught in so many lies and distortions that it's scary! They do and say anything for their own political gains, they preach family values but consistently cheat, they're hypocrites big time and even though the Democrats may be having a (slight) decline in the polls, depending upon who does these polls, the GOP still hasn't gained anything and they badly lack credibility with almost everyone! Personally I think the GOP needs to go away altogether. They have become the party of lies and deception and they are filled with hate, no thanks, no way!

[hungry1968-16]

The GOP's Best Weapon In 2010:

Fox News and their constant stream of lies and misinformation.

[blitzder]

Fox News spent more than a 200 million to stop Obama in 2008, it did not work. Fox News according to polls is the most despised media network in the US.

[thusspokezara]

The Blue Dog Democrat must realize that unless they unite behind Obama, they will risk losing their seats next election. How can they fail to see this? Isn't there a Majority Whip who can tame them? Who is the Majority Whip? These Democrats can't govern even when they hold all the cards.

[rational_1]

Their problem is that they can't quite figure out if they'll lose their seats if they don't support Barry or if they go along with him? Tough spot to be in - they're trying to thread the needle to tick off as few people as possible and try to come in right down the middle on this. Their biggest nightmare is that at some point it will be decision time and they will actually have to stand up for or against some sort of bill. And they will have to decide because if the Dems waffle around and accomplish nothing then they are really f***ed.

[bluedenmant]

and I suppose you considered George W. Bush's "my way or the highway" different?

[sjc_1]

The Democrats are doing what is right for the country, just like they did in the 1930s with Social Security and just like they did in the 1960s with Medicare.

If you look at the 40 hour work week, overtime pay, worker safety, family leave, public schools, PBS, SBA, student loans or any of the many other great programs the Democrats enacted, you will see that people think they are really good and the opposition is still fuming about them.

[rational_1]

You mean the Social Security and Medicare that are in grave danger of insolvency in a few years unless drastic changes are made? The Feds sure did a great job with those, now didn't they? Kind of hard to get enthusiastic about Barry now coming along and telling us he's got THIS new entitlement program worked out not to bankrupt us further. Sure Barry, hope, change, yes we can, are all nice little slogans but they won't help you when you get beotchslapped by reality.

[ubrew12]

rational_1: the reason those programs are a risk of insolvency is because GOP Congresses continually raid them to pay for Republican tax cuts.

First you guys create so much DEBT that the Fed's are essentially insolvent. THEN you complain that the Fed's can't do anything right. Republicans have controlled the Fed's for the majority of the last 30 years: and they've done their best to destroy the Federal government and bankrupt it, so that you can complain about its 'insolvent' programs.

The sooner America gets rid of the Republican Party, the better.

[steeepe]

The GOP's best weapons would be facts, but they are fact-averse and prefer lies and propaganda. They may win seats if they have convincing marketing because Americans are generally gullible and 50% are below average in intelligence and cannot exercise keen critical thinking skills and will overlook rampant hypocrisy. I never would have said that about the GOP of 30 or 40 years ago when it still had some honest intellectuals.