It’s rare that I read an analysis of House races where I don’t find some really fatuous reasoning. But Ed Kilgore has done a piece I agree with, word for word. All talk of a major Republican victory in the 2010 midterms is based on faulty parallels and wishful thinking. Whatever surface similarities appear to exist with the 1994 elections are nothing more than a mirage. And Kilgore hits almost all of the reasons that things are different. What he misses, Bill Clinton noted on yesterday’s Meet the Press (empahsis mine):
“Number one, the country is more diverse and more interested in positive action. Number two, they’ve seen this movie before, because they had eight years under President Bush when the Republicans finally had the whole government, and they know the results were bad. And number three, the Democrats haven’t taken on the gun lobby like I did, and they took 15 of our members out. So I don’t think — it’ll be, whatever happens, it’ll be manageable for the president.”
The 1994 tsunami was driven by several converging factors. There were a huge number of Democratic retirements. The redistricting after the 1990 census favored the Republicans. Clinton had taken on the gun lobby by ramming home the Brady Bill and the Assault Weapons Bill. The effort to pass health care had failed. And labor was demoralized by that failure in combination with the passage of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).
It didn’t help that Clinton was elected with a mere 43% of the vote.
In contrast, Obama received a healthy 53% of the vote. He maintains the same degree of popularity he had on election night. Before the 2010 elections, he will sign some form of health care bill and labor’s top priority, the Employee Free Choice Act. The 2000 census will have no impact on this election and there are only a small handful of retirements in competitive districts. And, as President Clinton pointed out, Obama hasn’t done anything to critically wound Democrats who won election in red districts.
However, even if the Democrats are just as popular in 2010 as they were in 2008, they’ll probably lose a few seats because of low turnout and the corresponding increase in the age of the electorate. The Democrats will probably pick up three or four seats and lose slightly more than that. I still think the midterms in the House are likely to result in a wash, with less than a ten-vote swing to the Republicans.
The Senate could be a bit more unpredictable. A lot will depend on individual candidates, and the field is not yet complete. Suffice to say, though, that the Democrats have a better shot at getting to a veto-proof 67 than the Republicans have of regaining their majority.
A superb argument for closing the Medicare Part D doughnut hole immediately on enactment of the healthcare reform bill.
None of the bills are there yet because Democrats in Congress are still dorking around with the agreement with PhRMA that has kept Harry and Louise muzzled (mostly).
I know Bill Nelson wants to do that.
Also, the healthcare issue hasn’t played out yet. If Obama and the Democrats enjoy a big victory, it will change the political dynamics for the mid-term elections.
Hate to be a broken record, but demographics and trends won’t matter nearly as much as what the Dems do or don’t do in the meantime. A convincing healthcare bill could lead to a net gain for the Dems in both houses. EFCA, which I passionately want passed, could bring losses in some districts in the South and West.
I really hate the gun lobby excuse. I realize they have a lot of fundraising power, but isn’t that being balanced by activist groups on the other side now?
Re redistricting: the 2010 census will not effect this election, but will govern redistricting in 2012? I wonder if the Dems, assuming they’re still in power, will do the right thing and undo the gerrymandering in favor of honest efforts at representing the population? Nah, never mind.
“…demographics and trends won’t matter…”
l respectfully disagree. demographics, particularly among the millenials, who were very much in play in the 2008 election. they’re not particularly interested in HRC, nor are they likely to embrace any form of mandate, even with some form of financial aid/assistance. that will result in a great deal of resistance if not antagonism. which, in trun, will translate into considerably less involvement in the midterm elections:which already have a history of low turnout. the same may be said to be true relative to EFCA…they do not have a vested interest in either.
l do agree, however, that it matters a great deal “what the Dems do or don’t do in the meantime”.
failure to enact a reasonable health reform package, with a robust public option, will become an albatross around the demoRATs neck, especially with the liberal/progressive wing of the party and independents.
additionally, when the middle class sees the increases in their existing health insurance policies that are coming …[pdf]…there’ll be a wtf moment, and hell to pay at the polls. this issue really boils down to the middle class voter, and they’ll stay home, in droves. that, combined with the historically low turnout for midterm elections,
the attendant heightened levels of disgust and disillusionment over the failure of the administration to enact their signature issue, will have many of the activists who were massively involved and important in the 2008 election, sitting this one it out and staying home. ergo, the lay of the land/playing field, whatever, has the potential to change dramatically regardless of, what boo or kilgore would like to believe..
this issue is going to make or break obama’s presidency, and the RATs know it. hence the strategy they’ve employed.
interesting times, eh.
we shall soon see.
I think if Obama can triumphantly engineer a historic win on healthcare and the economy at least steadies, demographics won’t matter in the sense that turnout will be based on mood more than traditional age/ethnic/class patterns. For younger voters, HRC may not be an immediate issue, but a roaring success with it will keep the hope for change alive. If he’s seen as successful and working for the change he promised, his coattails will bring out the voters who backed him in the first place. If he’s seen as failing or indifferent, not so much.
I think younger voters are more likely to be influenced by big-publicity national issues than local ones, so coattails will matter disproportionately.
it’s a mighty big if. but the mandate issue will have to be mitigated to the point of inconsequentiality, if it’s included…as for the consequences of failing to do it, those, l believe, we agree on. the likely outcome of a failure to “engineer a historic win” is not going to be in the dems favour.