But even if Obama is as popular as he is now, or even more so, and even if Democrats keep all the trends that have favored them in the last two years, they will be facing severe obstacles in holding their gains, not to speak of adding to them.
It must be understood that Democratic successes have depended on certain demographic groups who have turned out in large numbers for them, particularly in the last election. These groups are the young, African-Americans, Hispanics, and the poor, who have not historically voted in large numbers. It is safe to assume that in an off-year election they will be voting in lesser numbers, and Republicans and their allies are doing all they can to suppress this vote. Since these are the primary, or at least a crucial component of the Democratic coalition, their voting in lesser number represents a significant danger to Democratic successes.
In addition Democratic successes in past elections pose their own dangers, for as they won in swing states and in swing districts, it became the Democrats who became more vulnerable to losses in close elections. In addition, there is less and less low hanging fruit to be picked up, since the districts most likely to swing Democratic, are already in their column.
Finally, Democrats will be up against a historical pattern. Almost invariably the Presidents party loses seats in the election immediately following the Presidents ascension, and this appears to be true even when the President is popular, his popularity affecting only the degree of the losses. Thus following Eisenhower’s victory in 1952, and with Eisenhower having a popularity rating of 59%, Republicans lost 18 House seats in 1954. Kennedy was elected in 1960, had a popularity rating of 68% and Democrats lost two House seats in the following election. After Johnson’s victory in 1964, and with a low standing in popularity of 46%, Democrats lost a whopping 47 seats. Following Nixon’s election, Republicans, two years later, lost 12 seats. After Carter’s election, Democrats lost 15 seats, and following Reagan’s election his party lost 27 seats, though at that point Reagan’s popularity was down to 43%. Two years after the first Bush was elected, in 1990 Republicans lost 8 seats, but after Clinton’s victory in 1992, Democrats two years later, in 1994, not only lost 54 House seats, but lost control of both Houses of Congress, leaving them in the minority until 2006. George W. Bush was the first President since FDR to see his party gain seats during the first mid-term election following his own election two years earlier, but this was after 9/11 and with his popularity at 62%.
This is graphically summarized in a graph courtesy of the National Committee for an Effective Congress:
Thus if history is a guide, and it might not be, Obama only has two years to enact his long range programs, before loss of Congress, or at least reduced majorities make overcoming determined filibusters, all but impossible.
There is therefore great urgency in enacting the Presidents program, and even now with not quite enough votes to overcome a filibuster against a united and determined Republican minority, the obstacles are obvious, if not entirely insurmountable.
There are striking and worrisome parallels between 1994 and 2010. In 1994 Democrats controlled the Presidency and both Houses of Congress. Presidential coattails enabled Democrats to win seats in historically Republican districts. Similarly, Democrats have far fewer election targets in 2010 than Republicans, much as they did in 1994. An analysis shows that there are as many as 60 potentially vulnerable Democrats in the House in 2010. With the present lineup being 255 Democrats and 178 Republicans, a 60 vote swing would give Republicans 238 seats and Democrats 195 ceding control to Republicans. Of course vulnerable doesn’t mean a lost seat and if we assume a loss of half of the vulnerable seats, Dems would have 225 seats and Republicans 208, keeping a reduced but still workable majority for the Democrats.
REASON FOR DEMOCRATIC OPTIMISM
The 1994 parallel is far from full proof, as not every electoral indicator favors the Republicans. First, in 1994, 22 of the seats gained by Republicans stemmed from Democratic retirements in competitive districts. So far in this cycle, only one Democrat from a competitive district, New Hampshire's Congressman Paul Hodes has indicated that he will vacate his seat in 2010. Hodes is seeking the Senate seat in New Hampshire. However, it is too early in the cycle to draw any conclusions about future retirements. Conversely, speculation suggests that several Republican incumbents, frustrated by minority status, could retire between now and Election Day.
Second, Barack Obama is off to a far more auspicious beginning than Bill Clinton was in 1993. That assumption must be tempered by the unclear economic climate. A slip in Obama's approval rating due to the continued problems in the economy could raise the likelihood of the Democrats losing a significant number of seats. As I have pointed out, the incumbent President's approval rating going into a midterm election can have a huge effect on his party's fortunes. If President Obama can maintain an approval rating above 60 percent, he can help mitigate some of the potential losses and maybe turn them into gains.
Third, regional dynamics that are no longer in place today helped produce the Republican take over in 1994. For example, about half the districts lost by Democrats in 1994 were located in the South, in Border States, or in the rural West. Republican success in these regions continued through the 2004 election, but those trends have waned and partially reversed since 2006. Presently there are far fewer Democratic targets in those regions for the Republicans to unseat.
Conversely, from a regional standpoint, the Republicans have sustained a meltdown in the East, with no immediate end in sight. With the loss of Chris Shays seat in Connecticut in 2008, the Republicans have zero seats in all of New England. They have also sustained further losses in the West, which is sure to gain seats after the next census. Evidence of a potential Republican comeback will be scrutinized in 2009 gubernatorial contests both New Jersey and Virginia. Previously, these off year elections have been useful indicators for the mood of the electorate heading into the midterm campaign. In 2005 Democrats won the gubernatorial races in both of these states, which served as a precursor to the huge gains seen by Democrats in 2006. No Republican has won a gubernatorial election in either state in the 21st century.
In the Senate, and this could change quickly, it looks promising, and since this is where filibusters must be overcome, doing well is particularly important. Based on available polls a reasonable outlook would give Democrats a net gain of three seats, more than enough to prevent filibusters. This assumes pickups of five seats and two losses, with the pickups projected in the following four states: Florida, Missouri New Hampshire and Pennsylvania and one from the following two states: North Carolina or Ohio. Pennsylvania may have been considered doubtful, but with Sen. Specter defection to the Democratic Party, it is safe to assume he will win re-election as a Democrat. Here it is interesting to note that North Carolina is listed in the doubtful column despite the fact that according to Newsweek’s April 27, 2009 issue, incumbent Republican Senator Jim Bunning has an approval rating of 28%.
Losses are expected in Delaware and in one of the following two states: Colorado or Connecticut.
It appears that the outlook for Democrats is cloudy, with the sun peeking from behind the clouds.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment