Election experts divided on political implications

The Nov. 2 election painted the country red and blue. Some believe other shades are disappearing fast. Most people now seem to be looking hard at the Republican Party, the issues within it and how they affect the decisions it makes. \n"There are important divisions within the Republican Party, especially between the Christian right, the neo-conservatives, the traditional conservatives and the more pragmatic types, especially fiscal conservatives concerned about deficits," said Jeffrey Isaac, Rudy professor of political science and chair of the department. "These divisions, and the constraints of the world, will constitute obstacles to clear republican dominance." \nHe said the Republican Party now has control over the presidency and both houses of Congress, which puts it in a good position to pursue its conservative platform more vigorously than in President George W. Bush's first term. \n"The Republicans targeted and successfully defeated Tom Daschle, a crucial democratic congressional leader," he said. \nBut not all agree with Issac's view.\n"The fact is that the election did not produce much change," said Political Science Professor Marjorie Hershey. Before Nov. 2 this nation had a republican president and republican majorities in both houses of Congress, she said. "Now we have the same republican president, who won re-election with just 51 percent of the vote, and a slightly larger Republican majority in Congress."\nThe Senate's Republicans have increased from 51 to 55 out of 100, but the party is still short of the 60 votes necessary to stop a filibuster and pass major legislation or confirm Supreme Court nominees, Hershey said.\nIf party politics and the media play up the divisions in the nation, Isaac said, they will be exacerbated.\n"A lot depends on how these real differences and divisions get politicized by elites," he said. \nAlready, he added, divisions are emerging among Republicans on a number of issues. \n"I do expect the Christian right will push hard," he said. "This does not mean that they will get their way. We will see."\nNevertheless, the liberals and Democrats have some hard thinking to do, as President Bush won the popular vote. \n"This, and the simple fact of the electoral losses, means that Democrats, and especially liberal Democrats, have some hard thinking and hard work to do," Isaac said.\nThere are six new Republicans in the House out of 435, Hershey said. And the number of Republican governors has remained the same, she added.\n"The president will claim a mandate for his policies, just as he did in 2000, but it isn't easy to offer evidence for a mandate when 49 percent of the voters chose a different candidate," she said.\nIsaac said he would have preferred for Democrat John Kerry to wait to concede the election. The Electoral College, which legally decides on such things does not meet for a month. \n"There was no need to rush. I understand why he did it. But in the name of the process, he could legitimately have waited," Isaac said.\nAs the days go by, the developments in Iraq and around the world will have an effect on the governing of the Bush administration. \nThis election was clearly not an endorsement of the war, Isaac said. \n"It is disturbing, he said, to many believers, him included, that so many people who voted for Bush either ignored the evidence or willfully chose to believe Bush's most unfounded statements in spite of clear evidence of their falsehood," he said.\nIsaac said the war on Iraq was a mistake that was justified falsely and that has created a real crisis on the ground in Iraq. \n"We will see how Bush deals with these things," he said, "but his election does not diminish the truth."\n-- Contact staff writer Hina Alam at halam@indiana.edu.