With just about six months to go until Election Day, Congressional races all over the country are beginning to heat up. This fall heralds the most important election season since 1994, as the Republican agenda is currently stuck in stagnation, mirroring the situation of the Democrats before the Republican takeover in 1994. Senate Republicans currently hold a 55-45 edge over their Democrat counterparts, and in the House of Representatives, the Republican lead is 232-203. Thus, in order for a switch of majority to take place, the Democrats need to pick up six seats in the Senate (a tie in the Senate would still leave it in Republican hands) and 15 seats in the House. Is such a dramatic change possible, with Republicans polling such strong numbers only a year ago? Yes. Is it likely? Probably not.

The Democratic Party would like to believe in the axiom, “A rising tide lifts all boats.” After all, George W. Bush’s approval rating is hovering in the 30s, and the approval rating of the Republican-held Congress on the whole is even lower. But how important in terms of election results is this generalized dissatisfaction with Republicans? After all, these are real people on each ballot, not a generic party. People vote for candidates, and they generally vote for candidates they know. The power of incumbency is considerable, when one notes that only 27 House members have lost re-election since 1998. As Linda Fowler, a government professor at Dartmouth, stated, “National tides don’t mean anything without strong challengers on the ground.” Conversely, a study by Emory University political scientist does show a strong correlation between approval ratings for Presidents and voting preferences. From 1982 to 2002, 72% of voters who “strongly approved” of the current President voted for his party in the midterm elections, while those who “weakly approved” were only at 49%. Disapproval ratings were striking as well, with 70% of those who “weakly disapproved” voting for the opposing party, and 85% of people who strongly disapproved voting for the other party. If this trend continues in 2006, turnover will likely be greater than in previous years.

Incumbency is still an important advantage, of course, but incumbent Republicans in districts dissatisfied with the President are still attempting to distance themselves from his platform. Chris Shays (R-CT), a representative in danger of losing his seat, recently insisted on having Laura Bush replace her husband at an event for Connecticut’s three Republican house members. Shays has even endorsed moderate Democratic Sen. Joe Lieberman, who is facing a primary challenge due in great part to his support of the Iraq War, in his own race. Senator Mike DeWine (R-OH), currently running for his re-election in a somewhat conservative state, is airing television ads calling himself an “independent fighter for Ohio families.” In all fairness, DeWine is much more independent than the average Senator, especially regarding his support for gun control despite being a Republican in a Midwestern state. DeWine is running against a statewide anti-Republican tide due to GOP scandals in Ohio, though his attempt at independence has led a primary challenge from the party’s core.

If the electoral landscape stays the same and Republicans retain both branches of Congress, it is likely that very little will change in Washington. There will be more arm-twisting within the Republican Party, since their majority will have narrowed, but in all likelihood, business in Washington will be conducted as usual. But a change in either the House or the Senate would lead to a very different government. “The immediate impact,” according to Larry Sabato, professor of political science at the University of Virginia, ”would be the end of George W. Bush’s domestic presidency.”

In many ways, an oppositional Congress could be the best thing to happen to the presidency of George W. Bush since 9/11. Republicans in the minority would need to seek deals to get legislation passed and compromise for the common good. Rather than causing more internecine strife within their own party, as they seem to be doing now, Republicans could use their status in the minority to portray themselves as pragmatic compromisers in 2008. Losing 2006 would also force Republicans to reexamine their electoral strategy, and would bolster their attempt to keep their image as the “big tent” party, another issue at play in this fall’s elections.

Democrats have some serious obstacles to sort out to make their majority a reality, though. Imposing strict tests for candidates to keep them close to the party line has brought the Democratic Party, formerly dominant into American politics, into the minority. A collection of single-issue interest groups have transformed past elections into “if you’re not with us, you’re against us” ultimatums. While a political party requires principle, single-issue litmus tests are not the best way to accomplish this. The Republican Party has long understood that liberal regions of this country will not vote for socially conservative Republicans, which has led to the success of politicians like Rudy Giuliani, Michael Bloomberg, Christine Todd Whitman (the last Republican to win a statewide election in New Jersey), Senator Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island, and the previously-mentioned Shays. Some long-held Democratic seats in the South have come from this same strategy: most notably Rep. Gene Taylor of Mississippi, the only Democrat to vote for Bill Clinton’s impeachment. Taylor is a social conservative by any definition of the term, but on economic issues, he is reliably liberal. Had he retired, there is very little doubt his seat would be in Republican hands. The Democratic Party appears to finally understand this cross-appeal strategy, running pro-life State Treasurer Bob Casey for the Senate in Pennsylvania, despite heavy opposition from groups like NARAL. Additionally, Democrats are finding pragmatic politicians in many conservative areas of the country who will vote like Democrats, but are not liberal on every issue.

In a situation like the Democrats’, in which the opposition has held power for a long period of time, pragmatism must become the word of the day. The Democrats have spent just over a decade licking their wounds, but now seem ready for the big stage that Republicans have held since the “Republican Revolution” of 1994. For Republicans to keep Congress in their power, they will need to continue the similar pragmatic strategy of promoting moderates they used in 1994 (and off-and-on since then). One of the architects of that strategy, former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich (R-GA), is advocating that very idea, realizing that the one truism in politics is that you cannot exercise power you do not have. To win national elections, you must compete nationally.

It may not seem like it, but Republicans have many reasons for being optimistic. A six-seat Senate swing and a 15-seat House swing would be very tough for a minority party to accomplish in any election. Just two weeks ago, electoral savant Charlie Cook wrote, “Democrats have quite a good chance of scoring a net gain of two to five Senate seats. The six-seat gain needed to take control of the still seems a bit out of reach.” The Democrats must essentially win every competitive Senate race in order to take back the Senate. They need to hold open seats in Minnesota and Maryland, retain seats in New Jersey, Washington and Maryland, take an open seat in Tennessee (a daunting task), and defeat incumbents in Pennsylvania, Montana, Missouri, Ohio, and Rhode Island. Expect a much narrower margin than before, but also expect a Republican Senate to emerge victorious.

Looking at individual Senate races, we see echoes of all of the broader themes of this year’s elections. Pennsylvania sees remarkably conservative Senator Rick Santorum fighting for his political future against pro-life Democrat (and son of a popular former Governor) Bob Casey, Jr., with polls showing Santorum down by over 10 points. New Jersey sees a Republican moderate (and also the son of a former Governor) Tom Kean, Jr. taking on recently appointed Democrat Bob Menendez, who despite never winning a statewide election, has the advantage of incumbency. Another Republican moderate from the northeast, Rhode Island Senator Lincoln Chafee, first needs to win a primary challenge from a more conservative Republican before he can even start focusing on the general election. Nonetheless, Chafee and Menendez both appear somewhat safe now, as defeating an incumbent always requires more than a quality opposition candidate.

Some incumbents, however, look very vulnerable for a variety of reasons. In addition to Mike DeWine’s problems, Conrad Burns’ (R-MT) link to Jack Abramoff has not played well in Montana. There is still plenty of time for these incumbents to gain ground on their opponents, but they are currently polling within the margin of error of their opponents despite their much higher name recognitions. Missouri Republican Jim Talent could also have trouble, given his prior opposition to stem-cell funding, the unpopularity of Governor Matt Blunt, and the growing popularity of his opponent, State Auditor Claire McCaskill. The Missouri race shows us two important aspects of state elections: 1) the primacy of state politics (over federal) in state elections, and 2) the advantage of previously running a statewide campaign (this also holds true for Bob Casey in Pennsylvania). Indeed, for a challenger, one of the most important aspects of a race is name recognition, since people are less likely to vote for a challenger they do not know. On the other side of the fence, though, two Democratic incumbents are facing strong challengers as well, both from businessmen wealthy enough to finance their own campaigns. Sen. Debbie Stabenow must answer for the stalling economy in Michigan, though. Nonetheless, both seats seem safe for now, but the nature of politics is such that they could end up as close races.

Finally, there are three open seats, and all should be competitive. One of these seats is in Republican territory (Tennessee), one in a traditionally Democratic area (Maryland), and a third in a more moderate state (Minnesota). Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist currently holds the Tennessee seat, and most experts think the Republican Party will hold on to this seat, and that Democrats will hold on to their seats in Maryland and Minnesota. All of this appears to be leading to a Democratic pickup in seats, but not enough to oust Republicans from power.

In the House, every incumbent is up for re-election. Republicans should be more pessimistic about keeping this chamber than the Senate, as the national tide seems more prevalent in these local races than the statewide senatorial ones. In the National Journal’s latest ranking of House races, nine of the top ten seats, and 20 of the top 25, were held by Republicans. Charlie Cook’s Cook Political Report rates 35 house seats as competitive, and according to Cook, in order to take a majority, Democrats would need to hold their 11 competitive seats, while defeating the Republican Party in 15 of their 24. The downhill slide of the Republican Party would probably need to continue in order for this to happen, but at this point, it shows no signs of stopping. Conventional wisdom would say that the party’s and President’s support would not fall any lower, but today’s political climate is nowhere near conventional. However, with six months until Election Day, things appear safe for Republicans—at least for this year.