JONATHAN COHN NOVEMBER 3, 2010
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
How bad a night was it for the Democrats? Worse than it seemed on television, I think. Early in the evening, Democrats were surprisingly competitive in a bunch of key races--for house seats in Kentucky and Indiana, Senate seats in Illinois and Pennsylvania, and governorships in Florida and Ohio. Although they would go on to lose all of them, pending final numbers in Florida, they held onto their Senate majority. And that complicated the media narrative. The symbolic importance of Harry Reid's victory, in particular, made it difficult for pundits to call the night a Republican rout. But, make no mistake, this was a Republican rout. As Nate Silver notes, "Republicans have some legitimate gripe with portrayals of the night as having been a split decision."
The election models predicted Democrats should lose House 45, or maybe 50, seats given the state of the economy. My colleague Jonathan Chait suggested that was probably too low, given President Obama's reliance on young voters, and I tend to agree. But the final count will be somewhere in the 60s. That suggests other forces were also at work--that Obama really did campaign badly, that health care reform really did hurt, and so on. You can't say Democrats would have held the House if these things had played out differently, particularly if you want to zero in on any one factor. You can say they might have reduced their losses at the margins.
Still, the economy remains, by far, the most important factor. The polls bore this out: Voters overwhelmingly cited it as the number one reason for their decision. (Health care was a very distant second.) And it's important to be clear about what that means. As Paul Krugman notes again today, the problem wasn't Obama's failure to focus on the economy. It was his failure to improve the economy (or improve it enough). And those complaining most loudly about the lack of focus happen to be the same ones who pushed back, and are still pushing back, against the policies that would have delivered said improvement. Score one for irony, albeit the predictable and familiar kind.
Of course, this is also what's so worrisome about the next two years and beyond. It's not as if the chances of improving the economy went up with this election. If anything, they went down. As even many conservative economists now agree, the economy needs more stimulus. The ascendant Republicans don't believe in stimulus, unless it's in the form of tax cuts for wealthy people that aren't very stimulating. Unemployment will likely stay high. Voter anger will, too.
The 2012 presidential elections won't be this bad. In the House, at least, Democrats won't have as many vulnerable seats to defend. Younger voters, who continue to support Obama, will turn out in much higher numbers.
No less important, this generation of Republicans really does seem clueless about how to govern, even compared to their predecessors. Over at the American Prospect, Mark Schmitt explains why:
There have been three major Republican/conservative takeover elections in recent history: 1980, when Ronald Reagan carried twelve seats and control of the Senate; 1994, when Newt Gingrich's Republicans took both houses; and 2010. The first, while in many ways a reaction to the incompetent presidency of Jimmy Carter (a conservative Democrat whose flaws came to symbolize liberalism) unquestionably carried a mandate for conservatism. The second, 1994, was in many ways a reaction to congressional corruption, combined with a long-postponed rejection of Southern Democrats, but Gingrich and his allies took it very seriously -- perhaps too seriously -- as an ideological mandate.
This year, though, right-wingers barely even pretended to have a comparable program-cutting agenda. Their main talking point about health reform was that it would cut Medicare benefits. They railed about TARP and the auto bailout, but the former originated in the Bush administration and they will not attempt to repeal it. They talked about creating jobs by reducing the deficit, which is economic nonsense. Moreover, not one of the policy plans the Republicans produced would reduce the deficit by a penny. Tea Partiers ranted about constitutional and economic schemes that they probably won't even introduce, much less pass.
Nor is this view confined to the left. David Frum, the former Bush speechwriter, is if anything more harsh:
...while O’Donnell and Angle and Paul remain (thank God) untypical of the GOP, their followers have imposed self-destructive limits on Republican thought and action. Republicans have come to power in the midst of the worst economic crisis since World War II without an economic plan--that is, beyond preserving the tax cuts which failed to prevent the crisis in the first place.
I find that very convincing. But I'm not sure it's as encouraging as it might seem.
The other day, I suggested that Obama projected such confidence and serenity in part because he counts on his opposition to over-reach and, eventually, to self-destruct. And there was plenty of self-destruction last night. The nomination of Tea Party candidates in Colorado, Delaware, and Nevada are likely what preserved the Democratic Senate majority. But it's the day after the election, and the Republicans suddenly have a great deal more power than they did before.
Judging by their agenda, such that it is, these Republicans are unserious, dishonest, and nihilistic. They also happen to be winning. And they may keep winning if the White House keeps doing what it's been doing.
11 comments
"keeps doing what it's been doing" is a pretty vague way to conclude this post. What precisely should Obama do differently from this point forward? Also, some of what "it's been doing" that may have played a role in the election results is health care reform, and presumably Mr. Cohn doesn't think that was a mistake.
- kluhman
November 3, 2010 at 10:18am
Vague? You betcha! But the morning is young. I can write only so much in one sitting. Stay tuned.
- Jonathan Cohn
November 3, 2010 at 10:42am
And, no, I definitely don't think health care reform was a mistake.
- Jonathan Cohn
November 3, 2010 at 10:43am
I hate to say this, but given the intransigence of the GOP, and the fact that Obama needs to have a chance in 2012, the administration needs to stop playing nice with the GOP and start using their fist to ram bills down the GOP's throat. Or, perhaps just eliminate the filibuster and then start sending bills to the House at the rate of a couple per week; start with tax cuts, make them vote for tax cuts for the rich separately, etc, then move on to discretionary spending and make them announce which programs they'd like to cut, then beat them to death with their own answers. Ok, that last part might take more testosterone that currently flows through the Democrat caucus, but it's a nice thought.
- GSpinks
November 3, 2010 at 11:57am
What are the chances that Reid decides to kill the filibuster in January? I'm happy he won but I'd be shocked if he tried that (though also very happy).
- ClumsyMohel
November 3, 2010 at 12:03pm
Probably about the same chance as him growing a spine in time for the next session of Congress :/
- GSpinks
November 3, 2010 at 1:49pm
Be careful for what you wish for on the filibuster. The next time the GOP has majorities in both houses they'll bring back Social Security privatization or Medicare reform (as in Ryan's plan.) As for Reid's spine, I'm more concerned if Obama can grow one. How willing will he be to use his veto? A full extension of the Bush tax breaks is ultimately coming up (recall that Lieberman already supports renewal of the whole thing, and it shouldn't be too hard for the GOP to pick up a couple of conservative Democratic senators to get to 51,) as well as who knows how many bills gutting the regulatory system.
- stanalama
November 3, 2010 at 2:23pm
Unfortunately, I don't think the tax breaks are a good test of spine or veto. It's certainly a bottom-of-the-barrel option for getting any sort of stimulus passed, but not entirely out of line with the notion of stimulus spending.
I think he first has to control the message on the Bush tax cuts, and he's already losing to the GOP who are railing against Obama's tax hikes. If Obama needs to spine up on anything he needs to get messaging back under control, like he had it during the primaries. Unfortunately, since it isn't actually a primary, and they aren't actually in his pocket (let alone ideologically in lockstep), the MSM is giving him half their attention, at best. Contrast that with Fox News' 24-hours news cycle continually spewing and reinforcing GOP propaganda.
- GSpinks
November 3, 2010 at 5:24pm
Is there some procedural reason that a Republican *threat* of filibuster is enough to make the Democrats crumble? When was the last time a party actually filibustered? I don't like the requirement for a super-majority in all senate decisions, but I'm wary of getting rid of the filibuster for the reasons stanalama mentioned. My feeling is that if senators were actually forced to go through with an all-nighter, with CSPAN cameras capturing the 3:00 am "blowhard highlights" (to be played ad nauseum during the election campaign), the desire to filibuster might lose its potency as a real option for smaller issues on the table. And just to have more fun with it, Democrats could bring several controversial votes to the table on successive nights to see how their opponents do sleep deprived.
- ssolomonprice
November 3, 2010 at 6:12pm
Dream on, oh heavenly muses! The House is now as heavily Republican as it was Democratic. The Senate is still Democratic, by a much smaller margin. Last session, you hated Ben Nelson. Do you think Manchin will be more friendly next time around? How about Tester and Webb? Likely to move to the left? Then you have McCaskill and the Florida Nelson? Moving left? Joe Lieberman is the least of your problems. You have hit, and passed, high tide. As for health care, those who love it are principally your base. Those who want repeal are principally the opposition's base. Those who are nobody's base but have "bad feelings" about the health care law fall into several groups: 1) Those who liked the "as-is" for them and fear their coverage will be more limited and more expensive; 2) those who are employed, hope to continue to be employed, or were employed, by "small business" and fear the "uncertainty effect" of health care costs limits their employment security. You fail to see that the jobs issue and the health care issue are closely connected.
- lsernoff
November 3, 2010 at 9:25pm
ssolomonprice: The procedural reason that a Republican threat of a filibuster is enough to make Democrats crumble is that Harry Reid is a goddamn spineless pansy. It is literally true that this interpretation of the filibuster is entirely at the whim of the Majority Leader. If Reid grew a spine tomorrow, suddenly the Republicans would have to go through all-nighter C-SPAN rambles, and their opposition would be revealed for the ridiculous obstructionism that it is. That pigs flying are more likely is why Reid's victory was the worst news tuesday night had for us.
- janus
November 4, 2010 at 12:19pm