Why the Republicans will almost certainly lose the House

Conservative columnist George Will recently wrote that if the Democrats couldn't make big gains in these mid-term elections they should find another career.

The cartoon on the right from the front page of a recent issue of Rolling Stone magazine illustrates some of the many reasons why the Republicans are likely to lose control of the House of Representatives in today's elections:

• The growth of pork and sleazy links with lobbyists;
• Suggestions that the GOP has been blind to civil liberties;
• The instant messages from Representative Tom Foley to Congressional page boys;
• Lack of gun control;
• The power of big money.

The fact is that a liberal magazine like Rolling Stone will always object to Republicans on issues like these.  In reality the big additional reason why the Republicans are almost certain to lose the House - and possibly the Senate - is Iraq.   A recent poll for the Wall Street Journal suggested that only 34% of Americans approved of George W Bush's handling of Iraq.  63% disapproved.

Bush's tax cuts have erased the Republican disadvantage on the economy.  In 2004 the economy was one of John Kerry's most potent issues.  There was talk then of a 'jobless recovery' but last Friday unemployment fell to 4.4%.  The same WSJ poll now finds that the President's handling of the economy splits Americans evenly (48% approving, 48% disapproving).

The extent to which Republicans can stem their losses will depend upon the party's famed 72 hour operation.   As the liberal New York Times has correctly said: the last three days will see the Republican organisational muscle attempt to suffocate the intensity of excited Democrat supporters.  Core GOP supporters certainly appear much less energised.  Fiscal profligacy, the conduct of the Iraq war and lack of progress on issues of importance to social conservatives have all demotivated the base.  In yesterday's WSJ Fred Barnes castigated the White House and particularly the Republican House leadership for failing to make progress on social security reform, tax simplification and immigration policy.  The GOP leaders are likely to lose their House majority, he concluded, on the back of doing nothing rather than because of a bold legacy of reforms.

RealClearPolitics.com has the latest on which way the House and Senate are likely to go.

Comments

[Ted]

As the ERM was a catalyst for Major's government losing public confidence it was Hurricane Katrina which exposed the incompetence of the administration and from which Bush & the Republicans have not recovered. The scandals (cash & sex), the failures over Iraq, lack of attention to delivery are all now weighed against an administration which showed itself incapable of responding to a major domestic disaster fast enough or competently enough.

[Oliver McCarthy]

LOL! What a lot of politicians by the name of Foley seem to be interested in young boys!

Of course the Mark Foley scandal was the biggest problem to hit the Republicans. In most of the scandals involving money the Democrats were just as involved as the Republicans. And on Iraq the Democrats have no alternative policy, whatever Nancy Pelosi may say.

The tendency now will be to scapegoat Bush himself. The man who engineered the wins in 2000, 2002 and 2004 will now be blamed for the bust as well. (Somewhat bizarrely there have been some on this blog who have tried to scapegoat Rick Santorum of all people. Just make sure your man's down before you kick him, I suppose.)

McCain looks all set up to be the Republicans' saviour, as far as I can see. How Mrs Clinton can expect to win after two years of Nancy & Co running the show I have no idea. And as for Barak Obama being her running mate... Bring it on!

[Brad]

F.Y.I -- Tom Foley was not the congressman texting nastygrams to the pages. Tom Foley left congress years ago -- It was Mark Foley. You might want to correct this.