April 5, 2005
UNIQUE:
Power Shift: Narrow Victories Aside, Bush Has Accomplished What His Predecessors Did Not (Charlie Cook, April 5, 2005, National Journal)
In a fascinating and provocative analysis of the 2004 elections, Michael Nelson, a political scientist at Rhodes College in Memphis, makes a strong case that last year's election was a clear departure from recent elections.In a just released book with chapters from eight other distinguished political scientists -- including the inimitable Gary C. Jacobson of the University of California, San Diego -- Nelson notes that while President Bush's victory margin was narrower than those of presidents Dwight Eisenhower in 1956, Richard Nixon in 1972, Ronald Reagan in 1984 and Bill Clinton in 1996, theirs were "lonely landslides," as they were unable to gain House and Senate seats for their parties.
Bush, however, enters his second term with full control of the government, holding the White House, House and Senate. According to a June 2003 Washington Post article, Bush was "explicit that he doesn't want to win with 55 percent and have a 51-49 Senate," said an aide who referred to the president's desire to "expand the governing coalition."
Put aside questions of Bush's expansion of a small winning margin in 2000 and the fact that an extraordinary mid-decade congressional redistricting in Texas and several Democratic Senate retirements seats in the South were key to the GOP's Capitol Hill gains. The fact is that Bush did accomplish what Eisenhower, Nixon, Reagan and Clinton were unable to do.
Plus, he has an excellent opportunity to extend those gains in '06 and to put in a successor when Cheney "retires." Posted by Orrin Judd at April 5, 2005 10:02 AM
The other presidents were reluctant to spend the political they had earned during their first term -- Clinton seemed to see a large reserve of political capital as part of his legacy, while Nixon had no vision whatsoever of a possible congrssional majority in 1972, and made no effort to do anything other than increase his "mandate," which evaporated within five months of his second inauguration.
Reagan and his team pretty much knew they would hold the Senate in 1984, due to all the ones who had come into office during the 1980 upheaval. But they didn't make a good enough effort to create change in the House. Bush, on the other hand, goes into the '06 midterm stronger at the Congressional level, because while he won in 2000, the GOP lost Senate seats. Unless the Deomcrats can make immigration and/or Social Security reform into lightning rod issues for the voters, it means they have more to lose in the Senate, though they could see some improvement in certain House districts either close to the border or with an aging demographic.
Posted by: John at April 5, 2005 11:47 AMCheney/Rice in 08.
Posted by: Genecis at April 5, 2005 1:44 PM