Democrats Face Uphill Fight in November Vote

About every week, 10 or so Democratic strategists planning President Clinton’s role in the 1994 election campaign gather in the White House basement under the leadership of Deputy Chief of Staff Harold Ickes.

Trouble-shooter Ickes’ new job as campaign overseer, which drains time away from his efforts as political point man for the Administration’s health care reform proposal--the White House’s No. 1 legislative priority--testifies to Clinton’s awareness that this fall’s balloting is likely to go a long way toward defining his political future.

This is the first midterm election since 1978 in which either party has had control of the White House as well as both houses of Congress. This means, said Gerald Pomper, a Rutgers University specialist on elections, that “the Democrats won’t be able to blame the Republicans. They will be running on their own record.”

The Republicans, who share Clinton’s view of the importance of this November’s election, say they intend to capitalize.

“With all the talk by the President about the end of gridlock, he has made it clear to the American people that the Democrats are in charge of the White House and the Congress,” said New York Rep. Bill Paxon, chairman of the House Republican Campaign Committee. “And when it comes to Congress, the public is not happy with the job they are doing.”

By most reckonings, Republicans have only an outside chance of gaining control of the Senate and no chance at all of taking the House.

But the real danger for Clinton is that the Republicans will make significant inroads, leaving the Democrats in nominal control and Clinton facing what Pomper views as the worst of all political worlds: “He will still have Democratic majorities in both Houses, but it will be more difficult for him to get his legislation through,” Ickes said.

Republicans are also talking boldly of winning governorships in key states, thus making them more difficult for Clinton to win in his expected 1996 reelection bid.

To curb the GOP threat, Democratic candidates will point to the improving economy and seek to exploit the power and prestige of the White House.

Already Clinton is contributing to their effort by raising enough money to allow the Democratic National Committee to dole out $7 million to state party organizations and another $2 million to House campaigns. Democrats concede that, even with such funds available, they are not likely to outspend the Republicans.

Along with financial support, Democrats are counting on Clinton’s ability to deliver on his campaign promises.

But the Republicans intend to turn Clinton’s record against him and his party. Recalling Clinton’s depiction of himself during the campaign as “a different kind of Democrat,” Republican National Chairman Haley Barbour said: “People have learned that a new kind of Democrat is one who campaigns as a moderate and governs as a liberal.”

As the autumn battle lines emerge, history suggests the obstacles facing the Democrats. Not since 1934, when a grateful electorate rewarded President Franklin D. Roosevelt and the Democrats for checking the ravages of the Depression, has the party controlling the White House gained ground in a midterm election.

This year the voters appear to be in a particularly sour mood. Despite upbeat economic indicators, polls show that by margins of 2 to 1 or more, Americans believe that the country is headed in the wrong direction. And in a Gallup Poll released last month, only 29% of those interviewed approved of Congress’ performance.

The Whitewater controversy does not help. At the least, the tangled affair, which is rooted in a failed Arkansas land investment involving the President and First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton, has hampered Clinton’s efforts to focus public attention on his policy goals and accomplishments.

More seriously, the allegations of abuse of power and conflicts of interest have the potential for feeding public cynicism. “It puts the issue of trust in government on the political agenda in a more forceful way than most incumbents would prefer,” Democratic pollster Mark Mellman said.

In a year in which they seem bound to lose seats, Democrats are hoping that the enactment of health care reform will hold down their losses. “But let’s assume that Congress refused to pass a health bill the President can sign,” Ickes said. “The President will campaign on that against the Republicans.”

Barbour said his party’s office-holders will not suffer “as long as Republicans oppose Clinton when he’s wrong and tell why and offer our own solutions.”

With more than six months to go before this argument is settled, here is an early look at the major battlegrounds.

THE HOUSE

Republicans last had a majority in the House in 1954, the year Paxon was born. Now Paxon is saying that his party, which has 176 House members to 257 for the Democrats, is on the road back to controlling the House by 1996 and will take a giant step in that direction on Nov. 8.

Democrats, seeking to lower expectations, are eager to agree. “When I look at all the retirements and all the other odds, we could easily reach a scenario where we could lose 25 seats,” said Rep. Vic Fazio of West Sacramento, chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.

While that number, in the view of politically neutral analysts, is probably too high, most said they expect the GOP to make healthy gains.

Statistics help explain why. Of the 42 open seats that, as of now, will be up for grabs in November because of retirements, 24 are now held by Democrats and 18 are in the hands of Republicans. These are typically the seats that are most likely to move from one party to the other.

Moreover, the Democrats’ 24 open seats include 13 where the incumbent won by less than 5% of the vote in 1992. Only four of the Republican open seats meet this description.

The most vulnerable incumbents each year tend to be freshmen running for reelection for the first time. The statistics in this category weigh also against the Democrats: Sixty-four of this year’s huge freshmen class are Democrats, compared to 49 Republicans.

The challenge of reelection is likely to be tougher than usual, even for many experienced incumbents, because of the redrawing of House districts after the 1990 census. Unlike past congressional district boundaries, which in many states were devised by Democratic legislators and governors, the 1992 lines were more often drawn impartially by courts and intended to create competitive districts.

THE SENATE

As in the House, the numbers in the Senate are on the Republicans’ side. Of the 34 seats up for reelection in November, 21 are now held by Democrats and only 13 are in GOP hands. Five of the Democratic incumbents have already announced their retirements, while only three Republicans have done so.

Some GOP gains seem all but certain in the chamber, where Democrats hold a 56-44 edge. As Republicans see it, the most likely states to turn over include Maine, where Senate Majority Leader George J. Mitchell is retiring, and Ohio, where veteran Democrat Howard M. Metzenbaum is calling it quits. Other possibilities for Republicans have been created by the retirements of Donald W. Riegle Jr. in Michigan, Harlan Mathews in Tennessee and Dennis DeConcini in Arizona.

In addition, Democrats are conceding that at least three of their incumbents face particularly difficult challenges: Harris Wofford in Pennsylvania, Charles S. Robb in Virginia and Frank R. Lautenberg in New Jersey.

On the other hand, Democratic officials say believe that they have a chance to pick up seats in three races where Republicans are retiring, particularly in Minnesota, where Dave Durenberger is leaving, and to a lesser degree in Missouri, where John C. Danforth is stepping down, and Wyoming, where Malcolm Wallop is leaving.

THE GOVERNORS

Because campaigns for governor are generally contests between high-profile state personalities arguing over state issues, no President is likely to have much impact on their outcome except by contributing his fund-raising abilities to the candidates of his party, which Clinton has done.

On the other hand, political professionals contend that if a party’s candidates for governors do well in key states, the presidential nominee of the same party stands to benefit. “Governors help shape public opinion in their states and can help deliver the vote,” said Indiana Gov. Evan Bayh, head of the Democratic Governors’ Assn.

In this year’s races, the Democrats are also fighting numbers that are the price of past success. Of the 36 governorships on state ballots, 21 are held by Democrats, 13 by Republicans and two, Alaska and Connecticut, by independents.

With the 1996 presidential election on the horizon, the most significant contests this year are in the eight states with the most electoral votes--228 of the 270 needed to win the presidency. In the state with the most votes, California, incumbent Republican Pete Wilson trails the front-running contender for the Democratic nomination, state Treasurer Kathleen Brown, but Republicans say Wilson will bounce back.

In the second-place state, New York, Republicans say they are intrigued by the apparent weakness of three-term Democratic incumbent Mario M. Cuomo, but no strong contender has emerged from the GOP field of aspirants--and none probably will until the primary in September.

Republicans also say they hope that George W. Bush, son of Clinton’s predecessor, can unseat Democrat Ann Richards in Texas even as his brother, Jeb, seeks the GOP nomination to run against Democratic incumbent Lawton Chiles in Florida.

Democrats say they believe that they have a chance to oust Republican incumbents John Engler in Michigan and Jim Edgar in Illinois. In Ohio, Republican Gov. George V. Voinovich appears relatively secure. In Pennsylvania, where the state constitution bars incumbent Democrat Robert P. Casey from seeking reelection, the stage is set for a close fight.