A lot has been made about this recently-Matt Yglesias among others have suggested the Dems are in big trouble due to how poorly they've fared in House races, state races, etc.
Does the poor down-ballot track record experienced by Democratic candidates not named Barack Obama mean that going into the next cycle the Democratic Party is in shambles? That the Age of Obama is little more than a cult of personality masking the party’s fundamental unpopularity?
"Some political observers—liberal and conservative—think so. Last week’s election results in Kentucky and Virginia “reveal the Democratic Party's peril," declared Vox’s Matthew Yglesias. “Under President Obama,” he added, “Democrats have lost 900+ state legislature seats, 12 governors, 69 House seats, 13 Senate seats.” Added former Republican leadership aide Rory Cooper in a much-retweeted Twitter post:“That's some legacy.”
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2015/11/09/democrats_need_not_panic_over_down-ballot_trend_128673.html
"Turnout in off years is also important and the Dems need to make sure they mobilize the base for those years as well."
But a lot of the bedwetting may be overdone. In some way the Congressional and state losses are a sign of Dem success. Scher further argues that it's better to be President than win Congress or at the state level.
"The Democratic Party’s hope is that their younger, multicultural electoral coalition is better suited for winning high-turnout presidential races than low-turnout off-year contests, which still allows them to keep moving the country in their preferred direction. Some critics of this approach say the presidency is not enough, and that success in state legislatures is the key to enacting a more longstanding party agenda."
"That’s debatable. My own view is that the president, more than any single person, drives the national agenda. Opposition party resistance at the federal and state level may cause much grief and frustration, but presidents play offense while everyone else plays defense."
"Consider that even with so many Republicans holding power under Obama, Obamacare has been fully implemented in most states, 17 states have raised the minimum wage since 2013, and major executive actions have been taken to protect workers’ rights and stop climate change."
Does the poor down-ballot track record experienced by Democratic candidates not named Barack Obama mean that going into the next cycle the Democratic Party is in shambles? That the Age of Obama is little more than a cult of personality masking the party’s fundamental unpopularity?
"Some political observers—liberal and conservative—think so. Last week’s election results in Kentucky and Virginia “reveal the Democratic Party's peril," declared Vox’s Matthew Yglesias. “Under President Obama,” he added, “Democrats have lost 900+ state legislature seats, 12 governors, 69 House seats, 13 Senate seats.” Added former Republican leadership aide Rory Cooper in a much-retweeted Twitter post:“That's some legacy.”
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2015/11/09/democrats_need_not_panic_over_down-ballot_trend_128673.html
However, Bill Scher goes on to argue something that makes a lot of sense. Basically, the problems the Dems have had during the Obama years are not existential. It's neither a rebuke to Obama or proof that POTUS won with a 'cult of personality' and once he's gone the Dems are toast.
It's simply this: the Presidential party always does poorly in off year elections. Indeed, he shows how even FDR had some issues back in 1938 where the conservatives in the Democratic party united with the GOP to effectively unite Congress against the President.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2015/02/09/obama_vs_fdr_year_seven_125526.html
It's interesting how much a change in framing can change the picture. In recent years we've heard about the Dems midterm problems. But party of this is because off year elections are always bad for the Presidential party.
It's funny. Between 1968 and 1992 the GOP won the Presidency 20 of 24 years but during that entire time the Dems held the House and held the Senate but for the first six years of Reagan's term.
Then in 1992 Bill Clinton broke through and then we saw in the next 24 years-through 2016-that while the Dems have dominated at the Presidential election-they've won 3 of the last 5 elections and won the popular vote 4 out of 5 times but the GOP has dominated in Congress.
"Pendulum swings are also the norm in state-level races. Democrats picked up eight governors’ mansions during Ronald Reagan’s first term, for a total of 35. After the off-year elections in Bill Clinton’s first term, it was the Republicans who had 31. Then Democrats took back the gubernatorial majority after Bush’s second midterm."
"The same is true for state legislative races. The Democrats lost 524 seats under Bill Clinton, creating an even split of the more than 7,000 posts between the two major parties. Then Republicans lost 324 seats by the end of Bush presidency, giving Democrats the edge. Under Obama, the tables have turned yet again."
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2015/02/09/obama_vs_fdr_year_seven_125526.html
It's interesting how much a change in framing can change the picture. In recent years we've heard about the Dems midterm problems. But party of this is because off year elections are always bad for the Presidential party.
It's funny. Between 1968 and 1992 the GOP won the Presidency 20 of 24 years but during that entire time the Dems held the House and held the Senate but for the first six years of Reagan's term.
Then in 1992 Bill Clinton broke through and then we saw in the next 24 years-through 2016-that while the Dems have dominated at the Presidential election-they've won 3 of the last 5 elections and won the popular vote 4 out of 5 times but the GOP has dominated in Congress.
"Pendulum swings are also the norm in state-level races. Democrats picked up eight governors’ mansions during Ronald Reagan’s first term, for a total of 35. After the off-year elections in Bill Clinton’s first term, it was the Republicans who had 31. Then Democrats took back the gubernatorial majority after Bush’s second midterm."
"The same is true for state legislative races. The Democrats lost 524 seats under Bill Clinton, creating an even split of the more than 7,000 posts between the two major parties. Then Republicans lost 324 seats by the end of Bush presidency, giving Democrats the edge. Under Obama, the tables have turned yet again."
"The point of this is not that the Dems have nothing to worry about. There is a real problem with the GOP gerrymandering House districts and holding down the vote with various voter ID schemes. In 2012 the Dems got 54% of the Congressional vote and yet remained the minority."
"Turnout in off years is also important and the Dems need to make sure they mobilize the base for those years as well."
But a lot of the bedwetting may be overdone. In some way the Congressional and state losses are a sign of Dem success. Scher further argues that it's better to be President than win Congress or at the state level.
"The Democratic Party’s hope is that their younger, multicultural electoral coalition is better suited for winning high-turnout presidential races than low-turnout off-year contests, which still allows them to keep moving the country in their preferred direction. Some critics of this approach say the presidency is not enough, and that success in state legislatures is the key to enacting a more longstanding party agenda."
"That’s debatable. My own view is that the president, more than any single person, drives the national agenda. Opposition party resistance at the federal and state level may cause much grief and frustration, but presidents play offense while everyone else plays defense."
"Consider that even with so many Republicans holding power under Obama, Obamacare has been fully implemented in most states, 17 states have raised the minimum wage since 2013, and major executive actions have been taken to protect workers’ rights and stop climate change."
No comments:
Post a Comment