Recess not playtime for this Congress: 2002 looms

When members of Congress headed back to their home districts last weekend, they probably wished their month-long recess could be exactly that - a recess.

But after a dramatic - often unnerving - six months on Capitol Hill, many lawmakers can't afford to sit still very long. The battle for victory in the 2002 election, though the vote is still more than a year away, is already on.

Unusually close margins in the House and Senate have put control within tantalizing reach of either party, and they are wasting no time in pinpointing the opposition's vulnerable seats and shoring up support for their own.

"We're likely to be looking at photo finishes in the House and the Senate," says Charlie Cook, editor and publisher of The Cook Political Report here. "These things tend to be referenda on the administration - [and] I don't think Bush is going to be an asset next year."

Certainly, history bodes badly for Republicans. The party controlling the White House has lost seats in the House in all but two midterm elections since the end of the Civil War - and it has lost Senate seats in 16 of the past 22 midterm elections. Compounding the party's worries is the fact that next year, 20 Republican senators are up for reelection, compared with just 14 Democrats.

Yet Mr. Cook and other analysts see several forces working in the GOP's favor.

Almost twice as many of the "safe" seats that are up for election in 2002 are held by Republicans as by Democrats. And only two GOP senators are running in states that Al Gore won in 2000 - whereas six Democrats are up in states won by George W. Bush.

Redistricting - the reapportionment of House seats based on new census data - is likely to work in the GOP's favor also, since most of the states gaining seats are in the South and West, areas where Republicans tend to dominate.

These factors, together, could level the playing field - or even tilt it slightly to Republicans' advantage, despite the historical trend favoring the Democrats.

The stakes are high, not only for both parties, but also for President Bush. The loss of the Senate made Mr. Bush more dependent on the House, as events from recent weeks showed, and if he loses control of that chamber as well, his legislative agenda will undoubtedly suffer.

Democrats are confident that not only history, but also the current political climate, will work in their favor. They point to issues like energy and the environment, where polls show that many Americans have concerns about the Bush administration's approach.

They also point to a winning track record in the past three elections - though some of the party's recent gains may simply be a predictable recovery from the Republican sweep of 1994.

"We've had three consecutive elections that produced net gains for Democrats," says Mark Nevins, a spokesman for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. "At this point, we've got one of the biggest congressional minorities in the past 50 years, and we're on the doorstep of a majority in 2002."

Nevertheless, redistricting could make a House majority difficult to attain. Rep. Tom Davis (R) of Virginia, chairman of the Republican National Congressional Committee, has predicted that the GOP will pick up eight to 10 new seats - leaving Democrats with a 14-seat deficit to overcome in the House, rather than merely six seats. He also points out that the process will serve to strengthen some of the weaker GOP incumbents by redrawing their districts more favorably.

The outcome of the redistricting process will hinge on state legislatures, which are roughly split between the parties - a factor that analysts say could help Democrats minimize GOP redistricting gains to a handful of seats.

In the Senate, the battle for control may prove even more unpredictable.

Since the Democrats gained control of that chamber, they've seen a spike in fundraising dollars, which will give a boost to their reelection efforts. And Republicans' loss of committee chairs has sparked rumors of some GOP retirements - which would throw some previously safe Republican seats into play.

Still, more Democratic than Republican senators may be vulnerable in 2002, in large part because of geography. Republicans are aggressively targeting eight Democratic seats. Six are in states Bush won, including South Dakota and Montana.

"Yes, we do have 20 seats up and they have 14, but ... of the 20 seats we have up, 15 of those seats fall into categories where Bush did extremely well in the states - where he won by 5 percent or more," says Dan Allen, a spokesman for the National Republican Senatorial Committee.

Of course, others point out, geography doesn't necessarily predict how a race will go. Personality plays a key role, too.

"Last cycle, Al Gore won Pennsylvania soundly - and we still have [Republican] Rick Santorum as our senator," says Tovah Ravitz, a spokeswoman for the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee.

Moreover, how key issues such as education play out over the next year is likely to influence the election.

Ultimately, both sides agree the most critical factor in these races may be something no one can predict: the state of the economy.

"The political situation is, you get held accountable if you're in office," says Congressman Davis. "Should the economy deteriorate, there's a price to pay for that.... And the worse it is, probably the worse it gets for us."