The Downballot Cushion
Dave Weigel runs down the shift in congressional districts from “red” to “blue,” something that will help determine how much support for his agenda Barack Obama is able to count on in congress:
Based on Swing State Project’s numbers, which don’t yet include Alabama, California, Indiana, Missouri, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Oklahoma or Texas, Mr Obama carried at least 34 districts that Mr Bush carried in 2004. When all the states’ numbers are in, we’re likely to find that he carried as many or more as Mr Bush did at his apogee. [...] this means that the current Democratic majority is the most stable in decades. Even when Bill Clinton won the presidency, his Democratic Congress included members from ruby-red Republican districts in the South that Republicans were able to flip when the incumbents retired. Mr Obama’s (and Mrs Pelosi’s) majority is built on safe seats on the west coast, in the southwest, in the midwest, in pockets of the new South, and in the northeast. On the Swing State Project map, only 25 Democrats represent districts carried by Mr McCain, most of them in the deep South and three of them in Mr McCain’s Arizona, which resisted the Democratic surge. And many of those seats—rural New Mexico-02, the University of Virginia-centered Virginia-06—registered huge gains from Mr Kerry’s performance to Mr Obama’s. They have gone from safe Republican seats to swing seats.
Worth keeping in mind.
Of course at this point the political future is just identical to the course of the economic crisis. If the worst happens, and we’re plunged into a global depression that’s still ongoing two and four years from now, Democrats are going to get wiped out. Everything depends on achieving robust recovery.
44 Responses to “The Downballot Cushion”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
December 17th, 2008 at 7:36 pm
No, wait. This post is why I hate Lord Yglesias. I know you all care which post is why I hatehatehate him, so now you know.
December 17th, 2008 at 7:38 pm
What DTM said
December 17th, 2008 at 7:42 pm
Nate Silver makes some similar points, looking at the congressional rather than presidential vote:
December 17th, 2008 at 7:53 pm
What DTM and Bobbo said.
December 17th, 2008 at 8:11 pm
“As we have discussed before, I’m really not sure Matt’s premise is correct. In 1934…”
I think it’s a compelling and difficult question to figuring out if the 2010 elections are like 1934 or 1994.
The precedents say a 1994 outcome is far more likely, but the contours of the specific really do resemble 1934.
Given that understanding Obama as Eisenhower seems most reasonable to me, I’ll offer up the 1954 example, with the out party making low to medium sized gains of 19 seats. That would pretty much exactly wipe out our gains this year, which feels about right.
—–
“Nate Silver makes some similar points, looking at the congressional rather than presidential vote”
This is a more interesting metric, and what I think it tells us is that even if the mood is as sour in 2010 as it was in 1994, we probably won’t lose the House. There really has been a bit of a foundational shift.
—–
Matt writes:
Of course, this is just nonsense.
And not only is it nonsense in terms of the electoral politics – one can imagine quite plausible scenarios where a deeper crisis helps Dems and a shallower crisis helps the GOP in ‘10 – but it’s also not helpful in terms of policy. Do we really want to invest the GOP in blocking economic recovery measures?
December 17th, 2008 at 8:21 pm
“And a strong contributing factor was that everyone blamed Roosevelt’s predecessors for the Depression, which is an advantage Obama and the Democrats will have as well.”
Probably not to the same degree.
Hoover presided over a depression for three and a half years, not six months. And things fell apart as he was on his way out the door in a way that probably won’t happen to Bush.
Obama is going to have an enormous amount of economic Teflon™, but probably not to the degree that FDR had.
December 17th, 2008 at 8:29 pm
> The precedents say a 1994 outcome is far more
> likely, but the contours of the specific really
> do resemble 1934.
> Petey
> “I find it freakishly easy to line out the politics”
>
> Also by Petey, on a previous MY blog, just prior to
> throwing his full support behind John Edwards.
December 17th, 2008 at 8:31 pm
Wow, Matt’s stupid obsession with the idea that if there’s not a “robust economic recovery” the Democrats will be “wiped out” in two years has succeeded in making me agree with Petey. Sigh.
Is it just me, or is Matt getting stupider and more annoying with each passing day?
December 17th, 2008 at 8:59 pm
“I find it freakishly easy to line out the politics”
Indeed I do.
“Also by Petey, on a previous MY blog, just prior to throwing his full support behind John Edwards.”
And that’s where my support still lies. You can still click on my name.
Actually, with the onset of the economic crisis, I think we’re all Edwards-ians now.
——
I’ll just note tangentially to the topic at hand:
“Given that understanding Obama as Eisenhower seems most reasonable to me”
I understand perfectly well why no one is interested in making the Obama as Eisenhower comparison.
Democrats don’t like it because Truman got rehabilitated in the popular mind a couple of decades later, and we’re in no rush to allow Bush to be rehabilitated. (And we’d prefer it to be politically 1932 instead.)
Republicans don’t like it because Eisenhower was a very popular and very respected figure for the duration of his Presidency.
But if you’re familiar with the political history, isn’t a compelling comparison? Aren’t we politically at the Truman/Eisenhower transfer of power right now in a multitude of ways?
If you want to find it freakishly easy to line out the politics of the next eight years, I’d advise starting with 1952. History never quite repeats itself, but there are some real similarities going on there.
December 17th, 2008 at 9:18 pm
It must be bizarre for Dave Weigel to have his blog entries copyedited into Economist style, complete with British spelling and prissy “Mr” and ridiculously old-fashioned “Mrs” and then published anonymously.
December 17th, 2008 at 10:10 pm
Re: the worst happens, and we’re plunged into a global depression that’s still ongoing two and four years from now, Democrats are going to get wiped out.
Why does everyone keep saying this? That’s not how it played out in the 1930s. Nor (in a different sort of crisis) in the 1860s. And even if the Dems screw things up too, then I would predict there will be a major third party movement (or a Perot-type candidacy), not a swing to the GOP since voters will still be fed up with the Republicans too.
December 17th, 2008 at 10:41 pm
The 83rd Congress (1953-1954):
House: 221 Republicans, 213 Democrats, 1 independent
Senate: 48 Republicans, 47 Democrats, 1 independent
The 111th Congress (2009-2010):
House: 257 Democrats, 178 Republicans
Senate: 56 Democrats, 41 Republicans, 2 Independents, 1 still to be resolved
Beyond that, while the foreign policy situation might scan as a decent parallel to 1952, the domestic situation couldn’t be more different – 1952 was in the midst of the post-war boom, and on domestic politics Eisenhower was basically just about pursuing a more cautious, small c conservative version of the same policies the Democrats were pursuing – this was the high point of the “liberal consensus” (well, 1952 wasn’t the high point of the liberal consensus, but the later Eisenhower years were). Today, on the other hand, we’re on the verge of what looks to be a horrific economic crisis and the parties are more deeply ideologically polarized than ever in American history up to this point. I don’t see how the 1952 comparison is particularly useful.
December 17th, 2008 at 10:43 pm
>> Petey
>> “I find it freakishly easy to line out the politics”
> Petey
> Indeed I do.
Except for the part where you are between 173 and 180 degrees wrong 98% of the time. I guess that is why you find it so easy!
Cranky
December 17th, 2008 at 11:16 pm
Matt: “Everything depends on achieving robust recovery.”
We’re doomed.
“Is it just me, or is Matt getting stupider and more annoying with each passing day?”
It’s not just you, it’s been me all along.
I would say that Obama had better show some serious economic progress by 2010 as he indicated he thought he could, or the honeymoon will be well over by 2012. But just about everybody I’m reading is saying things are going to get massively worse before they get better, and we’re looking at a recession that will last the next two years at least, if not Depression 2.0.
I can’t see the Democrats successfully withstanding that and maintaining their seats in 2012 – especially if Afghanistan becomes Iraq and thus “Obama’s war”, which it’s likely it will.
Besides, never underestimate the stupidity of the American electorate.
December 18th, 2008 at 1:15 am
I remember 1952, yo, and this ain’t nothing like 1952. Foreign policy, domestic policy, national mood, wars, draft board, hair styles, telephones… nothing. You guys should read a book or something.
December 18th, 2008 at 7:51 am
Given the changing demogrpahics of the U.S., the real question should be can the Democrats ever be bad enough to ever lose the majority again. In 1994, the Democrats lost middle class white voters. That portion of the voting public is much smaller to day and will continue to shrink.
No matter how bad the Obama Administration and the Democrats in Congress do, they will still get 95% of the black vote, 75% of the Hispanic vote, 65% of the Asian voters 80% of the Jewish vote, 80% of the homosexual vote, and most of the public sector employees.
Since it looks like the public sector will grow and the private sector will shrink in the coming years, there will still be fewer potential Republican voters going to the polls in the future.
What MY should really be thinking about is what happens is national politics becomes like the current politics in California, Baltimore Detroit, where the Democrats keep getting elected no matter how bad they do. In addition, after redistrcting in 2010, the Democrats should be able to eliminate virtually every Democrats north of North Carolina.
December 18th, 2008 at 9:09 am
the Democrats should be able to eliminate virtually every Democrats north of North Carolina.
While the rest of that was pretty incoherent, I’d have to say the above was accidentally prescient – after all, we should never underestimate the Democrats’ ability to wrest defeat from the jaws of victory.
December 18th, 2008 at 9:42 am
I agree with DTM, Bobbo, Calvin Johnson, but not the 13 Apostle. Screw that guy.
Seriously, economic difficulties don’t just benefit the party out of power. They also benefit the Democrats. If you look at 1980, that was a very close race, even in the lousy economy, right up until foreign policy issues swung it for Reagan. Had a Republican been the incumbent, the Democrat would have wiped the floor with him.
December 18th, 2008 at 10:00 am
DTM,
It is hard to call the current Republican Party a national party where they concede so many elections and seats to the Democrats. The Democrats know that they have over 100 seats that the Republicans have zero chance of winning in a general election. And as the Hispanics and black population grows relative to whites, the number of sure winners for the Democrats will grow.
There is zero reason to believe that blacks, Hispanics, Jews will ever split their votes between two parties.
Racial gerrymandering of districts as required by the federal government will continue to ensure that virtually all non-whites are Democratic voters. In addition, why try to create a new party and then get and maintain ballot access in fifty states and 435 Congressional districts when it would be easier to run candidates in the Democratic Party primary.
The future is more like Maryland, Mass, and California than it is for a model that does not exist in the U.S. or in any of the 50 states.
December 18th, 2008 at 12:39 pm
But just about everybody I’m reading is saying things are going to get massively worse before they get better, and we’re looking at a recession that will last the next two years at least, if not Depression 2.0.
I can’t see the Democrats successfully withstanding that and maintaining their seats in 2012…
How’d the Democrats do during v 1.0?
December 19th, 2008 at 5:03 am
I don’t know – look it up.
What I do know is this isn’t the 1930’s.
February 18th, 2009 at 10:31 am
Can you provide more information on this?
February 21st, 2009 at 11:18 am
Does anyone know where I can find free online grant applications?
March 11th, 2009 at 6:44 am
Very interesting site. Hope it will always be alive!
April 2nd, 2009 at 7:43 am
If you have to do it, you might as well do it right
buy cheap viagra
April 3rd, 2009 at 5:18 am
I want to say – thank you for this!
cheap brand pfizer viagra
April 14th, 2009 at 10:39 am
Thanks for the review!
viagra