Taken by itself, the above evidence would appear to justify a 30-seat swing. But the majority of analysts are forecasting shifts of only 12 to 18 seats. One determinant which serves somewhat to nullify the electorate's changing demographic nature is gerrymandering.
Most of the states with large populations--thus more congressmen--have Democratically-controlled state Houses and commissions. These bodies reconfigure districts, packing large numbers of Republicans into only a few C.D.s, and somewhat diminishing the potential impact of a Republican electorate. California's Democratically-controlled state legislature is notorious for its practice of altering the geography of particular districts when it thinks Republicans are growing too strong. A ballot proposal now seeks to put the gerrymandering process into the hands of a bipartisan, independent commission.
This year, there are fewer open seats up for grabs--only about 20--and this fact should benefit the Democrats, Normally, more than 40 districts do not have incumbents running, and these seats are usually more inclined to go to the victorious presidential candidate's party. So what could have been a source of strength for the GOP has been significantly diminished.
But most important, during the course of the campaign, President Reagan has failed to piece together a program for the future; he has not provided any new ideas. In short, he has failed to nationalize the election, to give it a country-wide dynamic which could cut across the idiosyncratic quirks of particular districts.
In 1980, Reagan seemed to say to the public: "In order to a) decrease taxes, b) cut spending, c) pump up the military and d) reduce the deficit, we need to elect Republicans. Democrats just haven't done the job." Such a campaign strategy gave the voters a reason for going with the Republicans; these nationally-voiced ideals supposedly led to the mandate--and a gain of 34 seats in the House of Representatives--which the voters dropped into the President's lap.
But-what has he said to the electorate this year? Practically nothing. He hasn't related a vision of the future as he did in 1980. This year, the people would be electing Republicans on blind faith, content to hang on to the status quo. The only purpose which might galvanize people to vote Republican is the prevention of a tax increase. But in fact, most voters are quite skeptical--given the size of the deficit--that Reagan in the end will be able fend off an imminent tax hike.
"There are no ideas out there." Washington Post editorial writer Michael Barone says. "That's gonna hurt a big Republican coattail, because large coattails come when the people have something substantative to vote for."
To WHAT EXTENT, then, have the Republicans succeeded in nationalizing the election so that voters see the campaign as a referendum on Ronald Reagan and his policies, rather than individual battles between Democrats and Republicans? Republican candidates everywhere have attempted to link Mondale and democratic congressional candidate X. The NRCC has splashed the tax issue across the television screens of America.
"But I don't think it's worked yet," one political consultant says. "Successful Presidential candidates gain a lot in Congress when an election is nationalized. But this year, things seem to be more localistic, way more so than in 1980. There's no message out there, and thus there's no real great overriding reason to vote Republican for the sake of just supporting Ronald Reagan."
Republican congressional candidates have been set adrift with nothing they can latch onto except a controversial party platform that serves only to alienate much of the electorate. That document has been abandoned by practically everyone, but there really isn't anything, except for the promise of on tax increases, to take its place. And the tax issue, with the looming deficit, isn't going to carry an entire party.
As a result of changing electoral democraphics and the President's personal popularity, the Republicans will pick up some seats--maybe 12 or 15. But such a number won't be enough to disturb the Democratic check on policy.
Reagan's "progressivity?" He's certainly not going to find it in the House.