There's been more than a bit of angst about whether next year's midterms will be a rerun of the 1994 debacle that swept in Speaker Newt Gingrich and hamstrung the Clinton administration. Christina Bellantoni offered an analysis yesterday at TPM, and it's worth reading. There is one point where I differ with her analysis, however.
More below the fold....
2010 another 1994? Not Exactly. (Non-Cynical Saturday)
Bellantoni makes six key points in her article:
- Discouraged by the centrist policies of the Obama administration, the Democratic base may not be active enough in 2010. She cites as evidence the lower Democratic turnout in last month's governor's races in Virginia and New Jersey.
- However, redistricting and fewer long-time incumbent Democrats retiring from red-trending districts combine to make more House seats safer in 2010 than there were in 1994.
- Republicans are excited, just as they were in 1994, but unlike in 1994 the Democratic Party is aware of the dangers and House Democrats are not taking reelection for granted.
- Unlike in 1994, when the GOP had the "Contract For America," they have no unifying package of ideas on tap for 2010. Instead the frame "Party of No" seems to be taking root among independent voters and the schism between 'mainstream' Republicans and the tea party movement may split GOP voters.
- The Democrats will probably lose some House seats, but how many will depend on how the economy is doing next summer and autumn. This is the Democrats' Achilles heel, and they know it. But even a modest recovery should be enough to retain a (smaller) majority in the House.
- And Democrats may gain a few seats in the Senate, as there are more GOP than Democratic openings owing to some Republicans having retired.
Relax? Umm ... no.
On balance, it seems unlikely Republicans will gain a House majority unless the economic outlook (largely unemployment) remains bleak. I'd add another caveat. If Democrats can't pass a health care reform bill - having expended so much political energy, with such intense public debate on the issue, and with a clear popular mandate for reform - the GOP's prospects will look somewhat brighter.
Indeed that's been the GOP's announced strategy on health care all along. Make the process as long and ugly as possible. Keep the GOP Senate Caucus united in opposition. Get at least one member of the Democratic Senate Caucus - e.g.: Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) - to back a GOP filibuster, or force Democrats to use budget reconciliation procedures that may preclude many essential regulatory reforms. As Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC) said back in July, "If we're able to stop Obama on this it will be his Waterloo."
Would failure to pass a health care reform bill guarantee a Republican majority in the House in 2010? Probably not alone, but it would make the Democrats' task harder, requiring them to show more progress elsewhere - especially the economy - and allowing less margin for setbacks.
Would passing a weak health care reform bill hurt more than it helps? That brings me to my point of disagreement with Bellantoni's analysis....
About the base.
First, as Public Policy Polling noted Wednesday, there's little evidence of widespread dissatisfaction among the Democratic base. Their poll showed a 95% approval rating for President Obama among liberal Democrats, with only 3% disapproving. On health care, 88% of liberal Democrats support President Obama's approach, with only 7% disapproving. Even on Afghanistan, 68% of liberal Democrats support his decision and only 22% disagree. If liberal Democrats are the party's base, the president still has their strong support.
But what about Virginia and New Jersey? Don't those elections show, as Bellantoni suggests, that the Democratic base is demoralized? Maybe, but not necessarily, and the way they may not highlights one of the problems we Democrats have had for quite awhile.
Another take of the governor races in Virginia and New Jersey - read alongside Democrat Bill Owens' victory in New York's 23rd Congressional District - is that too few Democrats get energized for state and local elections. Democrats have full control in only 17 state governments. In the rest, Republicans hold either the governor's mansion or majorities in at least one legislative chamber. Many of the Democrats' gains came in 2006 and 2008, where state candidates benefited by turnout for federal elections. Conversely, the Republican Revolution was built with well-coordinated efforts to capture school boards, city and county governments, and state legislatures. They have a well-oiled machine that works hard in state and local elections, and their candidates have a big edge when there are no federal elections to turn out Democratic voters.
So don't panic, but ...
... don't relax either. Democrats will almost certainly lose some seats in 2010, even if we pass a health care reform bill, even if the economy is beginning to recover, even if nothing has gone wrong overseas. That's the norm for midterm elections when your party holds the White House. And the media being the media, even a handful of seats lost will be trumpeted "the beginning of the end for Obama and the Democrats." Expect that.
But if Congress does pass a health care reform bill, if the economy is at least starting to rebound, and if nothing goes disastrously wrong, we should retain our majority in the House and maybe even gain a few seats in the Senate. And even 2-3 Senate seats would be huge. Just look at how close the edge is on health care.
Happy Saturday!