If the actual vote is anything like what the polls now suggest, we’re talking about the Democrats holding a larger majority in the House than the Republicans have held at any point since their 1994 takeover.
So if the Democrats win, they’ll probably have a substantial majority. Whether they’ll be able to keep that majority is another question. But be prepared to wake up less than four weeks from now and learn that everything you’ve been told about American politics — liberalism is dead, whoever controls the South controls Washington, only Republicans know “the way to win” — is wrong. (Are we seeing the birth of a new New Deal coalition, in which the solid Northeast takes the place of the solid South?)
Krugman is really talking only about the House of Representatives. There is not much prospect of the Democrats gaining some earthshaking majority in the Senate. In a perfect storm we might sweep up all the currently competitive seats, plus Arizona and Nevada. But there is no way we are going to beat Trent Lott or Orrin Hatch or Olympia Snowe, or Craig Thomas. No one is even running against Richard Lugar. Our best possible outcome is for Lamont to win in Connecticut and for our candidates to win in Rhode Island, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Tennessee, Ohio, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, and Arizona. That would give us 53 seats plus Bernie Sanders in Vermont. Our majority would be one seat less than the current Republican majority. The Democratic caucus would be slightly more progressive than it is now.
While we would pick up noted progressives in Sanders and Sherrod Brown, we would also pick up the rabidly pro-life Casey, the militaristic Ford, the pro-gun Tester, and the ex-Republican Webb. Lamont would occupy a space far to the left of Lieberman. Carter, McCaskill, and Pederson would probably wind up somewhere in the middle of the caucus.
The main effect on the party would come from the likely chairmanships for Boxer on Environment, Leahy on Judiciary, and Kennedy on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. The House, however, is another matter.
As many bigoted GOP bloggers have noted, the House would not only be infused with a new generation of anti-Bush Democrats, their committees would be infused with quite a bit of color and estrogen. African-Americans would be in line to chair the Homeland Security, Judiciary, Ways and Means, House Administration, and (possibly) Intelligence committees. Nydia M. Velazquez would probably chair the Small Business Committee. What’s more, several noted white liberals would also gain committee chairs. Barney Frank would be in line to chair Financial Services. Henry Waxman would chair Government Reform (a White House nightmare). David Obey would head up Appropriations. Tom Lantos would chair Internation Relations. Louise McIntosh Slaughter would head up the powerful Rules committee.
The overall trend of the House would be sharply to the left on budget, on domestic policy, on foreign relations, and on the war.
We also have to consider the other side of the equation. Tom DeLay is gone. Denny Hastert is disgraced. RCCC Chair Tom Reynolds is probably going to lose his seat. If there is a landslide, the whole leadership will be in shambles and lacking credibility within the caucus. There is also the morale problem. Many of the Republicans in the House have never been in the minority. A lot of them will probably retire if they don’t think they can win the House back in 2008.
Then there is the whole north/south thing. Krugman asks, “Are we seeing the birth of a new New Deal coalition, in which the solid Northeast takes the place of the solid South?”
Not exactly. Our majority will be heavily reliant on the Pacific coast, nothern plains, and elements of the mountain states and southwest. We’ll also hold a bunch of seats in Florida, and spots of seats throughout the Confederacy. But it will be the first time we’ve had a majority where the majority of our seats were not from the south. And that will lead to more polarization of the country unless we find a way to appeal to southern voters.
The potential implosion of the evangelical/GOP relationship could fundamentally alter American politics. But that hasn’t happened yet. And the Dems have no plan to pick up those voters.
In any case, this could be interesting.
