2004 FORESHADOWED 2006. As a follow-up to Sam's point about Jacob Hacker and Paul Pierson having argued themselves into a corner on the question of whether the GOP has so many structural advantages that they are somehow unbeatable (something argued more forcefully in Tom Edsall's new book, Building Red America), in defense of Hacker and Pierson it might be said that theirs is more of an argument about the disconnect between policy reach and electoral-political grasp than the disconnect between a party's popular support and their ability to sustain governing majorities. (Though, of course, the two gaps are interrelated...or damn well should be, in a democracy.) One of the memes I have been pressing (or rather clarifying or reminding) folks is that the 2006 "wave" could be seen in the rather thin victory the Republicans and Bush achieved just two years ago. To recap, on the eve of the 2004 elections the GOP controlled all three branches of government; they had an incumbent president running for re-election, and thus a 2- or 3-year head start in building their election themes and ground operations; they were, we were told by every DC pundit, strategically smarter and tactically tougher and rhetorically more disciplined and better-funded. And, if all those advantages were not enough, the GOP had something it lacked (and longed for) since it began to deconstruct the Democratic New Deal party system in the mid-1960s: A major realigning issue -- which was, to boot, broadcast live on television in ways the Civil War or the stock market crash (the last time people were jumping from Manhattan buildings) never was. And what was the result of this overwhelming set of advantages against the timid, disoriented, feckless Democrats and their self-imploding presidential nominee? Bush increased his margins over 2000 by a mere 3 points (the lowest for a re-elected president since William McKinley in 1900), and basically gained Iowa (because New Mexico and New Hampshire canceled each other out). In Congress, the three net House seats were more than accounted for by the Texas re-redistricting, and the net four Senate seats (Republicans' biggest achievement) were, again, accounted for by the South, as all five southern Democratic retirees were promptly replaced by Republicans. The Republicans gained no net new governors (winning Indiana and Missouri, losing Montana and New Hampshire), and they lost the state legislative races with about 60 seats nationwide and four net chamber majorities lost. Oh, and Bush still needed those gay marriage ballot measures, 75 percent negative ads against John Kerry, and ample help from John McCain just to produce this thin electoral gruel. So, if that was all those many advantages could yield, in a presidential election year no less, then one of (at least) two things are true: (1) the underlying demographics are shifting against the GOP; or (2) their policy positions are, well, off-center. Hacker & Pierson would argue the second (and I'd agree), and I'd strongly argue the first.
--Tom Schaller
