WASHINGTON - President Bush has been crisscrossing the country at a frenzied pace to help Republicans in tight election races. Control of Congress hangs in the balance. If Republicans were to command both the House and Senate, Bush's agenda would stand a better chance of passage.
Truth be told, though, Bush should not necessarily run victory laps if Republicans win big in the elections today. Some analysts say that, paradoxically, Bush's prospects for re-election would strengthen if Democrats - and not Republicans - control both chambers of Congress.
That's because Bush could lower expectations for what he could achieve and paint Democrats as obstructionists. Democratic control would also mean that conservative ideas, such as oil drilling in Alaska, would not likely pass in Congress - and so would not alienate moderate voters crucial to Bush in 2004.
"The beauty of controlling the House and the Senate for Republicans would be an ability to get some things done," said Scott Reed, a Republican strategist. "But when it comes to re-election in 2004, having Democrat Tom Daschle leading the Senate as an obstructionist, playing the role of Bush's bogeyman, would help Bush and his re-election chances."
President Bill Clinton faced a similar situation in 1994, when Republicans swept the midterm elections and won control of both chambers.
The recipe turned out perfectly for Clinton. His strategy was to raise alarms about the conservatives leading Congress, while moving away from the liberal wing of his own party. The result: Clinton carved out a moderate voice that appealed to many voters, and he breezed to re-election two years later.
No one questions the sincerity of Bush's bid to help his Republican allies win today. Any President wants approval for his legislative agenda. And even in a midterm election, a president has his reputation on the line.
Yesterday, Bush completed the home stretch of a frenetic campaign schedule - stopping in Iowa, Missouri and Arkansas, before arriving in Texas, where he will vote today. At each stop, Bush urged people to vote for Republicans because, he said, they will back his priorities. In Iowa, he campaigned for Rep. Greg Ganske, who is running for the Senate.
"He's a compassionate soul," Bush said. "He's the kind of person with whom I can work. And there's a lot of issues I need to work on in the United States Senate."
Ari Fleischer, the White House spokesman, said the election is "going to be a real indication of whether or not the president's agenda has a better chance of being passed."
Yet analysts point to reasons why Republican control of Congress might not assure legislative success for Bush. Because majorities in the House and Senate will be slim regardless of which party is in control, Bush's agenda is not assured of easy passage in any case.
What's more, foreign policy has become the heart of Bush's agenda and may well shape his presidential legacy. And Congress typically gives a president more leeway on foreign than on domestic policy. So control of Congress might matter less to Bush - at least as long as the Iraq threat and the war on terrorism remain chief priorities.
Analysts also note that if Democrats hold the edge in one or both chambers, Bush could blame them, either for being too extreme or for creating gridlock - messages that often resonate with voters.
Douglas Sosnik, who was a White House political director under Clinton, suggested that when either party holds a slim edge in the House or Senate, far-reaching legislation seldom passes. With the opposition party in control, the president has a place to pin blame.
"If you are controlling the entire apparatus of government, there are high expectations from the public," Sosnik said.
"It is much easier to do politics than to govern," he said. Sosnik added that if the Democrats led both houses, Bush "could be unburdened by governing, could swing for the fences rhetorically and blame the Democrats for not getting things done, making it easier for his re-election."
Democrats control the Senate by one seat. Republicans hold a six-seat edge in the House. A dozen or so close races will determine whether there is a power shift in either chamber.
White House aides argue that Democrats have held up Bush's judicial nominations, blocked action on new energy legislation and on a bill to open federal funding to religious organizations and prevented the president from establishing a Homeland Security Department.
At the same time, Ken Mehlman, the White House political director, downplayed how harmful Democratic control of Congress would be to Bush's agenda. He said the president has proved that he can work with a Democrat-led Senate.
"We will work with whoever is in leadership," Mehlman said. "Bottom line, this president is committed to working with both parties."
Analysts say Bush has put his reputation on the line by campaigning aggressively for Republicans. At the same time, the president has been careful not to seem overly partisan. In his campaign stops, Bush has avoided naming Democratic candidates he might eventually have to work with.
In a poll released yesterday by the Pew Research Center, 29 percent of respondents said they consider the votes they cast today "for Bush." Sixteen percent said they are "against Bush," and 49 percent said the president is "not a factor."
Some analysts said that Bush's political standing in the next two years would hinge largely on the nation's economic strength and on whether any war in Iraq is viewed as successful or misguided.
A Republican Senate majority would probably help Bush win confirmation for more conservative judicial nominees. And Bush might have an easier time making the tax cuts approved last year permanent. But some proposals, such as a plan to drill for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska, would not likely pass because 60 votes would be needed to break a likely Senate filibuster.
David Crockett, a political science professor at Trinity University in Texas, suggested that a Republican takeover of the Senate "would not be some sort of nirvana for Republicans."
Crockett noted that the president has already gained passage of two of his top priorities - the tax cut and an education bill - and that afterward, "Bush was really in a position to declare victory and go home." Now, he said, Bush would benefit if he tends to the economy and conducts the war on terrorism but avoids presiding over highly conservative measures.
"In this country, people sometimes like stasis over change," Crockett said. "Not getting a lot done in the next two years would not be extremely bad for Republicans."
Scholars and observers stress that there is no clear evidence that a president's success hinges on which party controls Congress. They point to Franklin D. Roosevelt and Lyndon B. Johnson as presidents who took advantage of a Congress controlled by their party to win approval for substantial parts of their agendas.
They also point to Harry S. Truman and Clinton as leaders who ran successfully against the opposition party controlling Congress. Truman convinced voters that a Republican-led "do nothing" Congress was indifferent to economic hardships, and he won re-election in 1948.
With the Democrats out of power, Clinton was able to distance himself from the more liberal wing of his party. Meanwhile, Clinton assailed House Speaker Newt Gingrich and other Republicans, then staked out a middle ground, often supporting scaled-back versions of Republican proposals.
Observers caution that Bush cannot be compared directly with Clinton. Andrew Kohut, director of the Pew Center, noted that to copy Clinton, "Bush would have to distance himself from the conservative wing of his party."
"The core of his support has been the backing of conservative Republicans - and I don't know if he'd risk that," Kohut said.
Still, Rep. Wayne T. Gilchrest, an Eastern Shore Republican, said he saw a hint of Clinton's strategy from Bush earlier this year. When major campaign finance legislation reached Bush's desk, powerful conservatives urged him to veto it. Instead, Bush compromised with Democrats and signed the bill.