The budget deficit (Clinton has surpluses you know), higher interest rates, the inequality between the rich and poor, the trade deficit with China, lack of women on the Federal Reserve, etc.

In other words they will throw whatever they can against the wall to see what sticks. And given that most polls give Bush low marks on the economy despite the statistical evidence it might work.

...and, and, the Vice President shoots lawyers in the face!

Funny thing, Bush won re-election because of the economy. Or maybe it's not so funny. Every time since WW2 that an incumbent president ran in the general election with a misery index under ten, he won.

Let's say unemployemnt drifts down to four percent or lower this year, which almost looks like a lock from the initial claims numbers. And let's say inflation settles down to two percent, which would happen if oil prices flatline or fall.

Bush and the GOP would go into November with a misery index around SIX. I don't care what the polls or the media or the Dems say, that's not the kind of number that usually gets an incumbent party booted out of office.

Of course, the real question is whether Bush...is fiscally conservative enough. (Ducking, grinning and leaving.)

Jon -

The way you put it sounds more of a compliment for Republicans than a criticism

Casey:

Given the unprecedented boom that the Reagan-through-Bush years have given us isn't the question why anyone supports "fiscal conservatism"?

I'll leave the fiscal conservatism thing very much alone. As for practical politics...

The last big change in Congress, of course, occurred - or exploded - in 1994. The misery index that year bobbed around nine - 6.2 unemployment, 2.6 inflation. Not terrible but nudging the danger zone.

Under these circumstances Clinton and the congressional Dems should have been careful. After all, the economy wasn't THAT great, and they were operating in a country where self-identified conservatives easily outnumber self-identified liberals.

Instead, in one of the biggest political mistakes a smart politican ever made, Clinton went charging to the left - HillaryCare, gays in the military, big tax hikes, Jocelyn Elders, etc.

You know what happened in November, 1994. That very smart politician learned the lesson and went charging back to the center to win re-election.

I just don't see 1994 happening in reverse this year. The economy is better and Bush hasn't galloped to the left, despite what the silliness on the NRO Corner would have you believe. Could the Repubs lose some seats? Oh sure, all politics - or enough of them - is local.

But a 1994-style wipeout? I wouldn't bet on it.

The GOP doesn't even have all the congressional districts and states W carried yet--there's still room left in the shift Right.

Casey,

It also helped that the 1991 redistricting went largely the GOP's way, with the help of the Black Caucus. Funny, no one ever seems to mention that little factor, for there would have been no Contract With America without it. And Newt is fully aware of that.

While the long term economic trends favor the GOP, any success the Democrats have will likely be based on snap decisions by voters based on negative events for Bush that occur during September or October, such as a repeat Katrina incident in another part of the country (admittedly, given the better competency of local and state governments in other costal areas, this might require a Cat 5 hurricane to slam New Jersey to produce a similar clean-up debacle). Any other big shifts for the Democrats would be due to local-level problems, such as with the Ohio Republican party, that pushed voters away from the congressional GOP.

Brad:

I don't know the exact congresssional seat count for 1988, but given the George Bush Sr,. only lost 10 states, he likely carried as many districts as the GOP won in '94, no?

Oh, thanks for bringing up redistricting. It's become conventional wisdom how the decennial rumpus giveth to the red states and taketh away from the blue. Combined with the Voting Rights catastrophe (for the Dems) of isolating the most reliably Democratic voters in a small number of districts, the Repubs' job gets easier every ten years.

Again, a Democratic House isn't out of the question. What seems to have been laid to rest for the forseeable future, though, is the lock the party enjoyed from the fifties to the eighties. That's gone the way of the solid (Dem) south.

Demographic shifts do that. But the question is, as long as the GOP hardly has to try in order to win 30 states in the presidential how does it ever lose control of Congress or the presidency for more than a term or two in unusual circumstances?