JONATHAN CHAIT AUGUST 12, 2010
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
The latest NBC/Wall Street Journal poll shows that the Democratic Party remains considerably less unpopular (33% positive/44% negative) than the Republican Party (24% positive/46% negative.) Both are less popular than President Obama. Yet everybody believes the less popular party is going to gain a lot of seats in the fall elections.
There are a couple lessons to this paradox that Washington conventional wisdom has not grasped. First, for the umpteenth time, structural conditions (like a midterm and the economy) have vastly more importance than the voters ideological discernment of which party is closer to their issue preference.
Second, midterm elections are a referendum on the majority party. During the first couple years of the Bush administration, moderate Democrats were frequently afraid that opposing the president would make them look partisan. And, indeed, exactly this fate has befallen the 2009-2010 GOP. They look partisan. Everybody hates them. But it doesn't matter. What the opposition party does matters to the extent that it effects 1) real-world conditions, and 2) the majority party's standing. Withholding support makes the process messier and more partisan. Republicans may come away looking dirtier, but that won't hurt them.
I don't want to give the impression that Republican legislative tactics are what will win them seats in November. They were bound to do well regardless. But throwing sands in the gears and denying Obama bipartisan accomplishments has proven to be an unremitting success. This is the successful model of opposition party behavior.
7 comments
JC, your opening sentence is a complete contradiction. Don't you mean the *Republican* Party is much less popular than the Democratic Party? A bit of editing is in order here sir.
- tnmats
August 12, 2010 at 9:37am
Lesson: partisanship is win-win for the minority party. Politically, it inspires your base; in policy terms, it impedes the majority from imposing their agenda, which is something your big donors appreciate and will pay top dollar for. Problem: Democrats are too diverse and care too much about governing (as opposed to politics for its own sake) to remain implacably behind an agenda of "not one step back." We are thus ill-suited to operate in a minority party environment unless we control the presidency. We will always have our Liebermans on foreign policy and our Ben Nelsons on domestic policy to sell us out.
- austinexpat
August 12, 2010 at 10:01am
i agree with the expat from Austin. The Democrats have a strong center and also a very liberal base. Oftentimes these two extremes butt heads against each other. The 2009-2010 Senate is the perfect example. However, they do negotiate and come to compromises. Bernie Sanders and Ben Nelson can sit down and agree on something. However, with Republicans, they just continually throw a wrench in everything and just want power for power's sake. They are not interested in making government work smarter and better for people. Republicans are just an amazing contradiction. Palin et al rail against the "coastal elites" yet rile up the base to vote in droves to cut those elites' taxes. I truly believe that most people see the Tea Party as repugnant. Moderate Republicans are being defeated everywhere-Crist, whoever Rand Paul beat, Bob Bennet in Utah, etc. Where are they going to go? Blue-Dog Dems catch them, independents have more in common with blue-dog Dems than anybody else right now. If anything, they're an asset because they are willing to at least listen to progressives, liberals, whatever than Republicans. If the blue-dogs can be highlighted more, I think it will only do good for Democrats.
- RedState
August 12, 2010 at 10:39am
Actually, a big part of the Democrats' problem during the Bush years (or at least between 9/11 and Katrina) was that the Administration and Congressional Republicans would tar them as being treasonous, or near-treasonous, for opposing the President's policies, including but not at all limited to foreign and security policy. And, of course, those kinds of attacks did have a pretty big impact on both Democratic behavior and Democratic incumbents -- just ask Max Cleland or John Kerry. I suppose Obama and Pelosi could have tried the same thing with Republicans who opposed rescuing the economy from the Great Recession, but that was an opportunity lost, probably for the better.
- wildboy
August 12, 2010 at 11:42am
No, that is not the lesson . Extreme Republican partisanship is what helped mightily to flip the Congress and the White House to the Democrats. The actual lesson is that in the short term, e.g., this election cycle, even obstructionism and partisanship will not override the structural economic factors.
- liberal reformer
August 12, 2010 at 1:42pm
The great news, from the same survey, is that more people are very positive on the Tea Party than either Dems or Reps Of course Chati doesn't mention this as he is a mindless moonbat fanboy Pretty sure the very postive Tea Partiers not going to vote Democrat
- mr_rationale
August 12, 2010 at 3:56pm
Huge numbers of Americans are not politically aware, rationale, and many have little idea of what the Tea Party really signifies. This will very likely come as news to a dimwit like you, r. And further, Andrew Sullivan reviles the Tea Partiers because most of them are not serious about closing the deficit, whatever they say, because they present no coherent plans to tackle the deficit. Also, many of the Partiers like the bloated defense budget and their entitlements, as well. That is where the money is, so we can't be cutting that. Your political awareness would not begin to fill a thimble, rationale.
- liberal reformer
August 13, 2010 at 2:21am