Politics with Marc Ambinder

« Question Of The Day: Which 2009 Ballot Is Most Important For 2010? | Main | Rubio Prepares To Be King.... »

Nov 2 2009, 10:13 am

The White House: Let Conservatives Win... (For Now)

The White House is playing it cool. Faced with the prospect of losing governor's mansions in Virginia and New Jersey, a would-be pick-up seat in New York, maybe a few liberal policy referendums and the mayoralty of Atlanta,  Obama administration political and policy planners will put on their Snuggies Tuesday night and watch FlashFoward.  It's the future they're concerned about, not the present.

The White House expects the GOP to do well in 2010 as conservatives interpret the elections of 2009 as a verdict on ideology -- the capiatulating, week-kneed ideology of party functionaries. Further, the White House expects Republicans to pick up House seats. This is overdetermined. The White House wants conservatives to think that whatever happens in 2009 and in 2010 has worked for them, because the White House believes that the GOP short-term success will be a mirage -- a fiction built on the blown stacks of angry white men in the exurbs and in the South. 

The more Republicans find their voice on the right, on what White House officials call the "Palin-Beck" axis, the better Democrats will fare after 2010, when they still should have their majorities, when they should have a sleeve of accomplishments, when it becomes clear that Republicans are unwilling or unable to build a genuine coalition. 

Let Republicans use 2010 to make noise, to pick up some phyrric House seats, while Democrats work on long-term accomplishments, on policy that can't be undone by a rump minority party, while Obama continues to reach out, literally and figuratively, to independents, while House Democrats continue to dog-whistle to the liberal base. The tension between the White House and Congress comes in here. Congressional Democrats may be tempted to veer left in order to stem expected 2010 losses. Congressional leaders might interpret the anti-incumbent mood and start to take stands against the White House -- albeit from the left.

The one genuine area of worry: the Democratic Congress's unpopularity. It's the Congress that's seen as profligate, as uncontrollable, as quasi-socialist, as too liberal. Obama still hovers above his party in populartiy, but the density of the party has pulled the president closer to earth. The White House is more concerned with the prospect for a half dozen Democrats to lose their seats because of ethics scandals, but most of those seats will be in Democratic areas.

In a sense, the White House's agenda for 2010 was set long before anyone had ever heard of Doug Hoffman. Faced with the prospect of a obliquely angeled "V" shaped recession, the president's policy planners have been trying to figure out how to create jobs in an economy that is newly conditioned to be lean. Trouble is, of course, that the range of policy options favored by Democrats -- more spending, more government transfers -- are at odds with the second fundamental reality of the economy: the deficit and mounting debt. 

Politically, the White House blames Republicans for the renaissance of partisanship since Obama's election. The 2008 election was so lopsided that it knocked the moderate instincts out of many Republicans, and, indeed, knocked many of them out of office. Others were appointed to the administration by a president who genuinely wants bipartisan reforms and who also wants credit for it. What's left is a rump party -- a very loud one, unfiltered by the need to build a majority coalition because they're so far in the minority.

Here's how the White House is boxed in. Two years into a presidency, the opposition party tends to be more enthusiastic than the party in power, absent some major external event that temporarily distorts the magnectic balance of politics. Republicans have a generic advantage here, as the smaller party tends to turn out a higher percentage of their voters than the larger party. (For decades, Republicans have been the smaller of the two parties.) The way for Democrats to remedy this enthusiasm gap is to cater to the base. But doing so could drive angry independents into the arms of a waiting Republican Party -- a vessel for anti-incumbent, anti-government, anti-Obama energy. It doesn't really matter than the GOP brand has lower Q ratings than Jon Gosslein -- the GOP is ready to say what it takes to get seats back. And there are at least 15 to 20 seats, the White House calculates, that would be flippable even without an enthusiasm gap between the two parties. This is OK, from the Democratic perspective: they really don't need as many seats in the House as they have.

The generic ballot question, as Gallup's pollsters note today, tilts toward Republicans. Forget the likely voter models -- it's too early for them -- among registered voters, Gallup gives Democrats a two-point advantage. Given the GOP's inherent midterm advantage, this means that more Republicans are likely to turn out. (It also means that Democrats can win less than 50% of the two-party vote nationwide and still hold on to most of their majority.)

The White House agenda for 2010 includes financial industry reform, deficit reduction, the beginnings of tax reform, the management of expectations about jobs, and add-ons to the health care bill. They're gridding for a fight about education, an area where Obama has quietly proposed a significant portfolio of expensive reforms.  Immigration reform will prove divisive -- divisive in a way that may hurt Democrats in 2010 -- but will, in the White House's POV, redound to their benefit in 2012. 

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://politics.theatlantic.com/mt-42/mt-tb.cgi/17123

Comments (12)

Marc:

this sounds like wishful thinking under a thin veneer of analysis. Does the Whitehouse really believe that "they really don't need as many seats in the House as they have."?

Have Obama's initiatives sailed through the House? Hardly. The struggle to legislate stands in stark contrast to his party's substantial majorities, and the Whitehouse is ready to blithely dismiss 20 House seats. I am sure Dems in contested districts were thrilled to read this.

Frankly -- that statement requires some sadly missing critical analysis on your part.

FYI:

The Atlanta mayor's race is non partisan and the candidate who is the current front runner loudly trumpets her November 2008 vote for Obama.

Jesus, Marc, no wonder Mickey Kaus calls you "the Draedel".

It's nice for Congressional Democrats to wake up, read your piece, and realize that they are merely cannon fodder to be used to further the ambitions of this President and the people around him. This is like reading one of Rove's reports to the President in 2002.

That said, none of this surprises me at all. A President whose ambition is outstripping the nation's ability to finance it? Third Bush term, baby!

expat in Brazil

Isn't the question whether the Dems can win when they don't have Bush to run against? Let's face it Obama ran against Bush - not McCain. I think we are about to find out if the November 2008 votes were FOR Obama or simply AGAINST Bush. Obama needs to do something - quickly - that would give people a reason to vote for him and his coat tails. We are one year in and still hear campaign talk - promises - blaming others. It is getting old for a President who claims to be transparent and accountable. In Brazil they are rooting for Obama - but not for the reasons you might think! They are gladly accepting the jobs we cannot seem to create in the US.

When talking about the generic ballot question it seems to me that you need to dig deeper into the numbers and look at the regional differences. The numbers from the South skew the National results. The regional differences will matter far more than the national averages. A discussion that does not take that into account is incomplete and based on iffy data.

It seems the Republicans believe their National numbers and avoid the regional differences. I guess they are still using "the math" that worked so well for Karl Rove in 2006 and 2008. Good for them.

Cheers

I came to the right place for Axelrod's spin. After tomorrow, when Democrats who represent normal Americans start breaking against Obama, this post will be a wistful memory.

Normal Americans, mesquito? Who are these people...exactly?

mesquito66 (Replying to: soupy)

People who are easy to find in Arkansas or Minnesota, but somewhat more rare in the districts of Nancy Pelosi, Henry Waxman or Charlie Rangel.

ottovbvs (Replying to: mesquito66)

......I see the people who live in CA or NY are not "normal" while those that live in AK are? BTW they are pretty normal in MN.....they elected Al Franken.

.....Absent a major clusterf*** there is no chance whatever of the Democrats losing their house majority next year. Fast forward to next summer. While jobs won't be coming back in buckets the economy will be in full recovery mode and unemployment is going to be in the area of 7.5%. And guess what, the tapes of Republicans railing against the stimulus program are all sitting on shelves as we speak and a lot of them are going to be in the commercials of Democrats who are going to have all the fund raising and other benefits of incumbency. Now against this background look at the senate. Nine Republican retirements. Gains in the senate, where gerrymandering isn't a factor, of 3 or 4 seats are quite possible. Not a bad trade of house and senate seats. Ultimately, it's all speculation of course and heavily dependant on the state of play next summer and the ability of Democrats to excite their base but the notion the GOP is in some big revival mode because of a few elections when turnout will be around 35% if we're lucky is juvenile.

I assume that the Democratic seats lost in 2010 will be Blue Dog seats. Which will allow for a leaner, cleaner, lefter, House majority which may make it easier to get progressive (re: beneficial/substantive reforms) through the House.

market karma (Replying to: sansouci)

Keep in mind the Dem majority in the House is almost to the seat equal to the number of Dems representing districts that voted McCain in the last election.

While I tend to agree with Otto above that losing a majority is unlikely for Dems, they will lose seats, and the remaining Dem margin will still be comprised of congressmen from districts that lean Republican. If anything -- this will enhance Blue Dog power rather than dilute it -- they will be made king makers in the house. Pelosi will need their votes for everything, rather than just the occasional contentious issue.

Post a comment