- Joined
- Oct 17, 2007
- Messages
- 11,862
- Reaction score
- 10,300
- Location
- New York
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Centrist
Having seen all the polling, I have little disagreement that a big political change is coming to the Congress. As many have ventured specific guesses about which party will win what number of seats, I'll throw in a guess, as well.
House: Republicans: 235; Democrats: 200
Senate: Republicans: 49; Democrats: 51
The more interesting questions concern (1) whether the change in House leadership will be strenghtened in the next election (with Republicans possibly gaining control of the Senate) or pared back and (2) whether the election will have much impact on the 2010 Presidential election.
The outcome of the first question will depend, in part, on various factors, including:
1. The economy's trajectory from 2011 to the 2012 elections. The economy remains the nation's foremost issue. The still recent financial crisis and severe economic recession amounted to the most significant and profound (lasting impact) event for the nation in at least several decades.
2. How the Republicans use their majority. Simple obstructionism won't be sufficient. Strategic obstructionism on policy issues that diverge from the broader national interest (not the same thing as ideology) and strategic cooperation with the White House on issues that enhance broader national interest will be important. Ironically, such an approach could enhance President Obama's re-election prospects, as all parties would receive credit for partnering on issues that benefit the country. The final mix of pragmatists and ideologues will shape the possibilities of such an approach.
3. Avoiding the temptation to overreach. Although recent victorious parties have preached a willingness to cooperate, the temptation to overreach has often proved too alluring to pass up. Overreach that attempts to push policies away from what the general public can support is a recipe for political reversal in democratic societies. In the long-run, sustainable policies require public support.
4. Internal cohesion. Once parties move from opposition to governance, the challenges they face are transformed. Such challenges can create internal fissures.
The solution to the second question depends, in part, how President Obama will govern. If he seeks cooperation on areas of benefit to the public and limits confrontation to areas that do not enhance the public interest, his prospects for re-election will be maintained or even strengthened. Indeed, he faces a situation that confronted President Truman (1946) and President Clinton (1994). In both those cases, the President was re-elected.
In the euphoria of the sweeping Republican landslide, Senator William Fulbright even urged President Truman to appoint a Republican Secretary of State, to resign, and leave the Presidency to that person. By the 1948 election, the Republican congress had maintained a policy of general opposition to President Truman for the most part. Furthermore, the economy was heading back toward recession on the waning days of the 1948 campaign. In a brilliant tactical move, Harry Truman called the Congress back into session in July 1948 and presented it with a package of proposals. None of those proposals were adopted. The President then pointed to the exercise as proof of the existence of a "Do Nothing Congress" and argued that its obstructionism was hurting the nation. In the resulting election, President Truman prevailed, and the Republicans who had gained 12 Senate seats and 55 House seats in 1946, lost 9 Senate seats and 75 House seats.
More recently, after a bumpy start punctuated by two government shutdowns, the Clinton Administration and Republican Congress found a way to cooperate on select issues e.g., welfare reform. Ahead of the 1996 election, the economy was growing strongly. Voters rewarded President Clinton with re-election. Credit was also shared with the Republicans. As a result, Republicans who had gained 8 Senate seats and 54 House seats in 1994, held their ground (gaining 2 more Senate seats and losing only 2 House seats).
Early next year could present the first serious test of the new relationship between the Obama Administration and an all but likely Republican-led House. With the debt ceiling issue coming up, there will be opportunity for the sides to tie the increase to a credible fiscal consolidation plan, even if the plan is weighted to have its greatest impact in the future (so as to avoid undermining the modest economic growth now underway). At the same time, the temptation for muscle-flexing, either for the Administration to try to appear strong following what would be a substantial electoral setback or for the new Republican majority in the House to demonstrate that it means business (possibly led by more ideological Tea Partiers) could lead to confrontation, possibly even a government shutdown. With economic growth weaker than it was during the Clinton-era shutdowns, such a development might well provide a fresh shock to the economy that puts the current modest economic growth at risk. Without meaningful economic growth by the 2012 election (sufficient to begin materially reducing the unemployment rate), voters could bring about a big 1948-style reversal.
In the end, the only conclusions that can be drawn is that a Republican majority in the House (and perhaps even the Senate if some of the more aggressive predictions are accurate) is not assured to be long-lived. Among other things, governance outcomes and economic growth will prove critically important. At the same time, the 2010 electoral outcome does not assure a change in leadership at the White House.
House: Republicans: 235; Democrats: 200
Senate: Republicans: 49; Democrats: 51
The more interesting questions concern (1) whether the change in House leadership will be strenghtened in the next election (with Republicans possibly gaining control of the Senate) or pared back and (2) whether the election will have much impact on the 2010 Presidential election.
The outcome of the first question will depend, in part, on various factors, including:
1. The economy's trajectory from 2011 to the 2012 elections. The economy remains the nation's foremost issue. The still recent financial crisis and severe economic recession amounted to the most significant and profound (lasting impact) event for the nation in at least several decades.
2. How the Republicans use their majority. Simple obstructionism won't be sufficient. Strategic obstructionism on policy issues that diverge from the broader national interest (not the same thing as ideology) and strategic cooperation with the White House on issues that enhance broader national interest will be important. Ironically, such an approach could enhance President Obama's re-election prospects, as all parties would receive credit for partnering on issues that benefit the country. The final mix of pragmatists and ideologues will shape the possibilities of such an approach.
3. Avoiding the temptation to overreach. Although recent victorious parties have preached a willingness to cooperate, the temptation to overreach has often proved too alluring to pass up. Overreach that attempts to push policies away from what the general public can support is a recipe for political reversal in democratic societies. In the long-run, sustainable policies require public support.
4. Internal cohesion. Once parties move from opposition to governance, the challenges they face are transformed. Such challenges can create internal fissures.
The solution to the second question depends, in part, how President Obama will govern. If he seeks cooperation on areas of benefit to the public and limits confrontation to areas that do not enhance the public interest, his prospects for re-election will be maintained or even strengthened. Indeed, he faces a situation that confronted President Truman (1946) and President Clinton (1994). In both those cases, the President was re-elected.
In the euphoria of the sweeping Republican landslide, Senator William Fulbright even urged President Truman to appoint a Republican Secretary of State, to resign, and leave the Presidency to that person. By the 1948 election, the Republican congress had maintained a policy of general opposition to President Truman for the most part. Furthermore, the economy was heading back toward recession on the waning days of the 1948 campaign. In a brilliant tactical move, Harry Truman called the Congress back into session in July 1948 and presented it with a package of proposals. None of those proposals were adopted. The President then pointed to the exercise as proof of the existence of a "Do Nothing Congress" and argued that its obstructionism was hurting the nation. In the resulting election, President Truman prevailed, and the Republicans who had gained 12 Senate seats and 55 House seats in 1946, lost 9 Senate seats and 75 House seats.
More recently, after a bumpy start punctuated by two government shutdowns, the Clinton Administration and Republican Congress found a way to cooperate on select issues e.g., welfare reform. Ahead of the 1996 election, the economy was growing strongly. Voters rewarded President Clinton with re-election. Credit was also shared with the Republicans. As a result, Republicans who had gained 8 Senate seats and 54 House seats in 1994, held their ground (gaining 2 more Senate seats and losing only 2 House seats).
Early next year could present the first serious test of the new relationship between the Obama Administration and an all but likely Republican-led House. With the debt ceiling issue coming up, there will be opportunity for the sides to tie the increase to a credible fiscal consolidation plan, even if the plan is weighted to have its greatest impact in the future (so as to avoid undermining the modest economic growth now underway). At the same time, the temptation for muscle-flexing, either for the Administration to try to appear strong following what would be a substantial electoral setback or for the new Republican majority in the House to demonstrate that it means business (possibly led by more ideological Tea Partiers) could lead to confrontation, possibly even a government shutdown. With economic growth weaker than it was during the Clinton-era shutdowns, such a development might well provide a fresh shock to the economy that puts the current modest economic growth at risk. Without meaningful economic growth by the 2012 election (sufficient to begin materially reducing the unemployment rate), voters could bring about a big 1948-style reversal.
In the end, the only conclusions that can be drawn is that a Republican majority in the House (and perhaps even the Senate if some of the more aggressive predictions are accurate) is not assured to be long-lived. Among other things, governance outcomes and economic growth will prove critically important. At the same time, the 2010 electoral outcome does not assure a change in leadership at the White House.
Last edited: