Rosy Economy Hurts Democrat Senate Effort

The 1986 showdown for control of the U.S. Senate looms as one of the most fateful off-year election contests in recent history. And the most important event so far appears to be something that did not happen.

Not so many months ago, many economists expected the nation to plunge back into recession by 1986, and many Democrats were privately counting on an economic downturn to help them overcome the 53-47 advantage enjoyed by Republicans in the Senate.

But instead, the economy appears to be alive and well, and the statistical indicators, exults Mitchell E. Daniels Jr., the top White House political aide, “are almost too good to be true.”

‘Usually ... Goes Sour’

“It’s been said that usually in the second year of the second term the economy goes sour,” Vice President George Bush told Republicans last week. “It happened to Dick Nixon. It happened to Ike, to Harry Truman, and it happened to F.D.R.” But, Bush vowed, “It’s not going to happen to this President.”

For the Democrats, the favorable prospects for the economy add to the pressures they face as they strive to take advantage of the favorable Senate math--22 of the 34 seats at stake in November are now held by Republicans--and bounce back from their 1984 election debacle.

The stakes are extremely high, Democratic leaders acknowledge. The nation’s whole political system is in a state of flux, with both parties struggling to gain the upper hand, and the Democrats will have to wait years for the Senate arithmetic to be as much to their advantage as it is in 1986.

“If we don’t win back the Senate, the analysts will say the Democrats are in decline--and they’ll be right,” concedes Sen. George J. Mitchell (D-Me.), chairman of the Democratic Senate Campaign Committee.

If the presidency, as Theodore Roosevelt said, is a “a bully pulpit,” then the Senate, in the hands of a resourceful opposition party, can be a mighty choir for sounding contrapuntal themes. Democrats are well aware that it was the Republican conquest of the Senate in 1980, as much as President Reagan’s much-vaunted communications skills, that has made it possible for the President to dominate the national agenda.

By regaining control of the Senate and its committees, with their broad authority to legislate and investigate, the Democrats believe they can stem the tide of Reaganism and gain an early advantage in the struggle for the White House in 1988.

Could Be Beneficial

So far, the relative good health of the economy and the lack of any other widespread public grievance appear to deprive the Democrats of a potential campaign weapon. Nevertheless, some Democratic strategists argue that the absence of a national issue could actually turn out to be a benefit in some parts of the country.

When national issues dominate a campaign, according to this reasoning, Democratic candidates--particularly in the South and West--are often hindered by the interest group divisions and ideological baggage that have plagued the national party for the last two decades.

“The national Democratic Party is not in the political ballpark in most Western and Southern states,” says Richard Moe, a former aide to 1984 Democratic standard-bearer Walter F. Mondale and now an adviser to the Democratic Senate Campaign Committee.

Conversely, when national problems--and thus the national party--are pushed to the background, Democrats in each state can campaign on their own merits and pick and choose issues on which to focus. And despite the rosy state of the national economy, Democrats claim there is no dearth of local trouble spots.

“The favorable national economic figures mask substantial variations in many of the states,” claims Paul Tully, executive director of the Fund for a Democratic Majority. A political action committee founded by Massachusetts Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, the fund is backing Democratic Senate candidates in 12 states, including several experiencing serious local economic problems because of slumps in farming, mining, timber and oil.

“On the national level there may be a good feeling and the notion that government should just go away,” Tully contends. “But none of the farmers in South Dakota are looking for government to go away.”

History on Their Side

For whatever it is worth, the Democrats also appear to have history on their side, in the tradition of the so-called six-year itch. This is the tendency, whenever one party controls the White House for two terms, for voters to reject its candidates during the congressional elections in the middle of the second term. The itch is exemplified by the losses suffered by the GOP in 1958 and 1974 and the Democrats in 1938 and 1966.

But Republican strategists argue that the six-year itch has little practical effect when voters have no reason to scratch. Looking back on the results from past six-year elections, the White House’s Daniels says that the cause “is not the passage of six years as much as the coincidence in those years of economic downturn and a drop in presidential popularity.”

“We thought all along that the most important thing the Administration could do for this year’s crop of senators was to try to have a growing economy and see that the President was still held in high esteem. Right now both are going great,” Daniels explains.

Republicans contend the strength of the economy has already hurt the Democrats by discouraging potentially strong candidates from running. One GOP strategist ticks off the names of North Dakota Rep. Byron L. Dorgan, Arizona Gov. Bruce Babbitt, Oregon Rep. Ron Wyden and former North Carolina Gov. James Hunt among prominent Democrats who decided not to run for the Senate.

“In state after state, the Democrats failed to get their best candidates in the race,” he adds.

Talk of Trouble Spots

The Senate Republican Campaign Committee chairman, John Heinz of Pennsylvania, derides Democratic talk about local trouble spots in the economy. “It’s as if they were looking for the tunnel at the end of the light,” he quips.

Heinz concedes that some states have genuine economic problems, such as Oklahoma, where Republican Sen. Don Nickles calls the impact of the decline in oil prices “devastating.”

But Heinz contends that Oklahoma voters will realize that the decline in prices is a result of OPEC’s falling apart and will not blame Nickles at the polls.

Besides, Republicans say, whatever economic damage the oil price slump may be doing to Oklahoma and other oil-producing states is more than offset by the benefits it is bringing around the country by reducing the threat of inflation.

In some states, particularly in the Farm Belt, where evidence of active discontent with Administration policy can be found, Republican senators have not been at all hesitant to criticize the President and to set their own policy course. Iowa Republican Sen. Charles E. Grassley has been so vigorous in this regard that Democrats privately concede they have been unable to field a strong candidate to oppose him in November.

“One of our problems,” says former Mondale aide Moe, “is that Republicans learned from their defeat in 1958 to protect themselves by keeping their distance from the Administration on unpopular policies.”

Both sides in the Senate race exude public confidence. Democratic Sen. Mitchell says he’s “convinced” that the Democrats will reverse the present Republican advantage and emerge from the election with 53 seats. Republican Heinz insists: “If the election were held today, we’d have 53 or 54 seats.”

One big reason for these optimistic assessments is that both sides are trying to encourage financial contributions to their candidates. No matter what the Democrats say, though, the Republicans apparently will enjoy a substantial financial edge overall. The GOP Senate campaign committee expects to contribute the maximum allowed under federal law to each of its candidates, a total of $11.5 million--about twice as much as its Democratic counterpart group expects to give.

Some analysts believe the financial advantage could prove extremely significant for the GOP, particularly in close races--most of which the Republicans have won in recent years. But others argue that money is not as big a factor in a Senate campaign as in a House race because Senate candidates are assured plenty of exposure as a result of statewide news coverage.

Generally speaking, the Republicans seem to be on the defensive in the campaign because they have more seats to lose, but their strategists are nevertheless hopeful of capturing some seats now held by the Democrats.

Cranston Held Vulnerable

Among the nine Democratic incumbents seeking reelection, Republican strategists contend that their polls show California’s Alan Cranston to be the most vulnerable, although Republican prospects will be hard to measure until voters select a challenger in the June primary.

Aside from California, Republican hopes for gains center on these three states where Democratic incumbents are not seeking reelection:

LOUISIANA: In the contest to replace retiring Senate veteran Russell B. Long, Republican Rep. W. Henson Moore now leads Democratic Rep. John B. Breaux in the polls and in fund raising. The race may be settled in a Sept. 27 open primary, giving whichever party wins an important psychological boost for November. Republicans have not elected a senator from the state since Reconstruction.

MISSOURI: Former Republican Gov. Christopher Bond and Democratic Lt. Gov. Harriett Woods, who narrowly lost to GOP Sen. John C. Danforth in 1982, are locked in a close race for the seat held by Thomas F. Eagleton. “To win, Bond will have to run like gang busters outside St. Louis,” a Woods stronghold, says one GOP strategist.

COLORADO: For the Democrats, Rep. Timothy E. Wirth is the agreed-on candidate to seek the seat being vacated by 1988 presidential contender Gary Hart. But the Republicans face a potentially divisive primary in which Rep. Ken Kramer will be pitted against state Sen. Martha Ezzard and businessman Terry Considine, son-in-law of state party Chairman Howard (Bo) Callaway.

Best Shot in Maryland

If the Republicans can win two of these four target Democratic seats, which these days does not seem implausible, then the Democrats will have to take six seats now held by Republicans in order to gain a Senate majority. Probably their best shot at this point is Maryland, where the retirement of three-term Republican Sen. Charles McC. Mathias Jr. has left the GOP without an apparent strong successor, while the Democrats seem able to choose from among several formidable candidates.

Democrats are also hopeful about Wisconsin, where Republican incumbent Bob Kasten has been hurt by his arrest last December for driving under the influence of alcohol. But Kasten’s Democratic challenger remains to be selected in a September primary.

Among the states where the Democrats appear to have settled on a nominee, these seem to be their best prospects:

FLORIDA: Popular Democratic Gov. Bob Graham is leading Republican Sen. Paula Hawkins in the polls. Publicity about injuries she received in a 1982 accident, when scenery fell on her at a television studio, has raised questions about Hawkins’ ability to carry on her job. Both candidates are expected to spend huge sums on television advertising.

SOUTH DAKOTA: In this economically troubled farm state, Republican Sen. James Abdnor not only has to worry about the Democratic candidate, Rep. Thomas A. Daschle, but also about a primary challenge from Republican Gov. William J. Janklow. Such a primary fight would hurt Republican prospects, some analysts believe. But others believe that if Abdnor can prevail in the primary, he will seem that much stronger in the general election.

IDAHO: This is one state where the Democrats did get their strongest possible challenger to run, Gov. John V. Evans. Republican Sen. Steven D. Symms has a core of hard-line conservative support but has to contend with troubles in the state’s mining, timber and agriculture industries.

NEVADA: Democratic Rep. Harry Reid is trying to take the seat now held by retiring Republican Sen. Paul Laxalt, while James Santini, a former Democratic congressman, is the GOP candidate. The contest is very close and could be decided by whether Santini’s appeal to voters in his old party will offset resentment among Republicans who favored other candidates for the Senate nomination.

OKLAHOMA: Republican incumbent Nickles is leading in the polls now, but most analysts expect his Democratic opponent, Rep. James R. Jones, to close the gap as he becomes better known.

Republican incumbents

Alabama--Jeremiah Denton Alaska--Frank H. Murkowski Florida--Paula Hawkins Georgia--Mack Mattingly Idaho--Steven D. Symms Indiana--Dan Quayle Iowa--Charles E. Grassley Kansas--Bob Dole New Hampshire--Warren B. Rudman New York--Alfonse M. D’Amato North Dakota--Mark Andrews Oklahoma--Don Nickles Oregon--Bob Packwood Pennsylvania--Arlen Specter South Dakota--James Abdnor Utah--Jake Garn Washington--Slade Gorton Wisconsin--Bob Kasten

Democratic incumbents

Arkansas--Dale Bumpers California--Alan Cranston Connecticut--Christopher J. Dodd Hawaii--Daniel K. Inouye Illinois--Alan J. Dixon Kentucky-- Wendell H. Ford Ohio--John Glenn South Carolina--Ernest F. Hollings Vermont--Patrick N. Leahy

Incumbents not seeking relection

DEMOCRACTS Colorado--Gary Hart Louisiana--Russell B. Long Missouri--Thomas F. Eagleton

REPUBLICANS Arizona--Barry Goldwater Maryland--Charles McC. Mathias Nevada--Paul Laxalt North Carolina--Johm P. East