Okay, So Maybe They Weren't Bluffing
I'm still amazed that the Dems managed to muscle through health care reform after my last blog post predicting the renewed effort was little more than a headfake designed to show Democrats "tried as hard as they could to pass it" knowing they ultimately didn't have the votes. Whether passage of this unpopular legislation makes the looming midterm election tsunami even worse for the Democrats is another question, but despite the bill's numerous warts, passing it was the right thing to do.
With my prediction-making record having taken a big hit over health care, I'm gonna be slow to get back into the political prediction business, but I nonetheless am dumbstruck by Democrats jumping by choice onto the immigration gernade. At one level I understand the logic in that they see the Arizona immigration law as a great opportunity to stoke the passions of the Latino vote, which up to this point has been disillusioned by the lack of progress on federal immigration policy. To that extent, they'll probably succeed in bolstering enthusiasm in the Latino community and pushing Latinos further away from the Republican Party.
At the same time, the Democrats apparently do not realize that for every Latino vote they win over in support of liberalized immigration law, they likely lose two or more non-Latino votes, a fact that few pundits seem to realize as they assure us that it's the Republican position on immigration that is political suicide. The Dems were lucky enough in 2008 to have illegal immigration off the radar screen of opponents but still prevalent in the minds of Latinos, creating a perfect storm of all gain and no pain. My best guess is that Democrats are playing a high-risk game of hot potato, hoping to repeat that perfect storm by firing up the Latino vote with immigration reform but planning to pull back in a few weeks with the hope that the vast majority of the electorate that opposes liberalized reform legislation will have forgotten about it come election day. As I said, it's a high-risk gambit with a best-case scenario of helping out Harry Reid in Nevada.
It was pretty clear in November 2008 that the prevailing political winds were gonna cook up a hurricane for Democrats in 2010. At the time I said the best hedge against catastrophe in 2010 would be to run up the score of Congressional Democrats as high as possible in 2008, requiring Republicans to take out massive numbers of them to win back Congress in 2010. I still believe that was the best strategy, but with a fickle electorate desperate for "divided government" despite their claims of hating gridlock, the anti-Democratic tsunami may be so extreme that any-sized majority would be an ineffective firewall.
And even though it appears Dick Cheney was singularly responsible for the ecological calamity in the Gulf Coast right now, that's also likely to work into Republicans' favor based on a narrative of "nothing going right" in the country. Hold on tight because things are likely to be every bit as ugly this November as anybody predicted for Democrats in the last 18 months.
With my prediction-making record having taken a big hit over health care, I'm gonna be slow to get back into the political prediction business, but I nonetheless am dumbstruck by Democrats jumping by choice onto the immigration gernade. At one level I understand the logic in that they see the Arizona immigration law as a great opportunity to stoke the passions of the Latino vote, which up to this point has been disillusioned by the lack of progress on federal immigration policy. To that extent, they'll probably succeed in bolstering enthusiasm in the Latino community and pushing Latinos further away from the Republican Party.
At the same time, the Democrats apparently do not realize that for every Latino vote they win over in support of liberalized immigration law, they likely lose two or more non-Latino votes, a fact that few pundits seem to realize as they assure us that it's the Republican position on immigration that is political suicide. The Dems were lucky enough in 2008 to have illegal immigration off the radar screen of opponents but still prevalent in the minds of Latinos, creating a perfect storm of all gain and no pain. My best guess is that Democrats are playing a high-risk game of hot potato, hoping to repeat that perfect storm by firing up the Latino vote with immigration reform but planning to pull back in a few weeks with the hope that the vast majority of the electorate that opposes liberalized reform legislation will have forgotten about it come election day. As I said, it's a high-risk gambit with a best-case scenario of helping out Harry Reid in Nevada.
It was pretty clear in November 2008 that the prevailing political winds were gonna cook up a hurricane for Democrats in 2010. At the time I said the best hedge against catastrophe in 2010 would be to run up the score of Congressional Democrats as high as possible in 2008, requiring Republicans to take out massive numbers of them to win back Congress in 2010. I still believe that was the best strategy, but with a fickle electorate desperate for "divided government" despite their claims of hating gridlock, the anti-Democratic tsunami may be so extreme that any-sized majority would be an ineffective firewall.
And even though it appears Dick Cheney was singularly responsible for the ecological calamity in the Gulf Coast right now, that's also likely to work into Republicans' favor based on a narrative of "nothing going right" in the country. Hold on tight because things are likely to be every bit as ugly this November as anybody predicted for Democrats in the last 18 months.
posted by Mark at 12:12 PM
19 Comments:
This is just my opinion, but I think Democratic losses this year are going to be less than they would have had health care reform not passed. The Dems got beat badly in 1994 because they were perceived as "do-nothing". Now that they have accomplished at least something, the GOP can't accuse them of being "do-nothing".
If Democrats lose Congress, they should simply refuse to work with Republicans on anything for the next two years. They will almost certainly keep the Senate and Democrats can just kill any legislation that passes the House there and even if by chance they lose the Senate, they can use the filibuster to stop everything there. Its time for revenge and its going to feel sweet.
I think the difference in 1994 was that the Republicans had a compelling narrative and a clear leader in Newt Gingrich, and the Democrats (both politicians and voters) were caught snoozing and didn't turn out to vote. Looking back, 1994 seemed to be a much more innocent time politically, where a midterm election upset of that magnitude could unfold without the majority party seeing it coming months ahead of time.
In the age of internet and new public polling daily, it's hard to envision a blindside of that magnitude ever occurring again.
With that said, just because the Democrats see trouble coming doesn't mean they'll be able to stop a tsunami which I'm still predicting will strike. I'm foreseeing a somewhat permanent problem for Democrats in this midterm election and midterm elections to come. The oldsters are becoming Republicans at warp speed, and they represent a disproportionate share of the electorate in midterms. The pending era of tough fiscal decisions about Social Security and Medicare will almost certainly split the electorate further along generational lines and right now it looks like the Democrats will end up aligned with young Latinos over geriatric whites.
In the shorter term, I expect if Democrats lose Congress they and Obama will engage in mortal combat in the same way Clinton was with Gingrich, perhaps even more so with the hot-bloodedness of the health care issue.
Maybe. We'll just wait and see. I'm going to do my predictions in July, when the majority of primaries will have passed.
Crisitunity on Swing State Project wrote two interesting diaries on myths and lessons learned from 1994. I already knew that Dems lost seats almost everywhere in the country and not just the south. (Most of that damage plus the House Banking Scandal cleansing occurred in 1992, which is why Republicans gained seats in the House even as Clinton won.)
What I didn't know before was that most of the Republican gains came from open seats and freshman Democrats, especially those in hostile districts. Most veteran reps and reps in swing/Dem-leaning districts were not wiped out. Tom Foley, Dan Rostenkowski, and Jack Brooks (pro-gun but voted for the Assault Weapons Ban) were huge shockers, but they were the exception rather than the rule. This time we have 19 Democratic open seats, 6 of which are in dangerous districts (Berry, Snyder, Melancon, Massa, Gordon, Tanner), and 6 freshman/sophomore Democrats in hostile districts (Bright, Minnick, Kratovil, Childers, Space, Carney), so that is why I see this year's elections as closer to 1978 (-3 for the Ds in the Senate and -15 in the House) than 1994.
http://www.swingstateproject.com/diary/6697/learning-from-1994-part-i
http://www.swingstateproject.com/diary/6711/learning-from-1994-part-ii
Given the brutal polling I'm seeing in Senate contests even in favorable Democratic turf with formerly popular Dem incumbents like Feingold, Murray, and Boxer, I'm expecting the Dems have much more than a regional problem and I expect that would be reflected in the House race polling as well as the Senate...if we could get House race polling.
If Patty Murray and Russ Feingold only have a couple-point lead against GOP opponents nobody's heard of, that leads me to believe the GOP is probably running the table on theoretically battleground House races and poised to score some dramatic upsets on long-standing incumbents nobody believes is vulnerable. Based on the anecdotal evidence I've seen, I think 1994 will look like the good old days compared to what lies ahead for Democrats. My baseline prediction, and I feel as though this is a conservative guess, is a loss of 75 House seats for Democrats, with the potential of going well over 100, perhaps even to 125.
There's always a chance the political climate will improve in the next six months, but since the health care bill's passage it's only gotten worse, with the GOP scoring a higher generic advantage than has ever been reported in the history of Gallup polling this far out from the election. I have a hard time seeing a silver lining no matter how rose-colored the glasses I put on, and expect jaws to hit the floor all over America at the announcement of any number of the high-profile Democrats defeated this fall.
125 seats? The Democratic party would become defunct if that happened. Elections like that end political parties. This would require blacks and other minorities to realign with Republicans and for Republicans to pick up inner city districts.
If it is so bad in the House, then why do people like Bobby Bright and Mike McMahon lead by huge margins in their districts?
I can only speak for California, and I am not too surprised about Boxer's recent polling numbers. She actually isn't all that popular because she's very outspoken for liberal causes, but keeps winning because the liberal/Democratic base in California is big enough for her to win even with underwhelming edges among independents. Her 20-point landslide in 2004 was a fluke because Bill Jones didn't air a single ad. 2010 is looking more like 1998 for Boxer, in which she managed a 10% win while winning indies only 50-42 and while California had only a 42-37 registration edge for Democrats. That edge has since grown to 45-31, so if she lost, she'd have to lose indies pretty badly. And given that the current HCR measure, flawed as it is, is extremely popular with California Democrats, so they are not going to stay home this time. And with Jerry Brown likely to win big in the governor race, as he is the only one among the big 3 (Brown, Whitman, Poizner) who is perceived as best being able to do the job, I'm thinking Boxer might hold on. I won't be surprised to see her win with a margin between her 1992 and 1998 wins.
Boxer will not lose in a state like California. Any Republican needs a large number of crossover Democrats to win statewide there. Once these voters are faced with the possibility that Southern Republicans like Mitch McConnell could be leading the country, Boxer's numbers will rise.
Mr. Phips, I think you're right about Boxer, but for different reasons. The Republicans have so many Senate seat targets that it's unlikely they'll have the money to run a serious advertising challenge to Boxer in pricy California. My bet says that's the one and only thing that keeps Boxer in the Senate. I don't think warning voters of the horrors of Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is gonna influence too many votes.
And once they get defined challengers run TV ads connecting them to the national Democratic Party, I bet the poll leads of Michael McMahon and especially Bobby Bright will disappear in a flash. Remember at this time in 2006 Jim Marshall was leading Mac Collins by a 2-1 margin in GA-08. Come election day, Marshall prevailed by less than two points.
I also disagree that losing 125 seats would kill the Democratic Party, it would just temporarily reduce the party to its "ideological nub" in the way the Republicans were after the 2008election. I'm expecting these kinds of violent swings back and forth for the foreseeable future as the new American economy will no longer be working for the average joe, and voters will perennially punish the ruling party incapable of turning things around. But again, my baseline prediction is a 75-seat loss...the 125 was just a worst-case scenario.
Sara, I tend to agree that Boxer's 2004 performance was the outlier. While I suspect she'll hang on, I doubt she'll win by more than three points in this political climate. Do you think Jerry Brown will prevail in the gubernatorial race?
Yes, I think Jerry Brown will win the governor race, and quite handily. This election seems to be hinging on the question, "Has this candidate shown that he/she is up to the job?" Being an outsider may be more of a liability than elsewhere, considering "insider" Obama is highly popular in California relative to the rest of the country, and "outsider" Arnold is leaving office with sub-20% approval ratings.
So far, voters seem to think that Jerry Brown is up to the job, while in the recent Republican debate, Whitman has given the impression that she has no ideas or principles, and even left an impression in many Republicans' minds that she is not up to the job. Poizner has latched on to the Tea Party bandwagon, which may help in the primary, but is absolutely fatal in the general.
Mark, you just said that Democrats running ads in California connecting Republicans to the national party wouldnt have any effect, so why should they have affect if Republicans do it?
A loss of 125 seats would not reduce Democrats to its ideological nub, it would reduce the party to nothing. That would require a good number of black, Hispanic and very liberal Representitives to lose to Republicans.
What I worry about is the economy turning around big in 2011-2012, which would allow Republicans to cement their majorities forever. Do you see the economy turning around big in the next two years?
Mr. Phips, you ask why I think it won't work to connect Mitch McConnell to Barbara Boxer's GOP opponent in California but why it will work to connect national Democratic leaders to red-state Democrats. Simple...because the Democrats are unpopular majority right now and that's who votes tend to punish. As one example, note than even in northern Mississippi, efforts to connect Travis Childers with Nancy Pelosi didn't work when Bush was still President and the Democrats were not perceived to have any power. If Scott Brown can run and win in Massachusetts on being an obstructionist to the majority party's agenda, then I think it's a safe bet that Tom Campbell or Carly Fiorina can do the same in California....at least in theory. As I've said, I think Boxer will eke it out simply because it's such a target-rich environment for the NRSC they won't have enough money to go toe-to-toe with Boxer in expensive California media markets.
125 seats is at the extreme edge of what is possible for Republicans. Again, I point to Scott Brown in Massachusetts. If a Republican can win a statewide election in Massachusetts, that means there is likely a helluva lot deep blue turf up for grabs out there.
I don't see the economy turning around. I see a double-dip recession in 2011 as soon as the stimulus money is all spent and the long-term effects of all the newly printed money result in inflation. Even if I'm wrong and there's a recovery (it'll almost certainly be a phony one if there is, propped up by the next artificial bubble like "clean energy"), I don't think a newly elected Republican Congress would stand to gain from it. The public doesn't tend to credit Congress for a strong economy....and the average working person is scarcely in any position to benefit from even the most robust economic recovery in postglobalization America.
A mild recovery will result in a strong Democratic year in 2012, especially if 2010 is as good of a year for the GOP as I'm anticipating it will be. If the economy is in the toilet in 2012, my money's on a narrow Obama re-election (due to inept Republican nominees) and a relatively unchanged Republican majority Congress.
Sara, I've completely forgotten. Are you back in California now? And is there any hope of the state being governable if Brown manages to win? I wouldn't wish being Governor of California on my worst enemy.
Scott Brown was running in an open seat race. Had he been running against an incumbent like Ted Kennedy or even John Kerry, he would have lost by 20 points.
There are not going to be 125 open Democratic seats like that.
If unemployment is still over 8% in 2012, Obama would lose to even Sarah Palin, unless he can shift the blame for the recession to the Republican Congress.
Mark, do you still think Obama winning was worth Democrats losing hundreds of House seats? He got us healthcare, but what else?
We've gone over this before. If the Democrats never win the Presidency, there's no point in them even existing. You need the Presidency to pass anything consequential into legislation. No matter what sized Congressional majorities Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi oversee, if the opposition permanently controls both the executive and the judicial branch, the opposition ALWAYS wins EVERY battle. I still can't figure out why you think there's anything for the Democratic Party to gain by losing every Presidential election. It's really a bizarre way of looking at politics.
I am still in Texas, though I plan on moving to Arizona soon, with an ultimate goal of returning to California. The Phoenix area, especially around Tempe and South Phoenix, is actually very nice and very highly affordable. I am visiting this weekend and can't wait.
And getting Brown elected governor is only part of the solution to CA's woes. We need ballot measure reform and obviously get rid of the 2/3 crap for taxes and budgets.
And finally, in Massachusetts, Coakley lost it much more than Brown won it, by being a lazy campaigner and not airing ads until a week before the election.
Mark, what have Democrats gotten done that would not have gotten done had McCain won other than healthcare? If Republicans gained 125 seats, they would have a veto proof majority in the House, making Obama 100% irrelevent.
Democrats could have done the same in 2010 had McCain won and probably could have passed healthcare and EFCA over McCain's veto.
Post a Comment
<< Home