There’s been much speculation as of late that Obama isn’t having much fun, that the midterms took all the wind out of his sails, and that he didn’t have the stomach to abandon his liberal supporters and embrace triangulation the way Bill Clinton did after Democrats got slaughtered in the 1994 midterm. Hence, all signs were pointing to the fact that Obama had resigned himself to being a one-term President and wasn’t going to run for re-election.
Today I think we have pretty firm evidence that theory was wrong.
The fact that Obama caved in on extending all the Bush tax cuts isn’t so surprising in and of itself. Just about every economist to the right of Paul Krugman agrees that raising taxes during a normal recession is a bad idea, much less the extended Great Recession/Job Loss Recovery we’re currently stuck in, and sentiment had been trending in favor of extending the Bush tax cuts even before the midterms sent scores of Democratic officeholders scurrying for moving boxes. The question wasn’t so much whether they would be extended, but how much Obama would get in return for them.
The answer seems to be surprisingly little. Most expected Republicans to agree to extending unemployment benefits, and most of the rest of the agreement (like payroll tax cuts) are more than acceptable to Republicans. Further underscoring how well Republicans did are the negative reactions on either side of the aisle. Republican critics were saying things like “I’m not initially thrilled about it” while liberals reactions were things like “outrage” and (for socialist Bernie Sanders) threatening to filibuster.
More interesting still is the Obama White House’s explanation for the switch: Instead of blaming Republicans, they blamed congressional Democrats for being hopeless wimps. “We wanted a fight, the House didn’t throw a punch.”
I wonder if today Nancy Pelosi is walking around in a state of shock, thinking “This is the thanks I get for dragging ObamaCare over the finish line? A knife in my back with Obama’s name on it?”
Obama seemed slow to perceive the growing mood against him (certainly much slower than Clinton, who declared “The era of big government is over” the day after the 1994 midterms(I was wrong; see below); say what you want about Clinton, but he had a an exceptionally keen nose for ferreting out parades to stand in front of), but he seems to have finally woken up. The way the Obama went about this, cutting a deal with Republicans and then blaming House Democrats, looks exactly like the triangulation strategy Dick Morris mapped out for Clinton.
To characterize this as a deal is like that famous deal that Emperor Hirohito struck with MacArthur on the Battleship Missouri. This is a surrender. This is absolutely Obama caving in. And the Republicans had to extend unemployment benefits anyway because you’re not going to give the tax cut and at the same time cut off unemployment benefits.
But this shows that Obama will blink. And it’s the first of the trifecta of confrontations. This one — the next will be state bankruptcies when we’re called on to bail out and then the enchilada which will be defunding Obamacare, a balanced budget plan and blocking the EPA from cap and trade.
I remain unconvinced that Obama will abandon his signature federal takeover of health care, but the rest seem entirely possible. Especially if he thinks its necessary to get reelected. He seems to fear a challenge from his party’s right flank (cough cough Hillary) more than his left. He probably believes (correctly) that no challenger to his left will be able to pry away enough black voters to prevent him from being renominated. Which means that he’s already positioning himself as a re-invented moderate for the 2012 general election.
Can Obama run convincingly as a moderate after two years (or, to be technical about it, just shy of 23 months) of governing as a liberal? Maybe. Remember, he did it successfully in 2008. Also, he can make a fairly credible case that he has governed as a moderate when it comes to foreign policy (Iraq, Afghanistan and Guantanamo Bay are classic examples of how Obama’s campaign promises became null and void when he actually had deal with real world problems in the White House rather than on the campaign trail), the occasional warm handshake with Commie dictators notwithstanding.
Can he take liberal votes for granted in the 2012 general election? Hell yes. Where else are they going to go? In fact, if Sarah Palin is the Republican nominee, Obama could probably personally execute a Gitmo detainee on the White House lawn every day at high noon and liberals would still vote for him.
Finally, can he win reelection as a moderate? I wouldn’t count him out. Politics is a “what have you done for me lately” business, and it’s quite likely that the economy will doing well enough in two years for him to (justified or not) take credit for it. He may be crummy at governing, but Obama is an excellent campaigner. Even as a challenger he showed a taste for pomp and circumstance; can you imagine how much it will be cranked up when he runs as the sitting President?
Remember, lots of pundits wrote Clinton off after the 1994 election. It’s taken him a while, but Obama finally seems to be using the same playbook. Whether he can still make it work for him (absent a Ross Perot) remains to be seen.
Addendum: I misremembered when Clinton said that. It wasn’t the day after the midterms, it was his State of the Union Address the following January. He did move to the center some shortly after the election (see this transcript from his November 9, 1994 press conference for details), but I screwed up the date, which partially invalidates the point I was making in that paragraph. Mea Culpa.
I haven’t been covering the Wikileaks story much because, well, there’s just too much to cover. Obviously, many people in charge of government data security need to be fired.
In ObamaCare, the federal government is offering every physician $44,000 in taxpayer dollars to set up a new electronic medical record system. And if this is not enough of an incentive, Medicare is threatening to cut doctors’ pay in the next few years if they do not sell out their patients’ privacy. One of the specifications will be that these records be accessible online to “authorized users,” most notably the government. We are promised very strict privacy measures so that the records can never fall into the wrong hands. Oh, really?
(snip)
So why does the government want to see your medical records? Might it be planning to limit your care once you reach a certain age or develop a certain level of mental deficiency? Knowledge of recent history suggests that governments can use such information to blackmail and smear those considered troublemakers or enemies of the state. Now it is offering to pay for access, but later the government could make your doctor’s license to practice medicine dependent on complying with the EMR mandate. History tells us it is not a good thing when a government has total control of physicians.
(snip)
Do not depend on the government to protect your medical records. Under ObamaCare, the government seeks the right to mine your most private information just as it wants to peer under your clothing in the airport. This is another important reason why ObamaCare must be repealed.
Just think, thanks to ObamaCare, your private medical records will soon be treated with the absolute sanctity afforded the tax records of the Koch Brothers or Joe the Plumber.
I’m sure the average BattleSwarm reader came to this conclusion heretofore, but Derek Thompson provides a statistical roundup in The Atlantic that proves it. They also find lesser effects for the other three votes I’ve highlighted here (Stimulus, TARP, and Cap-and-Trade):
For Democrats in the least Democratic districts, the model suggests a loss of about 4 percent for every yes vote. If vulnerable Democrats hadn’t voted for any of the four bills, he concludes, Democrats would have won 32 more seats, enough to retain control of the House. Even after you remove TARP (which was a must-vote in scary times), the three-vote impact was 24 seats — not enough to keep the House, but close.
Although at least one study he cites shows no effect for the last that can’t be explained for the other three.
But it all comes back to what all non-liberal Americans have been telling Democrats for a year or longer: It’s the ObamaCare, stupid.
One of the most satisfying results of last night’s election was just how many of Bart Stupak’s block of ObamaCare flippers went down in flames.
If you remember back to the ObamaCare debates, Stupak’s bloc of “Pro-Life Democrats” was never, ever, ever, ever going to vote for a bill that included government funding of abortions. That is, right up until they did.
As shown below, on November 2, the clear majority of them paid the price for betraying their principles as well as their constituents. Unless otherwise noted, the election margins below are taken from this CBS table. Since WordPress doesn’t let me set font colors to red, I’ve marked GOP pickups in bold.
Rep. Jerry Costello of Illinois’ 12th district defeated Republican Teri Newman
Rep. Joseph Donnelly of Indiana’ 2nd district edged Republican Jackie Walorski by less than 3,000 votes.
Rep. Brad Ellsworth left his Indiana’s 8th Congressional seat for an unsuccessful run for the Senate. Republican Larry Bucshon flipped the seat by defeating Trent Van Haaften by almost 40,000 votes.
Rep. Bart Stupak retired from Michigan’s 1st congressional district when it became apparent his ObamaCare betrayal doomed his electoral chances. Republican Dan Benishek flipped the seat by defeating Gary McDowell by 25,000 votes.
Rep. Marcy Kaptur of Ohio’s 9th district beat James Iott (AKA Nazi Costume Guy) by a wide margin.
Rep. Kathy Dahlkemper of Pennsylvania’s 3rd district lost to Republican Mike Kelly by over 20,000 votes.
Rep. Paul Kanjorski of Pennsylvania’s 11th district lost to Lou Barletta by over 15,000 votes.
Rep. Solomon Ortiz of Texas’ 27th district loses to Republican Blake Farenthold by less than 1,000 votes.
That’s eight out of eleven Stupak bloc flippers whose seats are now in the hands of the GOP. And of those eleven races, I correctly picked ten, missing only Donnelly’s narrow victory in Indiana’s second district (which I originally had down as a longshot).
A few lessons:
Voters hate ObamaCare.
They hate congressmen who break promises. (Republicans should take special note of this one anytime they contemplate letting a GOP-controlled congress slip back to the old free-spending ways of the Bush43 years.)
They hate Blue Dog Democrats who vote like liberals when the really important issues are on the line.
Voters may be wising up to the fact that it doesn’t matter how much a Democrat swears up and down how Pro-Life, fiscally conservative, pro-gun, etc. they are; when push comes to shove, they’ll always cave in and vote with their liberal leadership.
Oh yes, I’m sure that running Democrats ideologically closer to Nancy Pelosi than Dan Boren in places like Indiana, Pennsylvania and Ohio is a great way to pick up seats. I encourage you to get started on that right away.
With the election tomorrow, I thought it was high time to offer up my own election predictions.
I have carefully and scientifically evaluated each and every House and Senate race, taking into account length of incumbency, previous voting trends for each district and state, fund-raising advantage, the most recent polls, and the fact that every preceding clause in this sentence prior to this one has been a complete and utter lie.
I have looked at a lot of polls and data but damn, there are only so many hours in the day. My predictions are based on general national mood, gut-feeling, and detailed looks at trends for select races.
This is going to be worse for the Democrats than 1994. The rise of the Netroots and the overwhelming support among the traditional news media dangerously blinded liberal insiders from how badly out-of-sync with the rest of the country they had become, and their insistence to push onward with ObamaCare despite widespread opposition and a lousy economy turned what was already going to be a bad year for them into a once-in-a-lifetime political slaughter.
I predict that the Democrats will lose 67 House seats.
As I admitted above, that’s not a wild-assed guess, but a guestimate based on current polling data and news on individual races. I don’t see Republicans gaining less than 50 seats, and there’s an outside possibility they could get 100. To my mind, it’s much more likely they’ll gain more than 67 than less than 50.
Among the individual House races, I predict all the Stupak-bloc flippersexcept Marcy Kaptur (who had the luck to draw Nazi Uniform Guy as her opponent) and Jerry Costello (much as I appreciate GOP candidate Teri Newman popping in to say the race is tied, I just don’t see any traction at all in a 54% Obama district; I’d love to be surprised) will lose, including:
Rep. Joseph Donnelly of Indiana
Indiana’s open 8th congressional district (formerly held by Brad Ellsworth)
Michigan’s open 1st congressional seat (formerly held by Bart Stupak)
West Virgina’s first district (held by Allan Mollohan, who was defeated in the Democratic primaries)
That’s 46 seats right there, and I think there’s easily another 21 seats to be had in districts that went narrowly for Obama in 2008 to provide the final margin of victory.
I predict that the Democrats will lose 10 Senate seats.
The Senate is a tougher nut to flip this year, and as I set down to gauge Republican chances, I was shocked to find that, despite insider predictions, I actually had them winning ten seats to take control of the Senate. Running down the Senate races that Real Clear Politics shows as tossups I was only getting nine seats, but then I remembered that Blanche Lincoln is losing so badly in Arkansas that they had that down as a safe Republican flip.
Republicans should take over the following ten Senate seats:
Arkansas
Colorado
Illinois
Indiana
Kentucky
Nevada
Pennsylvania
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Much as I’d like to see an upset in California, I don’t see Carly Fiorina getting any traction in an overwhelmingly blue state; I think the out-migration of California’s best and brightest due to the high tax rates, crummy economy, the overwhelmingly powerful public sector unions and a near-bankrupt government (all related phenomena) has, ironically, made Californian even bluer.
The two races of the ten that will be most difficult for Republicans to pull off are Washington and West Virginia. Washington may be the tightest, simply because the Left Coast is so blue, but Rossi has been steadily gaining on Murray, and actually pulled ahead in the latest PPP poll. And PPP usually has a Democratic bias, so in a wave election, you have to give it to the Republican if polling is within the margin of error.
In West Virginia, I’m going to go out on a limb and predict a victory for Republican John Raese even though Joe Manchin is up four points in the most recent poll, for the following reasons:
McCain won West Virginia by 13.1 points in 2008, which was four points above the poll RCP average. Asking Manchin to run 14 points better in 2010 than Obama did in 2008 is a pretty tall order.
The state has been trending Republican for years. It went for Clinton over both Bush41 and Dole, but for Bush43 over Gore by 6.3%, and Bush43 over Kerry by 12.9%.
Along those same lines, Hillary Clinton beat Obama handily here in 2008, even though Obama had all but clinched the nomination at the time. West Virginia voters fit the classic “Jacksonian” profile, the portions of the Democratic base that has been most alienated by Obama’s policies.
Say what you will about the late Senator Robert Byrd, but he was extraordinarily popular in his home state right up to the end. But his name isn’t on the top of the ballot this time around, and without that reminder of their old “born and bred” Democratic allegiance to remind them, 2010 may finally be the year when remaining West Virginia conservative Democrats make the switch to the GOP.
This Frank J. Fleming piece over on Pajamas Media is too funny (and dead on) not to quote copious sections from:
So the Democrats sucked. But not just plain old, usual politician sucked, but epic levels of suck where it’s hard to find an analogue in human history that conveys the same level of suckitude. It was sheer incompetence plus arrogance — and those things do not complement each other well. We’re talking sucking that distorts time and space like a black hole.
It’s Godzilla-smashing-through-a-city level of suck — but a really patronizing Godzilla who says you’re just too stupid and hateful to see all the buildings he’s saved or created as he smashes everything apart. Or, to use Obama’s favorite analogy, you have a car stuck in ditch, so you call the mechanic, but the only tool he brings with him is a sledgehammer. And then he smashes your car to pieces and charges you $100,000 for his service. Finally, he calls you racist for complaining. Obama and the Democrats have been so awful, it’s hard for the human brain to even comprehend.
But the Democrats will counter that the Republicans also suck. And while this is true, it’s not really going to help them. As I pointed out before, both a dog incessantly barking and a zombie apocalypse are things that everyone would agree suck. Yet no one during a zombie apocalypse, while hiding out in a boarded up mall, would turn to the other survivors and say, “We don’t want to kill all the zombies; then we’d have to go back to being woken up at night by that annoying dog next door.” But this is the best argument the Democrats can come up with. “Remember how awful the Republicans and Bush were? You hated them. You don’t want to go back to that.” Yes, why would people want to go back to when 6% unemployment was considered high?
People do remember how much the Republicans suck, and they know where it tops out … and that is nowhere near as bad as the Democrats are today. Like with the barking dog, it’s annoying, but you know it’s not going to cause the collapse of civilization as we know it. Not so with the zombie apocalypse; who knows how bad that could get if left to continue? Same with the Democrats and Obama; people have never dealt with anything this horrible their entire lives, and they aren’t that curious to see how much worse it can be.
So the Republicans kinda suck, and that’s why they’re going to win huge this November. Because in the land of epic, mega, ultra, apocalyptic levels of sucking, those who kinda suck are king.
No, really, I want to know. And though I have donated to Rodriguez’s opponent Francisco Canseco (more coverage of the race here), I don’t mean that in an ominous, scary voice-over attack ad sort of way. I’m genuinely curious.
I believe that this is the Mel Sykes in question. He seems to be involved in Asbestos and mesothelioma litigation, among other things.
Looking through that list of Rodriguez contributors, a lot of the donations are pretty typical for an incumbent Democratic congressman. Lots of donations from local business leaders, plus lots of money from DC lobbyists, such as:
Those I all understand. Those are fairly typical Democratic incumbent donations. But Sykes seems to be an actual litigator rather than a lobbyist. And according to Rodriguez’s official congressional website:
Today Congressman Rodriguez serves on the House Committee on Appropriations where he sits on the Homeland Security; Transportation, Housing & Urban Development & Related Agencies; and Legislative Branch Subcommittees. He also sits on the House Committee on Veterans Affairs where he is a member of the Subcommittee on Health and the Subcommittee on Assistance & Memorial Affairs. Congressman Rodriguez remains a member of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus (CHC) where he serves as the Chair of the Taskforce on Agriculture and Rural Communities.
Granted, trail lawyers (like Big Labor) love Democratic incumbents. But why the donations from this particular Maryland lawyer to Ciro Rodriguez? If you have any idea, post below or email me.
(One of the most disappointing things about pursuing Rodrigeuz’s donor list is the fact that former Republican congressman and current lobbyist Jack Fields gave him $2,000, a sad example of William F. Buckley’s aphorism that “By the time one of our people get into a position of power, they’re no longer one of our people.”)
So here are some long-shot campaigns for the seats of particularly egregious incumbent House Democrats that just might fall the GOP’s way in this election:
Jerry Costello of Illinois vs. Teri Newman for Illinois 12th Congressional District. (Teri, here’s a free hint: Auto-running movies with sound on your website isn’t going to win you any votes.) Costello is a Stupak bloc flip-flopper who voted for the Stimulus, but against TARP and Cap-and-Trade.
Joseph Donnelly vs. Jackie Walorski for Indiana’s second congressional district. Donnelly is another Stupak bloc flip-flopper, and also voted for TARP and the Stimulus, but against ObamaCare. Walorski has been endorsed by Sarah Palin, so she might well have more money and attention than others on this list.
Lloyd Doggett vs. Dr. Donna Campbell for the Texas 25th congressional district. Having endured having old liberal warhorse Lloyd Doggett as my Representative back when I still lived within the confines of The People’s Republic of Austin, I would be delighted to see a Republican take Doggett out. Doggett voted against TARP, but for the Stimulus, Cap-and-Trade, and ObamaCare. One issue in the campaign is Doggett’s writing language into federal law to deprive Texas of almost a billion dollars in federal education funds. In this Human Events piece on the race, Campbell notes that Doggett “voted 98% of the time with Nancy Pelosi. And him getting in again, is one more vote that keeps Pelosi in.”
Charlie Rangel vs. Michael Faulkner for New York’s 15th congressional district. Rangel is, of course, a corrupt scumbag. (The question of whether he’s the most corrupt scumbag in the House I’ll leave as an exercise for the reader.) Like Al Sharpton, he has a certain amount of venomous charm. Unlike Sharpton, he’s actually been elected. Like Frank, Rangel has a perfect liberal record in voting for TARP, the Stimulus, Cap-and-Trade, and ObamaCare. Faulkner has a good bit of name recognition from being a former New York Jets football player. The differences between Faulkner and Rangel are legion (not least of which is my working assumption that Faulkner isn’t a corrupt scumbag), but one of particular local interest may play a role if this race becomes the upset of all upsets: Rangel supports the Ground Zero Mosque while Faulkner opposes it. Polling for the race is non-existent (Democrats outnumber Republicans 15-1), but at least some observers think it might be more competitive than expected.
Remember, in 1994 no one expected Speaker of the House Tom Foley’s race to be even remotely competitive, but George Nethercutt still beat him, and there are some observers who say it could very well be much worse for Democrats this year than 1994. If that’s the case, then it’s a good bet one or more of the Republican candidates listed above will pull off an upset.
So how bad are Democratic House members doing this election? According to the National Journal, pretty bad. They count 60 seats among the most competitive and another 19 very close. Of those 79 House seats in play, 72 are currently held by Democrats.
As for where Democrats are spending their money, six of the seven districts the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee is spending money on went for Obama by more that 54%. They say that they’re trying to “nail down” relatively easy seats before moving on to harder ones, but that makes absolutely no sense; if you really want to help the marginal seats, you start helping them out first, because they need the most work. No, this smacks of triage, and suggests that the DCCC considers most districts below that line as good as gone.
There are a number of interesting races and names that should be familiar to regular BattleSwarm readers, either from being in Texas or having been mentioned here before:
Chet Edwards (TX 17) comes in at #7. (I would say that Edwards is the last remnant of the old Texas Blue Dogs, but I didn’t know that Henry Cueller (TX-28) was an actual member of the Blue Dog Collation, which Edwards is not.) Edwards voted against ObamaCare and Cap-and-Trade, but did vote for the Stimulus and the TARP bank bailout. District is heavily Republican; went for Bush by 68% in 2000, 70% in 2004, and 67% for McCain. His opponent is Bill Flores.
Suzanne Kosmas (FL 24) comes in at #9 on the list. You may remember this BattleSwarm piece on her back when she was a wavering no vote on ObamaCare; as I predicted, she was easier to flip to a Yes vote that Rep. Jason Altmire (PA 4), who I also profiled, and who stuck to his no vote. Which goes a long way toward explaining why Kosmas is likely to lose her seat, while Altmire isn’t on the list of endangered Democrats. Go figure. She also voted for the Stimulus and Cap-and-Trade. (Kosmos was first elected in 2008, so she didn’t vote on TARP.) District went for Bush in 2000 by 53%, Bush in 2004 by 55%, and McCain by 52%. Her opponent is Sandy Adams.
Indiana’s open 8th congressional district, held by Brad Ellsworth, who is leaving for a Senate run (which polls show he’s currently losing by 17 points), comes in at #11. The contest is between Democrat Trent Van Haaften and Republican Larry Bucshon. Ellsworth was of the theoretically Pro-Life members of the Bart Stupak bloc that rolled over for Nancy Pelosi on ObamaCare. District went for Bush by 57% in 2000, 62% in 2004, and for McCain by 51%.
Steve Driehaus (OH 1) comes in at #16. Another Stupak-blocer who rolled over to let Nancy Pelosi rub his furry belly. In addition to ObamaCare, he voted for the Stimulus and Cap-and-Trade. (He was elected in 2008, and so didn’t vote on TARP.) District went 51% for Bush in both 2000 and 2004, but only 44% for McCain. His opponent is Steve Chabot, who held the seat for 12 years before Driehaus edged him 52%-48% in the Obama wave of 2008.
Kathy Dahlkemper (PA 3) comes in at #20. Yet another turncoat Supak-blocer Pelosi flipped for ObamaCare. Also voted for the Stimulus but against Cap-and-Trade. Wasn’t in Congress when TARP was voted on. District voted 51% for Bush in 2000 and 53% in 2004, and McCain edged Obama by a mere 20 votes in 2008. Her opponent is Mike Kelly.
Speaking of Stupak, Michigan’s open 1st congressional district comes in at #35. Realizing that his betrayal of his Pro-Life position to pass ObamaCare made him electoral toast, Stupak declined to run for reelection, leaving the battle to Democrat Gary McDowell and Republican doctor Dan Benishek. District went for Bush by 52% in 2000 and 53% in 2004, but 50% for Obama.
Ciro Rodriguez (TX-23) is off the list of top 60 races, but shows up in the “Knocking on the Door” section. Another Stupak bloc turncoat. In addition to ObammaCare, he voted for the Stimulus, but against Cap-and-trade and TARP. His district went for Bush by 54% in 200 and 57% in 2004, but for Obama by 51%. His opponent is Francisco “Quico” Canseco. Rodriguez came to national attention recently thanks to his defensive tone when constituents asked him to defend his vote on ObamaCare:
Time permitting, I’ll try to do additional posts on each of those races, plus a few others (including some longer shots that just might pay off in a tidal wave year). But if you’re looking for places your campaign contributions might be the most effective at unseating Democrats, the challengers linked to above are certainly worthy of your consideration.
