The Women's Freedom Network Newsletter November/December, 2002;  Volume 9, No. 6 What Happened in the 2002 Election? by Christine Degregario

To understand why the Republicans took back the majority in the Senate, enlarged their hold in the House, and minimized their losses in state houses, I look to three inter-related conditions: the threat of terrorism post 9-11, the power of the bully pulpit, and the continuities of local races. The attacks of September 11th focused the Bush administration and the American people on a shared mission to return security to our homeland and the world. What is more, George W. Bush is an appealing messenger with a very large megaphone.

The Democrats' bread-and-butter issues -- the environment, social security, and prescription drugs -- could not compete with the talk of war and an activist President.

He has high job approval among American people and did not shy away from spending this capital to help Republican candidates win their races. Raising a record 141 million dollars and visiting 40 states, the President was surely instrumental in setting the agenda and bringing out the troops. His passion and sincerity focused voters on the war and his need for a supportive Congress. Indeed he was explicit about telling voters that they could help him succeed at home and abroad by handing him a Republican-controlled Senate. Rarely among leaders do we see such a show of personal conviction, and voters were moved. Democrats experienced a serious challenge in the face of this message and messenger. Forces in the political environment and the power of a popular president seriously hampered the Democrats' capacity to fight back. Their bread-and-butter issues -- the environment, social security, and prescription drugs -- could not compete with the talk of war and an activist president. And Democrat turnout suffered.

Congressional and gubernatorial races are also local affairs and most of the time the results of these contests come down to local circumstances: the quality of the candidates, money, re-districting, and luck. The defeats of gubernatorial candidates Kathleen Townsend (D-Md.) and Bill McBride (D-Fl.) and senatorial candidate Max Cleland (D-Ga.) appear to turn on poor performances in debates and the individuals' inability to imbue confidence among voters. Also, asymmetries in fundraising and the redrawing of district lines likely contributed to a good year for incumbents of both parties. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, the candidates who spent the most money won 410 of the 431 House races and 24 of the 32 Senate races. This fits the norm in which incumbents raise sizable campaign war-chests and fend off all serious challengers. We are also told that both parties behaved strategically and helped themselves out by redrawing lines favorable to their candidates. Importantly, few incumbents lost. And fewer still lost as an outgrowth of re-districting. The two names that come most readily to mind reveal the harm done to both parties: Karen Thurman (D-Fla.) and Connie Morella (R-Md.). Last, we will never know who was to win the Wisconsin race for Senate, but public disapproval of the late Senator Wellstone's memorial-turned-Democrat-rally, seemed to give Republican candidate Norman Coleman needed permission to campaign hard and win against national celebrity Walter Mondale (D-Mn.).

What unified, Republican rule spells for public policy is likely to be neither as threatening as critics fear nor as sanguine as supporters hope. From one who studies Congress, I take personal delight in having the opportunity to observe Republican governance. Is the party unfettered? By no means. We can expect one major difference in the Senate, however. Where Democrat Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy was willing and able to prevent the President's judicial nominees from being sent to the floor for a full vote of the chamber,

What unified, Republican rule spells for public policy is likely to be neither as threatening as critics fear, nor as sanguine as supporters hope.

incoming Republican Chairman Orrin Hatch will allow the Senate to work its will. We will see committee votes, and when favorable, these will be brought, unimpeded to the floor for an up or down vote. In both chambers, the party in formal control has little governing say over the ultimate actions on the floor. Their power to control the agenda, however, will at a minimum ensure that the president's initiatives get a hearing -- in committee and on the floor. We are likely to hear debates over making permanent the tax cuts of 2001 and ways to privatize a portion of young Americans' payroll deductions (social security). With respect to these and other presidential initiatives, much will be determined by the mood of the American people. Currently the President is experiencing high job approval, which makes it easier for him to win support in Congress. Events can change, and public opinion is notoriously fickle. Trouble in Iraq and the broader war on terrorism makes for enormous unease. A few false steps and job approval will plummet. Further, it is our nature to question government officials and to hold accountable the party in power. Also, Americans like to root for the underdog. As an out-party, therefore, enterprising Democrats should find many accomplices and an audience eager to support alternatives to Republican-backed initiatives. Their success, in part, will turn on their leaders' capacities to hone and explain attractive policy solutions. The Republicans' challenge is to manage deliberation, mobilize support for their preferred alternatives, and avoid the arrogance that often attends power. In my view we are all in for a treat!