Election 2006 in Review: How I Fared in My First Political Preview

Back in late May and early June of this year, I previewed the November 7th midterm elections for hotly contested races throughout the United States. By looking at all of the gubernatorial and Senate races, as well as about 60 House races, I hoped to give readers a layman's perspective on which direction Congress and various state governments would be heading. After all, this was my first experience in projecting a national election and I took on quite a task by looking at so many races. While I have experience as an exit pollster, a political operative, and a writer of political opinions, the research and critical analysis that goes into such a massive projection were more than I had anticipated. Nonetheless, as of the recent announcement that Jim Webb has won the Senate seat in Virginia, I have predicted correctly 101 out of 123 of the elections I projected in my articles of five months ago. That is 82%, or a B- in most academic grading scales.

While I have never been satisfied with a B- in school, I was quite happy I was as successful as 82% during the 2006 election. After all, it was one of the more competitive national elections in a long time. With incumbents enjoying a massive advantage throughout the country, congressional and state legislative elections are often landslides or noncompetitive through Election Day. I am quite proud of my ability to project five of the contentious Ohio House races correctly. After I published my article on the Ohio Valley, I was uncertain about those projections and thought for sure they would fall through. As well, I am very happy about my relatively high success rate in Senate races, including projected victories for Missouri's Claire McCaskill, Maryland's Ben Cardin, and New Jersey's Robert Menendez. These elections weren't a sure thing throughout the summer and early fall, so when they came through I was really proud. Finally, I was satisfied with my projection of Joe Lieberman's victory, even though he won as an independent and not as a Democrat like I had projected in my article.

However, it is not all pats on the back in Katers camp and I made a couple of gaffes that I am annoyed about. First, I can't believe I projected Illinois and Indiana's House races so poorly. I thought for sure that Chris Chocola would win in Indiana's Second District and Tammy Duckworth would be victorious in Illinois' Sixth District. Indiana moved toward the middle by voting into office a few moderate Democrats, while Duckworth lost her bid by three percentage points. As well, Ernest Istook's blow out loss to Brad Henry in Oklahoma's gubernatorial race was not what I thought would happen, given my projection that Istook would edge out Henry. Finally, and most importantly, my projection that Phil Angelides would beat Arnold Schwarzenegger was way off, as Arnold defeated Angelides soundly on his way to another term in office. I humbly apologize for these errors, though I would hope my readers would look at my successes as well.

Now that this assessment of my skills is out of the way, it is time to look at what Democratic control of the House and Senate means for the country. Controlling the House and Senate means that the Democrats need to take campaign promises and spin them into gold. Nancy Pelosi, the future House Speaker, has promised immediate proposals during the Democrats' first 100 hours in office, including ethics reform, passage of a higher minimum wage, and passage of all of the 9/11 Commission's recommendations for national security. The Democrats need to show that they are more than a minority party stepping into the big shoes of a majority party by proving capable of equal parts compromise and steadfastness. On issues critical to the daily lives of average Americans, Democrats and the Bush administration need to come together. When it comes to minimum wage hikes, health care, Social Security, and ethics, Congress and President Bush need to work together. While Bush may not be the most likely compromiser with Democrats, many people didn't think Nixon was either. Nixon was responsible for some of the most liberal reforms to environmental policy in American history and Bush could cement an equal footing on issues like health care and tax policy.

However, Democrats also need to prove more capable of introspection and institutional integrity than Republicans, who wielded the chairmanships of important committees as a means of harming their opponents and maintaining power. The use of subpoena powers by the Speaker of the House and the majority party means that if there is an issue of ethics, regardless of party, the Democrats are capable of holding a hearing. The true test is when one of their own commits an act as egregious as people like Bob Ney, Mark Foley, and Duke Cunningham. The new moderates and conservatives in the Democratic Party, recruited by the Howard Dean "50 state" strategy, should ensure discipline within the party.

Finally, the Republicans may benefit a bit from losing control of both the House and the Senate. Beleaguered by scandal and insufferable power mongering, the Republican Party can now bring in new leaders and develop a new approach to politics now that they are out of power. While presiding over some of the least democratic hearings and meetings in American history, the Republicans felt assured that they would never get caught and never be out of office. Humbled and broken, Congressional Republicans can make a new start. Dennis Hastert has stepped aside and Bill Frist is out of office, which means that the Republicans will need new House and Senate leaders. This is their opportunity to gear up for the 2008 presidential election and work toward a new Congressional identity.