The Democratic Year, At First Glance

RALEIGH – It was expected to be a Democratic year. On Election Day, voters cooperated with the pundits for once and gave Democrats the victories they needed up and down the ballot, here in North Carolina and across most of the country.

It’s not difficult to explain the national trend. With President George W. Bush’s approval ratings below 40 percent for much of the year, the war in Iraq losing popularity as sectarian violence and casualty figures dominated the headlines, and the foul stench of corruption wafting from Republican offices on Capitol Hill, Democrats benefited from a nationalized election, much as the GOP did in 1994.

Yes, the Democratic gains this year fell quite a bit short from what the Republicans achieved 12 years ago – there were fewer seats and offices in play, for a variety of structural and local reasons – but there is no denying that 2006 mood was blue, in both senses of the term.

Here in North Carolina, Democrats did a little better than election analysts predicted. At this writing, it appears they have gained five seats in the N.C. House and two in the N.C. Senate, though a couple of key races – House Speaker Jim Black’s seven-vote edge against Republican Hal Jordan, in particular – remain up in the air. As also happened in 2002 and 2004, Democrats made their most interesting and surprising gains in mountainous districts in the west. In the Senate, former Sen. Joe Sam Queen took back the District 47 seat he originally won in 2002 from the Republican who beat him in 2004, Keith Presnell. Democrat Steve Goss apparently beat Republican David Blust in Senate 45, by all accounts a strongly Republican district in the northwest corner of the state. In the House, two western districts flipped to Democrats: former Alexander County Sheriff Ray Warren defeated Rep. Mark Hollo in District 88 and Democrat Cullie Tarlton beat longtime Rep. Gene Wilson in District 93.

Other outcomes were somewhat less surprising. In the Senate, Rep. Jean Preston added District 2 to the Republican column by outpacing Democrat Pete Bland, the former Craven County sheriff and county-commission chairman. In the Piedmont’s District 24, one of only four considered by the numbers to be truly a swing seat, conservative stalwart Hugh Webster lost a rematch with Democrat and retired businessman Tony Foriest. In the House, as quite a few political activists predicted to me (but I did not buy, based on voting patterns), attractive Democratic newcomer Ty Harrell defeated conservative Rep. Russell Capps in Wake County’s District 41. And as virtually everyone predicted, including me, Kinston City Councilman Van Braxton won the District 10 race over Republican Willie Ray Starling, who had defeated the incumbent, Steve LaRoque, in two primary elections. Finally, in federal races, Democrat Heath Shuler beat longtime Congressman Charlie Taylor in the mountainous District 11, but Republican Robin Hayes appears to have held off Democratic challenger Larry Kissell in the Charlotte-to-Fayetteville District 8.

While these results could simply be chalked up to the effects of the prevailing anti-Republican mood in the election, I think several other important factors deserve a mention today, and a more detailed exploration in future columns:

• Democrats and Populism. Evident in congressional races across the country, and particularly in Democratic gains in North Carolina’s mountains, was Democratic success in recruiting and running populist candidates. Populists are, at the risk of some oversimplification, right-of-center on social issues and left-of-center on economic issues. In one traditional division of American voters, the four-way test, they are contrasted with Conservatives (right on both social and economic concerns), Liberals (left on both), and Libertarians (left on social, right on economic). In districts hard hit by economic dislocation, especially dependent on government transfer payments and spending, or otherwise predisposed to prefer regulatory intervention or higher spending (as long as someone else is perceived to be paying the bill), these Populist voters have always been available to Democratic candidates who didn’t express a desire to take away their guns, attack their symbols of regional and national heritage, or ridicule their Christian faith and traditional values. Heath Shuler is a perfect example of the candidate Democrats need to run in such districts, as are several of the victorious Democrats in North Carolina legislative races.

• Coalition Politics. Both major political parties are coalitions. In 2006, the Democratic coalition coalesced around the common objectives of giving Bush a black eye and regaining power on Capitol Hill, objectives that led them to downplay ideological differences (such as the yawning gap between likely House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and, say, Heath Shuler). On the Republican side, however, the coalition was evidently weakened. All four elements of the GOP coalition had reasons to dislike what their leaders had done in Washington in recent years. The economic conservatives were up in arms about out-of-control federal spending (I think Charlie Taylor alienated this part of his base by so blatantly talking up his pork-barrel proclivities during the campaign, by the way). The social conservatives felt patronized, neglected, and disappointed by scandal. The hawks either doubted their own convictions, based on the apparent lack of progress in Iraq, or blamed the Bush administration for mishandling the effort and not committing enough men and materiel. Finally, the upbeat, somewhat Populist voters who were the Reagan legacy to the conservative movement lost confidence in the leadership ability of the president during the Katrina disaster, among other missteps. None of these factors led to massive defections, of course, but just a percentage point or two of each group staying home was all it took in a country with a close partisan and ideological divide.

• The Media. No, I’m not going to chalk up Democratic victories to media bias, as so many conservatives are wont to do (I’m not denying the existence of the bias, just the extent of its pernicious influence on voters). What I mean here is that the Republican edge in campaign spending in the final days of the 2006 campaign did not translate into as many voters reached and persuaded as might have been expected in the past because of changing patterns of media consumption. If most of your undecided voters are watching pay cable and DVDs or playing video games, you can’t reach them with 30-second spots on the evening news. The Republicans’ turnout machine, based on an extensive database and personal contact, probably did save some U.S. House seats that would otherwise have been swamped by the national wave. But their cash advantage was less useful. Political professionals, take note: TV ads are yesterday’s campaign tool, and bloody expensive.

And now, for the most important issue of all: which of my three potential scenarios for Congressional outcomes turned out to be the right one? Well, we know that Karl Rove’s status as political genius lost luster. The current tally of House seats falls a bit closer to my prediction of 20-22 than to the 40-plus-seat blowout that some foresaw. By yesterday’s taxonomy, that means that I’m the jerk.

But hey, I don’t need any of this! I don’t need anything except this ashtray. . .

Hood is president of the John Locke Foundation.