The US elections in November, 2010.

[Coito ergo sum]

ABC News projects Republicans will take control of the House of Representatives picking-up between 60 and 70 seats in a resounding rebuke to President Obama and the Democrats.

The Republicans will assume the voters voted for the Republican agenda, instead of just against the Democrats; they will overreach, shut down the government like the Gingrich House did back in the 90s, then lose big come 2012. The cycle of stupidity continues unabated.

Actually, the Clinton - Republican Congress combo worked quite well in the 1990s, and the Publicans held congress. In the 1994 midterm elections Republicans regained control of both the Senate and the House of Representatives. The Republicans lost control of the Senate in 2001 by one vote due to a Senator switching to Independent caucusing with the Democrats. The Republicans regained control in 2003 maintaining a majority in both houses losing control only in the 2006 elections.

Sooooo....if it's a repeat of 1994 that you're predicting, then it'll be 2017 before the Democrats take a 1 vote majority in the Senate, which they'll lose in 2019, and 2022 before the Democrats retake control of Congress altogether....

[eXcommunicate]

No, I am not predicting an exact duplication of history.

[Kristie]

Would one of our American correspondents confirm how many loonies got in?

Way too fucking many.

[Coito ergo sum]

No, I am not predicting an exact duplication of history.

I'm thinking the Republicans will blow it.

One difference between the 1994 situation and now is that back then the Publicans were able to unite behind Gingrich. They had a fiscally responsible plan, and a relatively moderate-to-conservative, certainly pragmatic, President to deal with. There was sniping back and forth, and the liberals credited the "best economy ever" and "surpluses" to the President, while conservatives credited the Congress. Both were involved, however.

Now, we have a dis-united Publican party that is chock-full of tea partiers, who don't always see eye-to-eye with "mainstream Republicans" and the "mainstream" Republicans that have been in the House and Senate for a few years aren't exactly averse to spending and waste. Maybe the new guys will be better, but I doubt it.

The divisions in the Republican party, coupled with a more ideological and divisive President, will, in my view, make it very difficult for any cohesive plan to make it through. Whatever gets passed will be a cobbled together compromise of payoffs and payola, earmarks and backscratching that will likely not achieve the stated goals of its proponents and whose adversaries will strive for its failure so as to achieve electoral victory later.

My prognostication: We're in for 6 more weeks of winter, my friend.

[Ian]

So - now what?

The ebb and flow (or see-saw, if you like) of American politics continue. The Democrats held many seats in Republican-majority districts, even ones that voted for McCain in 2008, and now they've been replaced. The GOP will hold maybe an 11-12% majority in the House.

Historically speaking, this was a very "anti-incumbent" year: only about 87% of those Congressmen in office yesterday will still be there in January!

The very worst thing Republicans could do for themselves would be to listen to their own spin doctors and interpret these midterms as a wholesale repudiation of President Obama and the Democrats. They'll pay a huge price in 2012 if they think the American people just sent them a mandate to be stonewallers and to not compromise with Obama. Every poll shows that while voters are frustrated with Democrats and the pace of economic recovery, they still have even less faith in the Republicans. Basically, voters were just angry, for the third election cycle in a row.

I assume Speaker-to-be Boehner is well aware of that, and also well aware of the demographic differences between midterms and Presidential elections: midterms are about rallying your base, and Presidential contests tend to be more about winning the middle. Also, Democratic turnout is almost certain to be higher in 2012 than it was in 2010. Add to all that the slim possibility that the Tea Party-fuelled "enthusiasm gap" is likely to be so strong two years from now, and it's clear the GOP has its work cut out for it if they want to remain a majority for a while.

So, in practical terms, what does the next two years hold in store for the government? It probably means that Speaker Boehner will be able to do very little other than throw out angry rhetoric. If he wants to spend his time looking back at the last two years, he'll find that he can't repeal much if anything; he'll be blocked by the Senate and by Obama's veto, and he won't have the votes to override anything. And his party will be faced with holding the gavels once again; the onus will be on them to perform, and they'll be stuck in a position where that'll be difficult at best. Add to that conundrum the fact that, even if Boehner secretly wants to cut deals with Obama and compromise GOP legislation (I say "secretly" because Boehner's been saying "no compromise" a lot in public), he'll have a rather large contingent of Tea Partiers on his side of the aisle who won't be easy to whip into line.

In sum, the federal government is now especially divided, and we can expect a lot more heat than light to be produced over the next two years. Menwhile, the Tea Party will gloat and gain even more influence over the GOP and into their primary elections, and then, well... I think I've made clear my theories on what that'll mean for those voters who turn out to vote during a Presidential-year election.

[Bella Fortuna]

Go Dems in California! Jerry Brown and Gavin Newsome!



Mmm... Gavin Newsome....

[Ian]

Go Dems in California! Jerry Brown and Gavin Newsome!


Mmm... Gavin Newsome....

Thank you thank you thank you guys for trashing Proposition 23!!!

Now why couldn't you pass Proposition 19? :sighsm:

[Coito ergo sum]

So - now what?

The ebb and flow (or see-saw, if you like) of American politics continue. The Democrats held many seats in Republican-majority districts, even ones that voted for McCain in 2008, and now they've been replaced. The GOP will hold maybe an 11-12% majority in the House.

Historically speaking, this was a very "anti-incumbent" year: only about 87% of those Congressmen in office yesterday will still be there in January!

The very worst thing Republicans could do for themselves would be to listen to their own spin doctors and interpret these midterms as a wholesale repudiation of President Obama and the Democrats. They'll pay a huge price in 2012 if they think the American people just sent them a mandate to be stonewallers and to not compromise with Obama. Every poll shows that while voters are frustrated with Democrats and the pace of economic recovery, they still have even less faith in the Republicans. Basically, voters were just angry, for the third election cycle in a row.

I assume Speaker-to-be Boehner is well aware of that, and also well aware of the demographic differences between midterms and Presidential elections: midterms are about rallying your base, and Presidential contests tend to be more about winning the middle. Also, Democratic turnout is almost certain to be higher in 2012 than it was in 2010. Add to all that the slim possibility that the Tea Party-fuelled "enthusiasm gap" is likely to be so strong two years from now, and it's clear the GOP has its work cut out for it if they want to remain a majority for a while.

So, in practical terms, what does the next two years hold in store for the government? It probably means that Speaker Boehner will be able to do very little other than throw out angry rhetoric. If he wants to spend his time looking back at the last two years, he'll find that he can't repeal much if anything; he'll be blocked by the Senate and by Obama's veto, and he won't have the votes to override anything. And his party will be faced with holding the gavels once again; the onus will be on them to perform, and they'll be stuck in a position where that'll be difficult at best. Add to that conundrum the fact that, even if Boehner secretly wants to cut deals with Obama and compromise GOP legislation (I say "secretly" because Boehner's been saying "no compromise" a lot in public), he'll have a rather large contingent of Tea Partiers on his side of the aisle who won't be easy to whip into line.

In sum, the federal government is now especially divided, and we can expect a lot more heat than light to be produced over the next two years. Menwhile, the Tea Party will gloat and gain even more influence over the GOP and into their primary elections, and then, well... I think I've made clear my theories on what that'll mean for those voters who turn out to vote during a Presidential-year election.

The only thing that matters, it seems is the economy. If in 2 years unemployment is under 8%, and the housing market has stabilized, and we don't get too fucked by inflation, then both parties will claim success. Obama and the Democrats will say "see! this was our policies taking effect!" And, the Republicans will say, "see! we did what Obama and the Dems couldn't do!" It will then be a public relations war to sell the American people on who to credit.

[Ian]

The only thing that matters, it seems is the economy. If in 2 years unemployment is under 8%, and the housing market has stabilized, and we don't get too fucked by inflation, then both parties will claim success. Obama and the Democrats will say "see! this was our policies taking effect!" And, the Republicans will say, "see! we did what Obama and the Dems couldn't do!" It will then be a public relations war to sell the American people on who to credit.

Very likely. Sounds quite a bit like 1984 and 1996 (though not exactly, of course).

But the candidate nominated by the GOP will have to be the one selling their message. I have a hard time seeing them nominate someone who'll be able to outsell Obama on this, and I also think their candidate is going to be doing quite a dance: shuffling to the right to win the primaries, then shuffling towards the center in order to stand up to Obama. The power of incumbency will be no joke.

[Warren Dew]

Well ya'll - looks like yu got smaller gummit efter all!

That remains to be seen. The Senate and the White House remain in the hands of big spending statists; only the House got taken by the Republicans and the Tea Party.

Actually, the Clinton - Republican Congress combo worked quite well in the 1990s, and the Publicans held congress. In the 1994 midterm elections Republicans regained control of both the Senate and the House of Representatives. The Republicans lost control of the Senate in 2001 by one vote due to a Senator switching to Independent caucusing with the Democrats. The Republicans regained control in 2003 maintaining a majority in both houses losing control only in the 2006 elections.

The big difference this time is that the Democrats retained control of the Senate.

I think John Boehner will support the Tea Party line of smaller government and lower taxes that gave the Republicans their majority. Keep in mind he was not the majority leader that cooperated with the Bush administration to balloon the deficit; that was Tom DeLay. Boehner has been unhappy with the Republican spending as well as with Democratic spending for years.

However, bills will still have to pass through the Senate and go through the reconciliation process. Since the committee positions will likely be held by old guard Republicans rather than Tea Party Republicans, I think it's not unlikely that reconciliation will consist of House Republicans being bought off with pork to support the Democratic version of bills, then be voted through the House with the support of Democrats and those Republicans that were bought off. Whether Boehner will have enough party discipline to prevent that is questionable.

If that scenario comes to pass, then the next two years will be much like the past two years, with a continued anemic recovery. At that point, the Senate will almost certainly pass into Republican hands, as there will be more vulnerable Democratic seats, unlike this year. What happens to the House and the presidency is less clear.

Pretty much the only thing that can prevent that would be Obama's embracing the Tea Party message of smaller government. I think he'd be willing to cut spending, but repealing Obamacare and keeping taxes low are not things he seems likely to be willing to compromise on.

[Warren Dew]

The loss that hurts me the most is Russ Feingold. The one Senator to vote against the patriot act. Was a champion of civil liberties, rebuking both the Bush and Obama administrations.

I certainly feel some regret at that too. However, he has no one but himself to blame; he championed civil liberty but not economic liberty, so it's in some ways appropriate that he lost to someone who championed economic liberty.

I also think their candidate is going to be doing quite a dance: shuffling to the right to win the primaries, then shuffling towards the center in order to stand up to Obama.

Once nice thing about the Tea Party platform was that no shuffling was required. "Smaller government, less spending, lower taxes" was enough of a message to win in both the Republican primaries and the general election this year.

[eXcommunicate]

I read this on Reddit:

If one side is campaigning to murder kittens, and the opponents are begging you not to, then the moderate solution is to murder 1/2 the kittens. That works until a few years down the road when the extremists start screaming to murder all the kittens again, and the moderates decide to "compromise" at killing 3/4 of the kittens. Repeat that a few dozen times, and you've got American politics - the loudest, most extreme voices carry the day, and with no left to push back against the conservatives, the country slips right day by day.
------------------------------------------

[eXcommunicate]

There are two lessons from this election:

1. It's the economy stupid. Anyone who says the Democrats should tack right is either a fool or has an agenda.

2. Mid-terms are base elections. The Democrats spent the last two years languishing in the mushy middle while the Republicans played to their base. It's hard to see how this election could have gone any worse for Democrats if they had done what their base wanted over the past 2 years instead of the constant hand wringing.

Yes, I realize that despite themselves and Republican filibusters, Democrats actually managed to pass a lot of half-decent legislation. But my two points still remain.

[Coito ergo sum]

There are two lessons from this election:

1. It's the economy stupid. Anyone who says the Democrats should tack right is either a fool or has an agenda.

Both sides should argue vehemently for what they believe will fix the economy, and fight as hard as they can.

The thing about the Democrats, though, that I see anyway, is they have an impulse within their party that weighs some things as more important than the economy. It's kind of a cognitive dissonance, almost. On the one hand, we'll hear speeches about doing this or that to spur economic growth, get people to work, etc. and on the other we'll hear tell of our our society is "unsustainable" at its current levels of growth and we must pull back and limit economic growth to survive. That leads to activities which, while born of laudable motives, necessarily stifle industry, which hurts the economy.

2. Mid-terms are base elections. The Democrats spent the last two years languishing in the mushy middle while the Republicans played to their base. It's hard to see how this election could have gone any worse for Democrats if they had done what their base wanted over the past 2 years instead of the constant hand wringing.

Yes, I realize that despite themselves and Republican filibusters, Democrats actually managed to pass a lot of half-decent legislation. But my two points still remain.

You see, this I don't see in the same way you do. I don't see the Democrats having been in "the middle." I think the Democrats did play to their base - the unions, the raise the minimum wagers, the environmentalists, the national healthcare folks. Those are the base. But, the Democrat base is not what put Obama in office in 2008. What put Obama in office were the Independents and the "Reagan Democrats." Those folks voted Obama in huge numbers. Yesterday, however, they voted against Democrats in just as huge numbers.

And, whether the legislation is half decent is certainly a question on which minds can differ. I don't, for example, see the health care legislation as half decent. I think it's a prime example of being in the middle of the road and getting run over by traffic going both ways.....

[Warren Dew]

It's hard to see how this election could have gone any worse for Democrats if they had done what their base wanted over the past 2 years instead of the constant hand wringing.

The Democrats did exactly what their base wanted: bailed out unionized UAW workers, passed an oppressive and economically damaging health care bill, snuck tax increases into said health care bill. That's exactly what they're being punished for.

Or did you mean they should have focused on social issues instead of tanking the economy? That's not a Democratic "base" issue; the "PATRIOT" act and "homeland defense" are even more strongly supported by the Democrats than by the Bush Republicans.