Why the Republicans will retain Congress in 2006.

The current scandals and clear incompetence caused by the Republicans have placed a number of Republicans in House districts in risk of losing to Democrats in 2006. That's what the polls say, and there are reports the Republicans are unhappy and the Democrats are looking forward to the election.

The comparisons to the 1974 off-year election after Watergate have been thrown around.

While I like all this, 2006 will not be 1974 again. A lot has changed. I have been previously writing about the national Republican political machine. I think the Republicans are in a much stronger position nationally than they were in 1974.

Kevin Drum has Jacob Hacker and Paul Pierson (authors of "Off Center") blogging on their book. Here is a quote from today's discussion. Anyone who has read my previous analysis of the Republican political machine here will see that they have written a great deal that I was trying to get to.

First, as regular readers of this site (Kevin Drum) are aware, incumbents are unbelievably advantaged in the current electoral system. For House incumbents, the average margin of victory in 2004 was forty percent (i.e., 70-30). The last two elections have seen the fewest incumbent defeats in American electoral history—four in 2002, and five in 2004 (with two of those a result of the DeLay-led Texas gerrymander). Most districts are very safe for one party or the other (in part because of gerrymandering, but primarily because many areas of the country lean heavily to one party). In addition, of course, incumbents have huge advantages in funding, name recognition, and the capacity to tailor an appealing (if often grossly distorted) public profile in their district. These advantages seem to have grown dramatically, and they help to explain why even in the small number of districts where one party has a huge natural advantage, only open seat races between the parties are typically in play. Once a candidate has won one or two elections, they are usually very safe.

Second, over and above these huge assets of incumbency (which disproportionately help the GOP, since they’re the majority), Republicans have a number of big structural advantages that make that electoral mountain higher still. They have been better positioned to gerrymander seats to give them a bigger edge, and more aggressive in doing so. (Between 2000 and 2004 alone, redistricting created roughly twelve additional Republican-leaning seats.) They have more money, and a more centralized apparatus to get that money where it is most needed in a close election. Probably most important but still not always appreciated, they have a huge built-in edge in the Senate because small states (which lean red) are so overrepresented. Democrats can win a lot more votes in Senate elections and still not gain control. In fact, they already have: Over the past three election cycles, the 44 Democrats in the Senate have received two-and-a-half million more votes than the 55 Republicans.

Finally, the high level of Republican unity and coordination that we have discussed helps the GOP protect these advantages. It helps them to control the agenda, which is absolutely crucial in politics. Ron Brownstein of the LA Times recently described contemporary Washington as akin to watching a basketball game where the same team always has the ball, or a baseball game where one team is always at bat. Unity allows Republicans to pursue a whole range of policy tricks and procedural moves that allow their members, especially the vulnerable ones, to appear moderate and independent without jeopardizing their conservative agenda at all.

I expect the Democrats to do well in 2006, but the number of close losses to the Republicans are going to be disappointing, in spite of the Republican corruption and proven incompetence.

The largest single reason is the unity of the Republican Party across the House, Senate, and Presidency and the way the party is supported by its own media propaganda outlets and the organization of lobbyists to shower money on the weakest candidates for office at critical times.

This strength in unity of the Republicans has been the perfect counter to the fact that the American people for the most part prefer Democratic Party policies. The problem with the Democrats is that they are an alliance, not a unified party, and strongly resist efforts to unify them. The free-lancing by Democratic Senators like Joe Biden and Joe Lieberman are perfect examples.

Democrats are going to have to unify as far as developing a Democratic equivalent to the "Republican Contract for America." They are also going to have to get more money to weaker candidates.

But as far as 2006 goes, the current split between the DLC moderates who want to move closer to the Republican positions on issues and the more liberal voters who want to set up clear opposing positions to those of the conservatives is involving a lot of Democratic in-fighting.

Essentially the two strategies are to either blur the difference between the Democrat and the Republican to appeal to the moderate voters, or to emphasize the differences and doing things like opposing the war and directly confronting the corruption and incompetence of the Republicans.

I see the 2006 elections as a laboratory to see which of those two positions are stronger. After 2006, the results will be in and the Democrats will then unify on the strategy to win the Presidency and both houses of Congress in 2008.