Thank goodness I live in Oregon, where getting stoned will soon be legal.
And it’s not just that this year is a bad map for us. We lost Massachusetts! That’s just pathetic.
(We lost Massachusetts? Seriously, what will it take to get Mass Democrats to stop running Martha Coakley for high office? After this, it’s hard to see what more important position the Worst Candidate In The World has to lose, unless she somehow manages to get nominated for President.)
Ezra Klein makes an interesting distinction between Democrats and liberals:
The night had few bright spots for Democrats — but there were some for liberals. The personhood ballot initiatives lost in Colorado and North Dakota. Marijuana was legalized in D.C. and Oregon (and we’re still waiting on Alaska). The minimum wage was raised in Arkansas, Illinois and Nebraska. Washington state expanded background checks on guns. “So voters want a higher minimum wage, legal pot, abortion access and GOP representation,” tweeted FiveThirtyEight’s Ben Casselman. “Ok then.”
Will this election have disastrous results? Maybe. It’ll certainly lead to a more right-wing judiciary than we might have gotten otherwise; Obama blew it by not pushing much harder on this issue for the last six years. Obama’s veto power will hopefully constrain the worst Republican impulses.
One interesting question is, will Senate Democrats abuse the filibuster as much as Republicans did? I hope they do, for two reasons. First, the alternative is a situation where Republicans, when elected, can pass legislation on a simple majority, while Democrats require a supermajority. That’s the worst possible outcome. And secondly, because if the Democrats abuse the filibuster as heavily as Republicans have, I expect the Republicans will be pretty quick to eliminate the fillibuster altogether, and that would basically be good for democracy.
In any case, congratulations to all my Republican friends. May your party prove to be much better (and more humane) governors than I expect.
* * *
Duncan at “This is So Gay” argues that Dems are reaping what we’ve sown:
True, the Republicans caused the 2008 depression, though with Democratic collaboration and connivance. The deregulation was as much a Clinton project as it was the Republicans’, but then Clinton like Obama is a Reagan Republican. That the recovery was so sluggish (to put it kindly) was as much due to Obama’s incompetence and collaboration with the Republicans — remember his giving them huge tax breaks for the rich in his stimulus package even before the GOP had demanded them? The recovery (like the fabled ‘prosperity’ under Clinton) mainly benefited the rich; there was no trickle-down to the bulk of the population, but who cares? Certainly not the Democrats’ apologists. Remember the Democrats’ letting the Republicans deploy threats of filibuster to block important legislation, so that a non-constitutional supermajority of 60 votes in the Senate was needed to pass anything. And then remember Obama’s attempts to get rid of Social Security, his deficit commission packed by him with deficit hawks — even so, they couldn’t reach the desired destructive consensus, so Obama simply accepted the chairmen’s report as if it were the Commission’s conclusions. Guess why.
And that’s leaving aside the relentless assaults on civil liberties, the surveillance, the stomping on dissent, the war on whistleblowers, new wars and escalation of the old ones. This doesn’t mean Obama hasn’t done one or two things right, I suppose, but it’s not at all unreasonable that many Americans, including Democrats, should be unenthusiastic about him and the party.[…]
* * *
And a victory for Emily’s List: There Are 100 Women in Congress for the First Time Ever
Well, yeah: the result in Massachusetts sucks. Though not necessarily as much as it seems. I hated Martha Coakley too, and Deval Patrick was not so hot. So I can’t really blame a lot of people for voting against Coakley: although I think that generally republicans are less appealing than democrats, I don’t think coakley was miles ahead of her opponent. Also, the underlings are mostly dems as is most of the state so it tends to be a bit more balanced than it would seem. And finally, oddly enough it’s not unheard of for us to have Republican governors (remember Bill Weld?) and we’ve come out OK.
Deval Patrick is actually the only Democratic governor Massachusetts has had since Michael Dukakis, according to Wikipedia. Sixteen solid years of Republicans between them, including Bill Weld, as g&w says, and another guy you might have heard of called Mitt Romney…
Joni Ernst won in Iowa, disappointingly. If you want to see an interesting illustration of population density, look at a map colored by county…she won 52% of the vote, but 85 of 99 counties! Also, Steve King was re-elected with more than 62% of the vote.
Meanwhile, I live in a city where I had three positions to vote for, and only the statewide office even had a Republican challenger…
“The minimum wage was raised in Arkansas, Illinois and Nebraska.”
Once again Ezra Klein is wrong. The minimum wage was NOT raised in Illinois. The ballot measure was only advisory and had no legal force whatsoever.
As a native of the Commonwealth I know it’s not unusual for Massachusetts to have a Republican governor. Hell, I remember Gov. Volpe! While people favor the Democratic social agendas there, the Republicans are generally perceived as more competent. Volpe is an interesting story. He was voted out after it was found that his brother-in-law got some of the contracts for building the then-new interstate highways through the Commonwealth. A few years later, a lot of those roads started to fall apart. Turns out that contractors cheated – they shorted the depth of the road beds, used asphalt that wasn’t up to standard, etc. – except for the sections built by his brother-in-law, which didn’t fall apart and were built to spec. Volpe ran again and was re-elected!
As a long-time resident of Illinois I finally voted for a winner in now Gov.-elect Rauner. Of course, running a State is a lot different from running corporations, and he faces a General Assembly with Democratic super-majorities in both houses that can override any veto he makes. The most powerful man in Illinois government is Speaker Michael Madigan (D), whose continued tenure in government less than 1% of the electorate has any say in – even more so now that the boundaries were redrawn and I’m out of his district.
I thought the filibuster rules had been changed to greatly reduce the ability to use it? And then afterwards, the Senate didn’t even debate a lot of the bills that the House sent it, so what did that matter?
So, to the overall question:
The Republicans need to craft bills on immigration, budget (remember budgets?), health care, etc., debate them enough that people understand what they mean and how they differ from what the President and the Democrats have been trying to do, and then pass them and send them to the President. This needs to happen by about June of 2015. People like to claim that the GOP is the “Party of No”. Put the onus on saying “No” onto the President. That will help rebrand the GOP and will give whoever the GOP candidate for President ends up being a platform to run on.
The difficulty there will be to get reconciliation between the RINOs and the conservatives. For example, in an immigration bill the conservatives will have to accept citizenship for people brought here as minors, but would likely demand that people who crossed over as adults NOT get citizenship. If such reconciliation can be reached then but Pres. Obama vetoes the bills then the GOP can build a pretty good case for getting their nominee elected in 2016. If not, then this is going to be a short GOP majority in the Senate and the Democrats have a lot stronger bid for keeping the White House.
Ah, the familiar refrain from the fringes: “We lost because we were insufficiently pure in our doctrine. I told you so!” ‘Twas ever thus.
I’m bummed about Illinois Gov. Pat Quinn, but it will be refreshing to see someone leave the governor’s office without handcuffs and a police escort. (Not that I have anything against bondage; it’s a perfectly valid lifestyle choice….)
Ah; apparently this is an obscure usage of the word “need” with which I was previously unacquainted (to misquote Douglas Adams). What outcome turns on whether the Republicans do any of these things?
For example, if Republicans passed a bill providing a path for people who arrived illegally as kids to gain citizenship, what would be the result? White working-class people living in the midst of declining job prospects would decry this as amnesty. And even the people who gain citizenship will be unlikely to reward Republicans with their votes, knowing that the Democrats would have gone further and granted citizenship to their parents. Plus, Republicans’ continuing efforts to disenfranchise minority voters will continue to reinforce a racist theme.
Would there be any up-side for the Republicans? Kinda. It’s imperative if the Republicans ever expect to win the White House again. But, realistically, they don’t.
Despite last night’s wins, the GOP remains in a death spiral. The things Republicans as a group should do for the good of the national party are contrary to the things any given Republican politician should do to curry favor with his own constituents. And if you want to run for President, the test you must pass to get the Republican nomination requires you to adopt the views of the people who dominate the primaries. MA Gov. Romney wasn’t a terrible candidate going into the Republican primaries – but he was unelectable by the time he got out. I see little prospects for changing this dynamic until those constituents die.
No, just as Nate Silver could predict a Democratic shellacking long before last night, he’ll be able to predict a Republican shellacking in 2016 pretty much regardless of intervening circumstances. The number of open seats, the changing national demographics, and the kind of turn-out that a presidential race brings will dictate big wins for Democrats. Only TV pundits and horoscope writers cite policy as a basis for electoral outcomes anymore.
So here’s how the next two years unfold:
1. Immigration: Nada. Maybe there will be some kind of faux immigration bill tied to the repeal of Obamacare, the EPA, and the Thirteenth Amendment. But I don’t expect this to go even that far.
2. Maybe progress on health care, assuming the Supreme Court strikes down federal subsidies for states that lack their own health care exchanges. But even here, I expect there’s no limit to the pain Republican politicians would let people endure if required to signal opposition to Obamacare. Google “Mississippi Obamacare” for a case study.
3. Budget: This one’s tricky. Even the Republicans know that shutdowns are unpopular, and that they (perhaps unfairly) will get the blame. Thus did the Republicans pass continuing resolutions the last time around. But can the Republicans continue to do so now that they cannot point fingers at the Democratically-controlled Senate? I’m guessing yes: Republicans with national ambition will pontificate about the need to stop accommodating the White House and will vote no on all spending — but the majority will quietly pass continuing resolutions and keep the issue out of the headlines. An improving economy will drive down deficits even if there’s no new spending cuts beyond the Sequester.
Actually, I could imagine Republicans breaking the Sequester to increase funding for the military, and Obama going along.
4. Tax/entitlement reform? Conceptually the Republicans could fashion some kind of reform that the Obama technocrats would embrace: “chained” cost-of-living adjustments for Social Security; repealing the medical device tax; etc.
But no new taxes.
5. Courts: And no new judges. If someone dies, their robe will lie empty until 2016.
6. All Bengasi, All the Time! While an endless series of investigations might well be a side-show that showers the Republican Party in even greater shame in the eyes of swing voters, it might well have a real, practical effect of damaging Hillary.
Again, I surmise the Democrats could run a cocker spaniel and win the White House in 2016. The question is, why would they? The answer is, of course, because the cocker spaniel has momentum, endorsements, and an enormous war chest. But if the cocker spaniel were knocked out of the race, the Democrats would be free to run Elizabeth Warren!
Much like entitlement reform, keeping Hillary off the 2016 ballot is something the Democrats are institutionally unable to do for themselves; they need an outside force. And Republicans may be too willing to oblige. The Republican establishment, controlled by the finance industry, would vastly prefer Hillary to Elizabeth, and so will try to restrain their party — but to no avail. When you ride the back of rabid populism, you cannot steer, but you dare not let go.
Someday Ken Burn’s grandkids will create a documentary entitled “Warren: Rise to Greatness.” It will feature cameras panning across still photos as a tinny recording of Miley Cyrus’s Wrecking Ball plays in the background, and a voiceover reminds us of the circuitous path Elizabeth took to 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.
So be of good cheer: Happy Days are Here Again….
nobody.really:
1. I had to look up which amendment the 13th amendment was. At which point I figure there’s no particular need to take hyperbole seriously.
2 through 6: see #1.
I will say that the only way Elizabeth Warren sits in the big chair in the Oval Office is that either a) she gets elected as VP and then something happens to the President, or b) the Secret Service lets Sen. Warren sit there for a few seconds during a White House tour.
Amp:
With regards to the link about 100 women in Congress that you cited, note that the next Congress will include a black woman elected to the House from Utah courtesy of the Republicans. And, while not relevant to that link, the first black Senator from the South since Reconstruction, again courtesy of those racists in the GOP and the Tea Party Movement.
I’m worried about what’s going to happen with the ACA. I know that there’s a strong possibility that I’ll be unemployed for at least a few months next year, and I’m worried about health insurance.
The best thing I saw written about this election was, to paraphrase, “The electorate wants legal marijuana, abortion rights, pay equality and GOP representation. Whatever.”
RonF:
When trying to convince people that your party is not racist, I’m not sure that a winning argument is, “Out of the 296 seats that they hold in both chambers of Congress, Republicans managed to send 3* black people!” (*also Will Hurd, member of the House from Texas)
Seems like we lost because a lot of people assumed that everyone would vote party line (even if they were bad candidates) instead of voting for competing non-party candidates. Coakley had less than 80% of the Democratic vote in some polls, for example. that wasn’t because she was a Democrat; it was because she was simply not a great candidate for governor.
In a way, I don’t know if the loss is a bad thing. Personally I would welcome a switch to a greater focus on invidual competence and away from party loyalty.
Seems to me that a major part of the GOP victory yesterday was their surprisingly intelligent (though heavy-handed) strategy of purging all the Tea Party nutcases from the ballot back in the primaries. If the ‘populist conservatives’ of the Tea Party had been in the general election, the results would have been very, very different.
Consider that in Illinois Sen. Durbin (D) won 53.1%/43.2%, but Gov.-Elect Rauner (R) won 50.8%/45.8%. There’s a significant number of people out there who do NOT vote a straight party ticket (myself being one of them).
Harlequin, the issue was women, not blacks. And the GOP is definitely increasing the number of women they put up for election and actually elect. Of those 100 women, 24 are Republicans – and that’s going to increase when the new Congress is seated in 2015.
BTW, you can tell you’re based in the Northwest of this country when you use an analogy that references 13-year-olds drinking coffee. Let’s just say that it’s not something I see a lot of in the 13-year olds in Illinois.
I occasionally have kids in my Troop ask one of the adults if they can have coffee. I step in and tell them “If you bring us a note from one of your parents saying you can have coffee, we’ll let you have some.” In 22 years as a Scout leader, no one has ever gotten me that note.
Since you yourself brought up racism in the specific comment Harlequin was responding to, this seems unfair.
13 is a bit young – maybe I should have said “16.” I was just so happy to think of a double-meaning for “creamed” that was in no way pornographic. :-p
Or, I guess, the Northeast of this country if my childhood is an accurate reflection of the time and place.
From Jon Chait:
Me, too. Under the ACA I’ve gotten the best health coverage of my adult life. But I think that the longer the ACA exists, the harder it will be for Republicans to yank it away.
G&W:
I don’t think it’s a bad thing that local voters consider individual candidate’s merits outside of the party membership, especially for non-legislative positions. I do think, however, that the fact that Coakley has won 2 major Democratic party primaries in Massachusetts, despite being a terrible candidate, suggests that Massachusetts Democrats badly need to reform their primary system in order to make it more competitive and more open to new blood.
Let’s just say that it’s not something I see a lot of in the 13-year olds in Illinois.
Buh? The middle school my daughter went to sold coffee in the library as a way to encourage the kids to read. I can’t vouch for all of downstate, but the 11-13 set here is pretty familiar with coffee (and yes, tends to prefer the mocha or cappucino version). No one thinks that’s unusual here.
La Lubu: A middle school selling coffee to 11 year olds? That’s astonishing. What area is this?
Amp: ” that the fact that Coakley has won 2 major Democratic party primaries in Massachusetts, despite being a terrible candidate, suggests that Massachusetts Democrats badly need to reform their primary system in order to make it more competitive and more open to new blood.”
What would you propose they do? It’s a straight-up question, I don’t know how their processes work. And one has to ask why the voters selected her during the primary, especially after her loss against Scott Brown?
Here in Illinois the electoral system heavily favors the established parties and candidates supported by them. In the primaries, if you decide to enter the primary and run against the candidate favored by the [ County_name } [ party_name ] Central Committee, expect them to spend the money their supporters have donated to them by hiring lawyers and workers and challenging every single signature on your nominating papers – while you have no resources to do the same to their candidate’s signatures. If you don’t gather at least double and perhaps triple or quadruple the number of signatures legally required, expect that compliant members of the election board, who owe their position on that board to support from the major parties, will agree to enough of the challenges to knock you off the ballot. That’s how Barack Obama ran unopposed on the Democratic primary (equivalent to election) in his first campaign for State Senator. He’s not particularly unique in that regard, though, at least not in Illinois.
I was about 13 when the first Starbucks in my area opened, and we definitely felt all cool and “We’re wearing black and hanging out at a coffee shop, just like all those artsy people in the city!” when we went there and got drinks that were probably 90% milk, 8% sugar and chocolate, and 2% coffee. (We were in the suburbs of NYC. “Those artsy people in the city” were a pretty constant object of fascination for those of us who wanted to get out of the suburbs.) I can definitely see that sort of thing having drifted down to the 11-year-olds by now.
Personally, I’m expecting a Gingrich style circular firing squad within the year, but I’m always ready to be surprised.
You’re all savvy media consumers to put it mildly. In my state the Republicans just ran a better media campaign, going with the old adage that the people with the best propaganda will win.
Who seemed to sell it better where you are?
To tell you the truth, I pretty much never see or hear any commercials anymore. Here in Oregon, both Democrats and liberals did really well this election, so I guess they must have done a decent job with the ads, but I never saw any.
But then again, I’m not a swing voter. I don’t vote a party line ticket, but only because when the election seems safe I vote for the Greens instead of the Democrats; it’s hard to imagine a Republican I’d vote for.
RonF, I’m intrigued at your mention of RINOs. Do you really think RINOs are still a significant force in Congress? If you don’t mind saying, who are some of the Senators you’d peg as RINO leaders? My impression from here on the left is that the RINOs have been pretty well cowed by Tea Party primary challengers (or the threat thereof).
Amp, right now I would say Sen. Mitch McConnell is starting to sound like a RINO. As far as Tea Party Movement aligned candidates, there’s a lot of talk on the blogosphere about how many of them actually lost in the primaries and how the establishment GOP racked up a lot of wins. There were significant TPM aligned candidates who won, though, including Congress’ first female black Republican and the first black Republican Senator from the Old South since Reconstruction.
I’d rather wait to answer you after we see the Senate take up bills for health care and immigration. We’ll see who thinks the onus is on conservatives and the GOP to compromise their core principles with the Democrats and who thinks that the Congress’ minority party needs to do some compromising themselves. There’s already a dialogue on the conservative blogs saying “We didn’t go out and win this thing to see McConnell give it away.”
Which speaks to Dianne’s proposal of a circular firing squad. The risk is certainly significant. I certainly hope it doesn’t happen, though. I want to see some well-crafted and well-debated bills end up on the President’s desk.
Brian, here in Illinois I think that Gov.-elect Bruce Rauner (R) won in a ridiculously blue state for two reasons:
1) Gov. Quinn and his supporters ran a lot of HE EATS BABIES FOR BREAKFAST ads, and I think they really turned people off. Rauner ran a lot of ads with his wife (I know what Rauner’s wife looks like and sounds like – can’t say that for Quinn) that made him seem like a normal guy. Rich as Croesus, mind you, but otherwise normal.
2) The GOP – and I think this is something that’s happening across the country, not just here in Illinois – is starting to do a much better job of using data to feed a ground game. I’m talking knocking on doors and calling people. they are not at the level of the Obama machine yet, but at least they’ve recognized the issue and are taking concrete steps to address it.
It occurs to me to add that the latter could not have happened in Illinois without a very wealthy candidate such as Bruce Rauner. The Illinois GOP is pretty weak, and nobody knew who Bruce Rauner was. A lot of that money was spent just getting people to recognize who he was. Would a publically-funded campaign system permit an unknown candidate to spend extra money in order to gain name recognition? If not, doesn’t that give a great advantage to incumbents?