"The abnegation of reason is not the evidence of faith, but the confession of despair."
- J.B. Lightfoot
Wednesday, November 10, 2010
[This is Part Two of a two-part series on last week's midterm elections. Part One, appearing yesterday, focused on the significance of the election and the message we should take away from last Tuesday. Today, the focus is on the impact the election will have going forward. Thank you to Bill and The Thinklings for the opportunity to share my thoughts.]
The events of last Tuesday are still being processed. Even now, there are six US Representative races that have yet to be called. But let us not let the fact that this election isn't even over keep us from beginning to talk about the next two years. (Where's the fun in that?) Many are already looking ahead to 2012, throwing names out like Hillary, Dean and Feingold as possible primary opponents to Obama. If any of those materialize, the GOP has to be considered the favorite to win the general election, regardless of their candidate. The Republican standbys include Palin, Romney and Huckabee while some new names have entered the fray like Chris Christie [who has given every indication that he won't run] and Marco Rubio [who would be the GOP equivalent of Obama in 2006].
But the final results of the 2012 election season will depend greatly on what happens in 2011. You will begin to see Republican Presidential would-bes, could-bes and wannabes begin to try and provide a meta-narrative to DC politics in a few months (it doesn't hurt that a few of them have time on Fox News). It will be a battle of message between these potential candidates and the White House. We’ll see whose narrative sticks, but if the Republicans can come together on a central message, they have a strong shot at winning the battle, especially when one considers the utter lack of message by the Democrats over the past months.
What will help the Democrats is that their caucus in the House has become far more united as the election shaved off the moderate wing of their party. We will soon see whose interpretation of the voters’ message in last week’s election is correct. If the voters were truly reacting against liberal policies, then you will see approval of Democrats delve even further than it is right now with a corresponding upswing in the GOP, given the shift of the Democratic party to the left. If, however, voters were seeking something else through this election, namely, bills that might help boost the economy, the Democrats can make headway if they seem to be presenting common sense solutions, regardless of whether or not they are passed by the Republican majority in the House.
The Republicans have a tough road to hoe. John Boehner surprised me on election night as he teared up recounting his personal story, expressing his motivation to lead. If this more human John Boehner continues to lead, then the Republicans will be a force to reckon with. But if the GOP takes more of the Mitch McConnell tone that seems to speak only politics and not progress, they will prove the perfect foil for Obama. It really comes down to which party is coming up with ideas to improve the economy. If the Dems are presenting ideas to be shot down by Republicans, they come off looking good. If the GOP becomes the party of ideas only to be shot by the President or the Senate, they come off looking good. Advantage in this situation: The President and his bully pulpit.
The new Speaker of the House does have one thing going for him – he can be a bulldog with little consequence. But this role only works if the country continues to struggle. If the economy remains dormant, Boehner can talk all day long and pass bill after bill of solutions that the Dems will not pass in the Senate or will be vetoed by the President. He can claim that the Republicans are doing everything they can to fix the country, but that they are hogtied. If the economy begins to turn for the better, he will have little room to take credit for any success.
Republicans dream of ultimately repealing ObamaCare, but they know that it won’t happen until a new President resides in the Oval Office. They can take significant measures, however, to defund the law, rendering large portions of it moot. The House majority, along with the Republicans and Democrat Senators who campaigned against ObamaCare (Senator Manchin (D-WV), for example, who shot a bullet through the legislation in his most compelling campaign ad), can force the law to be put on hold until 2012. The GOP needs to be careful, however, of not making the Democrat mistake of making HealthCare their largest priority at the expense of focusing on jobs/the economy.
Obama seems to be tone deaf when it comes to listening to the electorate, responding to the economy and casting vision for the future. He did well during the campaign, but it is because he was casting a vision for the future. He was also telling his story. As President, there is a record that speaks for him, national and world politics to respond to and a narrative that is being set by the Republicans who want him gone. He is not as free as he was during 2008.
As Chris Christie mentioned on Meet the Press on Sunday, “it’s time to put up or shut up” for Republicans. If the GOP can continue to control the political narrative via policy initiatives, they will do well in 2012. Still, Obama is great at campaigning. Even last month, as he traveled around the country campaigning for fellow Democrats, his approval numbers rebounded from five continuous months of shrinking. I expect Obama to run for a second term. If he can keep major challengers from opposing him in the primary, he can be strong heading into Fall 2012, regardless of how the economy is doing.
We can’t know much about what 2012 will bring, but there are a few things that we can predict. Here’s what we know: Congress will likely grow more conservative in two years. Of the 33 Senators up for reelection in 2012, 23 are Democrats (including two independents who caucus with the Democrats). This means that the possibility of Republicans picking up just four seats (the necessary amount to gain control of the Senate) is easily attainable. If the current Tea Party trend continues (which will have an impact, but I doubt will be as strong), the Republicans will have a solid majority in both the House and Senate.
At the State level, almost 60% of State governorships are now under GOP control. As redistricting is begun and completed in the next twelve months, it is likely that the US House will also grow more conservative. In Texas, for example, the GOP went from just over 50% control of the State House, to almost 2/3 control. As Texas picks up four new US representatives, taken from states like New York, New Jersey and Massachusetts, expect them all to be from conservatively drawn districts. Other heavily Republican states likely picking up seats in Congress are AZ, FL, GA, SC and UT. (These pickups are predictions based on 2009 population numbers, as official census figures will not be released until January.) Population growth has been moving away from more Democratically controlled states (California, New York) and moving towards the Republican laden South and Southwest.
These census numbers also will impact the Electoral College. In what could be a very tight election, the swing of 10 Electoral College votes could make all the difference come the evening of November 6, 2012.
Mark your calendars. It will be a good one, God willing.
Trackbacks:
Trackback URL: http://thinklings.org/bloo.trackback.php/6240.
Comments on "Election 2010 - Extreme Home Makeover: Congress Edition (Part Two)":
2. Shrode
- 11/12/2010 1:07 pm CST
Bird, Good prediction. I think either that will hapen, or this one:
President Romney
So far one of my predictions has come true...
I'm more inclined to think that Romney will win the primary. Compared to Palin, he'll seem like the sensible choice.
4. Shrode
- 11/12/2010 2:38 pm CST
I dunno Bird...
I can't decide which is worse..president palin or president romney...
I think a major problem with President Romney is that while I think he'd do a good job as president, I think it would do way too much to normalize mormonism in the American mind. That bothers me. It's a different gospel and I think more people would be accepting of it with a mormon in the White House. But from a sheer political perspective, I think he's great.
5. Bird
- 11/12/2010 5:24 pm CST
You're absolutely right about that. I wonder, though, how many people would actually pay attention to his Mormonism after the initial novelty wears off?
All things considered, I'd take President Romney over President Palin any day of the week. (I dread the thought of Palin actually leading anything of importance on a federal level in this country.) In the end, though, I think we'll have President Obama until 2016.
6. Bill
- 11/12/2010 5:28 pm CST
I don't think Palin will be the nominee. Like both parties do every four years, someone viable will get nominated (note: "viable" doesn't mean "good presidential material"). Palin is great for fundraising and I think she's found her voice as sort of a conscience/spokesperson for the Tea Party side of things, but I don't think she would win the nomination. I may be wrong, of course.
While I hope things have improved significantly before 2012, I still think there will be enough hunger and focus in 2012 that the Republicans won't want to blow it.
A more realistic prediction (imo) on the negative side is a third party challenge, resulting in a split of the conservative vote and therefore four more years for Obama.
Provided we don't let the Democrats have the entire government again, we will probably be OK. Gridlock is good (letting the Republicans have full control again probably isn't the best thing either). The Presidency is a huge prize, but I think Congress has a bigger effect on things anyway. We're a center-right country and so divided government probably suits us.
For my part, I'm plenty happy with the 2010 results, because of the division/gridlock/slower pace. Now, to focus on getting our deficits and debt under control (Congress not being able to do any more BIG stuff will help)
7. Quaid
- 11/13/2010 7:39 am CST
Piping up for Mike, here: Rasmussen did a poll last week asking Republicans their pick for 2012. The top was Romney, but only one point behind was a tie - Palin and Huckabee.
If you remember from last election, my hope was fairly clear - that Mike would win. For all the props that Obama got as a great campaigner, I think we might be forgetting the incredible job that Huckabee did on the right. He literally came from nowhere, jumping from the second tier of candidates with the likes of Tancredo, and vaulted to the second-place in final tally.
Huckabee made a name for himself by: working the ground in Iowa, speaking very well in speeches and in debates and employing Chuck Norris as a campaign device. Each of these things brought him notoriety.
When Rasmussen asked about favorability, Huckabee was seen as 43% very favorable while Romney was at 37%.
One more thing: RomneyCare has proven to be the prequel to ObamaCare. They're pretty close. If this issue continues to to be the center of attention, aside from jobs, I don't know that Romney will make it in the primary.
At any rate - I'm with Bird. I don't feel that Palin has proved herself yet, but I'm far from making up my mind. She'll sink or swim when she dives into debates, interviews and campaigning. But if the election were today, there's no way in Hades I would vote for her to lead anything.
I did feel that she would have made a great VP (not a lot of responsibility, but access to a bully pulpit while learning the ropes of DC). Bird - if Romney, Huckabee or another (Pawlenty?) were to receive the nomination, would you be okay with them selecting Palin as a VP candidate? Do you think she would accept?
8. Bill
- 11/13/2010 8:09 am CST
I'd like to dive into the Palin-revulsion a bit. Now, to caveat first: I don't want her to be President, at least not with what I know now. But is it just that she muffed some early interviews and made other rookie mistakes in the 2008 campaign? On a side note: it's troubled me that leadership has become something we gauge by a persons ability to be quick in their response to trivia questions. We got our professor for President in the last election - how's that working out?
Other than that, is it her lack of experience? The fact that she's a she? Her reality-show family (or at least oldest daughter)?
Not challenging, just wondering what the issues with Palin are.
Romneycare = Obamacare. I'm not voting for him unless he can explain that.
Also - I think other Republicans, probably more serious candidates, will emerge in the next 6 - 12 months.
Thoughts?
9. Andrew
- 11/13/2010 9:39 am CST
I'd like to dive into the Palin-revulsion a bit.
Okay.
But is it just that she muffed some early interviews and made other rookie mistakes in the 2008 campaign?
No. It's the fact that she has, to my knowledge, never held an open press conference, how she hand picks who will interview her, and how any time anybody gives her even the slightest pushback (O'Reilly, Shep Smith), she acts as if they have betrayed her. She's been called our Margaret Thatcher, but she's nothing like her. Thatcher was ridiculed mercilessly by members of the press and of parliament, but instead of hiding herself or acting like a victim, she routinely went into the House of Commons and decimated her opponents. Palin would never do that. She's as anti-dissent as anybody out there right now.
We got our professor for President in the last election - how's that working out?
Fine.
Other than that, is it her lack of experience?
Not so much lack of experience as it is that she quit her job to go out on the campaign trail. I'm sure Alaska is fine, but that isn't an option for the Presidency. Whatever was left of the respect I had for her was lost the day she walked out.
The fact that she's a she?
Not on my part. If a man handled himself the way she has, I would feel the same way. Thatcher is my favorite politician of the post-war era, and one of the things about her that I admire most is that she never let her womanhood appear as a handicap.
Her reality-show family (or at least oldest daughter)?
It's more the fact that she uses her youngest son as a political prop, rarely missing a chance to take him on stage with her, in order to show how down to earth she is, and also to remind people of her choice to keep him. I do not question that she loves him, and I do not doubt that she is a good mother, but she comes dangerously close sometimes to utilizing her son as a political tool. It bothers me a great deal.
The whole Bristol thing is more sad than anything. She's young, and her life is out there for everyone. She's getting paid to speak on abstinence, which was engineered, I imagine, by her mother. I hope that once this is all over, she'll be able to lead a normal life.
Beyond that, her political philosophy seems to be a mix between old-style populism, romanticized history, and fluffed-up Reganism. She doesn't value dissent at all, doesn't, as far as I can tell, understand history, doesn't care to elaborate any real policy positions, and never seems to have questioned her own assumptions.
So, all of that bothers me. I don't think she'll be the nominee (I wouldn't be surprised if she finished 3rd or 4th in the primaries), so I guess there's nothing for me to worry about.
10. Bill
- 11/13/2010 10:29 am CST
Thanks for the comments, Andrew. I don't necessarily disagree. It's just that there are so many awful politicians, empty suits, etc out there, I have never understood the vitriol directed at Palin.
I think maybe it's because of the vitriol and absolutely disgusting behavior of many in the press during the campaign that I've cut Palin a lot of slack. I've got a different perspective (married, with a wife who probably agrees with Palin 90%) - if I was Todd Palin I would have been going ballistic.
Also, not trying to drag you into a debate here. but you think everything's "fine" with Obama? I think he's been a disaster, and I was doing my best to root for him when he got elected (though I didn't vote for him). I don't think there's been a time in my political memory when I've been as horrified by what's going on in Washington.
Granted, maybe I'm just a right wing whacko. :-) But I think Obama's election is of a piece with the Palin phenomenon. Bird mentioned earlier that Palin would be nominated because of her celebrity. That already happened, in 2008, with Obama. He was almost as inexperienced as Palin, and we gave him the Presidency.
11. Bird
- 11/13/2010 11:45 am CST
Bird - if Romney, Huckabee or another (Pawlenty?) were to receive the nomination, would you be okay with them selecting Palin as a VP candidate? Do you think she would accept?
No. Because as far as I know the only Constitutional job the VP has (besides presiding over the Senate) is to be ready to assume the Presidency at any given moment. As then VP John Adams said, "In this I am nothing, but I may be everything." I don't want Palin to "be everything" in this country, not at all.
Do I think she would accept? Absolutely. You're talking about a woman who has been subtly campaigning for 2012 since the day her ticket lost in 2008. I think being President is her ambition, and she'd jump at the chance to be a heartbeat away from that office. I remember in 2000, George W. Bush said something like, "Being elected President is not the ambition of a lifetime, but it is the opportunity of a lifetime." I don't think Palin would truly be able to say that.
is it just that she muffed some early interviews and made other rookie mistakes in the 2008 campaign?
She muffed interviews all throughout the campaign. And it's not that she couldn't answer trivia, it's that she betrayed her ignorance by not being able to respond to questions that she should have been able to answer. For example, "Besides Roe v. Wade, what other SC decisions did you disagree with?" That's not a trivia question. That's a government question that anyone running for President should be able to answer without even thinking about it. She didn't have a clue. Her answer was, "I'll find some and bring them to you!"
Other than that, is it her lack of experience?
That's part of the equation.
The fact that she's a she?
That's part of the equation too, but certainly not all of it. I'd vote for a qualified woman over Obama any day of the week.
Like Andrew, what little respect I had for Palin vanished the day she walked out of the Governor's office and onto the campaign trail. It's like she thinks she has enough star-power (and indeed she may) to overcome walking away from the one job that would have continued to give her real governing experience, and still be elected as the Republican nominee in 2012.
Bird mentioned earlier that Palin would be nominated because of her celebrity. That already happened, in 2008, with Obama. He was almost as inexperienced as Palin, and we gave him the Presidency.
That's the absolute truth. Yet I'm not sure that a Palin presidency would be better overall than an Obama presidency. I miss W.
12. Bill
- 11/13/2010 12:02 pm CST
My preference would have been for her to remain governor of alaska as well. I do think there is some context, though. I think that she needed money because of some of the legal attacks on her (and there was a lot of money be had on the speaking circuit)
Again, I don't think I disagree with you and Andrew. And I do expect her to run in 2012. I don't think she'll win the primaries. I think a likely scenario in 2012 is a third party split of the conservative vote
13. Andrew
- 11/13/2010 12:10 pm CST
It's just that there are so many awful politicians, empty suits, etc out there, I have never understood the vitriol directed at Palin.
There are plenty of awful politicians, but only one is being heralded as the champion of conservatism right now.
Also, not trying to drag you into a debate here. but you think everything's "fine" with Obama? I think he's been a disaster, and I was doing my best to root for him when he got elected (though I didn't vote for him). I don't think there's been a time in my political memory when I've been as horrified by what's going on in Washington.
I think "disaster" is a very strong word, especially considering none of the long-term effects of the Presidency could possibly be known right now. I said "fine" because, unlike Palin, I don't believe the country is being destroyed. But we've been over all that ground before. I'm apathetic, at best.
14. Bill
- 11/13/2010 3:25 pm CST
Well, for what it's worth, I think Palin has a role to play but I also don't want her to be heralded as the voice of conservatism. Ugh! :-)
I get what you're saying re the state of the country. You're right, of course, that we'll survive this (and possibly thrive through it).
15. Quaid
- 11/13/2010 4:55 pm CST
Andrew is right in much of his criticism right now, but to be fair, not many candidates for 2012 have come out with their platforms or policy papers. (Perhaps it is because no one has declared candidacy just yet)
This is why I said that the campaign will reveal everything. Palin can give a great speech, but let's throw her in a debate with 8-9 other people and see how she handles herself. Let her get interviewed again and again. Let's see how she deals with dissent in one-on-one conversations.
Let's see.
Bird - while you are correct about the VP having little official power, I think that it's a great opportunity for someone who has not been in Washington to learn how to govern. That's why I'm not embarrassed for having supported her in 2008. I wouldn't be opposed to her being a VP candidate in 2012, unless she proves to me during the course of the campaign that there is no way she'd ever be able to serve in a Presidential capacity (although I can't imagine for the life of me why anyone would pick such a polarizing running mate).
BTW - I think that between everything being fine and everything being a disaster, politically speaking, we're closer to disaster-more for the White House.
This past week's trip to Asia? Bomb-a-rooney. It's almost as if nothing can go right for our country right now.
16. Bird
- 11/13/2010 10:22 pm CST
Bird - while you are correct about the VP having little official power, I think that it's a great opportunity for someone who has not been in Washington to learn how to govern.
For me, I'm not comfortable putting a neophyte in that role, especially one who seems so obtuse.
One thing is certain, it's going to be fun to see how all of this plays out.
At dinner tonight, Brandi brought up what I thought was a good point about Palin in general. This might be a bit of a firecracker, but I'll throw it out there anyway.
Her thought was for us to assume Palin is what most people would consider a good mother. If that's the case, then she simply would not have the time or energy to devote to being President of the United States. On the other hand, if she does have the time and energy to devote to being President of the United States, then she can't also be a good mother. Being a good mother requires a certain quantity of time, and being President isn't about having a predictable 9 to 5, Monday through Friday schedule.
Brandi's point was that given the time demands it takes to be President, no one could possibly effectively raise small children and do a half decent job at it while holding that office. It would be different if all of Palin's children were older and/or out of the home, obviously.
I'd go so far as to say, if you have small children at all, whether you're a man or woman, it's not a good idea to take on a job that is going to demand your full attention 24 hours a day for four straight years.
17. Quaid
- 11/13/2010 11:55 pm CST
Bird - I can't really speak too much to this since I'm not a father, but if Todd is there, don't you think he could pick up the slack? Or are there key differences between being a good mother and being a good father?
I would imagine that Todd as stay-at-home dad has kept their family intact over the past three years, right? It's not as if she's not living a 24-hrs./day life right now. Between campaigning, speaking, shooting a reality TV show, commenting for FoxNews and writing Facebook Notes, she seems to be fairly busy as it is.
Or maybe that's your point? She can't be the good mother she claims to be if she hasn't the time for it???
18. Bird
- 11/14/2010 12:51 pm CST
if Todd is there, don't you think he could pick up the slack?
Absolutely. Though Todd does strike me as a kind of guy who would want to be in the eye of the storm with Sarah, minute by minute. I certainly wouldn't discount his ability to "pick up the slack," but her children would still essentially be sans an engaged mother for four years. Not because she's a "working mom," but because she's a mom who is President. Big difference.
19. Quaid
- 11/15/2010 7:19 am CST
Bird - it seems to me that you are ruling out anyone with children for President. You couldn't vote for Obama - after all he has two young daughters who would be without a father for (another) four years.
Only men/women with no children or grown children pass this test. That's why I asked if you saw a difference between the need for a mother versus the need for a father. I would argue that they're equally important (although, once again, I have no children of my own to justify my comments).
20. Bird
- 11/15/2010 10:04 am CST
Quaid,
That's pretty much what I'm saying. :-) Really, though, anyone with children in their formative years especially.
It gets a little more ambiguous in my mind when the children are older children (like Obama's) and the unavailable parent is the father. While a father is important -- critically so -- I think a mother is slightly more important to a young child's proper development.
21. Bird
- 11/15/2010 10:06 am CST
Of course, keep in mind, I'm not talking about mother's who have "normal jobs." I'm talking about mothers (or fathers) who have jobs like President of the United States. I imagine there are few jobs out there that literally demand 24/7 attention like that job does. And there are really no other jobs out there where the weight of the world, so to speak, rests on your shoulders. I'm glad my mom wasn't President when I was a kid.
22. Bill
- 11/15/2010 11:57 am CST
Another question: How would you have felt about your mom being First Lady? I think that's a pretty demanding job as well. Michelle travels a lot, from what I understand (although often with her girls in tow)
I think being a child in their formative years and having a parent of either sex who is president would be very challenging. Think Amy Carter or Chelsea Clinton.
But, bottom line, part of your objection to Sarah Palin is that she is a "she", at least due to the station in life she's at now vis a vis having 2 relatively young kids (Piper and Trig - the other two girls are older).
Not sure if it matters, but my guess is that the President can afford some pretty top-notch nanny-care. So it's not that the kids are abandoned or neglected. They may be missing out on some very important parental attention.
On a lighter note: You wrote "I'm glad my mom wasn't President when I was a kid."
Well, yeah, but think of the PERKS! Air Force One, a bowling alley and theater in your house, getting to meet celebrities all the time, free concerts in the White House, Secret Service protection (bullies, just TRY something now!), the nuclear football right there in the breakfast nook. The White House chef cooking every meal. The list goes on and on!
24. Bill
- 11/15/2010 7:17 pm CST
And all you'd have to do is convince your mom to relieve some 3rd world debt, and you'd get Bono as a frequent guest, with most likely U2 playing private shows in the Rose Garden.
26. Quaid
- 11/16/2010 7:41 am CST
I think that this is a really interesting conversation. What Bird has just said is that if the most compelling and competent candidate for President has young kids, they wouldn't get his vote - not because they are unqualified, but that it would take them away from the home.
Bill - it might also be helpful to know that Michelle's mother also lives in the White House and helps take care of the children when both parents are busy.
Bird - What if Palin had, as a campaign promise, her mom or Todd's mom oversee the household, in terms of raising kids during a stint in the White House?
27. Bird
- 11/16/2010 10:51 pm CST
if the most compelling and competent candidate for President has young kids, they wouldn't get his vote
Well, yes, sort of. It's not a litmus test for me, and our two-party system doesn't tend to give a lot of options. But if Palin wins the nomination, I'd probably vote Libertarian or independent. No way I'd vote for Obama.
What if Palin had, as a campaign promise, her mom or Todd's mom oversee the household, in terms of raising kids during a stint in the White House?
Well that's presupposing that Palin were the most "compelling and competent candidate." Truth be told, I find her highly incompetent, so the point is moot.
But if she did happen to be competent and compelling, I still go back to my original point: no way she could be a good, engaged mother to young children while simultaneously being President of the United States. No way.
One of the problems, I think, with the "American Dream" is that society at large seems to believe that anyone anywhere can achieve anything they set their minds to do, at any point in their lives. The truth is, as Ecclesiastes says, there is a time for everything. And, IMO, a mother with young children (and one with special needs to boot) has no business assuming she has the right to be President of the United States -- it's just not the time for it. Her family is too important.
Leave a Comment:
That's good, in-depth stuff Quaid. My prediction for 2012 is that Republicans nominate Sarah Palin (on celebrity credentials alone) and that she loses significantly in the general election. So four more years of Obama.