Ray Malone's Commentary

The media seems to be full of stories that 2006 could be a very bad year for Republicans. Some in the media are hinting that the Democrats will retake the house.

Control of the house from at least 1940 until today has been with just one exception a function of Gerrymandering. From 1940 through the 1980 redistricting the Democrats controlled a majority of state governments. And when one party has control of a state government, it gets to redraw the congressional districts.

There are about 18 states, often called battleground states, where the number of Republican and Democratic voters are nearly equal. But if the Republican party has control of the State Legislature and the Governorship, they can draw the districts so there are more Republicans in a majority of districts. This is accomplished by making a few Districts 70% to 30% Democratic and a lot of districts 53 to 47 Republican.

One thing has been noted, that even in states where Democrats regained control in 2000, they had a hard time getting incumbent Democrat House members to give up their 70% to 30% Democratic districts. Incumbent Democrats in a very safe 70% to 30% Democratic district oppose making theirs a 53% to 47% Democratic district. Many have been able to prevent the dilution of their district margin. Democrats have often been unable to Gerrymander to the extent they would like. The very safe Democratic House districts tend to stay very safe.

The down side of Gerrymandering occurs if there is a major political disruption. In such cases 53% to 47% advantage may not be enough. Such was the case in 1992 when the presence of Ross Perot on the ballot kept the Republicans from taking the House as planned. The 3 way race in 1992 allowed the Democrats to keep the house for 2 more years. But by 1994 Perot was fading and the Republicans won the house with their 1990 Gerrymander.

The media gurus, most of which do not understand the situation, were certain that in 1996 a victorious Bill Clinton could gain enough votes for Democrats to take back the house. Clinton won big.. but Republicans held the house. The 1990 Republican Gerrymandering worked in 1996. Some of those 53 to 47 districts ended up 50.5 to 49.5 but the Republican still won.

A very close race resulting in a slim victory for President Bush in 2000 did not make control of the house a close contest... even though it did make the Senate a close contest. And in 2000 Republicans retained control of the majority of states. They Republicans improved on their 1990 Gerrymandering. The 2000 redistricting made the House even harder for Democrats to win.

If you want to predict which party will control the house examine the Gerrymandering. A Reagan landslide in 1984 and an even bigger Nixon landslide in 1972 could not overcome the Democratic Gerrymandering. IT will take a major disaster to put the House in the hands of Democrats in 2006.

Only 1/3 of the senators are up for election in 2006. The Democrat incumbents up for election in 2006 out number the incumbent Republicans. The Democrats have to hold all their seats and win 6 Republican seats. Their are at most 5 Republican seats in play and at least 3 Democratic seats in play. If Republicans win even one of those 8 races they will very likely retain control of the Senate.

The media is very much into Iraq as an issue. They believe that issue hurts the President and Republicans. It is an issue that is very near and dear to the Media. That is why the Democrats are using it. But it is not an issue that effects the voting public.

The most important political lesson I ever learned is that issues to be effective have to directly effect the well being of lots of voters. The media tends to assume that any issue where the voters disapprove of the Presidents course of action is the issue that will defeat Republicans. That has never in our history been the case. All issues that effect voters have to be weighted to get a true picture of the situation.

The fact that my daughter decorated her guest bedroom in a way I do not like, does not mean I want to remove said daughter from my Christmas list. It means I would prefer she had not made the room so feminine. She is still Daddies' girl.

The fact that some Republicans may not approve of a Presidential decision does not mean they are going to vote for a Democrat. That is media delusion.

In most elections over the last 100 years the economy has been the deciding factor. War can become an issue if there is a draft and tens of thousands are dying and hundreds of thousands are wounded. Such a war directly effects a huge number of voters. If can also be a factor if the voters fear attack. It is not an issue that has helped Democrats in the last 60 years. Vietnam did not hurt Republicans. Look at the Nixon returns. It did hurt Democrats. Look at the Humphrey and McGovern returns.

There has to be a fear of an offspring, close relative or friend dying in war with no real way to avoid taking the risk for a war to be a deciding issue.. Losses of a volunteer military can not raise the fear that losses to an army populated by a draftees can raise. The Iraqi war does not directly effect enough voters to swing an election.

The morals of Bill Clinton did not effect enough voters to swing an election either. The state of the economy did in 1992 as it likely will in 2006.

But what will the economy be like in 2006? In pretty good shape is the answer. Oil industry executives tell us there is an 18 dollar bubble still remaining in oil prices. Speculators and the media have gambled on gloom and doom. When the prospects of doom recede oil prices will fall. When the falling of General Motors fades and many other areas of the economy continue to grow, voter attitudes will change.

It is the gasoline prices and the fear for the economy that has reduced the Bush job approval numbers.

The media has painted a picture of gloom and doom on all fronts. That picture is an imaginary one. A constant barrage of ungrounded fear, can not work over time. It never works for more than a few months.

Ungrounded fears have to be used as Clinton used them in 1992. The ungrounded fear campaign must take place only a few months or weeks before an election. Crying wolf much too soon is counter productive. The fairy tale about crying wolf is true. Crying wolf over and over when there is no wolf only causes disbelief when there is a wolf.

President Bush's numbers are down. Why? Mostly because of the 3 dollar gasoline and the fear of 5 dollar gasoline. Also the fear of job losses created by GM's problems and the constant barrage of pseudo bad news.
But as the dire predictions fail to come true, the public support for a president rebounds. In a year the economy should be great and Iraq a failed issue. The ungrounded fear tactic is always a short term ploy. It is not bright to use it a year before an election.

The media is quite prone to tell us that public apprehension A is caused by situation B when if is very often situation C that is the culprit.

It may be worth pointing out that if public apprehension A is not caused by situation B then refuting B will not fix the public apprehension.

One of the rules I learned long ago is not just accept that the real political problem is what the media says it is. Victory always goes to the side that understands the real voter concerns and addresses those concerns. Some very good advice is, if in doubt assume it is the economy.

I am convinced that the media is only effective at persuading elected officials. They are not very good at controlling which candidate or party voters support. In the last 10 Presidential elections the media supported candidate has won 3 times.

That says to me the Media has less power to control election results than flipping a coin.