Bahadur blog

Can the GOP dominate in November with 'Just say no'?

'Just say no' might have worked for Republicans during the first year-plus of President Obama's stint in the White House. But can it propel them to dominance in this fall's elections?

Probably not, judging by comments Sunday from two of the GOP's most senior elected officials - Senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham.

Republicans have been basking in the good news about November^aEURTMs elections from pollsters and analysts. They^aEURTMre projected to come within a few seats of taking over the House, and even the Senate is now within the realm of serious discussion by pundits and pollsters.

"I think this could be a seismic election," Sen. McCain told Chris Wallace on Fox News Sunday.

"But we've got to give Americans a reason to be for us, rather than just against the Democrats and the president," he said. "When you look at the approval ratings of Republicans, they're just as bad as Democrats. We've got to give [voters] a reason to be for us."

(Though they don't think Obama is doing a great job on the economy, Americans are more inclined to blame Republicans than Democrats for the current economic state of affairs, according to a CNN survey.)

On NBC^aEURTMs Meet the Press, Sen. Graham said essentially the same thing as McCain.

"I think what we have to do is to come up with a uniting agenda, sort of a Contract with America," he said, referring to the plan put forth by former House Speaker Newt Gingrich that helped win the GOP big gains and control of the House in 1994. "Going forward, [we need to] show the American people that the Republican Party can govern."

There's actually something like the 1994 "Contract" out there.

Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, senior Republican on the House Budget Committee, has laid out a 99-page "Roadmap for America's Future."

Among other things, it would reduce personal income taxes, end the corporate income tax and the estate tax, and privatize some of Social Security.

Critics say it "calls for radical policy changes that would result in a massive transfer of resources from the broad majority of Americans to the nation's wealthiest individuals."

Ryan's "Roadmap" didn't get many cosponsors, and Democrats no doubt would have had a field day with certain provisions - like the one ending the State Children's Health Insurance Program (or rather replacing SCHIP with something else, which is harder to explain in a sound bite).

What McCain and Graham have in mind, they say, would include a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution, extending the Bush tax cuts to wealthy Americans, and replacing what critics call "Obamacare" with a different health care reform law.

Then there's the "tea party" movement, which is as much libertarian as it is traditionally conservative and can be as cranky toward mainstream Republicans as it can toward Democrats. This makes it harder for the GOP to come up with an agenda designed to attract independents and some Democrats.

Not many Republicans will be openly critical of this new political insurgency and the problems it may be causing for the GOP. Graham is an exception.

"The problem with the Tea Party, I think it's just unsustainable because they can never come up with a coherent vision for governing the country," he told the New York Times. "We don't have a lot of Reagan-type leaders in our party. Remember Ronald Reagan Democrats? I want a Republican that can attract Democrats. Ronald Reagan would have a hard time getting elected as a Republican today."

GOP leaders know they need to do something about their perceived lack of a coherent agenda (if not a vision).

The Los Angeles Times reported Sunday that they're "preparing a new campaign manifesto that will be unveiled this month, to answer charges that they offer no credible alternative except to recycle the unpopular policies of the Bush administration."

Outside Groups' Campaign Expenditures Have Doubled

Outside organizations have shelled out twice as much on ads and other electioneering activities to affect Congressional races so far during the 2010 election cycle as they did two years ago.

Unions, political parties and advocacy groups have spent more than $34.2 million on independent expenditures so far during this election, compared with less than $16.2 million at this time in the 2008 election, according to a CQ MoneyLine study of Federal Election Commission reports.

"It's staggering amounts of money," said David Vance, spokesman for the Campaign Legal Center. "People have made big promises to spend, but so far they are keeping pace with those big promises."

Through the third week of August, these organizations doled out more than $18 million on independent expenditures for and against Senate candidates, which is 10 times more than the amount spent on Senate races during the same period two years ago.

The race that attracted the most money was the May 18 Democratic Senate primary in Arkansas, in which incumbent Sen. Blanche Lincoln defeated Lt. Gov. Bill Halter. More than 82 percent of the nearly $9.5 million spent on independent expenditures favored Halter. But he only received 48 percent of the vote, giving Lincoln the victory.

Independent expenditure spending does not always determine the winner of a Congressional race, but this spending can supplement a campaign enough to tip the scales in some races.

Outside funding helped tea party favorite Joe Miller unseat Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski. Even though Miller was outspent 7-to-1 by Murkowski's campaign, outside groups spent 94 percent of their $565,000 to help him pull out a narrow victory for the Republican Senate nomination.

"When we get involved, we could make a difference between winning and loosing," said Sal Russo, chief strategist for the Tea Party Express, which was the source of nearly all of Miller's outside money.

This election cycle, the Tea Party Express, through its Our Country Deserves Better political action committee, has come out of nowhere to become the fourth-largest source of independent expenditures with $2.7 million.

"Whether it is Sharron Angle in Nevada, Joe Miller or getting Bart Stupak to quit in Michigan," Russo said, "I think those are all places where we have made the difference."

Other Senate contests leading in independent expenditures so far during the 2010 election cycle include:

- Massachusetts, where more than two-thirds of the $2.7 million spent favored Democrat Martha Coakley, but she lost to Republican Scott P. Brown in January;

- Nevada, where virtually all of the $1.7 million spent has supported Republican candidate Sharron Angle or gone against Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid;

- Missouri, where 90 percent of the $1 million spent favored Democrat Robin Carnahan, who is running against Rep. Roy Blunt during the fall.

A contentious primary season and recent special elections have also bolstered spending to affect the elections for House candidates. So far, outside groups spent $16.2 million on these contests -- an increase of 11 percent over a similar period during the 2008 election.

The House races that have attracted the most money since January 2009 include:

- New York's 23rd district, where nearly $3.5 million was spent by outside groups to influence who would replace Republican John M. McHugh, who resigned to become secretary of the Army. Ultimately, Democrat Bill Owens defeated Conservative Doug Hoffman in November 2009.

- New York's 20th district, where 72 percent of nearly $2.5 million in independent expenditures were spent to try to elect Republican James Tedisco to a seat vacated by Democratic Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand. But Democrat Scott Murphy won the seat in April 2009.

- Pennsylvania's 12th district, where outside groups spent more than $2.2 million to help determine who would succeed Democrat John P. Murtha after his death. The outside spending narrowly favored Democrat Mark Critz, who defeated Republican Tim Burns in May.

It is still early in the election season for independent expenditures, and such spending is expected to increase dramatically in upcoming weeks. At this point during the 2008 election cycle, groups had shelled out just one-tenth of the $152 million ultimately spent to affect Congressional races.

One of the key factors that could increase spending over the 2008 cycle is the Supreme Court's ruling earlier this year in a case called Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, in which the court ruled that corporations, nonprofits and labor unions can use their own treasuries to fund political ads and influence federal elections.

"With the number of races in play and the amount of money that has been unleashed on the system by Citizens United," Vance said, "it's not going to slow down."

Such spending does have to be reported to the FEC, but the means for disclosure remain murky until the agency issues final rules on the subject after the election.

Some of the organizations spending the most on independent expenditures so far during the 2010 election cycle are the Service Employees International Union, with more than $6.4 million, and the AFL-CIO, with nearly $3.7 million.

As expected, party committees also have played a large role in these elections. The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee has spent more than $2.8 million, while the National Republican Congressional Committee has doled out nearly $2.7 million so far. Those numbers are fractions of what they will ultimately spend.