|
One is that in the US, congressional races have generally been matters of local interest, not national interest. Everybody knows about the presidential candidates, but most people aren't aware of Congressional or even Senatorial candidates outside of their own districts. Also, people usually vote for or against their own representatives on the basis of local issues, not because of how they feel about the president.
Another is that there's a certain degree of fatalism about the Congressional elections. The districts have gotten so gerrymandered in recent years that only a handful of them are still considered swing seats, which could go either Republican or Democratic. If Kerry wins big in November, he's likely to carry a fair number of Democrats in on his coattails. If he loses or wins more narrowly, he won't.
But there's also some more serious attention being paid to the Congressional elections -- you just have to be looking at the margins to find it. The idea seems to be emerging that -- largely thanks to the Internet -- progressives now have the ability to target particular races and draw national attention and national funding towards them.
Much of this targteting will only happen after the primary season ends. For example, if Senator Spector in Pennsylvania loses to his far more right-wing Republican challenger, or at least undergoes a particularly grueling primary battle, that race will become a definite opportunity for the Democrats to pick up a seat. But if Spector wins handily, the attention will go elsewhere.
I think that by the summer, you'll be seeing a lot of discussion of certain Congressional races which are of particular interest. But it will never be like a parliamentary system where the local voting translates directly into the national government.
|