OPINION: Politics of anger define the coming election

Oct. 23—This one is tough to call. The coming election, I mean. Cases can be made for why both major parties should expect their comeuppance on Nov. 8. But in the end, our politics, at least at the national level, will likely remain as muddled, divided, and ugly as ever.

Aside from the partisans, most voters will be driven more by anger and fear — by wanting to defeat one party or the other, and the candidates of that party — than any excitement over how Democrats or Republicans will lead. This is not surprising given that the major message the parties are delivering is the same — "the other party is dangerous; you should fear them."

It is a troubling time for American democracy.

On the one hand, some predict that the Supreme Court decision stripping away the constitutional protection for abortion rights will generate anti-Republican fervor, firing up the Democratic base and pushing more unaffiliated voters, and even some centrist Republicans, into the Democratic column.

On the other hand, the prices for gas and groceries and most everything has spiked and when that happens the party in power — the Democrats — can expect to suffer.

Democrats make the case that protecting democracy itself is on the line. Republicans, this argument goes, must be rejected at the ballot box because too many in the party continue to embrace former President Donald Trump's lie about a fraudulent 2020 election. A case can be made that the GOP has become a party willing to set aside the will of the voters if that is what it takes to retain power.

Republicans counter that Democrats want to keep talking about the last election because they would rather not focus on what has happened since — including the tragically botched exit from Afghanistan, a sinking stock market, the threat of recession, rising crime, and a continued influx of refugees at the southern border.

Who is more outraged? Who turns out to vote? There is much to decipher.

First, about those predictions that the U.S. Supreme Court decision reversing Roe vs. Wade would so anger voters, particularly women, that it would create a tidal wave of votes for Democratic candidates.

That argument appears overstated.

The court's June ruling to overturn Roe — via the Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization decision — freed states to regulate or outright ban abortions. Seventeen states have moved to ban or restrict abortions following the Dobbs decision. The ruling also opens the potential for Congress to ban or significantly restrict the procedure nationally.

Early signs did indeed indicate that Democrats would benefit from the Dobbs decision. There was an initial surge in voter registration, principally among women and particularly in states where bans on abortion were under debate. A Kaiser Family Foundation poll found that among those who said the Supreme Court decision would make them more driven to vote, three-quarters planned to vote for candidates who would protect abortion access, while 17% backed candidates who wanted to limit access.

Yet that fervor has ebbed in the run-up to the election.

Economy looms large

Several quality polls, among them a recent New York Times polls, find voter attention shifting to concerns about consumer costs, the economy generally, crime, and immigration. Not surprisingly, this shift has corresponded with improved prospects for Republican candidates, with the latest New York Times/Siena College national survey finding 49% of voters backing the Republican congressional candidate in their district, 45% backing the Democratic one. A month ago, Democrats led by 1 percentage point.

One reason the abortion issue may not motivate voters to the extent some had predicted is that many Americans are ambivalent about it, neither aligning themselves with those who consider it akin to murder and something to be banned in all cases, nor buying into arguments that the procedure should have few restrictions.

Polls find many in this great middle uncomfortable with ambiguities about how late into a pregnancy an abortion can be legally performed and in favor of parental notification requirements.

Yet many of these same Americans, while OK with some constraints, oppose criminalizing abortion and saw the decision to tear away the constitutional protections for pregnant women as extreme.

As Jerusalem Demsas observed in an article for The Atlantic, "Most people want abortion to be legal, and they want restrictions on its availability."

The political picture surrounding abortion gets more complicated in Connecticut. Support for abortion rights is strong here, including among most Republican politicians. One exception is Senate Republican candidate Leora Levy, who supports strong restrictions on access to abortions. She is seeking to unseat incumbent Democratic Senator Richard Blumenthal, who is ardently pro-choice. In the Second Congressional District, which covers eastern Connecticut, Republican challenger Mike France, a state representative, has said he supports a ban on abortions after 15 weeks and requiring parental notification. Incumbent Democratic Rep. Joe Courtney backs codifying Roe vs. Wade as federal law.

But few Republican candidates in Connecticut back the bans seen in conservative states. Will that make it less of an issue for state voters? Perhaps. But the issue could still influence election results.

That is because it could drive increased turnout, particularly among young voters and others less likely to vote in non-presidential elections. Larger turnouts generally favor Democrats. If a record turnout occurs, Democratic candidates will outperform expectations.

More likely is a modest increase in voter participation due to the reversal of Roe. That could still play a role in tight races.

Locally, a larger than normal off-year turnout in Democratic-dominated New London could provide the party chairwoman in that city, Martha Marx, with a win in the 20th Senate District on her third try. She is opposed by Republican Jerry Labriola Jr. of Old Saybrook, who should run strong in the Republican-leaning suburbs. The seat is open because the incumbent Republican, Paul Formica, opted not to seek re-election.

Larger-than-usual turnout could also benefit incumbent Democratic Rep. Jahana Hayes, who is facing a tough challenge from former Republican state Senator George Logan. The Fifth District seat holds the best chance for the GOP to break the Democratic supremacy in Connecticut. Democrats hold all five congressional and the state's two Senate seats.

Who is motivated?

But will that turnout happen? Some data suggests it is actually Republicans who are motivated. In the CBS News poll, Republicans, by a 79% to 74% margin, were likelier than Democrats to say they would "definitely" vote. An ABC/Post poll found 81% of Republicans saying they were "absolutely certain" to vote, compared with 75% of Democrats.

If protecting access to abortion and democracy itself is not enough to generate support, Democrats hope a fundamental pocketbook issue will, controlling drug costs.

Democrats in the U.S. Congress passed the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, with several elements that should prove popular with voters, including giving the government leeway to negotiate the prices Big Pharma charges for some medicines paid by Medicare. It also limits insulin copays under Medicare to $35 a month and, by 2025, it will add a $2,000 cap on out-of-pocket medicine costs.

But Democrats have done a lousy job communicating those benefits to potential voters. Polls find most do not know about the price controls.

Instead, Republicans have pointed to a provision in the same act that would add about 87,000 new IRS agents. The requirement largely rebuilds a tax agency decimated by budget cuts. It gives the IRS a greater ability to go after tax cheats, which should generate more revenue. It makes sense.

But Republicans are happy to make the Democrats the party of aggressive tax collection and the IRS.

How does it all shake out?

My expectation is that Democrats will continue to dominate in Connecticut, winning the governorship, the state legislature, and maintaining all congressional and Senate seats, with Hayes surviving in a tight race. But I don't anticipate Marx will get the turnout she needs in New London to defeat Labriola.

Nationally, the economy will emerge as the dominant issue, as it usually does. Republicans will take the House, while Democrats retain narrow control of the Senate, largely because Republican primary voters picked some terrible Senate candidates.

I'd like to see a massive voter turnout. It would be a positive development if the Republican Party paid a steep price nationally for its dangerous election-denial approach. My expectation is neither of those things will happen.

But who knows? Maybe I will be surprised.

Paul Choiniere is the former editorial page editor of The Day, now retired. He can be reached at p.choiniere@yahoo.com.