So it is all over but the actual counting and the cool MSNBC election music. After all of Mitt Romney’s missteps and stretches and President Obama’s somnabulent first debate, the presidential race has stabilized in the President’s favor. Add to this that the Democrats will win at least 53 Senate seats—no small thanks to the two lulus the GOP nominated in Missouri and Indiana. In the House, the Democrats will gain +/-10 seats, not enough to take control. Normally, two out a three ain’t bad—but forgive me if I seem critical. It is not going to be good enough, and history shows why. What galls is that it is recent history, and Obama’s best surrogate, Bill Clinton, should know it.
First, some numbers. Nate Silver is probably right that Obama is good for about 303 electoral votes, and that the only true tossup is Florida (which Obama does not need). My popular vote is a bit higher than Silver’s; I do not think some of Obama’s red state margins will be that bad. In the Senate, Democrats pick up Massachusetts, Indiana and Maine (assuming King caucuses with Democrats); Dems hold Montana. Nevada? In 2010, I Harry saw Reid’s victory coming, and here’s why: Democrats often over-perform the polls there (In 2008, Obama won by 12). In a presidential year, Reid’s turnout operation could save Shelly Berkley, who is actually polling a bit better than Reid in 2010. (Full disclosure: I also thought Joe Sestak could pull it out in Pennsylvania. But every election has at least one surprise; this is mine for 2012.)
As for the House, much of the Democrat’s problem was foreordained by post-2010 redistricting. As such, I know some readers will ask, what else were progressives to do? Simple: We could have at least tried to play as a team. The above scenario is not going to be pretty—but we will get to that. For me, the last straw occurred during the Charlotte convention, when the excitable Chris Matthews gushed over “Democrats finally standing up for Obama.” Um, excuse me—how about Obama standing up for Democrats? Recall the Wisconsin recall: Where, exactly, was the president? Was it really true that the White House could not afford any resources to aid Mayor Barrett? Maybe the big brains were right, and Obama could not spend political capital on a losing effort. Fine. But then I watch that gift ad, the one where Romney endorses Richard Mourdock. I thought to myself, wait a sec: Is there an Obama ad endorsing Elizabeth Warren? Tammy Baldwin? If so, I have not seen any. I understand that in Connecticut, an ad started running this past weekend where the president endorses Scott Murphy. And I did see the President appear with Tim Kaine at a rally in Virginia. For any who remain skeptical, let me ask you this: In all of Obama’s speeches, how often do you hear him say the word “Democrat?”
It all began to seem like 1996. For all the gushing over President Clinton—and I admit he has done a yeoman’s job—progressives conveniently forget that Bill Clinton was at his best when advocating for Clinton. This is the same president who signed DOMA and a flawed welfare “reform” bill. (Let me anticipate an objection: yes, welfare had to be reformed. But it should have replaced with job training—I digress.) Before the 1996 election, most should remember that Clinton hired Dick Morris, a political operative almost devoid of decency. What resulted was “triangulation,” where Clinton cleverly positioned himself as the reasonable leader, between the wingnut right and a spendthrift left. He won reelection, but had almost no coattails to take back Congress. We all know what happened next. Does anyone not see this coming now?
In recent days, Matthews, Chuck Todd and Michael Tomasky have all suggested that after this election, it may be even harder to govern. I fear that, if anything, the rage of the wackadoo right will only intensify. Many establishment Republicans have been replaced by tea party nuts. Think climate change, gay rights, women’s health, Obama’s place of birth. Add the fact—and it is a fact—that much tea party ire is a cover for a gut-deep resentment of a non-white president. Throughout this campaign we have witnessed the madness of the conservative crowd, where they cannot accept that Obama is, in fact, winning. Sure, it requires denying that Obama leads most polls in every battleground state but North Carolina and Florida; he has also led in almost every poll in Minnesota, Michigan and Pennsylvania. This goes far beyond confirmation bias—this is living in a separate objective reality. Nate Silver may be a smart guy, but he is taken aback by the execration suddenly hurled his way. Let me pull a Mencken and remark that I am quite surprised that he is surprised; has he never heard the way creationists actually talk to biologists? Does he not see the way this crowd reacts to any talk of climate science? Not to put it too dramatically, but people do not negotiate or compromise with existential enemies (this predates us, actually: just watch any documentary on lions and hyenas). Let us not kid ourselves: for this crowd, rational discourse, multiculturalism, gender equality (in short, modernity) are existential threats. And please, do not lay the blame at the feet of the Koch brothers—these tea party folks really believe this stuff.
Now comes the needed excuse to bust our balls: the Libya tragedy. Call it a screw up, call it a failure. But there is clearly no evidence of malfeasance. Resources are spread thin, and a bad call was made. And was not the Republican House that cut embassy security? (Surprised we do not hear more about this.) One bad call, compared to the gross incompetence of the previous crew in charge. But that will not mean anything to Issa, Cantor, Bachmann and the rest. Why would they ever try to negotiate with someone who they believe to be illegitimate? This is the price we are going to pay for more divided government. My question remains: Do not Axelrod, Plouffe and the rest not see this coming? Maybe they feel that the presidency is different, that as one co-equal branch of government, Obama is in a position to face down these guys down. Perhaps. But what will we accomplish? The Dream Act? Infrastructure investment? A real cap and trade bill? Not a chance. I suspect the only tangible good to come out of this election—and it is important—will be the Supreme Court. So that is what we voted for: a divided government, with a well-intentioned president playing good defense against a shrinking group of nuts.
In 2016, I am going to find a way to ask the Democratic candidates just one question: If you had to choose one, a Democratic president and a Republican congress, or a Republican president and a Democratic congress, which would you choose? In the latter case, it is Democrats who set the agenda, forcing the GOP to react. I will support whoever gives the right answer.