ABC 2002: The Year Ahead

— -- Given the turbulent times in which we live, read it quick, since it could be overtaken by events at any moment.

Actually, there's plenty in here that should serve you all the way through November.

The impact of the war on the 2001 elections — which, outside New York City, was limited — has by now been sketched out for you in great detail by your ABCNEWS Political Unit and others.

But none of us will claim to know what impact, if any, the war will have on the much higher stakes, midterm elections of 2002. So hold your breath (and, for those of you who hate it when we avoid gutsy predictions, your nose) for a few paragraphs of cautious hedging.

At one extreme of the vast spectrum of possible scenarios for next November, the war could be over and the world rid of terrorism (we did say "extreme," which also implies "unlikely"). Or, at the other end, we could be in the midst of a full-scale military campaign on one or more fronts, with young American men and women getting killed in action, and not just in the occasional friendly-fire or equipment mishap.

And, of course and sadly, the United States might by the end of the year have experienced one or more additional terrorist attacks — of the scale of Sept. 11, less massive, or more so.

President Bush's approval rating could hover in the 80-percent range for the next 11 months, which would be unprecedented (but haven't the last few years in politics been all about the unprecedented taking place?); or, more likely we think, it could settle down near its pre-Sept. 11 range of about 55 percent, or somewhere in between. Also possible, though we think most unlikely in this 50-percent nation, is that his rating will sink much below that.

President Bush wants to change a lot of aspects of the culture of Washington, such as the endless cycle of investigations (now, of course, more than ever), and he's willing to expend political capital to do it. The war has interrupted this pursuit to some degree, but he has real goals and true motives for going about this, regardless of how it might affect his party's electoral chances in November. This is not to say that Bush is never partisan himself, nor to suggest that he doesn't want to grow the Republican party — he does. But he means it when he says he would be happy to go back to Crawford.

Another thing no one will claim to know: what shape the economy will be in by next fall, or what the previously unheard-of combination of an 80-percent-plus presidential approval rating and a weak economy could mean for candidates of the president's party, especially when the president himself isn't on the ballot.

In the 2001 elections, Bush's popularity didn't transfer to the GOP candidates on the ballot. But those elections were for non-federal offices (two governorships, the New York City mayoralty, and other local posts), whereas the bulk of the 2002 races will feature Senate and House incumbents who have spent the previous two years voting up or down on the president's policies.

The general view is that the longer the war against terrorism remains an issue, the better for incumbents.

At stake in 2002:

Control of the Senate, which Democrats currently hold with a 50-seat majority to Republicans' 49 seats and one independent (Mr. Jeffords). One-third of the Senate — 34 seats — will be on the ballot in November, of which 14 seats are held by Democrats and 20 by Republicans. Control of the House of Representatives, which Republicans currently hold by a mere six seats (the breakdown: 222 Republicans to 211 Democrats, with one independent voting with Republicans and one with Democrats). All 435 House seats are, of course, on the ballot in 2002, but only 30 or so are expected to be in play due to the still-ongoing redistricting process, in which House incumbents are working hard to shore up their own seats, leaving just a small pool of competitive ones. Thirty-four of the nation's 50 governorships. Overall, the GOP holds 27 governorships to Democrats' 21, with two independents. In 2002, Republicans will be defending 23 seats to Democrats' 11; both independent-held seats also will be on the ballot. A wide variety of ballot measures, including some of the colorful stand-by issues like legalizing marijuana and gay rights, outlined for you below.

Not for 50 years have the battles for control of the House and Senate been this close in the same election, and control of Congress will go a long way toward determining what kind of agenda the president can push in the second half of his term. And control of the governorships often foreshadows what will happen in individual states during the next presidential election.

Here are our latest Senate and governor race ratings for 2002:

2002 Senate Ratings

2002 Governor's Ratings

ISSUES

At this writing, the war — the whole basket of war/homeland security/defense issues — ranks highest on the public's priority list in all the national polls. We've gotten some indication that Republicans, at least today, plan to make it one of their big issues and call Democrats onto the carpet over old, pre-Sept. 11 votes or positions on military spending and anti-terrorism legislation.

Look for lots of campaign ads from both sides of the aisle featuring flags, firemen, and patriotic themes, bragging about candidates' ability to lead "now more than ever" during these "tough times" for a nation "coming together."

But we've also gotten some sense — from movement in the national polls, from political economists, from worried Republicans and wrinkled brows in the White House — that the economy is emerging as the No. 1 issue, and that people will vote their pocketbooks in November.

For this reason, congressional Republicans have been agitating for President Bush to tackle some domestic issues in January. Passage of the education compromise in December has given moderate Republicans in swing states and districts something to tout on the stump. But what of the rest of the president's domestic agenda?

Both the House and the Senate passed a patients' bill of rights, two very different versions, which went to conference and remain stuck there.

On energy, Democrats had a field day with Vice President Cheney's somewhat pro-business plan, then Republicans made hay out of Majority Leader Daschle's refusal to let the bill come to a vote in the Senate because that version, which would permit oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, seemed to have enough votes to pass.

Other issues bandied about by the White House and in Congress pre-Sept. 11 which might come up this year: a prescription drug component for Medicare; President Bush's faith-based initiative; and, despite House Republicans' best efforts, campaign finance reform.

It's safe to say that Social Security reform will not come up during the election year; the president's Social Security commission recommended a year of "looking at the options," presumably to give the GOP cover for not taking up the politically ultra-sensitive issue before November, after the president made it one of his top priorities during his campaign.

And certainly, no more mention of Social Security lockboxes now that the government is dipping into the trust fund to help dig out from wartime spending.

We will know more about the president's agenda, and his party's, once the State of the Union address and release of the budget have passed. Both parties have some fault lines and divisions within their own ranks, but after a period of mistrust, the White House and congressional Republicans are roughly in sync and committed to plotting out the legislative year together in order to maximize their prospects for election victories in November. Republicans generally believe they will be much better off at the polls next fall if real voters feel the economy is turning around by the second quarter of the year.

Democrats are generally united behind their leaders, too, but face some tough choices about how to respond to the budget, and they worry privately about what an improved economy and/or increased or renewed military activity in fighting terrorism might do to their best-laid plans. They do plan to use hearings into the collapse of Enron to make the case that Republicans are beholden to corporate special interests, a theme they have been trying to hammer home since the presidential campaign, with limited success — until this giant opportunity, in their view, presented itself.

Even assuming — because there's no reason to think otherwise — that the White House did nothing to intervene on Enron's behalf, and that its investigation of the company's collapse will be conducted impartially, the Bush Administration's close personal and monetary ties to Big Business are being paraded before America in a way Democrats could only dream about during the presidential campaign

In the months immediately following Sept. 11, the budget and spending wars in Washington seemed surreal, marked by a bipartisan lack of resistance to returning to deficits. More quickly, these wars began to make themselves felt in the states, where governors and state legislatures have had to make tough choices on program cuts, raising taxes, or both (for some governors, casting a shadow over their re-election prospects in 2002).

And recently in Washington, Democrats have begun to blame the GOP for the return to deficit world, while Republicans are starting to cast Democrats as unwilling to spend what it takes to make sure that Americans are safe.

The president's budget, coming out in a few weeks, is sure to include a range of spending and cutting decisions that will become political talking points for both parties and possibly issues for voters going to the polls.

THE PARTIES

Before Sept. 11, Democrats clearly were gaining momentum by focusing on the domestic issues of Social Security/Medicare/Medicaid reform, prescription drug reform, and accusations of Republican ties to special interests. The events of Sept. 11 and the bipartisan show of unity that followed undercut that momentum.

But Democrats now need make only slight alterations to their original game plan in order to try to make the election be about Bush's tax cut and his other economic policies. No longer afraid to criticize the president during wartime, they seem to have found a comfort zone with their mantra of supporting Bush's foreign policy but taking issue with his domestic policy.

Democratic party leaders Daschle and Gephardt are spearheading party efforts to, in Daschle's case, retain and increase their majority in the Senate and, in Gephardt's case, recapture control of the House for the first time since 1994. Not too surprisingly, Daschle strikes us as being slightly more enthusiastic about his task than Gephardt. Not that Gephardt isn't trying. But to those of us who've heard the same goals over the past three cycles — during which, to their credit, Democrats did pick up seats, just not enough — they're starting to ring a little hollow, even though if history holds true, Democrats should pick up enough House seats during this president's first term to regain control.

One way in which Sept. 11 is making itself felt in the 2002 elections is fund-raising. After Sept. 11, both the Republican and Democratic national party committees voluntarily suspended their fund-raising activities — not only actual events, but also mail and phone solicitations. Even after the mail and phone efforts resumed, as agreed upon by the parties, by early November, they were skittish about holding high-profile fund-raising events, and President Bush has just resumed fund-raising for the GOP after a long period of not wanting to look partisan.

Vice President Cheney continues to travel around the country headlining fund-raising events largely under the radar.

The war aside, this is still an intensely political White House, which even since Sept. 11 has remained heavily involved in fund-raising and candidate recruitment. They understand not only how the results of next November will reflect upon them, but how the success of the second half of Bush's term depends upon whether he controls one or two chambers of Congress, or neither.

Per usual, the Republican party in Washington and state parties around the country will have more money to spend to help candidates than Democrats.

But, mostly under the radar, the interest groups and minority groups traditionally aligned with Democrats, including unions and African-Americans, are honing the voter identification programs and political infrastructure that served them so well in key states over the last few election cycles.

THE SENATE (currently 50 D, 49 R, one I)

Republicans currently need to net one seat to regain control of the Senate. A net gain of one would put them at 50, with Democrats at 49 and Senator Jeffords voting with Democrats. But Vice President Cheney once again would be positioned to break any 50-50 tie votes in the GOP's favor.

One-third of the Senate, 34 seats, will be on the ballot in November. Republicans hold 20 of the 34, and three of their incumbents are retiring, leaving potentially vulnerable open seats. Democrats, on the other hand, hold just 14 of the seats and aren't expecting any retirements.

As a result, Republicans are somewhat more exposed to possible losses, or at least could find themselves occupied with defending more at-risk seats than Democrats. While Democrats, in our view, currently have one more toss-up seat to protect than the GOP (four to three) the GOP has more seats that could become toss-ups as the year progresses (six to four), including the three open seats in North Carolina, South Carolina, and Texas.

Republicans are fielding strong candidates in all three of these states, all of which tilt their way to some degree. But Democrats have strong candidates for these races, too, and we could see a surprisingly tight contest in one, two, or even all three.

Among the races we view as toss-ups, Republicans currently are saddled with the most vulnerable incumbent Senator of the cycle, Sen. Bob Smith of New Hampshire, whereas Democrats are faced with the best showdown, the South Dakota brawl pitting freshman Democratic Sen. Tim Johnson against at-large Congressman John Thune, a Republican.

Smith, who hurt his standing within the GOP with his wacky run for president in 2000 and his brief switch to independent status afterward, faces a tough primary challenge from Rep. John Sununu. The upper echelons of the Republican party believe Sununu would be the stronger candidate against Gov. Jeanne Shaheen, Democrats' certain nominee, but even if Sununu emerges from the primary as the winner, the lateness of that contest (mid-September) will give him no time to recover from that bruising before Shaheen and the entire weight of the national Democratic party bear down on him.

Johnson's re-election fight in South Dakota is a political junkie's dream: a tough race in a cheap state for advertising that's already got the close attention of the Senate Majority Leader, who happens to call the state home, and the White House, because they hate the Senate Majority Leader and see a prime pick-up opportunity.

The other marquee race of the cycle is North Carolina, where Democrat Elizabeth Dole and Clinton White House chief of staff Erskine Bowles, also a Democrat, are expected, but not certain, to emerge as their respective parties' nominees to replace the retiring Jesse Helms.

It's worth noting that both parties' prospects for netting Senate seats depend somewhat on the outcome of certain contested primaries. The GOP's chances of retaining their seats in New Hampshire and North Carolina will hinge largely on the outcome of the Republican primaries there, and what shape their nominees are in when they emerge. Democrats' chances of capturing the North Carolina and Texas Senate seats, both somehat uphill battles today, depend on the same.

THE HOUSE (currently 222 R, 211 D, 2 I)

Without getting into the nitty-gritty of currently vacant seats and which way the House's two independent members tend to vote, just trust us when we say that Democrats need to net six seats to win back control of that chamber.

Democrats argue that history is on their side here: not only have they gained seats in each of the past three elections (if not enough), but the party out of power historically has gained seats in all but two of the last 34 midterm election cycles.

But while six seats might not sound like a large number, it's a proportionately huge one given that only 30-40 House seats are expected to be in play this cycle. This is due primarily to a redistricting process — just wrapping up now — in which incumbents have gone to such great lengths to shore up their own seats that the pool of competitive races has shrunk to just a smattering of incumbents representing swing districts, weak incumbents, and open seats.

That being said, despite Republican claims that they will "net" eight to 10 seats through the redistricting process — by which they mean creating a net of eight to 10 seats certain to fall into Republican hands — the process appears to be more of a wash that they'd expected, with Republicans having finagled favorable maps that should yield them seats in some states (Pennsylvania, Michigan) but Democrats in others (Georgia), and some hoped-for GOP opportunities, like in Texas, not panning out.

As after every decennial redistricting, we'll see a handful of primaries and general elections pitting two sitting House members against each other, having been thrown into the same district. And some members will opt to retire rather than face off against a colleague, or try to win re-election in a district that's no longer favorable.

THE GOVERNORS (currently 27 R, 23 D, and 2 I)The conventional wisdom is that Republicans are going to take a beating among the governors races this cycle. First, simply because they must defend 23 seats, compared to Democrats' 11 and the two independents. Eight years after sweeping the governors' races of 1994, many Republican incumbents are being term-limited out of office this year, leaving open, at-risk seats.

Second, budget crunches are forcing governors to scale back planned tax cuts, raise taxes, cut spending, or some combination of the above, in order to deal with Medicaid shortfalls and problems in funding other key state programs.

At this writing, the GOP appears likelier than not to lose two New England governorships, making the moderate Northeastern Republican an even more endangered species: in ultra-Democratic Rhode Island, where the seat is open, and in Massachusetts, where acting Gov. Jane Swift, a Republican known for being the first incumbent governor to give birth while in office, is certain to face a strong Democratic challenge in this very Democratic state.

They also appear to be on the brink of losing their open seat in New Mexico now that former Congressman and former Clinton Energy Secretary Bill Richardson is seeking that seat, and they may lose Michigan as well, depending on who Democrats nominate there.

Beyond that, Republicans will be defending a mixed bag of at-risk big- and small-state governorships, including Illinois, New York, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, and Wisconsin.

Nasty Democratic primaries in many of these states, however — most notably Illinois, Massachusetts, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and New York — will give Republicans extra time to get their acts together. And in some cases, the GOP's prospects of retaining these seats could improve depending upon the identity of the Democratic nominee.

Florida's Republican Gov. Jeb Bush is not viewed as immediately endangered given that Democrats seem likely to nominate, after a costly and bruising primary, former Clinton Attorney General Janet Reno, who may not be able to win a general election.

As for Democrats, they seem certain to lose one governorship: Alaska, where the incumbent Democrat is term-limited and where Sen. Frank Murkowski is expected to claim victory. Beyond that, they too have a handful of open seats to defend in New Hampshire, where both parties are hosting crowded primaries; in Hawaii, where an unusually strong Republican candidate is giving the GOP its best shot in years; and possibly in Vermont. Add to that at least one shaky Southern incumbent: Don Siegelman of Alabama, plus maybe Jim Hodges in South Carolina further down the road.

Lastly, note that the nation's most famous governor, Jesse Ventura, is up for re-election this year. Ventura has yet to state whether he will seek a second term or not — in fact, he has repeatedly said he doesn't really care about serving a second term — but, assuming he does run, it's likely to be a far different race, and a tougher one for Ventura, than his upset win in 1998.

BALLOT MEASURES

Initiatives and referenda are direct democracy. Interest groups and wealthy entrepreneur/advocates bypass state and local governments and take straight to the public their case for change on hot-button cultural issues such as gay rights, abortion, or legalizing marijuana, or on proposed income tax repeals, homestead exemptions and bond issues.

Sexy, contested ballot initiatives often serve to drive up voter turnout. If the issue affects religious conservatives, they'll find a reason to go the polls, and in doing so, boost the prospects of conservative candidates, whereas right-to-work initiatives encourage labor to get involved.

Language is key. Voters like "affirmative action" but not "racial preferences." Broadly tolerant Americans will usually support laws protecting gays from discrimination, but shy away from initiatives that would "extend rights" to gays.

Residents of Ypsilanti, Mich., will decide whether to prohibit the city government from passing laws that protect gays. Though a similarly worded measure failed in three Michigan cities last year, the American Family Association, which is co-sponsoring this initiative, promises to spend lots of money and resources promoting it in Ypsilanti.

We're watching the progress of a few medical marijuana initiatives. A measure that would make cannabis legal will be on the ballot in Alaska, and Arkansans will get to decide whether to legalize medical marijuana.

Pro-pot petition drives in Florida, Michigan and Maine have yet to make it onto the ballot, though the Florida petition probably will. It would allow doctors to prescribe medical marijuana for patients under certain, limited circumstances. The Michigan proposal is the broadest. Its innocuous moniker: "Michigan Personal Responsibility Act."

Floridians may also get to vote on a proposal mandating treatment for first-time drug offenders. A similar initiative, Proposition 36, passed in California last year.

No telling yet how U.S. Attorney General Aschroft's decision to prosecute Oregon doctors who prescribe marijuana will impact the pending initiatives.

Speaking of California, as usual, their ballot will be cluttered by a handful of measures.

In March, Californians will get to revisit their 1990 decision to implement term limits. Too many inexperienced legislators have been flooding Sacramento, according to proponents of an ordinance that would relax the term limit for candidates who obtain the signature of 20 percent of the voters in their electoral districts. (Eighteen states currently have term limit laws.)

In November, Golden State voters will decide whether to cap property tax increases at 1.5 percent. The state faces a budget shortfall of nearly $12.5 billion, and many cities and towns are comparatively worse off. So local governments are not inclined to support a measure that would limit their ability to fund themselves. But it's hard to convince budget-conscious property owners to give more money to the government.

Other possible California initiatives: several big bonds and a voting rights proposal. Last year, the state Supreme Court closed the state's open primary on the grounds of free association; the proposal in question would allow voters to choose a partisan allegiance right before casting their ballots. But unlike the old system, voters only would be allowed to vote for candidates of that one party, not for any candidate they wish regardless of party.

Colorodans may have a chance to restrict bilingual education programs. If the measure passes, children would have to take one year of intensive English before participating in bilingual programs.

Environmentally conscious San Franciscans may have the chance to ban the sale of fur within city limits.

In Massachusetts, horse-lovers can vote to ban the killing of those animals for human consumption. And folks can once try again to abolish the state's income tax. A constitutional change would clarify the definition of marriage as between a man and a woman. A bilingual education ban — similar to the initiative in Colorado — will also be on the ballot. A gay-rights ordinance got the required signatures, but proponents want it on the 2004 ballot.

Will Tenneseans gamble on a lottery? The state has a budget deficit; the governor and legislators are looking for an easy way out. A lottery would generate about $200 million per year. About 65 percent of Tenneessee voters support it, but they'll have to repeal an anti-lottery provision in the state constitution to get it. Led by legions of evangelicals, anti-lottery forces are promising a fight. (Thirty-eight states and Washington, D.C., will have fully operating lotteries by 2002.)

Alaskans will decide whether to raise the state's minimum wage to $7.15 an hour, up from $5.65.

Floridians will decide what limits the state should place on penning pigs; 18 other measures in the state are pending review.

Montanans will decide whether to restrict the voting rights of convicted felons — a type of initiative which has never failed.

And could you not vote in favor of this one? Utahans will vote on a right to privacy from being exposed to the opposite sex when changing for gym class.