It's still the economy, stupid. But now it's time to plan for the 2012 races. With the House in red team hands, what should President Obama and the remaining Democrats do?
The Republicans won because the midterm election was a base election, and their base turned out. In 2012, the turnout will be higher, so the dynamics are better for the Democrats -- IF they don't get outflanked. The Republicans know that they do not have it easy. The next two years are a test. But who are they testing?
Here's the trap: If the economy does well, can Boehner and the Republicans claim credit, or do Obama and the Democrats get credit? Both parties have the same general goal: If it goes well, claim credit; if it goes badly, pass the blame. And this is the Republicans' core skill. They've got more media power, between talk radio, Faux News, and the villagers. Democrats always tried to do this the hard way, by being successful.
In the mid-terms, the Republican strategy of sabotage worked well enough. Alas, the "moderates" in the administration didn't push harder. We needed a big Keynsian stimulus and instead got a piddling one. It worked as far as it went, but it only lowered the fever a little; the patient is still sick. So the economy remained weak and we see what it meant. Likewise, we didn't get a popular health care reform (public option or single-payer) and instead got something based on the Republican 1994 alternative, individual mandates, and they blamed us for its bad features while pushing most of the good ones off until after 2012.
Sabotage won't work as well when the House belongs to the Republicans, because they could be blamed. Or will it? They can still say that Obama is president and the economy will only improve if they get total control. It's insane, of course, but with all of their corporate money, and the help of the village press, they can get some traction wiht that argument.
But then if the economy does do well, the red team can claim credit for it: The economy did better once the Democrats lost control of both houses. So again, they'll spin it as their success.
So what's the best course for the President?
It seems to me that the worst thing to do is play along with the Republicans. Triangulation doesn't work when the other side starts at the extreme. If Obama becomes Teabagger Lite, then the Republicans will control the narrative and pick up the swing voters.
Better, then, to try the Harry Truman approach: Go bold. Stop being Mr. Nice Guy. Let it be known that we tried to be "bipartisan" but got nowhere. So rally the public to our side by making the biggest contrast with the Republicans. We want to fix the economy and THEY are stopping US. We want to create jobs but THEY want to only help the very rich.
Sure, they'll whine that Obama's a radical yadda-yadda. But their people already believe that. Our people sat on their duffs. The American people do not like namby-pamby politicians. Bill Clinton did not win because he triangulated; he won because he was an is a great natural politician, who could sell sand in the Sahara. It may have been necessary to triangulate in 1992 when some of our usual voters (the "Reagan Democrats") still had fond memories of Saint Ronnie, but even that was less about policy and more about Reagan's good style.
Obama is a very good politician too when he isn't held back. We can only get back the House and keep the White House if we don't wimp out. No, we won't get much done over these next to years. But the economy is unlikely to do well when both sides are afraid of Keynes and are rushing to follow Herbert Hoover's path. So don't do that! Find the language ("stimulus" has been turned into a pejorative, alas, the way Reagan hurt "liberal") and run with it. Hard. Staring now. Make the Republicans look like the saboteurs that they are.