Been Thinking on the Election Results: Lots of – But Not ALL – Bad News For Progressives; Where We Go From Here (Plus, a Brief, Closer Look at What Happened Here in Illinois)
Posted By: Michael Sweeney
Nov. 6, 2010
So…how was YOUR week? [LOL…]
Yes, it was a tough – if expectedly tough – Mid-Term Election for the Democrats and for President Obama. But…it is neither the end of the world NOR even the end of the potential effectiveness of the Obama Administration. Now, of course, what comes next and where we go from here depends on many things, especially on the committed direction of and action by BOTH sides of the American political spectrum.
To help sort through some of what has occurred and address things that may be on your mind, I’ve written this opinion- and fact-filled – if slightly tongue-in-cheek at times – question-and-answer format piece. And, away we go with that, as I look at some of the results of and the impact from the 2010 elections...
So, the United States is a Republican / Tea Bagger country now, huh?
Yeah, uh - not hardly. I wouldn't even call this - realistically and statistically - any sort of significant or lasting drift to the right by the US electorate. It was somewhat of a "perfect storm" of dissatisfaction, protest, money, attention, and propaganda. As we have pointed out - many times - the out-of-power party (in this case, the Republicans, holding merely 40% of the House and Senate and having lost the White House) was historically due to make significant gains in this election. And, demographically, the US is inexorably becoming younger and more diverse - racially, sexually, and socially. That will not change and will continue to move the country center-leftward socially. This was a focused occurrence, not any sort of trend.
And, between the unrest and divide in so much of the country AND the FOX-fed Tea Bagger outburst AND the flood of corporate and foreign money (thanks, Supreme Court!) backing the GOP AND (perhaps especially) that semi-last-gasp of the over-65, white, feeling-their-power-and-influence-slipping-away voter, things were DEFINITELY favoring the Elephant Party this time. And - hats off to them - they maximized their chances and opportunities and did about as well as they could have, strongly swinging the House of Representatives into their control. (The Senate was NOT gonna go their way...unless they had been able to topple Sen. Boxer in CA (so unlikely) or to win 2/3s of the WV / CO / WA trifecta - which they won NONE of...)
So, does this mean President Obama is gonna be a one-term President?
Well, FOX (and such) would have you believe it means Obama is now merely a half-termer, but...I strongly think that - even though it will make government a fairly stalemated mess for the next 2 years - all of this will actually IMPROVE the President's chances at re-election in 2012...
Wait, the marijuana-legalizing Prop. 19 DIDN'T pass in California (much less in Illinois) - what are you smoking to think that all of this HELPS Obama?
Heh - 8+ months completely clean and sober here (plus, never was much of a ganja-fancier before, anyway), so...my opinion isn't fueled by anything altering (or questionably legal)…
Here's what I see the next 2 years consisting of: 1) Congressional Republican "leadership" that a) fights amongst itself (watch out for those stubborn newly elected Tea Baggers within the GOP!), b) continues to blame others, and c) does not do much to help the issues (jobs, Jobs, JOBS!) that the American electorate cares the most about; 2) A (hopin'!) refocused Obama who goes directly to the American public to point out - repeatedly - what the opposition is preventing from getting passed and enacted; 3) Some GOP-grandstanding, such as filibustering (and make 'em do it - NOT just threaten it) against popular / needed legislation - or even allowing the government to shut down (as they did in '95, dangerously damaging their '94 "Contract With America" momentum and helping lead to an easy Clinton re-election in '96); 4) A continued (if slow) recovery of the US economy; and 5) A combination of the continued Tea Bagger / traditional-"next guy / gal in line" Republican split AND the (generally) quite terrible state of their alleged "leading" Presidential candidates (Palin - completely unqualified; Romney - strongly hated within much of the party's internal structure; etc.) helping to smooth the path for Obama's re-election.
Mark my words now: Unless the economy re-craters in the next 18 months, in 2012, Obama wins much bigger than Bush did in '04 (and maybe as strongly as Clinton did in '96)...and the Dems both widen their Senate majority lead and either tighten the gap in the House or (barely) flip it back...
OK, OK - but what will diminish the momentum the GOP achieved on Tuesday?
They broke the government - now they bought it. And, since they will A) Have to be battling uphill having control of only one house of Congress and facing a veto-ready President and B) Likely have nearly zero truly middle-class-assisting ideas or proposals, they are not likely to see much benefit from their victory. And the general anti-incumbent / anti-government attitude pervading American politics will now be aimed directly at them. So, hope the Tuesday-night partying was a good and memorable time for all of ‘em – some hard and hard-to-achieve work began immediately after. And I don’t see much cause for optimism over there...cuz, if they screw up – if things don’t get better in ways that the GOP can provingly and directly take credit for – hoo-boy, watch out!
In other words, just picture the cross-armed, unhappy American "parent" saying sternly to their teenaged Republican "kid," "You begged and promised...and we gave you back the keys - and the goddamned car ended up in the ditch again!"
You have said before that the entire structure and influence of the US Republican Party seems tattered and on-edge. Has these election results restored (or even improved) them?
Not at all. In fact, I would say that – even in victory; because of how parts of that victory was achieved – they are in an even more precarious position than they were as they braying minority opposition of "No!!!" Lemme explain…
First of all, as I noted above – AND, as ALL factual demographic analysis shows – the white, Conservative voter (and FOX News-viewer / Beck-watcher / Limbaugh-listener) is aging and dying off. The future of this country – in ALL ways, but, in this case, focusing on the electorate – is going to be younger, more diverse, more racially mixed (and accepting), more polyglot sexually, and more socially Liberal. Things are changing, and pretty quickly. Even by 2012 (much less ’14, ’16, etc.), there will be a few percentage points less of "them" and more of the rest of us. These numbers do not lie and will not go away…
Further, after the selfish, corporate-protecting, "Put us in power, cuz…we WANT to be in power!" last few years of Republican politics and policies, they are going to have to be able to stand for something other than "We are NOT the Democrats." And they have yet to do that. The fiscal irresponsibility of the Bush-Cheney years completely belies much of their economical arguments on their own behalf. As I like to keep reminding people (a la Thomas Frank’s "What’s the Matter With Kansas"), when – fakely inflated social issues about "gays" and "immigrants" aside – farmers in the Plains or the working poor in the South and even suburban Wal-Marters fully come to realize that policies that blindly support Wall St. and the Chamber of Commerce DO NOT do a goddamned thing for them, well, there will likely be multiple pipers to pay for all that dancing the GOP has been counting on.
AND, perhaps even worse for the current (and / or future) state o’ the Grand Ol’ Party, the Tea Bagger anger and unfocused enthusiasm they have embraced ain’t gonna do them much good. You know the old (IIRC) LBJism about rather having someone INSIDE the tent pissing out than OUTSIDE of it, pissing in? Well, the Baggers may be in the GOP’s tent, but…uh, they ain’t exactly gonna be ONLY aiming their foul and pungent streams outward. Tea Bagger primary and convention / caucus challenges took down incumbent, sitting Republican Senators and Congressmen…AND cost the Elephants at least 2 (in DE and NV) US Senate seats they would’ve otherwise likely won. Now these cynical political newbies have a prominent seat at the table of Republicanism…and while personally, Sens. Rand Paul and Mike Lee and Ron Johnson and maybe even Mama Grizzly herself may be able to be somewhat placated by attention, pork, and focused grooming and handling by the higher-ups in the party, the actual voters who helped elevate them are gonna be impatiently tapping their feet and checking their watches, demanding the "change" that they thought they had voted for…
I will not be surprised – at all – if either a third-party ("Tea Party" or "Conservative Party" or "REAL Republicans" or whatever) candidate or slate of candidates (including some sitting GOPers – and maybe even a "Blue-Dog" Dem or two) fractures off in the 2012 (and beyond) elections, seriously damaging the Republican Party as a 50% +/- force in US politics. And, in fact, Sarah Palin may herself be the lynchpin key to what comes next.
If Palin runs in the ’12 GOP primaries, it will make the battle difficult, since her supporters are not wide in number, but ARE deep in devotion and memory (AND instruction-following). Any Republican who beats up on her – in speeches or debates – are gonna be getting the "stink eye" from Mama’s cubs. So, if she runs and loses, the GOP nom is gonna be damaged goods in the mind of much of his potential base. AND, should she win the nomination, well, when the country judges you at a strong 60% to be unqualified as President – AND the perhaps-least-qualified US President in 150 years (guess who: "W"), FROM YOUR OWN PARTY!, is quoted (this week) as saying that he DOES NOT BELIEVE you are qualified to lead the country – welcome to Obama’s second term! And, if Palin runs as that third-party insurgent, she may do even MORE damage to the GOP and its branding, by helping to provide deep coverage and easily-identifiable faces and names to a far-right alternative to the Republican Party.
...But, even if there is NO to-the-right challenge to the two "major" party candidates in ’12 (and keep your eye on such possibles as former CNN host Lou Dobbs, FOX crier Glenn Beck, and – from a much more moderate position – NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg), the internal AND external conflict between the more traditional Republicans and the raving band of squeaky-wheel Tea Baggers they have embraced (and, in some cases, elected!) is gonna likely cause their side some considerable annoyance, heartburn, and agita…
Looking a little more locally, what happened in Illinois? Republican Sen. Mark Kirk? But NOT a win for the Republicans for Governor? What gives?
Yeah, I had that one - likely - going the other way, with the Dems holding onto the Senate seat but losing the Governorship. But here's what happened: Even in "Blue," Obama-home Illinois, there was considerable unrest over the Dems, especially following the whole Blago debacle. However, as expected, the leading vote-getters in the state were still popular Democratic incumbents Attorney General Lisa Madigan and Secretary of State Jesse White.
For the Senate race, Dem nominee (and sitting state Treasurer) Alexi Giannoulias could not fight off the negative campaigning (and the mood of anti-Dem trends) against the very moderate Republican Rep. Kirk (who was not unlike such previous statewide-elected IL GOPers like Sen. Percy or Govs. Thompson and Edgar). Had either the Democratic nom been Madigan (definitely) or even primary 2nd-placer David Hoffman (possibly - since his clean, upstanding record would not have suffered the blows that Giannoulias' more mixed one did) OR had the Republican candidate been someone harder right, I think it's clear that the Democrats would've retained the Senate seat.
And the Governor's race - a less-than-20,000-vote contest, but going the Dems' way - is somewhat of the flip side of that argument: Had the Republicans nominated moderate state Sen. Kirk Dillard (who finished just a few hundred votes behind far-right state Sen. Bill Brady in the GOP primary), they would've likely been able to defeat Democratic Gov. Pat Quinn by about the same margin (about 85,000 votes) as Kirk won by. (However, had Madigan opted for THIS race and been the Dem nominee, she would've likely won going away.) But the hard-right social stances of Brady put off enough moderate or undecided voters that some 100,000 (at least) IL voters either split their votes between Kirk for Senate and Quinn for Governor (or even voted a protest vote for the Independent or Green candidates in that contest)...or voted Republican on the Senate line but opted out of the Gubernatorial race altogether.
...And, frankly, as much as I dislike the concept of lying (he "misremembered it wrong" about his military career, multiple times), weaselly Sen. Mark Kirk representing me and my state, if ONE of those two offices HAD to go to the GOP, I would MUCH rather have moderate Kirk serving in Washington than extreme rightist Brady running things in Springfield...
Any other thoughts from Tuesday's results?
I hated to see the losses by WI's great Progressive Sen. Russ Feingold and FL's fiery, outspoken Rep. Alan Grayson; those - beyond the hideous thought of bright-orange Speaker of the House John Boehner - were the worst bits of news to hit Election Night...
On the other hand, it was frickin' GREAT to see such flaming rhetorical-and-action buttholes as Christine O'Donnell (DE's Tea Bagger / witch / anti-touching-yourself Senate candidate), Sharron Angle (NV's GOP Senate candidate, who practically makes Palin and Bachmann look positively sane in comparison), and Carl Paladino (NY's racist, sexist, anti-gay "Sopranos" wannabe Gubernatorial candidate) go down to bitter, anti-trending defeats. Wheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee! At least not ALL voters in this country either lost their minds or stayed home...
...So, what's next?
Several things. The ongoing GOP / Tea Bagger / FOX "News" / corporate-foreign money vs. Obama / Dems battle in Washington...the unofficial start of the long run towards the 2012 elections (both legislatively and Presidential)...and, first - here in Chicago - the upcoming race to see who succeeds King Richie II as our Mayor. There's a little more than 15 weeks to go in that spirited local sprint...and anyone betting against former Daley / Clinton aide, Congressman, and White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel (now that Cook County Sheriff Tom Dart has opted out of the race) becoming the next "Man on the Fifth Floor" here may well be throwing their money away. Of course, I'll be keeping a close eye on THAT race in the coming weeks, both out here and on the radio show...
I hope this answers some of the questions you may have had about Tuesday’s events and results. And don't hesitate to lemme know if you wanna know about anything I haven’t covered. Thanks!
Look for my regular posts here on The Stonecipher Report – and my weekly radio broadcasts, avaliable Monday afternoons on whpk.org. (And, for a free subscription to my twice-weekly e-mail column on politics and pop-culture, "And, in the News…" send a note to: andinthenews@hotmail.com)
Recent Comments