Everything You Think You Know About the Midterms is Wrong

I keep hearing that the Democrats are totally screwed come November 2010, that the midterms are going to be a bit of a bloodbath. Democrats have an outside shot of losing control of the House, according to Charlie Cook. A one in three chance according to Nate Silver. This wasn't the conventional wisdom before the health care debate began, and I'm not sure it will be after. For the time being, that Democrats are currently struggling has led analysts to predict doom on a massive scale.

Here's my problem. The political atmosphere in July and August of 2009 has essentially no relationship to what voter attitudes will be more than a year later. Which isn't to say that health care reform won't have a major impact on the outcome of the midterms. But the issue will be whether or not the Democrats pass a bill, not whether or not they did it gracefully.

If they don't pass it, that's a problem. But even the most skeptical analysts seem to believe at this point that a bill is very likely to pass, and that it will take us as close to universal coverage as we've ever come. If that happens by the end of the year, Obama is going to see a significant spike in his approval ratings, in part because for so long, the expectations of his success remained so low. That boost could easily reverberate down ballot, providing the Democrats who helped get it done with a poll bump of their own.

What will also surely play a critical role in swaying voter opinion is the state of the economy in the fall of 2010. I am not an economist, but my impression is that most economists agree that unemployment numbers tend to lag about a year behind the end of a recession, and that we are currently in the quarter that will turn out to have been the end of this recession. If that's the case, if the recession is really ending this quarter, it means that during the late summer months of 2010, all the way until Election Day, we could be getting reports that, in addition to the rest of the country improving, the jobs are finally coming back, just as the Democrats had promised.

That is bound to have an effect on the economic outlook of voters, and sure to give a boost to Democrats who argue that none of it would have been possible had the Republicans successfully voted down the stimulus.

It's also the case that the Dow Jones, which I continue to believe is the only economic metric that the majority of Americans feel comfortable with, is currently hovering around 9,700 points, 3,000 points higher than it was less than 6 months ago. If by 2010, the Dow is comfortably above 10,000, I suspect that will have a psychological impact on voters worried about the economy. You don't have to be invested in the stock market to feel better about seeing a five-digit Dow average again.

It's also important to remember that health care and the economy will not continue to be the only issues on the agenda. The Senate has calendared immigration reform for December, with the intention of introducing the bill before the holidays, and beginning markup in January. That's right - just like health care, there will be a recess before the bill is passed, allowing for more town halls, and more inevitable town hall protests. But this time they'll be protesting immigration reform, not health care reform - imagine what the birthers and the health care screamers will look like when they are joined by the minutemen crowd, screaming about border control.

Karl Rove hung his hopes of a permanent Republican majority on the Hispanic vote, hoping that Republicans could help them realign with the GOP. But Barack Obama won nearly two-thirds of the Hispanic vote in 2008, largely because the Republican party became obsessed with anti-immigrant rhetoric in the summer and fall of 2007. With the Republican party opposing immigration reform, and with town hall protesters aiming their vitriol, not at Obama, but at the Hispanic community, the GOP is poised to lose even more Hispanic support.

And don't forget that Republicans have already been forced to take a number of votes that are going to hurt them back home. Republicans who voted against the stimulus (that's everyone but the senators from Maine) also voted against roughly $250 billion in tax cuts. Last time I checked, Republican voters love tax cuts. If the White House includes tort reform in the health care bill, Republicans will have to vote against that too. Imagine that, a Republican opposing tort reform. It's going to sting back home.

There is still, of course, the risk of an enthusiasm gap, which analysts have also cited as a potential problem for Democrats in 2010. With Democrats relatively content, and with Republicans furious, the intensity is all on the right, the mirror opposite of the 2008 campaign.

But concluding today that Democrats will lack enthusiasm in 2010 is a major mistake. Barack Obama has not yet begun to fire up his base for the midterms. But when he stands up and gives one of his barn-burner speeches, when he calls on those who brought change to the Washington to make sure it stays that way, when he uses the infrastructure of his 2008 race to support and recruit, I have little doubt that Democrats will answer the call. It has been in the past, it will continue to be in the future, a terrible mistake to underestimate Barack Obama's ability to mobilize his base.

It's too early to make predictions about 2010, not knowing exactly what the environment will look like. Plenty predicted in 2007 that the 2008 race would be all about the Iraq war. But what Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama were arguing about that fall was entirely off the radar screen by the general election.

That said, here is my prediction: 2010 will be a victory for the Democratic party. We're bound to lose some seats in the House; we hold so many vulnerable seats, and are up against a steep historical trend. But that number could easily be a half a dozen or less, and among those lost, most will be Blue Dogs who have been more obstructionist from inside the party than their Republican victors could be from outside of it. More importantly, even the most conservative estimates show Democrats in a strong position to pick up a few seats in the Senate. That would be huge for the party, changing the dynamic so that Ben Nelson is no longer the most powerful man in Congress.

The crazies are going to get louder and louder. From a policy perspective, that's a challenge. From a politics perspective, it isn't. Never forget that American politics always presents a binary choice. The louder and more pervasive that fringe gets, the more they push Congressional Republicans to mimic them on the floor of the house, the more indistinguishable they become from the party itself. Frustrations with Democrats in Congress have been there in the past. In 2008, Nancy Pelosi's approval ratings were about as low as President Bush's, and Congress as a whole wasn't much better. Still, the Democrats won a Congressional landslide that November. The question is, with the fringe growing to become the only voice of the GOP, will those who are frustrated with Democrats really see the Republican party as a worthy alternative? My gut says no.

Follow Dylan Loewe on Twitter: www.twitter.com/dylanloewe

Comments

[BillZBubb]

Your analysis, while fairly reasonable, seems fundamentally flawed for one basic reason. You say no to "will those who are frustrated with Democrats really see the Republican party as a worthy alternative?" That may be correct, but the most likely result of that is not clear victory for the Democrats. Instead, like in 1994, we will see the progressive wing of the Democratic party so turned off that they simply aren't motivated to vote. A health care bill, already without single payer, and with at best weak public option isn't going to excite anyone. Progressives would have to hold their noses while voting for people like Nelson, Baucus, Landreau, Lincoln, etc.

The right wing will fire up its base, just like 1994. The Democrats have systematically started turning off their base, just like 1993-1994. So, the problem won't be that the Republicans have gained support in general, it is just that their base will be motivated. Ours won't. In that scenario, the Republicans always gain congressional seats--especially in off year elections.

[wbranning]

The real problems of our nation are entwined with our way of life. They have brought political process to a near standstill, and are standing in the way of essential actions. I would highlight three of these problems:
1. MONIED INTERESTS HAVE A STRANGLEHOLD ON POLITICS. This is a problem that has reached critical proportions, and threatens to become worse if the Supreme Court allows corporations unfettered voice in the political process. In an approximately 100 year old book, Brooks Adams' "The Law of Civilization and Decay" proposes that the life cycle of civilizations is biphasic, and that the second phase, the decline phase, begins when the wealthy aquire enough means to manipulate the civiization to their own ends. One if his examples is the ancient Roman Republic, which bears scary resemblances to the USA today.
2. OUR EDUCATIONAL SYSTEM DOES NOT TEACH CRITICAL THINKING, OR THE NECESSARY ELEMENTS TO SUPPORT CRITICAL THINKING. Critical thinking requires the teaching of courses that enlarge the students' worldviews, some of which draw from diverse areas such as philosophy and the arts. Critical thinking must also be modeled for the students so that they can see it in action. Of couse, it would help even more if their parents modeled it for them.
3. OUR SOCIETY IS FOCUSED LARGELY UPON IMMEDIATE GRATIFICATION OF OUR NEEDS, WITHOUT ADEQUATE CONCERN FOR LONG TERM CONSEQUENCES. This is reflected in things like widespread lack of saving, misuse of credit, environmental rape, and even our problems with obesity.

[Tracie365]

What is going to be really interesting is the mid-term primaries. There are going to be some "establish­ed/establi­shment" dems that are going to see numbers behind their more progressive challengers.

[Frank Jenkins]

Now that is a brilliant article, and I can envision it becoming a reality. If the republican party continues down this path of negativity, they will have no more feet to shoot themselves in. A brilliant stroke of genius bringing immigration reform prior to the New Year. Boy I can't wait for this round of screaming.

[dieselis]

Its way to soon to tell. Dems have a large tent. Perhaps to large its what scares away many moderate, centrist and conservatives with some liberal ideas. GOP tent is small but there ruthless just win baby. Third party canidates may decide many races by being the spoilers. Obama has duped them repeatedly but the mud never stops. Big Business will only allow so much representation of the people. We have to be pacitied. If DEMS develop a spine the real heart of the party isn't that left. The left makes a lot of noise and kick up alot of dirt. Oh well, I said it!!!!!! If the DEMS come together it will be curtains for the GOP. Everyone wants their cake and icecream yesterday. Sooo time will tell the story.

[wrabbitt]

The republicans had control for 8 years! Tell, me again how the democrats are at fault after 9 months! I think the Republicans have made fools of themselves, and the witch hunt in Washington will hurt the GOP a lot next November. The public has had enough of politics as usual. Change in Washington comes at the breathtaking speed of an ice age.

[Biffmeister]

I've thought this view of the midterms, or a version of it, to be the case for some time now. There is disappointment that a true progressive agenda hasn't been followed, including coming down hard on the crooks who caused the current mess(es). The right has become a group of obstructionist extremists. The answer is to retain the true progressives and replace the dinos with true democrats. Above all don't vote for ANY republicans, and don't throw out the baby with the bath water (don't throw out the good Democrats such as Senator Bernie Sanders to mention but one). Those Democrats willing to take Labor's money and endorsement also need to be replaced with Democrats truly interested in helping the working man or woman--union or not. The primaries will be very important as we will be able (we hope) to screen and select actual Democrats to represent us.

[Biffmeister]

Correction: Those Democrats willing to take Labor's money, and then not supporting Labor need to be replaced.

[Frank Jenkins]

Well there you go, field some progressives to kick them "Blue Dogs" out.

[termgirl]

Blue dogs represent conservative districts. It would be difficult for a progressive dem to win; thus ushering in another repub.

[NCAV2]

The Democrats have not given progressives a reason to vote for them in 2010 other than the fact that they are the better alternative to the Republicans. Seriously, what have they done since gaining power in both Congress and the White House? Giving handouts to Wall Street, backpedaling on healthcare reform and not ending the wars are not the change people wanted. Many progressives will simply stay home or vote third party next year if the Democrats don't stop with the spinelessness and inaction.

[Elle Bach]

I agree. I'm desperately hoping that past healthcare, we're going to see some real WH genuflexing to the base. (I think he's too clever not too....)

[thucy3]

"The Democrats have not given progressives a reason to vote for them... Seriously, what have they done since gaining power?"

Here are a few items which, to me anyway, certainly make it worth my while to get up on election day and pull the lever to keep the Democrats in power and Republicans out:

1. Passed enlargement of S-CHIP, which has provided health insurance to thousands of children who would otherwise not have been covered;

2. Reversed the GOP ban on stem call research;

3. Reversed the GOP "Mexico City" gag order on women's health clinics;

4. Signed an executive order giving federal employees in same sex couples the same benefits as heterosexual couples;

5. Passed the Heddy Ledbetter Act to diminish discrimination against women in the workplace;

6. Reversed the Bush policies gutting the Endangered Species Act;

7. Appointed a Supreme Court justice who has actually challenged the idea that corporations are people and have the same rights as citizens.

You certainly wouldn't have seen any of these things happen under McCain/Palin, nor would they ever get past a GOP controlled Congress. Nor would you see a GOP attorney general testifying in favor of the Matthew Shepherd Act, which will expand hate crimes protection to include people with disabilities and gay and lesbians.

Any one of these changes made all my effort last year worth my while.

[ageless]

We, (Obama) have been in this position before, more than once.
Each time the results were suprizing. I still say he is the right
person for the job. If you are so up set with the dems that you
would vote for the repubs, that is the same as commiting suicide.
Why are we still talking about Rove, Palin or Channy. If we are
going to talk about those that are out of power, talk about Bush.
He was the decider. If anyone really wants to vote for the repubs
and get four or more years of what gave us this disaster, they must
want America destroyed. Do some reading on the history of what
happens when the dems are in control, compared to when the GOP
is in control. The Dems fix problems and the GOP makes problems.
Like another post said it is binary. 0 or 1.
0 = GOP: look what happened after 8 years of Bush.
1 = Dems: A year has not passed and everyone is screaming.
Positive signs are starting to show.
The Dems must deal with the GOP because we have a two
party system. If there is no GOP, ther will be less problems.
There will be less of blocked fixes to what needs fixing.
Don't you see, the GOP wants slavery again. ARE YOU GOING TO GIVE IT TO THEM?

[latham3556]

What I've seen so far from the Dems control of the legislative process, this country is in desperate need of term limits. We have evolved a 'governing class' that is in the pockets of the special interests.
The banking lobby runs Congress. Our elected officials primary concern is getting re-elected. Whats best for the country is secondary. One 5 year term for the house and senate. That would eliminate the re-election problem,and take the steam out of lobbyists.
A case in point: the 'cram down' legislation that would have allowed bankruptcy judges to re-do mortgages. It passed the house in a spending bill,but was taken out of the senate version due to a full court press by the banking special interests. The poor bankers claimed it would cost them too much. The same bankers who got us in this mess and caused the record number of foreclosures on regular working folks, made sure that their interests were looked after with the help of millions of dollars pumped into the pockets of our elected reps.

The problem of course is, the very people this change would effect are the same people who would have to make it happen.

Maybe its time for the tree of liberty to be fed with the blood of patriots, to paraphrase one of our founding fathers

[ndbltwy]

If there were 5 year term limits then the lobbyist would really have a field day. I agree these guys are more worried about re-election than us so the only cure for that is Publicly Financed Campaigns. Any body can term limit them, vote them out, it happens all the time. Ask the GOP.

[Jimboz22]

I agree with the author that folks who voted for Obama are not going to vote for an even more extreme GOP in 2010. The problem the Democrats face in 2010 is not a shift of centerleft or even moderate voters to the GOP, it's that lots of liberals and formerly die-hard Obama supporters might simply stay home. I believe Truthjusti­ceforall's comment is a good representation of how many on the left feel now. After voting for a candidate who pledged to decisively break with Bush/Reagan/Clinton era-economics and chart new course, we got a cadre of senior advisers filled with Goldman/Citi executives, more bailouts, no new regulations, no efca, and to top it all off, there's a real possibility we're going to have a healthcare bill w/no public option and a mandate we all have to buy private insurance, a policy Obama campaigned against vigorously during the primary, remember.
The standard myth about the 1994 election is that folks who voted for Clinton in 92 became disenchanted with his left wing policies and embraced the contract with America. That's simply not true. The reason Democrats lost so badly in 94 was because their leftwing support collapsed. But don't take my word for it, check out this great Greenwald piece that discusses this in more detail: http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/09/14/resentment/index.html
Basically what I'm saying is Obama+Democratic leadership ignore folkslike truthandju­sticeforal­l at their own peril.

[hippie4ever]

We've heard this before from the Democratic Party: "Like it or not, we're all you've got." Well, no.

Obviously the GOP is NOT an option anymore because they've been taken over by the extreme right on all levels. Politically the republicans are dominated by these crazies at least until 2012. Call it a poison pill because it prevents the reforms that would revitalize a dying party. Remember the Whigs?

But that leaves a vacuum and worse; the Obama Administration has done an excellent job in revealing to the average voter that this is the best government money can buy. It is rule by bribery and it is illegitimate and unacceptable. The Blue Dog Dems must be punished, and whomever replaces them will at least help the Democratic Party regenerate from within. I'd love to see Harry Reid, Dianne Feinstein, Nancy Pelosi voted out too -- and I generally vote for the Dems but they are corrupt.

The difference between the GOP and the Dems: the republicans do what they say and it is unacceptable; the Dems say they want to reform the system but pretend to be too inept to follow through; it is an act. The net difference: not a hell of a lot.

[greenferret]

Very perceptive comment. For a true progressive party, check out the Green Party. As the Democrats fail to deliver what America needs and the Republicans devolve into a Civil War reenactment club, the time will be ripe for a party of ideas that's ready to deliver the goods: Medicare for all, ending the wars, massive investment in green jobs and renewables, and a lot of other things we should have had years ago.

[ndbltwy]

Why is our Majority Leader from a basically Red State? Cant we find someone from a reliably Blue State.

[goodpyr]

Hippie,
So you would do what?Bite your nose off to spite your own face?

[HST]

The mid terms will shake out in one of 2 ways: dems pick up seats and the country will have at least the appearance of representatives trying to solve problems or repubs pick up seats and nothing gets done with everything obstructed.


How many healthcare reform bills were brought to the floor while the republicans ruled?

[WildDog]

I'm working now to find a progressive Democrat to run against Blue Dog Hill in Indiana. If we don't find one then I am going to vote for a Republican.

For a little fun with politics;
BRWShow.com

[goodpyr]

Wild dog,
You would replace a consevative Dem. with a consevative Repugnican't?
"Great"

[TruthJusticeForAll]

The Democrats do not value their voters. As one, I have no intention of voting for another Democrat for ANY office. If they are unwilling to lead the country & attempt to make right some of the existing wrongs, they are no better than the Republicans. There is no way to moderate Republican behavior & attitude. Possibly when the Democrats are out of power again, for more than 14 years, they will be willing to support the people. Of course given our current precarious predicament, I do not believe there will be too much to salvage in 20 years.

Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dylan-loewe/everything-you-think-you_b_295811.html

[howdyfromtexas]

I don't like either party, Libertarians are going to have a big year in 2010. I hope most americans will send a clear example to both parties.