While Christine O'Donnell's upset victory over Rep. Mike Castle does turn a likely Democratic loss into a likely Democratic hold, my recollection of Scott Brown prevent me from crowing too hard. I do think Chris Coons will win this seat, but I don't want to count my chickens before they hatch.
That being said, Jonathan Chait is undoubtedly correct that the victories of (among others) O'Donnell, Sharron Angle, Marco Rubio, Rick Scott, and (we just found out) Carl Paladino over establishment-backed favorites is going to make it pretty hard for Republicans to recruit their preferred candidates into races next time around. Castle, for example, gave up a locked-down House seat for a race he never seemed that interested in running for, and which was not a sure shot (particularly when Beau Biden was considering the race). Now he's rewarded with an ignoble end to his political career. The national party simply can't be relied upon the clear the field for even its highest-profile recruits anymore.
Will this sink the GOP ship in 2010? Perhaps not -- the fundamentals are entirely in their favor, and they will still see significant gains in the House and the Senate. But in 2012 -- when, presumably, this wave will have crested -- that's when the pain will emerge, because that's when you very well could see a surprisingly large number of dangerous Republican candidates passing on competitive races for fear of being bounced in the primary season. And while they may be able to skate by on the fundamentals alone in 2010, I think in 2012 -- with the Democratic Party in full swing to promoting President Obama's reelection fight -- being stuck with a ton of subpar, far-right candidates will really come back to haunt them.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
I remember Massachusetts. A senator was elected who, were Massachusetts like most other states, could have run as a moderate to slightly liberal Democrat.
As for the GOP in Delaware, etc., it is not clear what the election of tea party types will mean. It could save the Democrats. Then again, maybe not. The Democrats foolishly tied themselves to the most incompetent President in my lifetime - worse than Carter. And, there is that wonderful economy which our incompetent President stupidly, as if GW Bush were his mentor, declared some mastery of a bit prematurely.
As for Obama's future, unless the economy picks up and unless his style of governance changes substantially, I think his chances of re-election are not that great. Frankly, he is a grave disappointment who, thus far, does not really deserve reelection.
"Deserve's got nothing to do with it."
Which is to say, N, either the economy picks up or it doesn't (or it doesn't pick up but Republicans nominate a terrible candidate).
Also, I'm puzzled at what supposedly makes Obama that much more incompetent than any other Democrat who could have been elected in his place. And how his party would be anything but tied to their incumbent in a midterm election. It all strikes me as pure Monday morning quarterbacking, because I'm not sure what else makes self-identifying liberals go after the most liberal presidents like this.
joe,
Yes, the President has been burdened by the ongoing recession. His problem, however, is how he has dealt with things, both substantively and politically. His policies and style have hemorrhaged support for Democrats.
FDR also came into office with serious economic problems but he convinced the public that he was on top of things and stood with average people. Hence, he gained seats in the first mid-term election that followed his election. So, the economic problems are an insufficient explanation.
In the case of Obama, a whole host of political and substantive mistakes were made. In the case of he economy, going down the Keynesian path might well have been a good idea if he had pursued that approach vigorously. He did not. He certainly knew (or should have known) everything that the Keynesian, Paul Krugman, wrote at the time about the government's then proposed economic package being woefully insufficient. Yet, the President made a political decision not to use his political capital to push a sufficient bill through Congress.
Instead, he made grandiose, economically unsupportable, claims (e.g. that he would reduce unemployment into the 8% range) about the proposal he signed onto. So, when Krugman was proven correct (or, if you do not like Keynes, when the neo-classical economists were proven correct), he left the Democrats holding the bag.
And, he made things even worse by, instead of (to quote Clinton) focusing on the economy like a laser, pushing for healtcare insurance reform - something desperately needed but, in fact, not as much as dealing with the economic emergency. And, the program he pushed is really hated.
And, he has, rather than work to keep his political alliance together, split it. E.g., in the case of Israel and Iran, many of his followers are disgusted by a President whose administration has publicly upbraided the Israelis - wasting an entire year on nonsense that, as was predicted at the time, made negotiations more difficult even to begin - and seemingly doing very little about the Iranian storm that is growing.
Then, there are the cultural issues, on which the President has declared himself to be the spokesman for academic values, not those of average people. The Crowley/Gates affair was the first such incident.
People can, of course, turn around. However, I do not see Obama as being other than a narrow ideologue. So, while I hope to be surprised, I am not holding my breath.
FDR also came into office with serious economic problems but he convinced the public that he was on top of things and stood with average people. Hence, he gained seats in the first mid-term election that followed his election. So, the economic problems are an insufficient explanation.
Yes, if only Obama were showing his sympathy with average people by railing against "the unscrupulous money changers" who "have fled from their high seats in the temple of our civilization." I'm sure that wouldn't lead folks like N. Friedman to accuse him of anti-Semitic dog whistles.
And if only Obama had pushed legislation like the NIRA that forced companies to set minimum prices, make agreements not to compete, and engage in production restrictions. I'm sure such an actually socialist program would have gotten him high approval ratings among voters who are still convinced Reagan was a good economic policymaker.
PG,
What I was saying is that it is possible to succeed as president notwithstanding the bad times. That was in response to joe's effort to give Obama a pass for very poor policy choices and very poor public relations.
You're certainly correct that the economy is an insufficient explanation for why things are the way they are. The economy combined with modern mass media, demographics, income stratification, and (at the risk of causing "Fight the Power" to spontaneously blare from some unseen speaker) the military industrial complex would be a step towards a completionist answer. And, like the economy, there's very little most presidents can do about those things, least of all in the short term.
Then, there are the cultural issues, on which the President has declared himself to be the spokesman for academic values, not those of average people. The Crowley/Gates affair was the first such incident.
I've never taken a African American or Gender Studies class in my life, and I could write a short book on the implied POV and assumptions in this paragraph. As a matter of fact many people who ("average" or not) aren't well-to-do white people probably didn't see the issues in that case very academically.
joe,
You list other causes, other than the remarkable incompetence of the President, for why the President is unpopular. On your theory, no president could succeed in a bad economy because the press or the opposition or who knows what makes life difficult. Nonsense.
Again: The President's policies did not work because they were not remotely adequate and that is an important thing that makes him unpopular. Had his policies worked or, in the alternative, had he been seen as focusing on that topic with all of his considerable talents, the public would be more forgiving.
Recall, the President predicted, on the basis of fantasy economics, that we would, by now, have unemployment rates in the 8+% range. And, he was upbeat and changed the topic, while jobs were not regained, to things on his own political agenda - things, which were not at the top of the public's agenda. Once he changed the topic from the economic emergency to other matters - and never ally returned to the economy as a sustained focus -, he distanced himself from the public which, quite obviously given the scope of the economic woes we face, want the economy fixed more than wanting healthcare insurance reform. Not to understand that is to be blind.
As for the elite comment and how the public has come to perceive him ... The President's opponents, Democrats (most particularly, Hillary) and Republicans, pushed that point throughout the campaign. And, having sided repeatedly with elite interests since becoming President - interests that coincide with the dominant view among academics -, he is seen as out of touch with the values held by average people.
it is possible to succeed as president notwithstanding the bad times
If by "succeed as president," you mean "get reelected," then sure. Are you willing to have Obama do all the things FDR did to "succeed"? If not, your historical comparison is irrelevant.
PG,
I was merely making the point that presidents have succeeded, both electorally - an important factor - and as leader in bad times. Obama is a terrible leader and he has made policy blunders of historic significance - as bad or worse than Bush II, which is really saying something. To me, he is a disaster and, while I would not, at present contemplate voting for a Republican, I think it rather unlikely that I could vote for Obama. He is just awful.
Post a Comment