November 7, 2002
It’s Not The Economy, Stupid
by Craig Charney
This year, America had not one election but two, with dramatically
different results.
There were congressional elections, won by the Republicans, but there were
also elections for governor around the country, won by the Democrats. In the
congressional vote, national security trumped the economy, producing the Republican
win. In the states, however, economic distress was the motor of Democratic
victory.
These contrasting political dynamics are shaping American politics in the
post-9/11 world. Anti-terrorism is becoming the Republicans’ replacement
for anti-Communism, their guiding light for the past 50 years. But the economy
could again prove the Republicans’ Achilles heel — at least if the
Democrats can find something compelling to say about it.
The Republican gains in Congress were particularly impressive because they
ran contrary to the usual tendency in mid-term elections for the president’s
party to lose seats. The Republicans picked up Democratic Senate seats in
Minnesota, Georgia, and Missouri, restoring the Senate majority they lost
with the defection of Senator Jeffords last year, and won most of the toss-up
seats in the House of Representatives, enlarging their majority there. The
key to the Republican congressional victory was clearly support for President
Bush, grounded in the issue of national security. Mr. Bush remains popular
— his job approval is 62% in the latest New York Times poll — and
his direct, personal involvement in the closing weeks of the campaign clearly
paid dividends.
As he stumped the country, the election-eve Times poll showed the Republicans
overtaking the Democrats in the race for the House, and 31% of the voters
said their vote was a show of support for the president. Mr. Bush’s post-9/11
popularity principally reflects his strength on defense, foreign affairs,
and terrorism.
But the Democrats underrated the importance of security-related issues, as
polls pronounced the economy the main issue. For instance, a late October
survey by Stan Greenberg, one of President Clinton’s pollsters, labeled
the economy the top voter motivator, cited by 36%.
Yet this ought not to have led the Democrats to once again adopt the philosophy
that, it’s the economy, stupid. Even on Mr. Greenberg’s numbers,
national security ranked just behind, at 32%. Indeed, after Labor Day, as
Iraq was pushed onto the front pages by the Bush administration’s quest
for congressional and United Nation’s backing, polls showed the salience
of foreign policy issues to voters.
Since most Americans support ousting Saddam Hussein and prefer the Republicans
on defense, Iraq, and terror by margins of two or three to one, this was bad
news for Democrats. Members of Congress like Senator Cleland of Georgia, a
decorated veteran who had opposed Mr. Bush on Iraq, paid the price.
Moreover, at the national level, the Democrats did not ever develop traction
on economic matters, their signature issue. While Mr. Bush pushed his tax
cuts and talked tough about corporate wrongdoers, the Democratic leaders failed
articulate a clear message or policy. In the end, polls showed the voters
evenly split on which party could better handle the economy, and many more
thought that the Republicans had a plan than thought that the Democrats did.
In short, Mr. Bush managed to nationalize the congressional elections around
security, his best issue, while the congressional Democrats failed to get
a hearing on the economy.
The post-election picture looks very different from the country’s statehouses,
however, where Democrats seized nine governorships previously held by Republicans.
These include those of big states like Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Illinois
— where the last Democratic governor won 30 years ago — as well
as states like Kansas and Wyoming, which are hardly the Democratic heartland.
Going into the 2004 presidential race, the majority of Americans — and,
critically, the majority of electoral votes — will be in states with
Democratic governors.
A major difference between the statehouses and the Congress is that governors
are held accountable for the economic performance of their states. People
are hurting — the majority say the economy is in bad shape and the country
is headed in the wrong direction in every poll —and the Republicans paid
a price for this at the state level.
The other key difference is simpler: Governors have no foreign policies. At
the state level, national security couldn’t help Republicans, who were
exposed to the wrath of the voters.
Of course, some important Republican Governors won re-election — like
Jeb Bush in Florida and George Pataki here in New York — but to do so,
they campaigned on Democratic issues. Mr. Pataki’s ads focused on health
care, education, and the environment and omitted the name of his party. Mr.
Bush’s victory speech sounded similar themes, even promising to cut domestic
violence.
These developments point to important changes in American politics since September 11, 2001.
Republicans were adrift for much of 1990s, in part because the end of the
Cold War made their traditional strength on military and foreign affairs seem
irrelevant. Now, as security comes back to center stage in American politics,
terrorism may replace the Cold War as the touchstone of the Republican Party.
At the same time, the state-level results point to danger for Republicans.
If the economy dips again into a “W-shaped” recession — and
the Democrats can find some ideas on the economy and articulate them —
then even if President Bush wins a war against Iraq, he may suffer the same
fate with the voters as the last president to do so.
Craig Charney is President of Charney Research, a New York polling firm
< Return to CHARNEY RESEARCH STAFF PUBLICATIONS >