2010: A Fascinating and Unpredictable Political Dynamic

   By Josh Kurtz, Senior Editor, Roll Call

Given the natural flow of politics, 2010 should be a pretty bad cycle for Democrats and a pretty good one for Republicans. Expect the GOP to drag out all its usual chestnuts this cycle: runaway government spending, high taxes, weak foreign policy, social issues, and more.

Tactically, House Republicans seem to be following Rahm Emanuel’s example to an extent because they’ve recruited some very good candidates in places where they aren’t expected to compete, or to run against Democratic incumbents who seem very entrenched. Now some senior Democrats who haven’t had to sweat re-election for years are going to have tougher races than they’re used to, and they’re not happy about it — not to mention that, depending on the political climate as Election Day approaches, some of them could be in grave danger.

Republicans like to compare this election cycle to 1994, when the GOP flipped 52 House seats and seized control of Congress for the first time in 40 years. I don’t quite see that. It’s a safe bet that Democrats will lose seats in 2010, but they are much more aware of the threat than their counterparts were 16 years ago and are war-gaming accordingly. And Chris Van Hollen, Rahm’s successor at the DCCC, continues to find strong recruits of his own, meaning the Democrats will be able to continue to play offense some places, even as they’re defending a bunch of seats.

It’s almost a cliché to say this, but the state of the economy, more than anything, will probably determine just how bad the 2010 elections become for Democrats. And that we won’t be able to predict for many months to come. And we don’t know what crazy, scary events might happen in the next several months to affect the national mood.

Many voters aren’t happy with Democrats, but they still don’t like Republicans and aren’t persuaded that the GOP offers a palatable alternative. That makes for a very fascinating and unpredictable political dynamic.

Exclusive Analysis for housequakethefilm.com:

2010: Wave Election?

   By Norman Ornstein, Resident Scholar, American Enterprise Institute, Co-author,  

   The Broken Branch: How Congress Is Failing America and How to Get It Back on Track

One of the key elements in a wave election is an intensity gap -- the partisans out of power are angry and ready to do something about it, the partisans in power are disillusioned and depressed, and just want to get into bed and pull the covers over their heads. So there is a turnout differential. 

This is a major headache for Democrats in 2010, just as it was for Republicans in 2006. But Rahm helped maximize the advantage by picking and protecting candidates who fit the profiles of their districts. The Republicans, by playing to the extreme wing of their party, may encourage the purge of moderates that we see in this James Bopp resolution at the RNC, and encourage Tea Party and right-wing insurgent challenges in congressional primaries as we saw in New York 23, that could undermine their hopes of big gains in 2010. (Of course, moveon.org might do the same thing to Democrats by challenging some Blue Dogs.)

New!

After the "Housequake": Leadership and Partisanship in the Post-2006 House

   David E. Price, U.S. House of Representatives

Abstract:

The congressional election of 2006 was arguably a "Housequake." But how momentous have the changes been for how the House operates and the policy it produces? An answer to that question requires particular attention to two interrelated institutional factors: leadership and partisanship. A closer look at three episodes involving the Appropriations Committee—the breakdown of the markup process in 2008 and battles over open rules and "motions to recommit" in 2009—reveals the extent to which the struggle for partisan advantage is trumping norms that buttress the institutional role of Appropriations and of the House. Congress needs both partisan and bipartisan capacity, but the latter is in a dangerously weakened state.

Revisiting Rahm

   By Karen Elizabeth Price, Director, HouseQuake

   For the Huffington Post

Almost exactly four years ago, I sat in Rahm Emanuel's office, asking him about the Democrats' chances of taking control of the House of Representatives for a film I was making about the 2006 election, HouseQuake. He was stressed out, and it showed. Even as the camera rolled, he rubbed his eyes and head vigorously and described the trials and the intensity of this 24-7 job that he had taken on -- that of Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee Chairman. It seemed like a thankless and rather impossible task at the time: help bring Democrats out of their collective funk after six years of George W. Bush and so many failed efforts across all three branches of government; convince Democratic candidates to run in Republican stronghold districts; and teach them, one by one, how to carry a winning message and raise money -- lots of it.

Then-Minority Leader, now-Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi made a bold move in appointing Emanuel as Chairman. She knew he would break china to get the job done. And he did. But Rahm was singularly focused: he needed to win 15 seats, and personal and ideological considerations were secondary to victory. "There was no sentiment in this," he told me after the Democrats' November victory. "It was pure winning."

As we look toward another midterm campaign season about to kick into high gear, the parallels and vast differences between now and then are striking. Both parties have taken as blueprint the strategy that Emanuel pioneered: aggressive recruitment of fresh political faces who "fit" their districts, relentless fundraising, and a willingness to strike at the opponent's jugular if need be.

But it's a dramatically changed climate. Democrats have gone from having a dearth of power to possessing unified control of Congress and the White House. House Republicans have gone from defending an unpopular administration to trying to derail another through unyielding opposition. Hundreds of thousands of Americans have lost their jobs and their homes. People are angry and frustrated and perhaps inclined to "throw the (incumbent) bums out," as they did in 2006 and 2008.

Does that mean we're headed for another Republican Revolution? Rep. Pete Sessions, National Republican Congressional Committee Chairman, has said that he will debut a document similar to Newt Gingrich's 1994 "Contract with America" in September and recently told reporters, "Anything less (than retaking the House), and I do not fulfill my mission statement." If that happens, it likely will be the result of Republicans' taking advantage of voters' unhappiness and focusing blame on those monopolizing power in Washington. In other words, Republicans could win by acting like Rahm.

When I interviewed strategist James Carville four years ago, he asked, "Does anyone remember Washington before Rahm?" Wherever one may fall on the political spectrum, the answer was then, and is now, "Of course not."

Watch exclusive interview material with Rahm Emanuel, Nancy Pelosi, Frank Luntz, James Carville, and Newt Gingrich on HouseQuake's YouTube's channel: