Six Questions for Tom Hamburger and Peter Wallsten on the Midterm Elections

Journalists Tom Hamburger and Peter Wallsten of the Los Angeles Times cover national politics and the Washington, D.C. political scene. Wiley recently published their book, One-Party Country: The Republican Plan for Dominance in the 21st Century , which argues that the G.O.P. has established such strategic political superiority—in areas that range from getting out its voters to shaping the party's message—that the Democrats are in danger of becoming a permanent opposition party. Hamburger and Wallsten recently replied to a series of questions about the implications of their findings for November's midterm elections.

1. The G.O.P. still raises more money than the Democrats, but the Democrats are hardly short of cash. How significant is the G.O.P. advantage in terms of sheer dollars? Are they simply raising more money, or are they also doing a better job of spending it?

The G.O.P. has a thinner-than-usual edge over Democrats in traditional campaign fundraising this year. But there are more outlets than ever before through which businesses can assist the G.O.P. Business has discovered the power of workplace activism, putting it in competition with labor unions in the matter of direct communications with rank-and-file workers. In One Party Country we tell the story of Vermeer, an Iowa farm machinery firm that in 2004 distributed to its employees voter guides that gave Republicans generally high marks while “flunking” John Kerry and John Edwards. Other companies allowed “business-friendly” candidates, most often Republicans, onto the factory room floors to have direct contact with workers. This year, the same thing is happening at major corporations and small manufacturing plants alike. The business world's trade associations are supporting a few more Democrats this year but overall lean heavily Republican.

Meanwhile, while the total cash available to the Republican and Democratic sides and their allies will be fairly even, there are serious questions emerging about how wisely the Democrats are spending their money. Representative Rahm Emanuel of Illinois, chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, famously quit speaking to DNC Chairman Howard Dean this summer over the chairman's failure to provide more resources to targeted states that have tough races this year. Dean is pursuing a “50-state strategy,” which means he is sending thousands of dollars to build staff in states that do not have competitive races this year—siphoning money away from the specific races where it could really help Democrats take Congress.

2. How successful has the G.O.P. been in eating away at Democratic support among core constituencies like African Americans and Hispanics?

Bush's Latino performance rose by twelve points between 2000 and 2004, according to a New Democrat Network study. This happened as a result of a years-long effort by Bush and his allies in the G.O.P., who have put a high premium on wooing Latino voters. This effort that began in earnest in 1994, when a newly elected Texas governor named George W. Bush personally challenged California Governor Pete Wilson on the anti-immigrant Proposition 187. The increase in G.O.P. support from African Americans was far less dramatic nationally, but there were gains, particularly in battleground states. The G.O.P. used issues such as gay marriage, school vouchers, and the White House's faith-based initiative to forge entry points into black communities that have long been considered solidly Democratic turf. In Ohio, for example, the number of black voters favoring Bush rose 7 percent in 2004, and this created the cushion Bush needed to carry that pivotal state and secure reelection.

These outreach efforts face obstacles: in the Latino community, because of bitter feuding within the G.O.P. over immigration, and in the African-American community because of, for example, the government's lackluster response to Hurricane Katrina. But Republican strategists have a long-term plan and believe that they can recover. One important point, though: if the Republicans nominate an anti-immigration voice as their candidate in 2008, some of its own strategists believe the G.O.P. could lose its grip on the Latino vote, which would lead to the collapse of the one-party vision.

3. You say that Republicans have surpassed the Democrats in mobilizing their voters on election day, in part by using databases such as Voter Vault, which allows party activists to track voters by personal hobbies, professional interests, and even by their favorite brand of soda. How does that bank of personal data translate into an advantage on election day? Are Democrats responding with similar programs of their own?

If an election is close, the party that has the edge in identifying its supporters and getting them to the polls will win. Historically, Democrats and their allies in organized labor have had the advantage in getting voters to the polls. Now the G.O.P. has the technological edge. We saw this in 2004 when both parties achieved a record turnout in Ohio. But the Republicans did a better job of turning out their supporters, winning the state, and the nation.

This year, Democrats are struggling to compete in this area. [For more on this issue, see Hamburger and Wallsten's new story on G.O.P. data mining.] Democrats have been slow to mobilize in 2006, but there are signs they are getting ready to compete in technology and get-out-the-vote efforts in 2008. Harold Ickes, a Clinton pal, has been part of a group of Democrats that will seek to build a voter database designed to surpass the G.O.P.'s Voter Vault. The data will be shared among several dozen liberal organizations.

4. Whatever structural advantages the Republicans have, hasn't the G.O.P. also sought to gain an electoral advantage by suppressing Democratic turnout? How significant are those efforts on the part of the G.O.P., and are we likely to see new and improved methods down the road?

Republicans are seeking every advantage they can find, and the voting system is certainly in their sights. The purging of voter rolls in Florida and Ohio were hugely controversial, to be sure. But one tactic with the potential to influence hundreds of thousands if not millions of votes has gained very little notice: the push for photo identifications, both at the ballot box and when registering to vote. Republicans have sponsored and approved such laws in several states across the country. The result is that thousands of eligible and legal voters may find that they are prevented from voting. Analysts say the laws mostly affect seniors, the disabled, students, minorities, and others who tend to vote Democratic but are less likely to have the proper ID. Opponents have sued in some states, charging that the requirements amount to a “poll tax,” since either the IDs or the papers required to obtain them cost money. Republicans argue that requiring IDs reduces the likelihood of fraud. They cite several examples from the 2004 election in which fake names and non-citizens were registered.

5. Republicans would no doubt argue that their policies and ideology are simply more popular with the public than Democratic policies. Do ideas still play a role in electoral success or is it all about money and organization?

Ideas matter, and Republicans are winning the war of ideas. The liberal movement has no strong answer yet to the network of conservative think tanks and the proliferation of conservative talk-show hosts and bloggers such as Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, James Dobson, and Matt Drudge, who define the issues of the day and can energize millions of voters. Republicans are also using ideas—school vouchers, private social security accounts, African relief—to appeal to the conservative thinkers in both parties. The Democrats are starting to realize their deficits and have begun funding new think tanks, media outreach, projects, and magazines. But the Democrats have yet to develop a coherent policy alternative to many of the conservative initiatives, including Social Security “reform” and the war in Iraq.

6. The conventional wisdom is that the Democrats are going to make big gains in the November midterm elections. What's your take?

If the polls and broad public opinion decided elections, the Democrats would roar back into power this year just as the Republicans did in 1994. But based on the strategic and structural advantages enjoyed by the Republicans, a Democratic takeover this year is anything but assured. Democrats will likely pick up seats. And they still have a shot at winning control of one or both houses of Congress. Such a result would come about because of the “tsunami effect” of public frustration with the war in Iraq, G.O.P. scandals, and the leadership of President Bush and Congress. But gas prices are falling, Bush's numbers are rising a bit, and the G.O.P. is quietly preparing for an onslaught of get-out-the-vote activism that will rally its base and position the party to win the close races it needs in order to keep power and defy the polls.

[More Washington Babylon]

[Contact Ken Silverstein]

[About Washington Babylon]

Previous · Next · More Washington Babylon · Respond via email

USERNAME
PASSWORD
Subscriber? · Lost password? Lost username? · More help