Put me in Kevin Drum’s camp when it comes to what yesterday’s elections mean nationally:
Look: every election cycle features different candidates. Obviously it’s possible that, on average, this year’s crop of Democrats were more milksoppy than usual. But here’s what’s far more likely: 2014 featured a fairly ordinary bunch of candidates, and the party’s leadership was roughly as effective and visionary (or not) as it normally is. Ditto for fundraising and GOTV efforts.
But every election cycle has structural differences. This one featured a bad Senate map for Dems. It was a midterm election. The party leader was a president whose popularity has waned. The economy continues to be listless. Washington is paralyzed by gridlock, which means that Democrats didn’t have many legislative successes to sell. And anyway, a consistent message would have been all but impossible given all the seats they had to defend in conservative states.
Maybe Dems could have done better. Maybe their message this year really was weak and stale. But if your theory of defeat is based on some enduring and egregious flaw that’s inherent in the Democratic Party, you should reconsider. It probably doesn’t explain as much as you think. Structural explanations that take account of varying conditions are almost always better.
Washington Monthly’s Ed Kilgore wrote a piece two years ago (at least) that I can’t find right now or I’d link to that, too. In it he predicted an outcome much like what came to pass yesterday. If you want a deep dive into the demographic and political underpinnings of the two major political parties and of the American political system that yielded yesterday’s Republican victories, check out Ronald Brownstein’s characteristically in-depth and even-handed analysis published the day before the elections by the National Journal.
For those despondent over yesterday’s outcomes, take heart. The same factors suggest that—all else being equal—Democrats should have a very good night on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November, 2016.
P. S. It should come as no surprise that fifteen years of falling median household incomes produces a sour and angry electorate.
Crossposted at: http://masscommons.wordpress.com/
That “sour and angry electorate” re-elected every one of the GOP gubernatorial nutbags that contributed to the lousy economies in their states. And for good measure, a few more states decided to follow the lead of the nutbags. The GOP didn’t have a single loss among their Senators and GOP open seats. And their majority in the House increased.
Sorry, the losses are too wide and too deep for a significant and major turnaround in two years.
Not only won’t there be a “significant and major turnaround” (i.e., Dems regaining control of both houses of Congress and keeping the White House) in two years, it’s hard to envision a scenario in which Democrats regain unified control of the federal government until sometime in the 2020s (after redistricting following the 2020 census).
So what then did you mean by “the Dems should have a very good night” in Nov 2016? Holding onto the WH with Congress permanently Tea Party?
As Marie2 states, the state races make clear the Dem brand has turned to shit in the eyes of most white voters. They vote for Dem-advocated policies like minimum wage ballot measures, and vote against the party/candidate that actually supports it! What can be done with brains like this?
The dam broke Tues night. And sending in Hillary to engineer a repair to tame the raging flood waters is pretty scary…
I think we’ll see a lot of whistling in the graveyard as Fuhrer Cruz approaches….Dems need to face some facts. Their brand is ruined. What on earth are they gonna do come Jan 1?
Thanks for the question. I meant something like the following:
1 – The electorate will be larger and will contain more Democratic-leaning voters.
2 – Republicans will almost certainly retain control of the House.
3 – Democrats should pick up Senate seats, perhaps enough to retake control. (Republicans have many more seats to defend as a result of the 2010 election.)
4 – The larger electorate should help Democrats retake some (I have no idea how many) state legislative chambers.
Democratic presidential candidates have been getting 38-44% of the white vote since the 1970s. That’s unlikely to change much, if at all, in 2016.