03-01-2019 07:36:35 PM -0800
02-28-2019 01:12:07 PM -0800
02-28-2019 08:28:27 AM -0800
02-27-2019 10:35:18 AM -0800
02-27-2019 08:26:44 AM -0800
It looks like you've previously blocked notifications. If you'd like to receive them, please update your browser permissions.
Desktop Notifications are  | 
Get instant alerts on your desktop.
Turn on desktop notifications?
Remind me later.
PJ Media encourages you to read our updated PRIVACY POLICY and COOKIE POLICY.

Nate Silver: None of This Shutdown Noise Will Matter Much Next Year

It's rare that Nate Silver says what I'm thinking, but he has. Silver argues in his latest post that despite the media's breathless, "game changer" coverage of the government shutdown, it's not likely to change any games or even matter a whole lot to next year's mid-terms.

Remember Syria? The fiscal cliff? Benghazi? The IRS scandal? The collapse of immigration reform? All of these were hyped as game-changing political moments by the news media, just as so many stories were during the election last year. In each case, the public's interest quickly waned once the news cycle turned over to another story. Most political stories have a fairly short half-life and won't turn out to be as consequential as they seem at the time.


But what about the pair of government shutdowns in 1995 and 1996? It's common to find articles asserting, without qualification, that they were a major factor in prompting President Clinton's reelection.

However, the empirical evidence for this claim is thin. Clinton's approval ratings were somewhat higher a few months after the shutdown than a few months beforehand — but this was part of a relatively steady, long-term trend toward improved approval ratings for Clinton, probably because of solid economic growth.

Nor was Clinton's victory over Bob Dole in 1996 anything unexpected. Incumbent presidents generally win reelection even under marginal conditions (as Barack Obama did last year) — and they're overwhelming favorites during peacetime elections when the economy is robust, as it was during 1996. Furthermore, Clinton did not have much in the way of coattails: Democrats gained just two seats in the House that November, and wouldn't win back the chamber for another decade.

Yep. I've written a piece or two on how the 1990s shutdown had a far less dramatic effect than the current media lets on. It didn't actually change very much in the next election. It did play a role in forcing Bill Clinton to agree to the Republicans' balanced budgets. (It also introduced him to Monica Lewinsky.) No shutdown now, however, is likely to have much effect on Barack Obama's policy or strategy. He's just a very different political animal from Clinton. He doesn't want any real budget at all. A strategy that worked on Clinton is not guaranteed to work on Obama or change much in Congress.

Even if the shutdown were to have a moderate political impact — and one that favored the Democrats in races for Congress — it might not be enough for them to regain control of the U.S. House. Instead, Democrats face two major headwinds as they seek to win back Congress.

First, there are extremely few swing districts — only one-half to one-third as many as when the last government shutdown occurred in 1996. Some of this is because of partisan gerrymandering, but more of it is because of increasingly sharp ideological divides along geographic lines: between urban and rural areas, between the North and the South, and between the coasts and the interior of the United States.

So even if Democrats make significant gains in the number of votes they receive for the House, they would flip relatively few seats because of the way those votes are distributed. Most of the additional votes would come in districts that Democrats were already assured of winning, or where they were too far behind to catch up.

Consider that, between 2010 and 2012, Democrats went from losing the average congressional district by seven percentage points to winning it by one percentage point — an eight-point swing. And yet they added only eight seats in the House, out of 435 congressional districts.

In 2014, likewise, it will require not just a pretty good year for Democrats, but a wave election for them to regain the House. But wave elections in favor of the party that controls the White House are essentially unprecedented in midterm years. Instead, the president's party has almost always lost seats in the House — or at best gained a handful.

Again, yep. The real action next year will be in the Senate. That fight won't be won or lost in this shutdown. Obama wants Democrats to re-take the House, but that isn't likely. He may have engineered the shutdown to scramble the signal, but it's unlikely to do that, even with the current bad polls for Republicans. We're more than a year away from the election.

It may be that Obama has engineered the rolling budget fights to give himself handy battles to use strategically and to win himself total power over spending. It may be that he wants default to give him some room to maneuver and amass more power within the chaos, but chaos is by its nature unpredictable, and defaulting will have consequences that he does not foresee -- for him. In an environment in which Congress no longer passes real budgets, a "clean" CR and a "clean" debt ceiling hike would probably accomplish his goal of having unprecedented power over spending, at least as long as the debt ceiling isn't breached again. That's a big goal that does change a lot. He can't be allowed to achieve it.

The repetitious nature of these spending fights, and the sheer futility of following every single move, 99% of which turn out to be irrelevant to the outcome, leave me agreeing with Silver again.

The folks you see on TV are much too sure of themselves. They've been making too much of thin slices of polling and thinner historical precedents that might not apply this time around.

Yep. Humility is a good thing. Politics is allergic to humility;there is almost none of it on TV and even less of it on the Internet.