Too bad the midterms aren’t until November

Everybody’s gabbing about this WashPost article: “Anger at Bush may hurt GOP at polls.” Well, maybe I’m just whistling past the graveyard here, but at this point there’s little indication that the Democrats can generate the momentum to take over either the House or Senate. Michael Barone makes some good points in his article on Real Clear Politics on the difference between a referendum election and a choice election.

If the 2006 midterms are a referendum on Republican leadership, there could be a lot of Maalox flowing at RNC headquarters. But to make this work, the Democrats are going to have to dip into the “anger” well one more time. This strategy worked wonders in 2000, 2002, and 2004 for Al Gore, Tom Daschle (who?) and John Kerry, respectively. Now Harry Reid of the stern finger and Nancy Pelosi will try to convince America that any change would be better than none at all.

Will Americans buy that? I’m unconvinced. I just don’t see how the Democrats can gain with a message-less message. Maybe it’s an effective ploy for Presidential candidates (e.g. Nixon’s “secret” plan to end the Vietnam war) but legislative positions are fought out on policy differences, not national sentiment. The Democrats are so fractured, they could never promote a unified policy such as Newt Gingrich’s 1994 Contract with America. As a result, they appear more concerned with getting elected than leading the country, never an attractive choice.

Still, if policy and positions don’t shape the midterms, here’s another non-trivial factor:

In its most recent filing with the Federal Election Commission, the DNC reported raising $50.1 million so far in the 2005-2006 cycle and had $5.8 million cash on hand at the end of last year. The RNC had raised $103 million and had $34 million cash on hand.

Let’s keep our powder dry. California-50 may have been the first sign that there is no groundswell for the Democrats, despite the warning signs we’ve heard over and over in the past.