Of Mandates
There's been much discussion as to whether Obama's decisive victory constitutes a mandate. Bob Novak thinks not; others differ. But in the end, Obama will need to convince just a handful of people that his election constitutes a mandate - and if he is unsuccessful, not all the pundits in Washington will be able to reverse the verdict. I speak, of course, of a handful of Republican Senators.
There's no real question that the massive Democratic majority in the House of Representatives will confer on Obama's agenda the backing that it requires. The real challenge will come from the upper house, the saucer into which we pour our legislation to allow it to cool. The bolder the proposal, history shows, the lower its chances of sailing through the senate. And if Obama is to make his mark in his first two years, he will need to push through some very bold initiatives.
The conventional wisdom is that a handful of GOP moderates will provide Obama with the votes he needs to break filibusters. Names like Collins, Snowe, and Specter Hagel surface repeatedly. And, to be sure, they're all prime candidates for placing their nation (or at least their own electoral prospects) above their party. But there's a second group of senators who may prove equally loath to be seen as standing in Obama's way: the GOP class of 2004, who will stand for reelection in just 24 months. And if Obama is to pass his agenda, he's going to need their support. After all, even if he pulls out a nominally filibuster-proof 60 seat majority, he's likely to lose at least a few red-state Democrats on any controversial initiative. He'll need to pick up some support on the other side of the aisle to make good his losses, and there are no better prospects than the 2010 Republicans.
That's a counterintuitive position to take. Most pundits expect that the 2010 election will prove to be a banner year for Congressional Republicans. For starters, they're overdue. Public opinion in this nation tends to swing like a pendulum. The Democrats have made remarkable gains in two consecutive elections; adding a third would be difficult. In addition, the past two elections have put Democrats into power in many swing districts and even in some solidly Republican territories. If the GOP can recruit and run strong candidates, it ought to be able to reclaim some of those losses. At the same time, there are fewer vulnerable GOP seats that remain for Democrats to capture, leaving the party in a largely defensive posture. The final factor is the curse of midterm elections. Voters tend to register their displeasure with the president by sending back to Washington members of the loyal opposition. Over the past 17 midterm elections, the president's party has lost an average of 28 seats in the House and 4 seats in the Senate. So, in its face, the 2010 election would seem fraught with peril for the newly ascendant Democratic majority.
But these factors are likely to be felt more acutely in the House of Representatives than in the Senate. After all, the crop of senators coming up for reelection in 2010 last faced the voters in 2004, when they rode the president's coat-tails to a four-seat gain. To the extent the country has since realigned, they have been shielded from the dramatic shifts in partisan identification. And the midterm curse is one of those rules of thumb so typical of political science; always true except when it's not. It didn't, for example, prevent the Republicans from gaining seats in 2002, using the cudgel of Sept. 11. And it didn't prevent Democrats from expanding their already filibuster-proof supermajority by winning nine additional seats in 1934, during FDR's first term. In other words, in times of crisis, the nation sometimes chooses to strengthen the hand of its chief executive rather than place checks upon his power.
All of that is framed in terms of glittering generalities, but elections are most often decided on the basis of gritty detail. In 2010, 19 Republican-held seats will be before the voters, and just 15 currently controlled by Democrats. One of those seats - held by Sam Brownback of Kansas - will be open, as the principled solon abides by his term-limits pledge and steps down. It is the other 18 Republicans in whom I am most interested.
Actually, it's just six of them. These are Republicans facing reelection in states that Obama has just carried (or, in one case, where the outcome remains in doubt). And I can guarantee you this - every last one of them is thoroughly terrified.
- Mel Martinez, FL: When he first won office, Democrats had a slender 370k edge in registration. The gap now stands at 660k, but even that understates the gains. Some number of the older Democratic registrants are vestiges of a time when Dixiecrats ruled the South, and are reliably Republican voters in federal contests; virtually all of the new wave of registrants are solidly Democratic. Obama carried 50.9% of the vote, and dominated among Hispanics, the state's fastest growing block of voters.
- Chuck Grassley, IA: Grassley is not, at first blush, a vulnerable incumbent. He won his reelection in 2004 with 70% of the vote. But he was closely tied to the unpopular bailout package, as the ranking member on Finance. And Obama carried his state with 54% of the vote, a worrisome sign for a staunch conservative in a state that's been drifting leftward. Grassley has always had a solid streak of midwestern populism, though, and is best known for his investigations into powerful interests. He may have been inclined to support some Obama initiatives anyway; now, he has the political cover to do so.
- Kit Bond, MO: The four-term senator is running roughly even in the polls with Dick Gephardt and Robin Carnahan, and the election hasn't even begun. If the rule of thumb is that incumbents drawing less than 50% support are vulnerable, Bond has good reason to be worried. We still don't know who carried the Show-Me State, but the very fact that the result is up in the air provides cause for concern.
- Judd Gregg, NH: That most endangered of political species, a New England Republican. Gregg is popular in his home state, and has served it well in the senate, but that may not be enough to save him. Obama took the Granite State by almost ten points; Jeanne Shaheen knocked off Gregg's colleague, John Sununu. Gregg may pull out another term, but the odds are stacked against him. And the last thing he can afford to do is stand in the way of the popular president.
- Richard Burr, NC: Burr squeaked into office back in 2004 with 52% of the vote. At night, he's haunted by the spectre of Liddy Dole, reminding him that his days in this seat are numbered. North Carolina is experiencing rapid growth, fueled by Hispanic immigrants and Northeastern migrants. Republicans they are not.
- George Voinovich, OH: To be sure, he's a moderate. But his popularity has sunk over the past few years, and he's polling behind a number of prospective rivals. Now that Ohio has swung back into the Democratic column, and by a surprisingly large 4-point margin, we can expect to see leading Democrats jump into this race. And they're bound to make an issue of any controversial votes.
To these six, I'd add two more names: Arlen Specter and John McCain. Both are vulnerable to being primaried, but they've exhibited striking independence in the past. If Specter's health holds, he should retain his seat, even in solidly-blue Pennsylvania, but may face some very strong challengers. That would make it awkward, to say the least, for him to cast the deciding vote in support of a filibuster. John McCain carried his home state by under nine points in the presidential election, and the demographics of his region are shifting toward Democrats. He has fences to mend at home, and he'll have to decide whether to reclaim his maverick mantle and defend himself on the left, or to remain a loyal party man and defend himself from the right.
There are, of course, Democrats who are equally vulnerable. But I'm not trying to handicap races that will be decided two years down the road. I lack a crystal ball. What we know right now is that a half-dozen Republican senators will need the support of large numbers of Obama voters if they are to win re-election. That the ground has shifted beneath their feet, and that the electorates that put them in office bear little resemblance to the electorate that just gave Obama a landslide victory. You can be sure that these senators have already noted as much. If they decide that their constituents have handed Obama a mandate, they won't want to contradict that verdict - or, at least, they'll be reluctant to do so too forcefully, too publicly.
That gives Obama the flexibility to piece together coalitions in support of his legislative initiatives. He won't win over all of these senators on every vote, but he doesn't have to. Between the strong Democratic majority, the handful of moderates, and the half-dozen Republicans looking over their shoulders, he should find sufficient room to maneuver. That's the advantage of governing with the majority of the country behind you, something we haven't witnessed in a generation. It should be interesting to watch.
If you've enjoyed this, please share it with other readers by clicking the'recommend' link. You can find more analysis on my blog, or subscribe by clicking "Follow Me" on the right. As always, I welcome your comments and corrections, and thank you for your feedback.
Advertisement
Excellent post. I'd rather see the Senate Dems trade a favor for a vote to any of these guys than see them give Lieberman the time of day.
It's going to be interesting to see how obstructionist the Republicans are going to be willing to be seen to be. I truly doubt that McConnell is psychologically capable of perceiving the straight line from the obstructionism he promoted for the last two years and the ass-kicking the Senate Republicans took. If he retains his leadership position, I fear it will be because he's seen as senior Senator from the Great State (or, in his case, Commonwealth) of Denial and that's what the Republican caucus will be looking for.
FWIW, Burr is much more highly regarded here than Dole was. He's managed to come off as very moderate while racking up a pretty conservative record, though it remains to be seen what that will mean under a Democratic president with a bold agenda. And he is, as it happens, quite a reasonable guy. If getting to 60 wasn't at stake, I could even see myself voting for him if, by some mischance, the Democrats put somebody really repulsive up against him.
Also, North Carolina's Hispanic population has skyrocketed and, with the notable exception of the horrendous Rep. Virginia Foxx, folks hereabout have taken it a lot more calmly than I ever thought they would. But the fact is that the overwhelming majority of them aren't U.S. citizens and can't vote.
November 9, 2008 11:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
Steve:
Thanks for that response. I'll readily admit my ignorance of the state-level dynamics in most of these races, and I hope that other readers will chime in with respect to their own states.
I would throw a few numbers into the discussion, though. Latinos constituted around 1% of voters in 2004; they were up to 3% this time around. Much more telling, I think, is the Party ID split. The 2004 exit put it at 39% Democrat, 40% Republican, and 21% Independent; in 2008, those numbers were 42%, 31%, and 27%. Burr can take some comfort in the thought that most of the GOP defectors wound up as independents, but there's no question that the Democratic Party has gained substantial ground over the past four years in NC. Finally, for whatever it's worth, PPP put Burr's approval at 27-26% this summer, and back in 2006, he lagged substantially behind Liddy Dole. Those are low numbers for an incumbent - it looks a lot like he hasn't managed to establish himself in the public consciousness, however well-regarded he may be by those (like you) who follow this stuff more closely.
But even if you're right, and Burr fends off his challengers, he's got to be pretty nervous. And that's what matters over the next few months. Most incumbents feel fairly invulnerable, and with good reason. I don't think most GOPers in states Obama carried feel terribly confident, and that's bound to affect their behavior.
November 9, 2008 4:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Another great essay from FlyontheWall!
I have two dates rolling around in my mind: 1938 and 1946. And I am beginning to settle on 1938 as a loose-fit model for the upcoming midterms if Obama repeats two of FDR's mistakes.
1) President Obama must not try to rope in the blue dog democrats, it would be wiser for him to give them plenty of freedom. At issue here is the image of an emerging party orthodoxy that the public feels uncomfortable with. This perceived lack of ideological heterogeneity is probably a contributing factor in the Republican's catastrophic fall from grace
2) Obama must avoid controversial court appointments that will energize the currently demoralized GOP base and cautious "independents" Again, this sounds like CW, but the first two years of a new presidency are probationary always.
It would be best for him to continue the national unity theme, bring in the Republicans and reduce the latter's "one party rule" argument two years hence.
The wild card in the picture for everyone is the economy, but now the Democrats have more exposure to voter angst than do the Republicans.
November 9, 2008 12:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Fly, illuminating post. I particularly like your turn of phrase here: "The real challenge will come from the upper house, the saucer into which we pour our legislation to allow it to cool."
I also point out that Obama's election is far from a popular vote landslide; winner-take-all Electoral College numbers distort the balance of votes cast nationally. I perceive this vote with its coattail effect not as a mandate of approval for any "Democratic agenda", but as a "throw the bums out" repudiation of GOP politics. Those are two very different things, and the latter will more likely result in the mid-term balancing vote you cite.
The other point neglected in your post is the effect external events will play in the mid-term elections. If Obama can reduce our presence in Iraq without precipitating chaos, refocus on Afghanistan and put a serious dent in Al Qaeda, and respond effectively to impending Peak Oil impacts, then the electorate might see that this "Progressive stuff seems to be working" and give the Democratic Party a real mid-term mandate. Mandate comes when a party is retained in power in the face of credible challenge, not when the status quo is given the heave-ho.
But I gotta say, this is a perfect example of a post that should be truncated on the main page with a 'More>>'. The Reader Posts page is limited and valuable territory that should be shared to the greatest extent possible.
November 9, 2008 1:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
We won by the same amount Reagan beat Carter by. LANDSLIDE. We won by amounts not garnered by a Democrat since 1964, MANDATE!
November 9, 2008 2:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Reagan beat Carter by nine points in the popular vote and got 489 electoral votes. That is a landslide. Barack has an opening, which this blog expresses quite well. The key to democratic success is helping to push the republicans to the center, not taking them to the woodshed.
November 10, 2008 9:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
Father:
The saucer line is attributed, probably apocryphally, to the father of our nation. I'm not certain I agree with you about the meaning of this election; Obama won a greater percentage of the popular vote than any candidate in two decades (and as a departure from prevailing trends, Reagan's first election is the most recent precedent). You can certainly draw a distinction between voters embracing Obama's message of change, and voters simply repudiating the past eight years, but it seems to me to be a distinction without a difference.
I'd agree that the actual result of the midterm elections will be contingent upon both Obama's performance during his first two years in office, and on the course of events largely outside his control. But I'd stress that this post concerns the perception of those elections, and not their eventual outcome. Very few senators are willing to gamble in the present on opposing a popular national leader, in the hope or belief that, two years from now, he'll be less popular. Particularly when his popularity down the road is, as you point out, likely to be a function of unpredictable events. That's why I suspect many senators of both parties will prove reluctant to be too prominent in opposition - particularly those whose election is just two years away.
As for the length of my post, I'll readily admit to the vice of verbosity. I don't particularly like chopping posts in two; it makes it somewhat more awkward to link to them, and privileges the snappy paragraph over the thoughtful essay. But it's not my desire to deny other TPMers the space to share their ideas, and so I'm willing to experiment with it - we'll see how well it works.
November 9, 2008 3:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
You don't have to use two separate posts. Type the start of your post in the "BODY" tab of the editor, then the rest in the "EXTENDED". A link to the whole post is still a single url, with the post and comments on one page. But like the longer entries on the editorially controlled parts of the site, you get a "Read more..." link instead of the text in the EXTENDED box on the main reader page and on your particular blog page.
I think the new user features overall seem quite good and well done. The previews, deleting and editing posts, and other changes are all quite welcome additions. Kudos to Andrew, Lila, and Al for their work on improving community tools.
November 10, 2008 7:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
This is exactly the kind of info I've been wanting. I completely agree that we'll be able to make use of friendly repubs and those who face re-election in 2006.
If I were the repubs right now I'd be nervous about the probability of Obama overcoming the fears of many who may have been influenced by fear-mongering prior to the election. Once all the things that people were told to fear do not materialize, I'm expecting some repubs may be even more powerfully encouraged to vote with an ever increasing majority of folks approving Obama's administration.
November 9, 2008 3:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Fly,
If you have a link to Bond announcing his plans for 2010, I would appreciate having it. The current rumor in Missouri is that Bond will be retiring and that the likeliest Democratic candidate would be Robin Carnahan who is very popular in the state. Gephardt is keeping a very low profile.
None of us know what will happen in the next couple of years to impact the 2010 election. I do know that Missouri Democrats would be delighted if Robin ran.
Best,
Nick
November 9, 2008 4:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nick:
Appreciate the local perspective. I don't have an inside line on Bond, but I do tend to assume that incumbents will run for re-election until they publicly indicate otherwise. There are too many rumored retirements that never materialize. And yes, Carnahan is the obvious frontrunner - but it's tough to handicap the race before Bond's intentions are clear.
But again, this list wasn't intended to handicap the 2010 races, but rather, to suggest which senators might be less willing to take a public stance in opposition to Obama's agenda because of their pending races. If Bond does intend step down, I'd remove him from this list. Senators who intend to retire tend to follow their instincts rather than their prospects. In Bond's case, that probably makes him more likely to oppose Obama, and a poor candidate for compromise.
Nate Silver apparently has been thinking along similar lines, and for many of the same reasons. He's handicapping all 35 races; I'd encourage people to take a look.
November 9, 2008 7:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
I can easily imagine Bond retiring in 2010, but I can just as easily imagine him running again. I would not lay odds either way right now. Even if he has decided to retire, that is not to say that the RSCC could not persuade him to stay on in the interest of helping their efforts to retake the Senate.
Meanwhile, I like the idea of Robin Carnahan for senate, but if I am not mistaken, she is still undergoing chemotherapy for breast cancer. That takes a lot out of a person. I do rather wonder if she has it in her, under those circumstances, to run for Senate as well.
November 10, 2008 11:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Names like Collins, Snowe, Specter and Hagel surface repeatedly."
Nice post, but note that Hagel won't be in the Senate next year. He didn't run for re-election, so Republican Mike Johanns, who has recently been Bush's Secretary of Agriculture, was just elected Senator from Nebraska.
Hagel is quite conservative, and has been one of Bush's biggest backers in the Senate. However, his principled stance on Iraq has caused other Republicans in Nebraska to consider him a 'traitor' to the party. Apparently, you're either with Bush or you're with the 'enemy' (i.e. Democrats) - even if you've supported Bush on almost every other issue.
Anyway, he called it quits this year. As a Nebraskan, I'm sorry to see it. I disagreed with him about most things, but I still respect the guy.
November 9, 2008 5:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks - you are, of course, correct. Hagel's name has surfaced with respect to the lame-duck session, when some Democrats are hoping he'll support the second-round stimulus package (and, going forward, his National Infrastructure Bank legislation may provide a foundation for action in the next Congress). But I shouldn't have included him in this post.
November 9, 2008 6:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
A lot of the corporate mass media are just regurgitating the same tired old lines they write all the time.
When Republicans win by exactly one (potentially stolen) vote, it's a "mandate" for "the values we all share". When Democrats win with a big majority, they must "hew to the center" (which is really, as defined by the corporate mass media, only slightly to the left of Mussolini)
I CALL BULLSHIT!
November 9, 2008 7:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
"When Democrats win with a big majority, they must "hew to the center""
6.1% difference of the popular vote does not constitute a "big majority". I still maintain what we saw was a repudiation of GOP inept and corrupt governance, not an affirmation of Democratic Party principles. If there had been a credible third party candidate, or no "Palin Principle" (you rise to the level of your own incompetence in politics) McCain would be President-elect. Someone on another thread cited the Prop 8 vote as an anomaly; I call it a tragedy but not an anomaly, simply an indication that the country hasn't hung a lefty like so many here claim it has.
November 10, 2008 12:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
My point is if McCain had won by 6.1% the corporate mass media would be telling us about the conservative mandate.
Prove your statement with some polling data. Besides the anti-gay initiatives, the polling data I've seen says the public is for Democratic Party principles (e.g. universal health insurance) So where is your data?
November 10, 2008 12:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
I tried to create a more thoughtful erudite post in response to your challenge but the internet ate it. The following document will substantiate both our points of view: http://assets.ourfuture.org/documents/change-election-2008.pdf
excerpted below - blockquote screwed up formatting so I am just quoting here:
Q.50 (DO NOT ASK IF VOTED FOR JOHN MCCAIN AND DIDN'T CONSIDER IN CHCEBO) Let me read you a list of doubts about John McCain. Regardless of how you voted, which THREE describe the most important reasons NOT to vote for John McCain?
Total
Picked Sarah Palin as his running mate..............................37
Would give tax breaks to the rich and big corporations and not to the middle class..................................................35
Would continue Bush's policies...........................................34
Would stay in Iraq................................................................28
Would privatize Social Security and cut Medicare benefits................................................................................22
Would tax health care benefits and give insurance companies more power.......................................................22
Ran a negative campaign rather than say what'd he do.....20
Would help end a woman's right to choose on abortion......17
Is too old to be president.....................................................16
His erratic response to the financial crisis...........................14
Supports outsourcing and bad trade deals...........................8
Would cut government spending and services.....................4
(All).......................................................................................4
(Other)..................................................................................1
(None)..................................................................................2
(Don't know/ refused)...........................................................2
end quote
I maintain that the Democratic Party reclaimed the center ground of American politics with a candidate who did very little to alienate progressives, moderates, or contrite conservatives. The opponent, on the other hand, represented the status quo of corruption and incompetence. In other words, it was the Democrats' election to lose, and they didn't.
November 10, 2008 6:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Fly:
Interesting post. I am most interested in this snippet:
"That gives Obama the flexibility to piece together coalitions in support of his legislative initiatives. He won't win over all of these senators on every vote, but he doesn't have to".
The question I have, and I think the most interesting question at this point is what legislative initiatives can we expect? Given the broad-based coalition that helped to elect President-Elect Obama, I think events about which we have little control will be the best indicator of President-Elect Obama's agenda going forward. And, while I have my pet initiatives that I'd like to see him pursue, and while each of our wish lists are presumably somewhat unique, I think one thing that we can all look forward to is having a guy in the White House with intellectual curiousity, an ability to listen, and with a threshold aversion to inflexibility and intolernce of opposing views.
November 10, 2008 9:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think he laid out everything he wants to do in detail on his campaign website. I expect him to push forward with that agenda in whatever order makes the most sense given the facts on the ground come January 20th.
I also suspect that Barack believes he can accomplish most if not all of that very ambitious plan given the right electoral dynamics over the next four years. I am quite sure that is why he is going out of his way to court republican moderates to get on-board and won't dismiss good ideas that come from conservative places.
I think he fully intends on executing in a way that allows all Americans of goodwill to take credit for our national transformation.
November 10, 2008 10:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
Great post and analysis flyonthewall.
You note this: "There's been much discussion as to whether Obama's decisive victory constitutes a mandate."
Despite how the pundits and others try to spin it, I think it is clear that the whole 2008 election--especially the party nominations-- were a mandate from both parties for major change. Here is why:
Obama, the change candidate, and McCain the maverick won the nominations. Against all odds, Obama beat status quo Hillary and her machine. And maverick McCain beat out the more traditional Republican candidates with little help from the Republican leadership until it was clear he was going to win the nomination.
The nominations alone were a clear sign that a majority of Americans from both parties seek major change. For this reason, the Democrats will do well in the future if they work on the areas where both Republicans and Democrats agree to promptly deliver substantial results.
A majority of Americans can agree on quality and reasonable health care that is not rigged against people when they get sick or rigged with above market drug prices. A majority agree we need top notch education to compete in a globalized world. A majority want unnecessary wars ended. A majority want a strong middle class and to end the growing income gap.
That's where I'd start if I were the Democrats.
November 10, 2008 10:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ditto. Seconded.
November 10, 2008 11:12 AM | Reply | Permalink