Presidential elections are sufficiently high-profile that the electorate goes into the voting booth with a pretty good understanding of what they are voting for. I don’t think the same thing can be said about midterms. It’s often depressing to see the kinds of things that move the polls (and, by implication, the preferences of millions of people) in presidential elections (e.g. Willie Horton, windsurfing) but at least people are exposed to the issues. The midterms seem to be decided less by winning the argument than by riling up the base and getting out the vote. Yet, it is still important to win the argument, as that makes your job easier.
It’s scary to say, but I’ve been thinking along the same lines as Peter Beinart. The Republicans are making a Faustian bargain with their base. They may win the midterms because they riled up their voters in a paranoid froth. But, it will only be possible because of lack of voter engagement on the issues. In 2012, the Republicans are bound to nominate someone who espouses views far outside of our experience. And they will be crushed.
We tend to think in terms of red and blue, but don’t forget that Ronald Reagan won Massachusetts in 1984. When you win an argument big enough, there are no red or blue states. If I had told you in 1960 that in 1964 the Republican candidate would win in Arizona and the Deep South and no other states, you would have thought me a lunatic. But that’s what can happen when one party nominates someone completely out of the mainstream and the general public acknowledges that fact.
