Book of the Month

DF's picture

Apocalypse When?

by DF 11/3/2010 - 4:13 pm   |

Punditry notwithstanding, this remains true: The sky is not falling.  Aside from some specific details vis a vis Tea Partiers and ongoing demographic changes, there is pretty much nothing really surprising about what happened last night from an historical perspective.

First, "It's the economy, stupid!"  The Democrats could not reasonably have been expected to hold the Whitehouse, House and Senate during relatively high levels of sustained unemployment.  Not only that, but the things that Democrats did do to help the average American during a down economy, like the ARRA and lowering taxes, were not on the radar for many people.

Second, midterms are not Presidential elections.  Turnout is lower and skews older.  Those are favorable conditions for bigger Republican wins, especially in small, local House races where vote totals often number in the mere thousands.

Third, Americans generally prefer divided government.  It is not inconceivable that Dems would have lost ground last night, especially in the House, even if unemployment was at 5%.

The punditry narratives are fun and games.  If you like the ride, go for it.  Personally, I prefer reality, where it's not hard to see that what happened last night was essentially predictable and does not amount to Armageddon.

I have two final reflections to offer.  The first is that the bloodbath narrative will feed GOP urgings that this election amounts to a refudiation of the overly liberal agenda blah blah blah and therefore amounts to a mandate.  So, think before you wail too much.  The second is don't fear the "investigations."  Sure, they waste time and money, but they won't amount to much other than providing grist for the pundit mill.

That investigating sure robbed Bill Clinton of political capital in the 1998 midterms and thereafter.

by Articleman 11/3/2010 - 4:39 pm

Putting aside that political capital is something that we can't ever really measure, it's worth pointing out that Bill Clinton did some of the heavy lifting on wasting political capital himself.

by DF 11/4/2010 - 2:54 am (re: Articleman)

I'd like to think that this is only going to be two difficult years, but I think the underlying real-world problems, the fact that the economy continues to crater, will make things much harder than you say.

We're looking at a deep double-dip here, an economic hundred-year flood that risks permanent structural damage. It's going to take major initiative to overcome that. Gridlock will likely worsen it. And on the state level, many governments are committed to policies that will increase the damage.

All of that unrelieved misery will affect the ballot-box politics the way that global warming affects the weather: adding a lot of unpredictable and destructive energy into the system, which wreaks havoc.

by Doctor Cleveland 11/3/2010 - 4:49 pm

I'm not saying things won't be hard.  I'm saying that this election doesn't make it so.  The previous Congress was going to do nothing more to seriously address the economy.

And I don't think that this was really unpredictable.  It just wasn't.

by DF 11/4/2010 - 2:57 am (re: Doctor Cleveland)

Good points, DF.  Also, it's just one legislative branch.  Yes, they can investigate things.  So can Obama.  So can the Senate.  Clinton lost both houses and played into the hands of his enemies by appointing an independent prosecutor.  The independent prosecutor law has since been changed so that nothing like that will ever happen again.  Also, Obama wouldn't even prosecute the Bushies for war crimes.  He's damned sure not going to prosecute himself.

Also worth keeping in mind that a lot of representatives we lost were Blue Dogs.  These people represented constituents that really didn't want Democrats.  They were able to hang onto their seats because they had useful seniority or because the Republicans who ran against them were always complete nuts, or because they were Republican enough where it mattered.  You all remember, we hate these guys!  I think we all knew that some day their constituents were going to replace them with Republicans.  The sufficiently old or admired among them might live to see retirement or die in office but one way or another, we knew those were Republican seats that had not very good Democrats sitting in them.  So no big deal.  It was bound to happen sooner or later and these guys were always at risk whether our party had momentum generally or not.

I also think it's more worth looking back on 2006.  The congressional majorities we won then were useful, for sure, especially going into the 2008 elections.  But we were not able to derail the Bush agenda.  He just fired some people and then plowed on like nothing happened.  To his credit, Bush was always a bit like the Black Knight in Monty Python and the Holy Grail.  Chop his arm off and he says "no you didn't" and then he claims to have a mandate to kick you in the shin.  Our agenda won't be derailed either.  Or at least not any more than it already was.  We have the Senate and the White House.  Those are good things to have.  They are also, as DF says, not the kind of thing a party has after the apocalypse.

by destor23 11/3/2010 - 4:53 pm

Our agenda won't be derailed either.  Or at least not any more than it already was.

Aside from a few minor improvements in health care, Pell grants and student loans, I could never get a grasp on the Obama administration's focus.  He did manage to scare the hell out of "the sleeping giant" which, with the support of SCOTUS, has taken control of our democracy.

I have a wait-and-see attitude concerning the next two years, but the senior GOP conservatives are riding on the back of one pissed-off tiger and it will very difficult to know when or how to jump off.  The Tea-Baggers border on the lunatic fringe relative to compromise.  With the new mix on the hill, I foresee gridlock and little hope for an improved economy. 

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/11/tea-party-has-arrived-predict...


by chucktrotter 11/3/2010 - 6:12 pm (re: destor23)

The Blue Dog point is another excellent one.  The encroachment into Red territory that occurred in 2006 and 2008 was not stable.

Another thing that I keep thinking about is that Obama has hardly used either the bully pulpit or the veto pen during his first two years.  Losing the House will put him in a position where he will either have to wield these tools effectively or rubber stamp someone else's agenda.  Given the way that the tactics of his administration have played out thus far, it seems worth considering that a change in incentives could be a very good thing indeed.

by DF 11/4/2010 - 3:10 am (re: destor23)

I found Orlando's comments about the institutionalized corruption in her current location disturbing. Not that it is surprising, I just see it as an example of a people that have been outmaneuvered for ages.

by Donal 11/3/2010 - 6:21 pm

Personally, I prefer reality, where it's not hard to see that what happened last night was essentially predictable and does not amount to Armageddon.

Some loss of seats was virtually impossible to avoid. The scale of the loss, coming so soon after Republicans were chased from office for monumental economic failures, foreign policy blunders, and ethics lapses was only predictable insofar as the last two years have radically lowered our expectations. It does not amount to Armageddon, but it is nonetheless a political disaster.

by Genghis 11/3/2010 - 7:09 pm

Though I suspect its mostly a disaster because the same sensationlist media that spreads the right wing fantasies analyzed in the book Blowing Smoke (makes a great holiday gift) will present it, incessantly, as a political disaster.  Image is everything.  So far as who controls what in the government goes, our side is still way ahead.

by destor23 11/3/2010 - 7:29 pm (re: Genghis)

I'd add that Democrats have dutifully internalized the Republican framing (including that the midterm election was a political "disaster"), so they spread the myth without even skipping a beat!

In fact, the Progressive Caucus in the House now has a plurality after last night. The Blue Dogs went down because the Dems in their districts wanted them out, and some of the Blue Dog hawks (thinking of Jane Harman, for example) might now be successfully challenged by a progressive in her next primary.

We held the Senate. Things are looking good. Patience is a virtue.

by readytoblowagasket 11/3/2010 - 8:33 pm (re: destor23)

With the Dems holding the Senate and the President holding the veto pen, it's hard to see how a House shift that was historically just a bit larger than would have been expected amounts to a disaster.  Exactly how does the margin in the House really make much of a difference at this point?

Also, let's remember that what really propelled Obama above McCain in the polls was the collapse of the financial system, signaled by the folding up of Lehman Brothers, and the way that each candidate responded to that crisis.  Prior to that, there was nothing in the polling that strongly indicated Americans were truly pissed about the other things you cite.

by DF 11/4/2010 - 3:00 am (re: Genghis)

Anxiety about the economy preceded Lehman's collapse, and frustration with Republican leadership began before 2006. The congressional elections of 2006 and 2008 offer better measures of the country's dissatisfaction than Obama's election.

Those were political disasters for the Republicans. But 2010 election reversed many the Democrats' gains. The Bush-DeLay years are barely a memory now. We'll see how long the new Republicans hold their seats, but I'm guessing that many of the newcomers are here to stay, meaning that this election will have consequences beyond the size of the House majority between 2010 and 2012. And let's not forget the governorships and state legislators.

by Genghis 11/4/2010 - 7:54 am (re: DF)

There might have been some anxiety about the economy, which wasn't stellar during the Bush years, but the collapse of Lehman completely changed the environment overnight.  There's a huge difference between economic malaise, where political scientists usually see lag times of around six months or so, and the collapse of one of the largest and oldest financial institutions in the nation - followed by several more.  It's the speed at which the shock caused a reaction in voters that is significant because it's highly unusual.

I'm not sure that the Congressional elections are better measures.  They're different measures to be sure, but they aggregrate local interests whereas the Presidential election offers us a measure of the nation as a whole.

You raise a good point about the statehouses, but the economic conditions matter there, too.  Due to the lack of action on the part of the Federal government, we got our "50 little Hoovers" as Krugman puts it.  Statehouses have flipped for the same reason that the House did.

by DF 11/4/2010 - 12:35 pm (re: Genghis)

Latest Comments

more