The results from the 2009 elections are in. Many people will misinterpret the results. On the right, you will hearing a lot of crowing on talk radio about how this is a rejection of President Obama. Not true. On the left, there will be relief about a Democrat pickup in NY-23, the congressional seat won by Bill Owens, and complete rejection of the idea the results have any national implications whatsoever. Also not true.
It seems to me there is a middle-way narrative which goes like this: the left interpreted the 2008 results, in which Democrats took over the White House and both houses of Congress, as evidence of a new progressive majority. Their leadership immediately pressed forward with an array of new initiatives, especially health care and cap-and-trade. The tea party movement has slowed the momentum of the progressive platform. The results from Tuesday’s voting could be another barrier slowing that momentum.
It is also incontrovertible that voters are very worried about the economy and are beginning to place the blame on the party in power for high unemployment and general economic malaise. Whether or not it is fair to blame the Democrats yet is another issue, but clearly most voters are less willing to give them a pass.
It is also undeniable that the results were highly influenced by local issues. Corzine is a highly unpopular governor in a state that is suffering economically. Deeds turned out to be a horrible candidate in Virginia (although it is worth pointing out that Dem leaders thought he was a great candidate just a few months ago). The Republican party clearly blew it in NY-23 from the beginning to the end.
Still, the left completely misinterprets the importance of the tea party movement and its certain role in the results last night, in 2010 and beyond. With hindsight, the left’s dismissal of the tea party protesters reminds me of the right’s dismissal of Iraq war protesters from just a few years ago. The Iraq war turned a whole group of moderate, independent people against Bush and the Republican brand, which resulted in Republican losses in 2006 and 2008.
What the left is missing is that moderate, independent voters are not ready for government-run health care and the huge new bureaucracies associated with cap and trade. The ABC exit polls show substantial numbers of people feel government is trying to do too much. Voters in Virginia especially completely rejected the “big government” message.
It is also worth noting that Harry Reid said yesterday that the health care bill will be postponed until 2010. In my opinion, massive health reform, including a public option, is dead for now. Moderate Dems are unlikely to support a massive change in health care after seeing the election results and hearing from their constituents.
It was highly gratifying to the see the results from Maine overturning same-sex marriage. The Washington result is slightly different because people approved domestic partnerships but the ballot question pointed out that a domestic partnership is not a marriage. I think the majority of Americans continue to share President Obama’s position, which is a rejection of same-sex marriage.
Speaking of Obama, it will be interesting to see how he responds to these results and the stalling of a health care reform measure. If he were smart, he would convert himself into a fiscal conservative like former Pres. Clinton and start tackling the concerns of the tea party groups. He could co-opt a large number of them because the national Republican leadership looks completely lost. Based on the results so far, I doubt he will make that change, but that would be change a lot of people could believe in.
I think the fiscal irresponsibility of both parties is catching up with them. If Democrats and Republicans don’t listen to the electorate of their respective states, they will soon find viable third-party candidates taking their seats.
Apparently, and much to the chagrin of the drive-by media, the tea party movement is alive, well and having an impact on voters. I think 2010 will be a game changer for both parties.
Brian, agreed. Another false narrative that many Republicans apparently believe is that they can spend just like Democrats and voters will forgive them because they have an R behind their name. Ain’t gonna happen.
I think Harry Reid is also trying to save his Senate seat by slowing down the health care vote. Of course, the implication of doing that also means that health care reform in its present 1900+ page form is dead on arrival after 2010, especially if enough conservative voices make it to the House and Senate.
In a rare moment where I listened to Glenn Beck, he mentioned that the situation in NY-23 demonstrated just how blurred the lines are between Democrats and Republicans. I agree.
A good column from Michael Barone that supports the thesis of this post and adds a lot of details. This is why Michael Barone does political analysis for a living, and I don’t.
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/Lessons-from-the-2009-election-results-69054827.html
Great comment, Brian (#1). The two parties aren’t that different in their stance regarding liberty, just in their methods of decreasing it. I agree about the trend toward third party and independent candidates.
I think Obama was viewed as a Moderate for change in his campaign. Then instead of bringing up the plans he claimed to have for health care, etc., he dumped it all into the laps of liberal Congress to develop.
Instead of a moderate progressive movement, we received a liberal progressive movement.
While Nancy Pelosi screams, “Damn the torpedoes, full steam ahead!” The populous are concerned about using the entire ship as a ram. They aren’t upset with Obama, except in that he’s giving too much power to the liberal factions.
People want health care. Or to have it improved and fixed, anyway. But they don’t necessarily want a new huge government bureaucracy. They want spending stimulus for the economy, but not a lot of bloat to pay off liberal cronies. They want a better environment, but want local oil drilling and nuclear plants to be considered in the mix. They don’t mind Cap and Trade IF it is a real system that doesn’t just pay off certain companies and groups, and as long as it doesn’t cripple our economy anymore.
This wasn’t a voice against Obama. At least not this time. It is a voice against Nancy Pelosi and extreme liberal advancements. It will give power to Blue Dog Democrats, who are seeking a middle ground.
NY23 was a voice against liberals pretending to be Republicans, but is also a voice against conservatives with nothing to offer except tax cuts. There needs to be engagement in resolving health care and environment, etc.
“The Washington result is slightly different because people approved domestic partnerships but the ballot question pointed out that a domestic partnership is not a marriage. I think the majority of Americans continue to share President Obama’s position, which is a rejection of same-sex marriage.”
But I think Obama’s position is probably identical to the WA referendum: reject same-sex marriage, but extend all the rights and responsibilities of marriage to domestic partnerships. And I also think most Americans are headed that way.
Sean, #5, I’ve been thinking a lot about the third party movement these days. I’m leaning increasingly libertarian. But the problem is that our system simply is not set up for third parties. Libertarians and greens in many cases are simply wasting their votes. So until our system changes significantly, the role of third parties should be to edge the two major parties toward their positions.
So, the role of libertarians right now should be to support small government candidates in primaries and promote a Ron Paul model. Interestingly, this IS having an effect. Republicans are starting to realize that they cannot be Dem-lite candidates and garner support. In addition, Republicans are not emphasizing social issues as much but instead concentrating on fiscal issues. Again, this is a libertarian position.
Who knows? It’s possible the Republicans could become a true fiscally conservative party again. We shall see.
“It is also worth noting that Harry Reid said yesterday that the health care bill will be postponed until 2010.”
Given that we are already into Nov. 2009 this is not a surprise (particularly given that the Congress is away a good part of November and December).
“If he were smart, he would convert himself into a fiscal conservative like former Pres. Clinton and start tackling the concerns of the tea party groups.”
That would stink, because then I would have to despise him for all the reasons I despise Clintion.
To the younger generation, same-sex marriage is uncontroversial. In a few decades, all this sturm und drang will seem quaint in retrospect. Notice also that the insanity regarding marijuana is also finally dissipating, as more and more people realize that we are squandering our resources in foolish ways. Legalization now has rather more mainstream supporters:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H9fZeMGacFo&feature=player_embedded
Thanks for fixing the server, by the way. For a while it was impossible to get anything here.
Obama actually has been a fiscal conservative, and not just his insistence on health care reform being deficit neutral in contrast to the vast profligacy of the prescription drug bill.
Listen to a real conservative, Bruce Bartlett, who, unlike the ersatz variety that has been in control recently, can recognize reality:
http://capitalgainsandgames.com/blog/bruce-bartlett/1200/why-economy-needs-spending-not-tax-cuts
Bill, re: the younger generation and SSM, if I were a betting person, I would probably bet that in 10 years support for SSM will increase as people raised in the “Will and Grace” generation begin to participate in politics and vote more often. However, there is another possible outcome, which is that the more people hear about the issue and think about it, they are likely to support rights for gays like hospital visitation, etc, but less likely to support actual same-sex marriage. Interestingly, polls have shown that support for SSM in California is actually lower in 2009 than it was in 2007 and 2008. We shall see.
Bravo well said Rameumptom!!
Bill, your claim that Obama is a fiscal conservative is one of the most ridiculous things I have read on a blog in a long time.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123569611695588763.html
The key figure is federal outlays as a percentage of GDP. Notice that it actually went down during the Clinton years and then starting climbing again during the Bush years and exploded with Obama’s first budget.
In addition, you need to look at spending per department. Obama proposes increasing spending in every single federal department even more so than Bush (except for Defense).
Chris H.,
I think any future US President, Republican or Democrat, who assumes office and thinks he or she can govern from an extreme position–right or left–is treading on dangerous ground.
I don’t think Bill Clinton necessarily sought the title of fiscal conservative so much as he sought middle ground. Say what you will about the man–and a lot has been said–he is a brilliant politician who knows how to find middle ground on the issues. That said, I hope President Obama can learn from President Clinton and seek out a similar course for his agenda.
“Notice that it actually went down during the Clinton years”
Because it was an economic boom time. Fiscal policy is complicated like that.
“…your claim that Obama is a fiscal conservative is one of the most ridiculous things I have read on a blog in a long time.”
Restraint…Restraint…Restraint
Brian,
Clinton governed like a Republican. I realize that Geoff would find that favorable. I would not. He was a brilliant politician for himself, but he left the party is pretty poor shape. That is why I do not like that model. Clinton and Obama are president during very different circumstances. If the economy is booming in his second term, I am sure that Obama might follow a similar fiscal policy. Of course, Clinton did this after raising taxes his first term…because of a poor economy.
Obama is a liberal. Duh. However, even in the US, he is not an extreme one. I should know.
Geoff B., you obviously didn’t read the entire post I linked to, preferring to post your own 9-month old editorial link. Here is Bartlett’s conclusion:
“I think there are grounds on which to criticize the Obama administration’s anti-recession actions. But spending too much is not one of them. Indeed, based on this analysis, it is pretty obvious that spending – real spending on things like public works – has been grossly inadequate.”
Bill, you obviously did not read the post I linked to. The point that you are missing is that spending gets you nowhere when you are planning on the largest tax increase in history in the coming years. In addition, spending is a highly overrated way of stimulating an economy. Japan has been trying to stimulate its way out of recession for nearly two decades, and it hasn’t worked, and now debt is approaching 200 percent of GDP. Economic growth is based on the expectation of future profits. This is basic common sense. Businesses will only hire people if they think revenue and profits are going to increase in the future. What businesses see now is 1)huge tax increases definitely on the way when the Bush tax cuts are lifted 2)another round of huge tax increases likely on the way for health care/cap and trade, etc. 3)continued stagnation similar to Japan. This is why you will not see an economic boom similar to the Reagan and Clinton years until 1)spending is massively cut and 2)taxes are lowered for businesses and individuals on a permanent, not temporary, basis.
Bill, you may want to read the attached to get a more realistic look at Obama’s spending.
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Budget/bg2319.cfm
To summarize:
“The White House’s mid-session budget review recently forecast that President Barack Obama’s budget would create $9 trillion in budget deficits over the next decade–more debt than America accumulated from 1789 through 2008 combined.[1] Yet even that figure likely understates the 10-year budget deficit by nearly $4 trillion. It completely excludes the proposed new health care entitlement, underestimates other costs, and fails to include the full price of major legislation that the President has endorsed. A more realistic budget estimate incorporating all these costs shows:
* An additional $5 trillion in spending, $1 trillion in revenues, and $4 trillion in deficits over the next decade;
* Budget deficits adding $13 trillion to the national debt over the next decade;
* The national debt held by the public surpassing $20 trillion by 2019, reaching nearly 100 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) (See Chart 1);”
The charts are pretty informative.
I think a lot of this discussion is ignoring the reality and impact of the median voter. This is something I wrote yesterday in response to a point about the pendulum swinging that gets to this:
I think that trying to claim that what happened yesterday has anything to do with any kind of trends is ex post facto trying to explain a chaotic system. The median voter can’t name ten elected officials, has never read a ballot measure or attended a candidates forum, and is none to sure how to operate their ballot.
“The median voter can’t name ten elected officials, has never read a ballot measure or attended a candidates forum, and is none to sure how to operate their ballot.”
This is a bit over the top. However, having attended plenty of candidate forums, I do not blame anyone who does not attend.
I think we can read things into elections, but as Geoff said, we have to be careful not to over read things into them. We should also be suspicious of those who make grand claims about said elections. Keep in mind, yesterday had two gov races, and handful of mayor’s races, and two house races (one contested). Last November there was a Presidential election, 30 plus senate races, and 435 house races along with numerous Governor races. There is a major difference in sample size.
Eliminate the FED. Go back to the gold standard. Repeal the 16th amendment. It will be a painfull move but well worth it in the end. Everything else is a red herring.
I agree with Chris H’s #22. It’s important to point out that Blain’s point is more valid in a presidential election when you get 60-plus percent turnout than an off-year election when you get turnout in the 20s. In off-year elections, the people who are likely to turn out are the motivated, more educated voters with a cause. But it is certainly true that in presidential elections many voters don’t have a clue about what candidates really believe.
Doug, first things first. Let’s audit the Fed, which has increasing bipartisan support. I think once we find out what the Fed has been doing, and it gets reported, there will be support for massive changes.
Chris. H (#17),
I would be willing to bet that Republicans didn’t think Clinton governed like a Republican, but I understand your point of view.
My argument is that Obama needs to be more of a centrist to get any traction on his political agenda. Even with a majority in both houses, he is failing at moving any of his major policies forward.
It’s good to have you around again, Chris.
24 — That is true. The median voter is more likely to vote in presidential elections than any other election. My state doesn’t have goobers or Federal positions on odd-year ballots, so I don’t know how turn-out is for those, so I was allowing that the median voter in those states might have showed up.
But the basic point remains, and I think we’re agreeing on this. It’s important not to create trends out of isolated events.