Congressional Democrats Solidify Opposition to Bush in 2005

Over the course of 2005, Congressional Democrats took a number of steps that were not popular among the progessive community, including caving on the bankruptcy bill, failing to stand up to the Republicans over Terri Schiavo, and acceding to the nomination of John Roberts. Moreover, on multiple occasions, Democrats were dealt strategic defeats on key measures, like Medicaid cuts and CAFTA.

A new vote analyisis by Congressional Quarterly paints Congressional Democrats' actions in 2005 in a different light, however. Using metrics such as party unity and rate of opposition to measures favored by President Bush, the CQ analysis found that Democrats were more unified in their opposition to Republicans than nearly any other point in the last fifty years -- and these numbers don't even include the Democrats' successful effort to save Social Security from the President's partial privatization plan.

In the January 9 issue of CQ Weekly, Isaiah J. Poole analyzes the 46 House votes and 45 Senate votes upon which President Bush had staked out a position. Poole finds President Bush's success rate on these votes to have been 78 percent, which while high by historical standards is low compared with Bush's first term and Clinton's first two years (the last point at which the President and the leadership of both Houses of Congress were from the same party). Looking further into the votes, Poole writes,

Democrats, meanwhile, sided with Bush less than ever last year, supporting his position 38 percent of the time in the Senate and 24 percent of the time in the House. During 2002, Bush's best year among Democrats, his Senate average support score was 71 percent and in the House it was 32 percent on votes where he took a position.
While a 38 percent rate of Democratic support is still too high -- it is unlikely that Republicans would give such deference to a Democratic President in a similar situation -- it is still a vast improvement from the 71 percent mark in 2002. Indeed, Democratic leader Harry Reid has been more effective than his predecessor Tom Daschle in marshalling opposition to the Republicans.

In the same issue of CQ Weekly, Martin Kady II takes a look at party unity scores (the percentage of the time that members of a caucus vote with their colleagues) and finds the Democrats in both chambers similarly improving.

In 2005, Democratic unity in the House reached a record 88 percent, besting the previous high of 87 percent in 2003. What's more, this number was only slightly below the Republican unity score of 90 percent. Democrats were similarly unified in the Senate, also posting an 88 percent party unity score -- a significant improvement from the 83 percent score just one year earlier. Republicans also scored 88 percent in 2005, though this was a noticeable drop from 90 percent in 2004 and 94 percent in 2005. Kady explains that there were real effects to the increased unity within the Democratic ranks.

[R]ising Democratic unity has forced the majority Republicans to work harder to win -- and resulted in a few high-profile GOP defeats that also jeopardized the legislative agenda of President Bush.

An utter lack of Democratic support, for example, required Republican leaders to twist arms and make promises to preserve very narrow victories in both chambers on a spending cut bill that still must survive one more test in the House early this year. Likewise, most Democrats refused to vote for the Central American Free Trade Agreement -- the centerpiece of Bush's trade agenda -- leaving Republicans to scramble to win sufficient support from within their own ranks. And when House Democrats held tighter than the Republicans on a bill to permit federally financed medical research using embryonic stem cells, the GOP and the president both suffered a loss.

These numbers all raise a very important point: when unified, the Democrats can make it extremely difficult for the Republican Party to govern. What's more, when unified, the Democrats can force Republicans who represent competitive districts to vote contrary to the wishes of their constituents (for example on the CAFTA vote), which very likely reap benefits for the Democrats in November. Finally, although the Democrats can and and probably should still increase their rate of opposition to President Bush on key measures from the 38 percent mark in the Senate and the 24 percent mark in the House, they have proved able to scuttle major Republican initiatives that are particularly abhorrent to Democratic voters (drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve, for example, or the partial privatization of Social Security). 2005 might not have been the worst year for Democrats, after all.

By the way, if you have the chance to check out this issue of CQ Weekly at your local public library or elsewhere, I would highly recommend it, as there is quite a bit more data and analysis available.



Display:


Right on (none / 0)

Three cheers for Harry Reid. He's really done a hell of a job. Now, let's keep it up by filibustering Alito and taking it to these assholes.
"There is nothing wrong with America that cannot be cured by what is right with America"- Bill Clinton
by bluenc on Sat Jan 21, 2006 at 07:00:38 PM EST

Plays Right In Their Hands Sort Of (none / 0)

Filibustering Alito is precisely what catalyst Karl Rove & Co. hope to launch 2006. The Democrats have to nail him on either the wiretapping or abortion. That reaffirms the central argument that Democrats live in the pre-9/11 world.

The real defeat that would set sail the thousands ships involves Bush using a veto. The key is understanding that the Republicans have relied on unity and vote discipline to govern. Now that Tom DeLay is gone and his ability to buy votes has gone the way of Jack Abramoff...there's a real posibility that some GOP-Congress bills will go to the White House only to be shut down by Bush's pen.

That would provide Dems with two golden opportunities: a sign that Bush has lost control of his own party and evidence that the cut and dry rhetoric of the Republicans doesn't wash. The Dems then get to take their platform straight to the electorate and fight on issues...which enhances the chance of victory greatly.

by risenmessiah on Sat Jan 21, 2006 at 09:18:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

goals of 2006 (none / 0)

Though the main goal for should be to retake the House in 2006, this diary shows why we shouldn't feel it is necessarily the end of the world if we gain only 7 to 10 seats.  If the GOP agenda is having problems now, imagine how much worse it can be with the margin in the House cut under 10, with a highly unified Democratic party.  

Let's face it, the real prize is '08.  We got to retake executive authority from these awful excuses for public servants.  Then, even if we don't take it down in '06, the House will be achievable and following a strong national message and energized base.

by give em hell Huddleston on Sat Jan 21, 2006 at 08:02:27 PM EST

Clarification needed... (3.00 / 1)

I'm a little unclear on the 'Democratic support' statistic: when it says

Democrats... support[ed] his position 38 percent of the time in the Senate...

I assume that means a majority of Democrats voting for the Bush position on 38% of the roll calls - rather than some Democrats or all Democrats.

Isn't the problem that the GOP is only concerned that enough Dems vote the Bush ticket? And my reading is that there's a squad of a dozen or so usual suspects among Senate Dems who from whom GOP floor managers can often look to get cover when they come up a couple of votes short. Not every time, but regularly.

I take the point that the smaller the level of Dem support, the more pressure is placed on GOP floor managers to keep their people in line.

But the critical votes for those managers are those where Dem support for the GOP position makes the difference between a vote passing or not. In evaluating the performance of Dem Congress members, there ought to be some weighting given to those votes.

(The Medicare bill HR 1 in the 108th is one example (in both houses).)

Then again, there must be be some Bush-position votes on which there is genuine bipartisan support, where Dems voting the Bush way can't be criticised. Mustn't there? One or two?...

by skeptic06 on Sat Jan 21, 2006 at 08:37:14 PM EST

Terrific! (none / 0)

Indeed, Democratic leader Harry Reid has been more effective than his predecessor Tom Daschle in marshalling opposition to the Republicans.

And France was more effective in stopping Hitler than Poland.

by Gary Boatwright on Sun Jan 22, 2006 at 09:31:50 AM EST

Not really III (none / 0)

They didn't really fight on Roberts.  Also, they didn't fight on the budget resolution.  Lastly, they gave up their right to fillibuster on the judicial compromise.  Maybe 2006 and 2007 they will be willing to stand up to Bush in preparation for the midterm election and presidential election.
by mleflo2 on Mon Jan 23, 2006 at 11:47:59 AM EST

Re: Congressional Democrats Solidify Opposition (none / 0)

Yes, they are solidily unifed to chant, "It is urgent to wait."  
These people who have lost election after election seem to think that if they all come together and hold a basket under the tree fruit will fall into it.
Hope may bring comfort but it does not deliver the goods.
If the people do not like what you do, just change the people.They have already decided on the canditate, all they want from the base is money.

by Druthers on Mon Apr 03, 2006 at 05:21:59 AM EST


You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.