THE DAY AFTER MONICA LEWINSKY turned state’s evidence, eight Republican senators gathered for lunch at the Capitol. Most assumed the deepening White House scandals would aid Republicans in House and Senate races this fall. But there was still uneasiness. What’s needed to assure GOP success, said one of the senators later, is a comprehensive report from independent counsel Kenneth Starr on the Clinton scandals. A report would put “everything Starr has in one place” and attract enormous attention. Then “the chances of seeing a dramatic drop in President Clinton’s popularity and also in Democratic prospects” would be “pretty high.” No, the senator said, it wouldn’t produce “a Nixonian collapse” — just a drop in Clinton’s approval rating from 60 percent to 40 percent, enough to assure Republican pickups.
A report from Starr is now likely this fall, and his staff has looked into making as much of it public as possible without jeopardizing grand-jury secrecy. If Starr doesn’t release some or all of the report, the House Judiciary Committee intends to. Yet despite the anticipation, the report probably won’t be pivotal in the campaign. Why? Simply because the Clinton scandals have already taken their toll. Democratic and Republican strategists have detected a clear GOP tilt, based largely on expected turnout this fall. The most motivated voters, those all but certain to go to the polls, are the ones furious with Clinton. They aren’t happy with congressional Republicans either, but they’re ready to register a protest against Clinton on Election Day by voting against Democratic candidates. Democratic voters? Good economic times have made them content and thus less motivated to vote.
Extensive polling and intricate cross-tabulations — not speculation or guesswork — have uncovered the Republican edge. Bob Beckel, who managed Walter Mondale’s presidential campaign in 1984, and a group of Democratic researchers examined hundreds of key precincts across the country this summer. Strong anti-Clinton sentiments “have deepened, become more negative, and turned to anger,” Beckel says. “Angry people vote.” Clinton’s involvement with Monica Lewinsky “is the event that has confirmed everything these voters believe” about the president. The scandals “always had the potential of not being just a Clinton problem but a party problem.” Now it’s happened, Beckel says. They’ve “become a party problem.”
Beckel’s research was aimed at determining who will actually vote this fall. Three types of precincts were studied: reliable Democratic ones, reliable Republican ones, and “persuadable” or swing precincts. Voters were asked to put themselves in one of five categories: certain to vote, likely to, 50-50, unlikely, or won’t vote. Those who answered 50-50 and below were tossed out as probable non-voters, especially in an election with no presidential contest. The “least engaged voters” were found in the swing precincts, where low turnout is expected. In Democratic precincts, Beckel says, “the irony is the good economy has lessened their interest in voting. You’ve got a content electorate except for people who hate Bill Clinton.”
People who strongly disapprove of Clinton are only 25 percent to 35 percent of the population, according to Beckel. But they’ve been voting in disproportionate numbers, mostly because of their loathing of Clinton. “There was a blip up in ’94 in those [Republican] districts,” Beckel says. “I’m concluding the intensity factor of the negatives on Clinton is higher now than it was in ’94.” And the 1994 election was a GOP landslide. Republicans captured the House, the Senate, and a dozen new governorships. That won’t be repeated, Beckel says, but only because most Democratic incumbents are in safe seats.
Beckel’s findings gibe with those of some, but not all, pollsters and strategists active in congressional campaigns. Republican pollster Linda DiVall says the Clinton scandals help the GOP “substantially, in terms of giving us a turnout advantage.” Voters, she insists, are more concerned about Clinton’s personal behavior than is generally believed. This is especially true of women, even more so of women over 60.
Furthermore, the scandals put a cloud over Democratic campaigns. “It’s harder for Democrats to make the case you need to elect a Democratic Congress,” DiVall says. Voters increasingly have qualms about turning Washington over to Democrats led by a scandal-plagued president.
Alan Secrest, a Democratic pollster working in two dozen House races, says he hasn’t detected fallout in congressional races from the Clinton scandals. But Democrats are “whistling past the graveyard” if they assume there won’t be an impact. The slowing economy or a dip in national confidence could trigger concerns about Clinton’s ability to offer strong (and moral) leadership, says Secrest. John Morgan, the Republican analyst who accurately predicted the 1994 sweep, believes distaste for Clinton in once-Democratic rural areas is more intense today than ever. Plus, “the Clinton scandals are taking it into the suburbs.” Morgan is unsure how much the scandals will ultimately help Republicans. If Clinton’s conduct “really erupts” as the dominant issue this fall, Republicans could win more than 30 House seats and a half-dozen in the Senate, he says.
The Starr report would have to be truly explosive — new revelations, ripe details, hard evidence — to cause such an eruption. That’s not likely. And there’s a potential problem for Republicans in relying on the report and the scandal itself in the campaign. Should Republicans “over-moralize” in attacking Clinton, they’ll succeed chiefly in rousing Democrats to vote, Beckel says. Secrest characterizes this as “a viable alternative theory” about turnout in November. DiVall argues Republicans still need to lay out an agenda. Otherwise, Clinton could outmaneuver them by admitting he’s done wrong, asking the American people for forgiveness, and vowing to devote his final years to important issues facing America. With that, “the case would probably be closed,” says DiVall. And even a stinging report might not resurrect it.
Fred Barnes is executive editor of THE WEEKLY STANDARD and co-host of The Beltway Boys on the Fox News Channel.
