Message to Dems: Doomed If You Do, Doomed If You Don’t
How much trouble are the Democrats in? That’s an excellent question, and I’m glad I asked it.
Before we answer it though, first a little background. I think Larry Sabato is the best left-leaning independent pollster out there. His numbers are always solid, and his analysis is usually spot-on. Although there was that time back in 2004 he was doing everything he could to show how John Kerry was going to win — even though his own numbers didn’t support his conclusion. But, hey, that was years ago and we all have our weak moments. He’s still one of my top three or four go-to guys.
The latest issue of Sabato’s Crystal Ball showed up in my inbox this morning, and I read it straight away as I always do. Today’s topic was the 1980 election, and how an incumbent President got spanked and so did his party. Then he went on a bit longer about the 1992 election, and how an incumbent President got spanked and so did his party.
Of course, the whole thing included the usual disclaimer:
The [1980] hostage crisis provides a lesson for election-watchers: We have no idea at this point what event might change next year’s election.
True dat. Of course, election surprises usually don’t help an already-floundering incumbent. The breakdown of the hostage negotiations with Iran sank Jimmy Carter’s last hopes in the last days of the campaign. And Cap Weinberger got tangled up in the Iran-Contra investigation just four days before George H.W. Bush’s ignominious defeat. Both men were probably doomed anyway — but those events do show that big surprises rarely act like a life preserver for a drowning man.
Come to think of it, the biggest surprise in 1992 was the rise and fall and near-re-rise of Ross Perot, none of which did Bush any good. Perot managed to make Bill Clinton look like the most trouble-free of the lot of them. Now that’s a surprise for you.
Anyway, what big surprise could help President Obama next year? The sudden discovery of a giant vein of gold and oil and Twinkies just feet below the surface of every battleground state? Hell, the EPA wouldn’t let him dig it up. Peggy Noonan called him “snakebit,” and I think that description might just stick.
So why is Sabato going on already about incumbents in trouble? As a warning to his fellow Democrats about their chances of winning back the House or even keeping the Senate. Here are few select passages:
With Carter captaining the Democratic ship, election night in 1980 was Titanic-esque. Democrats lost 12 Senate seats and 33 House seats…
Since 1860, an incumbent president has never lost the White House in the same election that his party won control of either house of Congress from the other party. Similarly, the House and the Senate flipping in opposite directions has never happened in the same election in the same timeframe. In other words, regardless of what happens in the presidential race, a scenario in which Democrats captured the House next year and Republicans captured the Senate would be, in a word, historic.
So history tells us that Democrats need Obama to roar back and win a second term in order to flip the House. And even that might not be enough…
…Like 1980 (and now), the country was in a funk, and voters took out their ire on the incumbent president, George H.W. Bush. However, Republicans netted a 10-seat gain in the House, thanks in part to redistricting and changing regional politics (the Democrats retained the House but then lost it in the 1994 GOP wave). If Obama gets Carter-ized next year — or Bush-ized — Democrats, like the GOP 20 years ago, might still pick up a few seats. But almost assuredly not 25.
…If he [Obama] does well, his fellow Democrats should have a decent chance to also do well. If he doesn’t, he’ll open perhaps not a bottomless pit underneath Democratic candidates, but maybe a sinkhole. In any event, the Democrats’ success, or failure, next year cannot be separated from that of their standard-bearer, the president.
Everything is riding on Obama’s performance in the election, isn’t it?
I think the message to congressional Democrats here is: “Get behind your President. Running from Obama won’t improve your chances of keeping your seat. And sniping at him will hurt his chances — and voters will bring you down with him.”
That’s probably solid advice, too. But will downticket Democrats heed it?
As a whole, it would make sense for the Democrat caucus to stick with Obama. But individual members might find it well-nigh irresistible to keep their distance, especially as they start getting earfuls from their constituents next spring and summer.
In fact, I can’t think of a single example of rank & file House members standing by their man en masse, after the public had soured on him. So if Obama’s numbers stay in the tank next year, his worst critics might be the desperate members of his own party.
I’ll bring the popcorn.
CORRECTION: This Crystal Ball was written by Sabato’s House Editor, Kyle Kondik.
Getting on the Prez’s bandwagon will hurt more than it helps. Everyone he “helps” loses, and that was true even back when he had some popularity. He is toxic. The Dems’ only hope is an abundance of retail politics. Shoe leather. Problem is, Dems do not do shoe leather. They work the machine. It will not work this time.
If the Republicans knock on doors, they will beat even the popular Dems. In fact, doing such will get out the vote for every Republican candidate.
If things hold true, the 2010 redistricting will weigh in as well. We may be seeing a shift not seen since 1932….One can hope and pray…right?
Even if Sabato is right in his advice for down-ticket Democrats, it doesn’t do Obama any good. Because if Sabato is right, the Democrats are stuck in a version of the tragedy of the commons.
Supporting Obama in turn helps all Democrats, including the one doing the supporting. But supporting Obama hurts the Democrats doing the supporting. Fortunately for the rest of us (but unfortunately for the Democrats), the share of the “help all Democrats” benefit that goes to the individual Democrat helping Obama is less than the personal cost of helping Obama. So every Democrat wants all the other Democrats to help Obama, but none of them will want to be the ones helping him.
Result: Democrats in swing / marginal Districts / States run away from Obama in terror. There’s a bunch of Democrat Senators who got elected in 2006 in places where they normally would have lost (Montana, for example). So while the Democrats control the calendar in the Senate, they lack an actual majority on anything controversial.
Which is why Reid hasn’t brought forth Obama’s jobs bill, and why it will die in the Senate. Heck, if I were the Republican Senate leadership, I would promise not to filibuster the “Jobs bill”. Make the Democrats vote on tax and spending increases, knowing their votes will be used against them next year, but won’t accomplish anything because the House will kill the bill even if the Senate does pass it.
I’ll bet that at least four of the Democrat Senators in “toss up / leans Republican” seats will vote against Obama’s bill, if they have to do that or vote for it and cause it to pass.
Win, win, win
Obama looks like the extremist he is, the bad idea gets defeated, and left wing voters get discouraged because the Democrat Senate won’t support Obama.
BTW, Steve, the article is by Kyle Kondik, House Editor, U.Va. Center for Politics, not Sabato. It’s just on Sabato’s site.
Thanks for the heads up. Can’t beleive I missed the byline. I’ve read Kondik’s stuff before, and he’s razor sharp.
Isn’t the “if we don’t all hang together we’ll all hang separately” line what they used to keep House Dems in line for Obamacare?
The Republicans may have gone as far as they can in the house, after all some of the progressives represent genuinely liberal districts. It’s hard to imagine Republicans taking any of the minority set aside districts.
The problem with trying to convince Democrats running for reelection that supporting Obama is good for the party as a whole is convincing the individual candidates that they aren’t one of the candidates, who supporting Obama won’t help at all.
The GOP can still gain in the house, we just need good candidates in the districts of current weak D’s. There is the potential for big gains in the Senate, but we need the best electable conservative, not more Christine O’D's, I liked her but just not electable. We need candidates that know how to run things like Ron Johnson of Wisc.
The GOP needs to play their cards well, remembering the snake across from them has the media with a mike in their pocket. The GOP should graciously allow Reid to bring to the floor the Jobs bill, help write it, have lots of debates how it is so important to raise taxes on those that donate D the most. Let the D’s load it up with lots of ornaments, but no R votes for it. Then, the house can let it die.
Obama parted the waters in 2008, but they didn’t seem to part very well in 2010. I hope the 2012 backwash takes a lot of this scum away.