Bad News Bears
Charlie Cook, of Cook Political Report fame, is very good at what he does, and when he says that the Democrats are looking at significant losses in next year’s midterm elections, it’s worth paying attention (via the Atlantic’s politics channel):
“….confirm anecdotal evidence, and our own view, that the situation this summer has slipped completely out of control for President Obama and Congressional Democrats. Today, The Cook Political Report’s Congressional election model, based on individual races, is pointing toward a net Democratic loss of between six and 12 seats, but our sense, factoring in macro-political dynamics is that this is far too low.”
My hunch is that it’s still far too early to make any judgments about regarding either party’s success or failure next year. There is a huge number of things which determine the outcome of any given election cycle, and many of those have yet to play out in full. At this stage in the game, predictions – or at least confident ones – are almost completely unfounded. That said, I can’t help but be terrified at the idea of significant Republican gains.
If there was any potential silver lining to the recent explosion of right-wing rage, or the shameless dishonesty on display from Republican leaders, or even the demagogic rantings of right-wing talk show hosts, it’s that it makes the GOP look insane. Politically, the argument goes, it doesn’t matter if Obama is as successful as he wants to be, since the public recognizes that alternative is orders of magnitude worst. Granted, that sounds very nice – and extremely comforting – but I’m not sure if it’s actually true. American politics is, if anything, cyclical. And there is a definite rhythm to election cycles. Broadly speaking, party shifts occur when the opposition party is organized enough to capitalize on a significant screw up by the party in power.
If health care reform fails, I guarantee that Republicans will make significant gains next year. And if Republicans make significant gains, we can look forward to a Republican Party even more unhinged from reality. In light of a substantial electoral victory, dialing up the crazy wouldn’t seem like a terrible idea, after all, that victory was due – in part – to the near-constant outrage of the previous year. And, for Republicans at least, it stands to reason that more outrage would prove to be more successful. A Republican win next year would probably convince a large swath of the party that they have nothing to gain from sensible opposition, and everything to win by pressing forth with alarm-ism, hysteria, and implicit threats of violence.
So, your theory of what drives the Republican Party is that losing makes them go crazy but that winning makes them go MORE crazy?
Such non-analysis seems pretty partisan and unhinged in and of itself.Report
Uh. I think this is pretty simple actually. Republicans went crazy for a reason – to win elections. If they win elections – but don’t flip either chamber – it stands to reason that they will go even more crazy, in an attempt to win more elections.Report
I tend to think that the further out of power a party is, the crazier it will act in order to rally its base. It will be able to make electoral gains on that basis alone. It will also win votes from independents so long as the party in power screws up, which is pretty much what parties in power do, no matter how crazy the party out of power acts.Report
One can never underestimate the power of “throw the bums out”.
The problem is that such is always interpreted as a “mandate” by the party that gets back into power by default.Report
Indeed.Report
I think the real story since Obama took office 9and really before if you look at the Democratic gains in 2006) is the rise of the Blue Dogs. They have an incredible amount of power right now and my sense of things from out here in middle America is that they are among the few elected officials in Washington that have positive approval from their voters. The Blue Dogs took gun control off the table for Obama’s first term and they are also the ones that are holding up healthcare reform (despite liberal claims to the contrary). The more that Democrats want the more power they give to these guys.
They are also accomplishing a lot on the agriculture front. So much that some are starting to call them Agricrats.
AgracratsReport
Sorry – made a mistake on that link. See here:
http://www.dailyyonder.com/democrats-meet-agracrats/2009/08/02/2269Report
If the Blue Dogs are as popular as Mike says, then the Democrats should do okay in 2010 since they are the ones in the most conservative districts and are thus the most vulnerable. As likely as not, though, it’s the Blue Dogs that are going to pay for the “sins of the masters”. I guess it all depends on whether applicable voters actually know if their local congressmen are, in fact, Blue Dogs.Report
Publius at ObWi ran the numbers on this a few weeks ago and found out that, yes, the Blue Dogs are on average far more vulnerable than the vast majority of Dem congressman. This doesn’t mean they’re unpopular, though, just more vulnerable. If they’re popular, they’re popular in much the same way that Linc Chafee was popular. If the party in power does stuff to sufficiently anger the other party’s base in those districts, then the personal popularity of the congressman/senator becomes a lot less important than the letter next to his name. And that’s true even if that congressman/senator opposed the action that created the anger in the first place.Report
Lord I hope Mike is wrong. Agricultural subsidies protected by democrats, the majority knocked into disarray by blue dogs and republicans being electorally rewarded for their frothing? Hopefully Obama has a plan and all of this is just August blues.Report
I thought Nurglon was dead and buried after the 2008 election… but lo and behold, is the monster’s corpse stirring?
God help us all.Report