So, what have we learned from the drubbing that the GOP just received? And it was a drubbing. We picked up 6 seats in the Senate out of 15 possible targets (and when you consider serious targets, we really only lost 3 we had any realistic shot at winning), and at least 29 seats in the House, giving the Democrats a majority as large as anything the GOP has had since 1994. But wait, there's more. We picked up several statehouses which control the all important redistricting of House seats. Further, we also picked up six governors' mansions, leading Democrats to controlling a majority of those as well. And perhaps most astoundingly (and unprecedentedly in the post-war era), the Republicans failed to pick up any Democratic seats in any of the Congressional or gubernatorial races. Some comments:
Now, as everyone has taken paints to point out, this victory is primarily the result of dissatisfaction with the Republicans, not because they really took the Democrats "positive agenda." Some people (let's call him B. Leiter) seem to think that this is because the Democrats have no positive agenda. But that's more than a little unfair. The Democrats have released plenty of papers and press conferences expressing what they will do if they govern (the first 100 hours, kind of a clever way to go about it if you ask me), but these things have--unsurprisingly--not gotten a lot of traction. The opposition party has an extraordinarily limited ability to control the agenda, and nobody kicks out the current party because of the "positive agenda." The powers and privileges of incumbency (and being the party in power) are simply too strong to be overcome that way. Waves that wash away parties in power are almost entirely negative in that way. If the people weren't deeply dissatisfied with the ruling party in the first place, it is simply a fact that opposition parties just don't get that far. This isn't unique to this election or even this era of politics.
But even so, it isn't like the various campaign weren't focussed around issues that Democrats never took a clear stand on. Missouri was a referendum on stem-cell research, Spitzer made his high profile campaign against corruption a centerpiece of his campaign. And of course corrupted officials are going to be more vulnerable than others. Of course officials that are associated with the unpopular President are going to be more vulnerable. This isn't rocket science. Further, and I really wish people would pay attention to this point: it didn't happen if the media doesn't cover it. There is this weird and absurd ponzi scheme where the media doesn't cover the Democrats' positive agenda and then blames them for a lack of just such an agenda, with the far Left unconsciously spreading the right-wing talking point that the "Democrats stand for nothing" and have "no new ideas" because apparently they can't write their philosophy down on a notecard. I am willing to grant that the Democrats could do a better job of putting together a cohesive narrative, but that doesn't mean they don't stand for anything. Smart radicals should understand, if anyone does, that the positions that your opponents assert you have and the positions you actually have can come apart.
I am with Matt Yglesias on this one. It isn't the lack of a "narrative" that has sunk the Dems. It is that an important swing constituency will vote for Republicans, despite their general agreement with the Dems, because they think that the Republicans will protect them from terrorists. It's stupid, but that doesn't make it any less true. This is why Katrina and the Dubai Ports were so important. They showed that you couldn't rely on these people to protect America. It dulled the most potent arrow in the Republican quiver.
The second right-wing meme that has unfortunately gotten some traction is that "all the Democrats who got elected are really conservative so it I am worried it might not make any difference." First, any person who makes this objection decisively misunderstands American politics. Suppose that it was true that the Democratic caucus has added members who are primarily socially conservative, there is simply no way that Speaker Pelosi or Majority Leader Reid will allow divisive socially conservative votes to even come to the floor. Further, the switch in majorities means that the committee chairs will switch too, and many of these chairs are quite liberal (Waxman, Rangel, Ted Kennedy, and the list goes on). The parliamentarian structure and rules of debate play a large role in granting even a small majority considerable power over the agenda. The fact that the majority has been produced by some more conservative members is immaterial, even supposing it was true. I mean, we have a member of the Progressive Caucus as Speaker of the House for crying out loud!
And more importantly, the claim that our gains were primarily composed of uber-conservative Democrats is simply false. Sherrod Brown will be one of the most liberal members of the caucus. Klobuchar is not conservative at all, and neither is Whitehouse (hell, he replaced the most liberal member of the GOP by moving to his left). Tester and McCaskill are both pretty liberal themselves, despite the fact that they both come from generally red states. This more than compensates for Casey and Webb, who are much less liberal than the other 4 pickups.
And if you look at the House, you do have the occasional Democrat who is socially quite conservative (like Schuler). However, this exaggerates one trend (somewhat conservative Dems in red states replacing more conservative Republicans, and it should be noted that even in red states we are getting some genuine progressives, like Yarmuth in KY) at the expense of another trend that is equally real: the replacement of moderate Republicans in the Northeast with progressive Democrats (see NY, CT, NH etc). It is simply not the case that the 29 pickups the Dems made decisively moves the Democrats rightward, and the argument is even weaker for the Senate.
As for credit, I think it is clear the Washington establishment and the netroots both played roles in the victory. The establishment did an excellent job recruiting good candidates across the board, and they raised enough money to put the Dems on nigh-parity for the first time in quite some time. However, the netroots did do a significant service in bringing to national prominence a couple of races and candidates that ultimately did end up winning (Webb, Tester for example). Further, they did push for widening our target base, allowing us to take advantage of the wave. Also, Dean's support of the 50 state parties allows us to build infarastructure to the point that we could compete with GOP GOTV operations.
The netroots support for the 50 state strategy has two significant advantages. First, better GOTV operations allow us to win tight races that we have lost in the past. Notice that the three pickups we needed for the Senate were won by less than a collective 30,000 votes. Those are races we would have lost in 2004 and 2002. Second, expanding the field and recruiting quality candidates for more races, we can take advantage of new developments. New corruption charge? Someone accused of strangling a mistress? Embarassing vote or connection? We have a quality candidate ready to pounce and take advantage.
Still, we need to be careful about drawing too strong a conclusion from this election. This election occurred under conditions that could hardly be more favorable to the opposition party. Corruption, unpopular war, and a president dragging the incumbents down. It isn't clear to me that the "50 state strategy" would be the best way to go in a race where the macro indicators and the environment were less favorable. Certainly, spreading the field in the Senate hurt the Republicans considerably.
Finally, this should finish off the "Karl Rove is a genius" bullshit once and for all. He got lucky a couple times, and all of a sudden the guy is Machiavelli. He fucked up big time and cost the Republicans the Senate: send him to fricking Siberia. I think the Dems viewed Rove the way the Army of Potomac viewed Lee. And they needed Grant to come along and say, "You guys think that Lee is going to a do a somersault and attack on the rear and both sides. I don't care what Lee does; I care about what I am going to do to him." They finally figured it out.
This is *really* good analysis (and I expected nothing less).
Don't you just love saying "Speaker Pelosi"? It has a very nice ring to it.
Posted by: Steve Calderwood | November 09, 2006 at 10:33 AM