Why Republican Gains/Holds in Purple Districts COULD Be a Good Thing

[Cameron]

While a blue wave would have sent a strong message to Republicans to knock of the nonsense, I think that it might not necessarily be bad that Dems will only have a very small majority in the House. Republicans in purple districts will have incentive to appear reasonable and not unduly obstructive, for fear of losing their seats two years from now.

Compare that to what happened in 2008. Democrats had a large majority of the House due to their Blue Dogs. But those Blue Dogs actually had the opposite incentives the purple Republicans will have now. They had to be careful to make it appear like they were moderating the liberal influences of a fully Democrat-controlled government. As a result they often obstructed their own party and ultimately were voted out in 2010 anyway.

Now I don't know much about the Republicans who flipped seats this election. I don't know if they are Trumpist or conservative ideologues who will oppose anything and everything that Dems do out of principle and risk their own seats in the hope of a Republican majority in 2 years, or people who are serious about solving problems and/or primarily concerned with keeping their own seats. But I do think that the conditions and underlying incentives exist for a some actual bipartisan work to get done.

The same is true in the Senate. Looks like the Republican moderates will have survived this election, and there are a number of Republican senators up for reelection in purple states in 2 years. With only 1-2 swing votes needed, there is an opportunity for moderate Republicans to make a name for themselves by working with the other side, as respected Republicans like McCain used to do.

 

[yankintx]

While a blue wave would have sent a strong message to Republicans to knock of the nonsense, I think that it might not necessarily be bad that Dems will only have a very small majority in the House. Republicans in purple districts will have incentive to appear reasonable and not unduly obstructive, for fear of losing their seats two years from now.

Compare that to what happened in 2008. Democrats had a large majority of the House due to their Blue Dogs. But those Blue Dogs actually had the opposite incentives the purple Republicans will have now. They had to be careful to make it appear like they were moderating the liberal influences of a fully Democrat-controlled government. As a result they often obstructed their own party and ultimately were voted out in 2010 anyway.

Now I don't know much about the Republicans who flipped seats this election. I don't know if they are Trumpist or conservative ideologues who will oppose anything and everything that Dems do out of principle and risk their own seats in the hope of a Republican majority in 2 years, or people who are serious about solving problems and/or primarily concerned with keeping their own seats. But I do think that the conditions and underlying incentives exist for a some actual bipartisan work to get done.

The same is true in the Senate. Looks like the Republican moderates will have survived this election, and there are a number of Republican senators up for reelection in purple states in 2 years. With only 1-2 swing votes needed, there is an opportunity for moderate Republicans to make a name for themselves by working with the other side, as respected Republicans like McCain used to do.

I recall post election 2016 Bannon made a prediction. Full of bravado he claimed the election was the first step in 50 years of Conservative dominance in DC.

Two years later 2018 GOP looses the House, 2020 Bye bye Rump. Steve sucks at fortune telling, and wishful thinking.