No, Really, It’s Not 1994
Convinced that his popularity was eternal, Obama responded by saying, yes, but there’s a “big difference” between 1994 and 2010, and that big difference is, “you’ve got me.”
The funny thing is, Obama might have been right. Because things might be much worse for Democrats in 2010 than they were in 1994 – and the big difference might well be Barack Obama. ~Jonah Goldberg
Pop culture references from the ’70s aside, Goldberg doesn’t do much to support this claim. For things to be worse than 1994, Democrats would have to lose 55+ seats in the House. There is no reason to believe that this will happen. Even the most relevant piece of information he cites in the column is potentially misleading. He writes:
Stu Rothenberg, editor of the Rothenberg Report – not exactly an RNC direct-mail operation – says Obama’s approval rating (already below 50 percent) will likely rival Clinton’s in November of 1994.
Yes, that’s very likely, because Clinton’s rating in November 1994 was 46% according to Gallup. The RCP average of Obama’s approval has him at exactly 46%. What it means for the midterms is not automatically clear. Clinton’s approval rating had dropped into the mid to low 30s during his first two years in office before recovering as the midterm elections approached. This superficially makes it seem as if Clinton’s approval rating in the mid-40s had something to do with massive Democratic losses, but it was actually those much worse approval ratings from earlier in his first term that partly explain Democrats’ ’94 woes. The reality is that Obama has never been as unpopular as Clinton was at certain points in 1993-94, and barring some major event between now and November it’s not likely that his approval rating is going to move much either way.
Invoking the weak economy isn’t that much more persuasive. The ’81-’82 recession was more severe and lasted longer than the recession from which we have been recovering, unemployment was higher in September 1982 than it is now, Reagan’s approval rating was in the low 40s for much of the year, and the presidential party still lost just 28 26 House seats. Even the incredibly unpopular George Bush in a sixth-year midterm presided over a loss of just 30 House seats when his approval rating was at least ten points lower than Obama’s is now. That doesn’t mean that Democrats should automatically expect a similar result to 1982, but at most I see them losing 30 seats in the House and maybe five in the Senate. If I had to pick an exact number, I would now make it 25.
For some more actual analysis, Reid Wilson at Hotline has an interesting post that makes the case for why Democratic losses will likely be far short of the 39 (really 40) seats that the Republicans need to take the House.
Re: “The ‘81-’82 recession was more severe and lasted longer than the recession from which we have been recovering”
Only we are not recovering from this recession. The Bernake Fed charade just papered over the huge structural crack in the wall that is the dysfunctional American economy. That paper will tear before the elections revealing the gaping damage.
The Republican message is indeed inchoate. But the continuing economic implosion may give the feckless Republicans the seats they need for majority status to replace the feckless Democrats.
BTW, Federal elections are now pointless oscillations out of the Democratic pot, into the Republican fire and back…
BTW II, But the Beltway Political Reptiles are like the Wall Street Banksters. They take a cut with every turn of the crank.
You know what? I actually hope Republicans at least take back the House. Not because I think that’ll lead to anything positive, but because contemplating how much more berserk the right-wing will become if the GOP is still in the minority in Congress after November is too disturbing.
Mike
Does the Republicans winning 25 seats instead of 35 seats affect policy in anyway? How does having 45 Republicans in the Senate affect policy. The worst problem for the Democrats will be to maintain majorities in both houses and the U.S. then do into the second dip of the recession. I wonder if the Democrats would then go whole hog in passing their agenda before definitely losing one of the houses in 2012. Will the Democrats pass amnesty and massive new environmental regulations despite their negative effects on the economy because they need to before losing control of one of the Houses.
superdestroyer,
“How does having 45 Republicans in the Senate affect policy.”
The simple explanation: It effectively takes 60 votes in the Senate to pass anything that is remotely controversial. This is because it takes 60 votes to override a filibuster. Reconciliation bills are an exception to this, but they are limited in scope — reconciliation can’t be used to pass arbitrary bills. Both the health care bill and financial reform passed with exactly 60 yes votes in the Senate.
Currently, there are 41 Republicans in the Senate. To get a major bill, like the recent financial reform bill, through the Senate means getting the vote of at least one Republican, assuming the Democrats all stick together. Scott Brown, Olympia Snow and Susan Collins are the usual Republican swing votes. If there were 45 Republicans in the Senate, Democrats would need to get the votes of at least 5 Republicans to pass anything. Getting 5 Republicans to switch is harder than getting 1 Republican to switch, especially given that the possible new Republican Senators appear to be much more conservative than the three mentioned above.
Now, there is talk about changing Senate rules in order to eliminate or weaken the filibuster. But, it appears that enough Democratic Senators would oppose such a change, in large part because it would weaken the power of individual Senators, that it would have trouble passing.
So, fears about the Democrats going ahead and passing lots of controversial legislation without the cooperation of at least some Republicans is probably groundless.
Two things support your skepticism about the GOP romp–all politics is local; and the utter fecklessness of the GOP.
The worst thing that could happen to them would be to control both houses. That insured Clinton’s reelection, and could insure BHO’s.
If they control one house, they can blame the other and the President. If they control both, they might need an idea. Not.
Gonna. Happen.
“Invoking the weak economy isn’t that much more persuasive. The ‘81-’82 recession was more severe and lasted longer than the recession from which we have been recovering, unemployment was higher in September 1982 than it is now,”
Daniel, apart from the unemployment rate (which was slightly higher in the 1980-81 recession), the Great Recession of 2007-? was more severe than the 1980-81 recession both in terms of length and decline of GDP. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_recessions_in_the_United_States The NBER has not yet formally pronounced an end to the 2007 recession.
I’m not too comfortable in the prediction market at the moment. That said:
1) The GOP has been nominated poor candidates. Angle is a probable loss in Nevada and Rand Paul is a possible loss in Kentucky.
2) Democratic pols like Boxer are polling very poorly. There is a chance that CA flips and the GOP still doesn’t get the Senate.
3) The Democrats have a perceived organization deficit whereas the GOP is supposedly ultra-organized at the grassroots. I think the opposite is likely the case. We have no evidence to date that the Tea Party can organize its supporters and move marginally attached voters.
The Nile Monitor lizard I would vote for in preference to Boxer will do a fine job. I suggest the Interior Committee as his first assignment.