Worry globally, vote locally - On the Record

Think Globally, Act Locally" is an old slogan of the environmental movement. And as we enter into the stretch run of this year's campaign cycle, it's an apt description of how voters are seeing this election.

The big political question after Sept. 11, 2001, was: How will this impact the 2002 elections? Today, over a year later, the big question remains the same.

Voters are thinking, and worrying, about global events. For nearly a year, the nation has been involved in an unusual military and intelligence campaign to destroy terrorism. We're apparently on the verge of a major incursion into Iraq. Americans, rightfully so, are deeply concerned how these actions impact their lives.

Uncertainties hang heavy over this electoral season. Candidates are reticent to take risks on issues that could shift overnight. They're retreating into patriotic rhetoric about national security and policy generalities about familiar themes: protecting Social Security; extending prescription drug benefits; reforming education and health care; cutting taxes; reigning in government; protecting the environment. This year's only new theme is corporate corruption -- which everybody's four-square against.

Big global issues that dominate headlines have had a minimal impact upon this year's election contests -- at least so far. That may be because voters want to use their votes to effect things they believe they have the power to effect.

Most voters give President Bush the benefit of their doubts. They like and trust him, and they're reluctant to blame him when the economy sputters or when the war effort stalls.

A recent nationwide poll asked Americans to rate the biggest consequences of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. Number one was the worsening economy -- strong evidence that voters are not looking to lay blame on the White House. They understand the country has been hit, and hurt, and could be hit again, and they don't put this danger, or its effects, into the same partisan, political context that most campaign strategists and media commentators try to force it in.

A year ago, political analysts were watching for a pro-Republican wave of electoral support reflecting massive approval of President Bush and his administration. That hasn't happened.

In recent weeks, with ugly corporate scandals and stock price volatility prominent in the headlines, the same analysts have been watching for a pro-Democratic wave reflecting new domestic economic fears. But a race-by-race analysis of key elections shows no indication that such a trend has taken root and only scant evidence that it may be in the making.

If a national wave is materializing, it has less to do with Democrats and Republicans and more to do with "ins" and "outs." And that desire for change now seems directed at governors, not Congress, because voters view state government issues within the realm of their control.

Of the 36 governorships at stake November 5, the party in power is at risk in two-thirds of them. Fiscal woes centered on budget cuts and tax hikes, mixed with incumbent fatigue and anger over corruption scandals and administrative incompetence, are driving most races.

Only a small number of U.S. House incumbents -- from both parties -- are at serious risk of losing this November. Of the 10 members of the U.S. Senate that are most vulnerable, five are Democrats and five are Republicans.

Though Democrats have an institutional opportunity for gains, they don't seem to be surging on their own power. As has been the case in recent elections, each side's wins rest entirely upon the other side's weaknesses. And the Republicans have two institutional weaknesses: First, exposure -- which translates into potential risk of loss. Of the governorships on the block, 23 are held by Republicans, 11 by Democrats and two by Independents. Of the 34 U.S. Senate seats up this year, 20 are Republican and 14 are Democratic. Of the 40 most competitive U.S. House seats, 22 are held by Republicans and 18 by Democrats. Second, the desire for change threatening state administrations could distort election day turnout in a way that may be harmful downballot struggling GOP congressional contenders, especially in the bigger states.

When voters are unsure where the world is going, and when candidates are queasy about making hay out of global conditions, elections turn on personalities, local needs and tactical advantages. With the two parties so closely matched and legislative control in the balance, any tiny, last-minute ripple could have an Outsized impact. So whatever happens on Nov. 5, let's be careful we don't read too much into it.

Ron Faucheux is editor-in-chief of Campaigns & Elections magazine. For his ongoing handicapping of elections across the nation, see The Political Oddsmaker, available on the Web at www.campaignline.com.

COPYRIGHT 2002 Campaigns & Elections, Inc.
COPYRIGHT 2002 Gale Group