Republican rout

• Article
• Comments ()
• Click-2-Listen
• Videos

By

This week's special election in Mississippi's once safely Republican 1st Congressional District was not even close. Democrat Travis Childers beat Greg Davis by eight points — in a district that Democrats did not even contest in 2004. This district was considered so safely Republican four years ago that the incumbent, then-Rep. (and now-Sen.) Roger Wicker, took 79 percent of the vote against a Reform Party candidate's 21 percent. How times change.

We now see a trifecta of lost Republican House seats — former Speaker Dennis Hastert's in Illinois, Richard Baker's in Louisiana and the 1st District's in Mississippi — that raise important questions about Republican tactics, methods, emphasis and platform. For the big picture, we now hear Republicans talking of a second "wave" election to compound last year's 31-seat "thumping." Some of this talk may be purely and conveniently motivational. But it also happens to be largely accurate. Last week's Cook Political Report competitive race chart shows the terrain: 28 Republican-held seats are in play compared to 18 Democratic seats. Only two Democratic seats are open, compared to 17 Republican ones. So many Republican congressmen have headed for the hills that they have practically walked their party into a generational shift.

For readers who wonder, if we define a "wave" year as 20 or more seats, the last time the nation sent consecutive wave years through Congress' lower body for one party's benefit was 1950-52. Those years, Republicans scored 28- and 22-seat gains as the postwar decade opened. The last time a double wave occurred for the Democratic Party's advantage was the Great Depression. In 1930-32, a gain of 52 and 97 seats, respectively, fell to the party of Al Smith and FDR.

Why is this occurring? At the district level, the first important if obvious observation is that Democrats who run on pro-life, pro-gun platforms as Mr. Childers did can push their party to victories deep into Republican territory. Mr. Childers did this and more: He spoke to the electorate's profound present economic insecurity. The second is that it makes much less sense for Republicans to tie such candidates to liberal figures — including House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Sen. Barack Obama — when the candidates in question are not nearly as liberal. A third is that Republicans who fail to deliver a strong message on the nation's present economic insecurity and health care concerns are doomed.

This last observation matters. The Republican Party appears exhausted, even at times bereft of new ideas. Republicans must speak to voters' economic insecurity, their anger over rising fuel and food prices, stagnating middle-class incomes and the need for attractive but realistic health care options. If Republicans fail, they don't stand much chance six months from now.