Refudiation
It was pretty much a replay of 1994. For the first time in over a decade a Democrat President gets elected with a Democrat Congress in place. They pull out their wish list and try a lot of things that don't go over well with the public, who toss them out in droves first chance they get. In 1994, Republicans picked up 54 seats in the House and 8 in the Senate. If anything, the numbers are more impressive this time around. It was an historic rout, in fact, but the shock factor was gone. Not only had we seen it before, but this time the pundits and pollsters had us so prepared for something big that there are a lot of Republicans smarting at not taking back the Senate.
As I write, results are still coming in. There are three seats open in the Senate--Alaska, which will be Republican one way or another, Colorado, which seems to be leaning Repub, and Washington, which seems to be leaning Dem, so if the Repubs take two of three, they'll be 7+ for the night, exactly as I predicted. On the other hand, it looks like the Repubs will gain 60+ seat in the House, well above the low 50s I predicted. And I think this number is more significant in telling us the mood of the country. Not only are all precincts represented, but the larger number of face-offs makes idiosyncratic races less important.
Which means the whole night is a big raspberry to the White House. The biggest issue is the economy, but plenty of Dems who voted for the Stimulus or health care or cap and trade fell on their swords. When Obama wakes up today, he'll face a new world. Two years ago it seemed like nothing could stop him--people were writing books about how the Dems had a permanent majority. Now the question is can he get anything done. Bill Clinton famously turned his Presidency around by working with the Republicans, but it's not clear if Obama has it in him. For that matter, it's not clear if the Repubs in the House are ready to make nice either.
And then there's the Dems in the Senate. Ironically, the Repubs not sweeping is probably bad for Obama. If they had both the Senate and the House, the President could pull a Truman and complain they're not fixing anything or even doing anything. But with his own party still in control, and Harry Reid still around (great for Harry, not great for Barack) to remind everyone of the past, the problems of the nation could still stick to him.
Whether this was a "wave" election, the new normal, or the old normal, I don't know. This is three elections in a row now that appear to be waves. Is that all we're gonna get from now on--waves flowing back and forth?
I was glad to see some old faces go, and sad to see some stick around. As for the newbies, we'll have to see. California, which used to be ahead of the curve, is now firmly behind. They saw Boxer and Brown and said we want more of that. I would have liked to see a split.
As for the Tea Party, they're the big story, but it's not clear if they're a blessing or a curse. Their enthusiasm helped sweep in a lot of candidates, but their backing also saddled the Repubs with certain candidates who couldn't win seats that might have been easy pick-ups.
It should be an interesting two years. If things go bad (or should I say get worse), who'll be blamed? If they go well, who'll get credit? Also, will Dems in the Senate who are up in two years be chastened enough that they'll work with the Repubs to create new legislation?
Whatever happens, the new Congress should immediately deal with taxes, assuming the lame duck Congress doesn't get there first. Speaking of which, with a bunch of big-name Dem Senators sticking around, the fear that a lame duck Congress will go out big and pass some crazy stuff seems far less likely now.
posted by LAGuy @ 12:05 AM
12 Comments:
When Rand Paul won early, it looked like it would be a tsunami. Then Manchin won in West Virginia and for the rest of the night it was back and forth in the Senate.
Rand looks to be the only big time nut to win (and his opponent rivaled him in that regard) the Mama Grizzlies- O'Donnell, MacMahon, angle, Whitman, Fiorina, & Joe Miller as water boy for "my endorsement means death" sarah palin. Voters are unhappy with Obama but perhaps not willing to throw themselves off a cliff about it.
That's hardly fair, anonymous. Harry Reid won, too.
Interesting night. I think the tone adopted by Boehner in victory shows that the Republicans will be very cautious in utilizing their regained power. They must refuse to raise taxes, and propose significant spending cuts (there will not be another stimulus bill, or a cap & trade bill, and NPR may be defunded). But they will work with the Obama administration to modify Health Care reform, which the President will cooperate with, espcially if it appears the court cases are going badly, and he can maintain credit for the first major health care reform in 50 years.
Perhaps the biggest victory for the Republicans will turn out to be Harry Reid's win. He has already voiced his intent to cooperate with Republicans, and with Dems like Manchin and Ben Nelson in his coalition, he will have little choice.
Of course, the most most important development to note is that I predicted a 65 pick-up in the House and agreed with LAGuy on 7 in the Senate. My long shot fell flat (Deval Patrick losing in Gov.), and I switched Kirk in IL and Reid in NV. Actually, I think it is more embarrassing to the Dems to have lost the IL Senate seat that was Obamas than it would have been to lose Harry Reid's seat.
To me, it's all very nicely summed up with a single-panel cartoon:
CARTOON
And the beat goes on.
Don't cooperate on health care, repeal it. Since it can't be done yet, the strategy is to retake the Senate and the White House in 2012 and then do it.
Don't forget governors. Republicans did well throughout the country. They lost a few states, but the big one, California, is not a big deal, since they passed a propostion taking gerrymandering out of the hands of government.
There were 37 senate seats up for election yesterday. Even granting both Washington and Colorado to the Democrats, Republicans still won 24 of them. That's two-thirds.
So the reason the Democrats keep control of the Senate isn't because of yesterday's election, but because of the 63 seats not up for re-election in 2010.
In 2012, there will be 21 Democratic and 10 Republican senatorial seats up for election. So that election will have to go two-thirds Democratic just to keep the current balance of power!
It's a safe bet that the Republicans will win the Senate if they win the presidency in 2012. And if Obama is reelected, the numbers will remain pretty close to what they are now: most of the Republican-held seats in 2012 are deep in red territory, except for Scott Brown's.
With respect to Health Care reform, Anon, I think the key will be for Republicans to pick at the edges, while 20 state court cases go forthe jugular. If HCR is declared largely unconstitutional, there won't be anything to repeal. Most of the bill doesn't take effect until 2014 anyway, and the parts that are taking effect are already driving up insurance rates, which people see (and feel in the wallet).
HCR will continue to be an albatross around Democrats' necks right through to the 2012 election, but Republicans need to focus on the bigger picture - the economy and spending. The economy will probably take care of itself, but the Republicans need to make some stabs at reducing spending and the deficit.
"For that matter, it's not clear if the Repubs in the House are ready to make nice either."
Just say no was a great tactic for Republicans the past two years because of the stimulus, bailouts and HCR. I think Boehner and McConnell have left the door open to continue the practice for two more years, in hopes of doubling down in 2012.
My hope in the meantime is that there are enough noticeable tea party voices, led by Rand Paul, to force a discussion of the real spending cuts that would need to be considered if you really want to balance the budget. A nice start would be acknowledging that the military budget is, by definition, discretionary spending. It's like nails on a blackboard to me when politicians talk about cutting all discretionary programs across the board, when they clearly don't mean it.
Shall we bet, QG? I say the budget commission that will report in a week or two will have no serious discussion of spending cuts whatever (my own version of "all economists"), but will be deadly serious about tax increases.
SWMBCg, etc.
CG, you're on. I bet you six No.1 male blueclaws and a case of NattyBo that there will be ultra-serious discussion of cuts to the 20% of the budget that "nobody really cares whether it's cut or not so long as their favorite national park still has clean trails" aka "discretionary" spending. Wait, I don't consider that "serious" any more than you do. No bet.
Post a Comment
<< Home