Two years ago, President Bush was riding the crest of a reelection victory that increased his majorities in the house and senate. Republicans had secured 51 percent of the vote in the presidential race and 52 percent of the vote in all 435 house races together. The Republicans had clearly become the nation’s majority party. Yet two years later, a wave of voter discontent with the president and the Republican congress enabled Democrats to win majorities in the house and senate; the first time in twelve years Democrats would control both bodies. President Bush said at a news conference the next day, “it was a thumping.”[1]

You may not be familiar with the years 1862, 1918, 1942, and 1966. These were other midterm elections that had something special in common with the elections of November 2006—they were midterm elections when the United States was fighting a war overseas. According to NBC political analyst Tim Russert, the party controlling the White House lost an average of seven senate seats and 37 house seats under such circumstances. Furthermore, the president’s party historically loses nearly 30 house seats on average in his or her second midterm election.[2]

The 2006 midterm election closely mirrored the average of previous war and second midterm elections. Republicans lost 29 house seats and six senate seats. In addition, Republicans lost six governor races. The result was that the nation opted for divided party government—Democrats controlling congress to provide a check on a Republican president and his conduct of the war.

To further emphasize how far the war and companion events had drawn Americans from local issues, according to the exit polls, 60 percent of voters had cast their ballots on the basis of national issues, compared to 23 who were voting on the basis of local issues. The war in Iraq, national security, corruption and scandal had a profound effect on voter choice in the 2006 elections—that choice had a decidedly deleterious effect on the Republican party in congress. It was an election about change.

To understand the events of the 2006midterm election, we examine the political context andfall campaign strategy. We then proceed to analyze the resultsand trends of the election focusing on house, senate and gubernatorial elections across the nation. Next, we proceed to analyze the implications of the election, the role of voter turnout, the incumbent reelection rate, the impact of campaign spending, the implications for governing and the prospects for the 2008 presidential election.

Context

An undercurrent of voter anger underscored the context of the 2006 midterm elections. The Iraq war, scandal/ethics, terrorism/national security, and the national economydominated the political landscape. In particular, the impact of terrorism/national security was less pronounced in 2006 compared to the previous two elections because the nation was now five years removed from 9/11.

Iraq

The public perception that the Iraq war was not going well was evidenced in public opinion polls. According to a USA Today/Gallup poll taken just before the election 55 percent of adults thought the Iraq war was a mistake compared to 40 percent who believed the war was not a mistake. Rising sectarian violence and American casualties during the fall of 2006 had caused many Americans to question how the president and his administration were managing the war. Even Lynn Sunde, a self-described conservative evangelical Christian from Minnesota said: “I think he’s (Bush) too set in his way to listen to what’s really going on in Iraq.” She had never voted for a Democrat, but for the first time was considering such a choice.[3]

The number of American soldiers who had lost their lives in the Iraq war had risen to 2,836 by Election Day 2006; moreover, 20,687 soldiers were wounded. Yet, many Republicans had argued that failure to succeed in Iraq could lead to growing terrorism around the world, and that Democrats had no plan to resolve the conflict. Republicans inferred that Democrats would simply withdraw and leave Iraq in total chaos.[4]

Terrorism and National Security

The strong suit for Republicans heading into the election was fighting terrorism and providing strong national security at home. From September 11, 2001 through the election, no major terrorist event had occurred on American soil. The fifth anniversary of the 9/11 attacks on the WorldTradeCenter and the Pentagon were marked with ceremonies across the nation commemorating the 3,000 American citizens who had lost their lives that day.

Making a stop at St. Paul’s Chapel in New York the day before the anniversary, President Bush movingly addressed the audience: “It’s hard not to think about the people who lost their lives on September the 11th, 2001. You know, you see the relatives of those who still grieve — I just wish there were some way we could make them whole.”[5]

The president sought to link national security with the war in Iraq—that the nation could not prevent terrorism if it abandoned the nascent, but fledgling democratic government in Baghdad. In a speech on September 11, 2006 from the Oval Office, the president stated: “Whatever mistakes have been made in Iraq, the worst mistake would be to think that if we pulled out, the terrorists would leave us alone. They will not leave us alone. They will follow us. The safety of America depends on the outcome of the battle in the streets of Baghdad.”[6]

The problem the president faced was that the public was becoming increasingly skeptical that the war in Iraqcould prevent another terrorist attack in America. A Newsweek poll from October 5-6, 2006 asked adults whether the war in Iraq had made the United States safer from a terrorist attack—29 percent said the war had made the nation safer, and 66 percent said the war had not made the country safer. The data indicated that the political terrain for the November election would be far more troublesome for Republicans than in the previous two elections.[7]

Scandal and Corruption

“Culture of corruption” was a term coined by Democratic strategists to characterize Republican leadership in Washington. Democrats were arguing that Republicans had remained too long and become too comfortable in power during their twelve-year reign of the U.S. House. Two significant scandals enabled Democrats to exploit their culture of corruption theme: one involving lobbyist and Republican confidant Jack Abramoff; and the other, involving Republican Congressman Mark Foley of Florida.

Abramoff was a former aide to House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-TX). DeLay was regarded by congressional observers as perhaps the most powerful member of the U.S. House. After Abramoff left DeLay’s staff, he set up a lobbying firm that established a network of gifts, trips, and perks for members of congress that violated federal law. According to The Washington Post, “he set up many interlocking political and business entities to raise money, pay for lawmakers' trips and other favors, fund his pet projects, and gain influence for himself and his clients.”[8]

The members implicated in the scandal included Majority Leader DeLay and Congressman Bob Ney (R-OH). DeLay was forced to resign from congress in the late spring of 2006. Ney and Abramoff had already been indicted and plead guilty in exchange for their testimony by the time of the election. DeLay in his defense said, “I’ve never done anything for personal gain.”[9]

On September 28, 2006, the second bombshell hit the Republican party. Congressman Mark Foley (R-FL), co-chair of the Congressional Missing and Exploited Children’s Caucus was reported to have sent inappropriate emails to teenage males who had formerly served as congressional pages. Foley resigned immediately. In fact, the leadership had been made aware of Foley’s emails in 2005 when Congressman Rodney Alexander (R-LA) complained to the deputy chief-of-staff to House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-IL) that Foley was taking an unusual interest in one of his male constituents, who had served as a congressional page,via email.

Moreover, it was implied that Hastert’s staff did not act on the information. The salacious implications from the emails and concern whether the Speaker and other house Republican leaders failed to act on the information led to an ethics investigation by the House Committee on Standards and Conduct. The investigation was not completed by the time of the election; but the damage to the credibility of the Republicans in the House of Representatives was substantial.

The Economy

Perhaps the greatest paradox about the 2006 election regarded the state of theU.S. economy. The federal deficit had been cut in half from nearly $500 billion in 2002 to $250 billion. The October 2006 unemployment rated had dropped to a five-year low of 4.4 percent; and gas prices had plummeted nearly 30 percent from summer highs of $3-4 per gallon for most of the country.

Yet, public opinion polls showed widespread trepidation about the economy. According to a Gallup poll conducted from October 9-12, 2006, 38 percent of adult respondents believed that economic conditions were getting better, while 52 percent of respondents believed that economic conditions were getting worse. The implosion of the housing market, the diminution of benefit packages for employees, and uncertainty over the war in Iraq may have shaped a pessimistic view of the economy for most potential voters. Moreover, other surveys consistently showed that Democrats in congress rated higher on handling the economy than Republicans.[10]

The pervasively negative mood of the nation concerningIraq, ethics and the economy was combustible for congressional Republicans. Presidential elections are often personality-driven. Midterm elections are most often shaped by local issues. The 2006 midterm election was determined by national issues and the perception thatthe Republican leadership in the White House and congress was out of touch with the nation. Maintaining control of the congress would be difficult, even for the vaunted Republican party campaign operation.

Fall Campaign Strategy

Campaigns are somewhat like football—parties and candidates play offense and defense. The goal is to put your opponent on the defensive and control the clock to wear them down; in a campaign sense it means playing more offense than defense. The insider’s rule about a campaign is the more days you play on offense, the higher the probability of winning the election. Next, we examine what the Democratic and Republican strategy was in the fall campaign and how they executed that strategy.

Democrats

The national committees which assist Democrats (national, senatorial and house) had several major goals headed into the 2006 elections: 1) rebuild party strength at local and state levels across the country; 2) recruit centrist Democrats to run in competitive congressional districts and senatorial elections;3) develop a theme and message for the fall campaign; and, 4) turn out more voters to compete more effectively with the technologically superior Republican get-out-the-vote (GOTV) operation.

Howard Dean, who was elected chairman of the Democratic National Committee dedicated himself to rebuilding Democratic competitiveness throughout the nation. Dean’s fifty-state strategy was not without controversy. Some

Democratic leaders and operatives preferred targeting states of opportunity and maximizing resources to those states. For example, swing states—meaning they swing electorally between Democrats and Republicans—such as Ohio and Missouri provided Democrats with the opportunity to win senate seats; and, in Ohio several house seats as well.

Dean argued, however, that the Democrats had to become competitive across the country in order to become amajority party on both the national and state levels. Thus, he argued Democrats would have to rebuild their organization in Republican bastions such as Nebraska and Idaho, as well as Missouri and Ohio.

According to Jill Lawrence of USAToday, “nationwide, the (Democratic) party has hired and trained about 190 people in 50 states in its $10-million-a-year program. The goal is to create voter lists and activist networks that don't vanish when campaigns are over or powerful Democrats retire.”[11]

Democratic house and senate leaders made a calculated decision to recruit more moderate and conservative candidates who could compete for potentially vulnerable Republican seats in states such as Ohio, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, North Carolina and Kansas. For example, Democrats recruited former Washington Redskins quarterback Heath Shuler, a self-described pro-life and pro-gun Democrat to run against Republican Charles Taylor in North Carolina’s 11thcongressional district. The district is mountain country including the gateway to GreatSmokeyMountainsNational Park.

In Pennsylvania, Democrats recruited Bob Casey, son of a former popular governor, to run for the senate. Casey a strong pro-life advocate would be able to neutralize the potentially explosive abortion issue against conservative incumbent Rick Santorum in his senate race.

Democrats settled on a theme of “a new direction” for the fall campaign. The term was ambiguous enough to be utilized by the ideological kaleidoscope of Democrats. The theme’s purpose was to articulate that choosing Democrats would lead to a new direction onIraq policy, a new direction on congressional ethics; and, a new direction on economic, education, and health care policies.

The “new direction message” was framed to make Democrats forward-looking and not simply critical of the Bush administration’s policies. The message, however, lacked the substance of what the new direction was; something that gave Republicans ammunition to criticize Democrats. Finally, Democrats sought to rebuild their GOTV operation following the 2004 election. Republicans had utilized micro-targeting—in other words, targeting voters down to the household level by looking at their consumer preferences.

Consumer preferences could tell a strategist, with a great deal of certainty, how that person would vote. For example, a woman who subscribed to Vanity Fair, lived in an urban neighborhood and drank Starbucks coffee would be a Democrat. On the other hand, a male who subscribed to Golf magazine, lived in the suburbs and drank beer would likely vote Republican. This “lifestyle” targeting, which enabled Republicans strategists to locate and get out the vote of Republicans nestled in Democratic districts in 2004. Democrats would now try to employ the same micro-strategy as Republicans to locate, communicate with and, get out to vote Democrats whom they would normally miss through the traditional targeting process done on a more macro level; that being the precinct level.[12]

Technology now enabled parties to have voter profiles available on precinct workers’ Blackberrys or PDA’s. Republicans still had a decided advantage because they had more experience and sophisticated micro-targeting models to work with.

Republicans

Republican priorities were simple: to maintain majority control of the house and senate. However, because the president’s and congress’ approval ratings were so low heading into the fall campaign, Republican strategists had a more difficult electoral prescription to fill: 1) recruit moderate and attractive Republicans to run for open seats; 2)protect vulnerable incumbents in the more liberal northeast and, midwest; and, 4) maintain the voting coalition that produced a political majority base of 52 percent of the congressional vote in 2004.

Republican efforts to recruit attractive candidates to run for senate and house elections in open-seat races (i.e., no incumbent) were far more difficult during the 2005-2006 election cycle. In the fall of 2005, the Washington Post reported, “Prominent Republicans have passed up races in North Dakota and West Virginia, both GOP-leaning states with potentially vulnerable Democratic incumbents.” Moreover, the paper reported that the White House and congressional Republicans had failed to recruit “their first choices to run in Florida, Michigan and Vermont.”[13]

The White House and congressional Republicans parted strategies on how incumbents were to position themselves. Republicans, particularly in the northeast and midwest, sought to distance themselves from the president on Iraq. Republican Congressman John Hostettler from Indianaexplainedwhy he voted against the Iraq war in one of his campaign ads. Hostettler says in the ad, “It wasn’t a popular vote, especially with members of my own party. It can be lonely when you take a stand.”[14]

The congressman thus was playing down his more conservative economic positions on issues such as accelerating a minimum wage,in a district where Evansville, a declining manufacturing center, was the most populous city. In the end, Hostettler’s strategy to recast himself as different from the president did not work as he lost to challenger Brad Ellsworth by a 62-38 percent margin.

Republicans had expanded their base in 2004 to include winning a larger portion of “Security Moms” and expanding their constituency of evangelical Christians. This was more problematical in 2006. Security Moms worried about energy, Middle East oil dependence, and political stability in that region of the world.