This election can only mean one thing. It means that everyone is libertarian like me again and I am sure that republicans will become more libertarian and create a permanent majority. Not really.
This election points to the simple fact that America in 2010 is a lot like America in 2007 and before. In 2008 President Obama and a number of democrats convinced themselves that the days of America being a center-right country are over. Hundreds, if not thousands (counting local races) rode President Obama's coattails to victory. Through this belief they passed bills that were center-left or left altogether. This includes, but is not limited to, bills like the bailout, Obamacare and pouring cash into the economy with no coherent direction. The latter continued today. These are all positions outside of what the America people think are appropriate and because of this President Obama in his own words got "shellacked."
This was a rebuke of Obama's current plans but it was far from an adoption of the republican plans. In a poll taken the day after the election the majority of voters said they expect the republican congress to disappoint them. I infer from this that the voters want the gridlock they voted for. They don't trust President Obama to pass laws that will move this country forward, through employment. Voters don't trust the republicans because they are blamed (in my opinion incorrectly) for creating the financial crisis. This opens the door for someone to step up and lead the nation. The leading candidates are Boehner, Obama, and Reid. The leader who steps up will create middle of the road solution, which none of them currently hold.
Let's discuss some specifics for both parties:
OVERRATED NEWS
The losses in the house hurt the democrats but these seats were basically borrowed seats anyway. Political expert Cook said that these seats were in areas where God didn't to have democrats (or something to that effect). While he is obviously using hyperbole, his point is right on. Democrats understood they couldn't hold onto seats in conservative districts very long, much as republicans lost a couple seats in liberal areas (like New Orleans). This is just the way it goes. The raw number of seats can only point to a wave of people against Obama's plans that has already been dissected and discussed ever since health care passed. This tells us little new information.
REPUBLICAN'S WEST PROBLEM:
The republicans are facing a major issue right now. They are losing the west and don't know what to do about it. Despite spending a great deal of money they lost Colorado and Nevada. Nevada should have been an incredibly easy pick up and republicans couldn't seal the deal. Latinos voted about 66% for democrats in this area (despite a group of new republican latinos winning Tuesday).
If republicans want to get ready for 2012, they need to spend some real time in the west. It will be tough for them to routinely win without having Colorado and Nevada in their pockets.
OBAMA'S PROBLEMS:
The midwest is the upset of the election and the most shocking result. It is the first time since reconstruction the midwest has gone republican in a time of recession. The republicans swept the midwest despite very strong democrats running in Wisconsin and Ohio. If Obama has any shot of being elected in 2012, he HAS to win the midwest. This set has to include 2 out of Pennsylvania, Ohio and Wisconsin.
The midwest is livid to a point I thought I would never see. In just a few years Feingold went from a dark horse to run for President in 2008 to losing his senate seat to a person with absolutely no name recognition in 2010. I was asked by someone in WI in 2009 what I thought the republican chances of toppling Feingold were and I told them that Tommy Thompson could possibly do it, but less than 50/50 chance and anyone else would have roughly 0% odds.
Feingold likely could have won this seat back if he had changed his views on everything and ran from everything he ever said (like John McCain did this election). For Feingold, that was a price he was unwilling to pay. While I disagree with quite a few of Mr. Feingold's views, that is something I can respect and know, for certain, the senate is a worse and less truthful place without him in it.
Getting back to the original point, Obama needs to figure out how to win back the midwest. Obviously Obama will likely not win Indiana again but he needs to win 2 of the big three to carry this election especially as Florida seems to be turning a darker red. This needs to be his first priority.
TEA PARTY:
The conservatives are interpreting one piece of data correctly this election. The tea party 100% saved the republican party. It took them from the Party of Bush to the Party of Libertarianism (kind of). The republican party was leaderless, and worse, directionless after 2008. They had no idea where they were going. Now they at least have an identifiable message. They have an increasingly identifiable leader (Boehner) and are getting their groove back.
The interesting part for me was watching the smear pieces of MSNBC on the rise of the new right. These documentaries painted the tea party as a group of racists who had no idea what they were talking about. These documentaries tried to scare people into not hearing what the tea party said, but the people responded as I hoped they would. The tea party is going to be around until, at least, 2012 and maybe beyond that.
The tea party lost a lot of races for the republicans as well, though. Delaware and Nevada instantaneously come to mind. It should be noted that even in liberal Delaware the Tea partier got 40% of the vote. This is a pretty big percentage for someone so far outside the general mainstream of the state. The tea party needs to exist to keep the republican party honest. They should have been louder during Bush. The tea party will become to republicans what the green party is to democrats. The tea party will continue to cost the republicans seats but that is a price the republican party should pay until they earn the people's trust again by cutting spending, etc.
WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE?
The biggest takeaway from last night, other than gridlock is headed to DC, is that 2012 will look a lot like 2004 or 2000. The race will be tight and there will be the normal battle grounds. The midwest, florida and possibly, the west if republicans can't get a handle on the colorado or nevada.
Obama has two models he can follow: Clinton or Bush. They are both viable paths to follow to reelection. Under the Clinton plan he goes towards the middle and starts to compromise with the republicans. His approval ratings go up and so do republicans. This could be a particularly good approach as none of the real contenders in 2012 for the republicans are in the house or senate. The big problem for Obama is that if he does this a democrat could run to his left in the primary. While this is currently being talked about in the political circuits, I find this unlikely. If Obama runs to the middle, his numbers go up and no one dares run against the incumbent President with strong favorability.
The other scenario is that Obama can run left and start to drive down the independent voters.In this method, he just has to stop anything from happening and attack the republicans at every point. This could happen but seems unlikely given where the President currently is mentally.
I will write a little more about the elections a little later but hope this gives you a good idea of what I think this election means and doesn't mean
No comments:
Post a Comment