What Would an Obama Presidency Do to the Democratic Party?
MORE
Wise Guys
And surely you remember how that worked out for them. Yes, Mr. Clinton won broad popularity and a second term in 1996, but his presidency brought his party to its weakest point in decades. Democrats were swept out of power in the Senate and House in 1994 and by the time Mr. Clinton left the White House, the G.O.P. seemed to be a permanent majority party on Capitol Hill and in more State Houses than ever before.
There is a political price to owning the White House, and it’s almost always paid by the president’s party, even if the president himself is reasonably popular. Mr. Clinton is the most dramatic illustration of this, but it has been true under presidents of both parties. And it’s something that Democrats, whose November forecasts are growing more bullish by the day, should keep in mind as they begin thinking ahead to the Obama era.
Almost certainly, an Obama presidency will mean that Democrats will take a hit in the 2010 elections, losing Senate and House seats along with some governorships; the question would be how many. If Obama were then to win re-election in 2012, even by a wide margin, it’s doubtful he’d have coattails that would prop up his party’s down-ballot candidates. And under a re-elected President Obama, Democrats would very likely lose more congressional seats and governorships in the “sixth year itch” election of 2014.
With almost no exceptions, this is the pattern that has prevailed in American politics for decades. Only once since 1934 has a first-term president – George W. Bush in 2002, exploiting the country’s extraordinary post-9/11 emotional vulnerability – seen his party gain congressional seats in a mid-term election. Only once since F.D.R. has a second-term president – Bill Clinton, aided by a backlash against the G.O.P.’s push to impeach him over Monica Lewinsky in 1998 – seen his party pick up seats. And since Harry Truman carried 76 House Democrats and nine Senate Democrats to victory in 1948, only L.B.J. in 1964 and Ronald Reagan in 1980 have enjoyed significant coattails as winning presidential candidates.
There are multiple reasons for this. For one, it’s easier for a political party to unite its disparate elements when there is a common enemy – the other party’s guy – in the White House. Plus it’s easier for that opposition party to rally public opinion to its side simply by opposing and undermining an administration’s agenda. Also, Americans seem to like the idea of divided government, or at the very least seem uncomfortable with rewarding a popular president by giving him even more power.
This means that there’s a silver lining in defeat for the party that loses a presidential election. Mr. Clinton’s 1992 triumph is perhaps the definitive example of this. Not only was Mr. Clinton an unpopular president for his first two years, losing significant support even in Democratic-friendly states that had strongly backed him in 1992, but there were also historical forces conspiring against him and his party – specifically a long-overdue partisan realignment in the South stemming from Lyndon Johnson’s embrace of civil rights legislation in the mid’60s.
Years of Republican control of the White House had forestalled significant G.O.P. gains in the South, but Mr. Clinton’s election in 1992 set the stage for a perfect storm in 1994, and the “Republican Revolution” – a gain of 54 House seats and eight Senate seats (and control of both chambers), along with 12 governorships – was the result.
In the same way that George H.W. Bush’s defeat in 1992 was in the long-term interests of the Republican Party, the G.O.P. would unquestionably be rejuvenated by an Obama victory this fall. New congressional leaders would probably emerge and so would a fresh agenda and a new set of prominent voices and faces. Big losers and 2006 and 2008, the party would have an opportunity to begin rebuilding toward Senate and House majorities in 2010.
This hardly means an Obama presidency automatically means a Clinton-esque disaster for the Democratic Party. For one thing, a realignment like the one that was past due in ’94 isn’t on the horizon (and to the extent one is, it favors the Democrats in Rocky Mountain and Western states). Plus, big gains in this fall’s congressional races would give Democrats enough of a pad to absorb modest Republican gains in 2010.
More importantly, the early signs point to a more functional relationship between Mr. Obama and his party’s Capitol Hill leadership than the one that existed between Mr. Clinton and Democratic leaders. And reforms in the House instituted by Republicans have strengthened the Speaker at the expense of once-mighty committee chairmen. Mr. Clinton ultimately calculated that he’d only win re-election by throwing House and Senate Democrats under the bus. This may not be the case for Mr. Obama.
Mr. Obama may prove skillful and popular enough, if he is elected, to maintain his party’s control of Congress throughout his presidency. But he’s still the G.O.P.’s best hope for the foreseeable future of reclaiming their majorities.
"...George W. Bush in 2002, exploiting the country’s extraordinary post-9/11 emotional vulnerability..."
What an idiotic thing to write. The GOP won those mid-terms because the Democrats, as usual, came off as less than sincere in confronting this nation's enemies during a time of extreme nervousness.
Had Puff Daschle been smart, and not an idiot, he would have stood side-by-side with Bush on all the major security issues that entire year. Everyone could see what the result was going to be by election day for the Dems.
Other than that, the article is spot on. McCain??! Give me a break. Most in the GOP are secretly hoping for an Obama victory for the very reasons Korn spells out. That and the fact that there are some seemly intractable problems coming down the pike...why not let Dems take the hit for these issues, and/or failure to deal with these future issues.
What exactly is the point here? The "pattern has prevailed for decades." So, an Obama Administration will follow the exact same pattern every other administration has followed, dating back to the Great Depression. Whew! I was afraid for a sec that Barack's election would bring about the End Times.
The more interesting question is what happens to the Republican Party in its wilderness days. Despite the recent obfuscations of men like B. Kristol, we in the Party know exactly who to blame for the November disaster. And while R. Paul is certainly an extreme figure, and hardly worth serious consideration, that someone like that has fired the enthusiasm of grassroots conservatives everywhere makes everyone in the Party pause, and rethink a few things, like, oh, this idiotic war.
The Iraq war is a disaster. Full stop. End of story. The sooner the Republicans can admit this, obviously only after Bush and company are gone (Bush, why oh why did you let these guys convince you to attack Iraq?) the sooner we can begin building a viable conservative platform and start battling the rising tide of populism and class resentment triggered by the war and an incompetently run economy. Obama will have to raise taxes--that's fine, for now, since McCain is too old, too radical, too wrong on the war--and we will accept some changes, but as this article points out, 2010 or 2014 will be a better time for our Party. The only question is, which Republican Party?
Every time Obama goes off script he bungles it. Keep thinking of that old movie The Candidate where a young, good looking suit is pushed through an election by his handlers and at the end is vapidly looking up at them saying - What do we do now? Scripted, Obama is smooth as butter, but in a think-on-your-feet arena the collapse is stunning and you see him fall back on the divisiveness - that speech he gave - oh, the republicans are going to say he's too young, has a funny name and he's black....? This is a uniter? I know same-old-same-old when I see it. This is not the time to prop up a straw man and have "If I only had a brain" be the theme song for the next four years.
Greenspan says U.S. economy on brink of recession
Tue Jun 24, 2008 8:56am EDT
JOHANNESBURG (Reuters) - Former U.S. Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan warned on Tuesday the U.S. economy was "on the brink" of a recession.
He said via video link to an investment conference in Johannesburg the chances of that economy falling into recession were more than 50 percent and a rebound was unlikely.
Asked if the U.S. economy was in recession, Greenspan said: "We are on the brink". "A rebound at this stage is not something I think is in the immediate outlook," he added.
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
One Million Americans Petition Congress to Drill for American Oil
Jun 19 12:54 PM US/Eastern
'Drill Here, Drill Now, Pay Less' movement shapes national debate
WASHINGTON, June 19 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- American Solutions for Winning the Future announced today that one million Americans have signed the "Drill Here, Drill Now, Pay Less" petition urging Congress to immediately start drilling for American oil to lower gas prices.
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
IF WE LIFT THE CONGRESSIONAL BAN ON DRILLING FOR OIL ON USA LANDS & WATERS ---- IT WILL HAVE AN IMMEDIATE EFFECT TO LOWER IMPORTED OIL PRICES BECAUSE IT WILL SEND A CLEAR MESSAGE TO THE OIL PRODUCING COUNTRIES THAT “WE MEAN BUSINESS” TO RELIEVE OURSELVES OF DEPENDENCE ON FOREIGN OIL.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To RocketScience (the first comment maker to this article):
I can't help but be flattered that you filched my screenname to use in airing that typical "them or us" mentality you and your republican buddies just can't stay away from. why is it that republican thinking and strategy always involves dumping problems and issues into someone else's lap? ("...why not let Dems take the hit for these issues, and/or failure to deal with these future issues.") if you all would stop getting in your own way, you might see that the problems we face as a country aren't republican or democratic, rich or poor, gay or straight, black or white, upper or middle class problems. they are problems that we ALL face. And the grade you get, it's a big ole "F!" you've had 7-1/2 years to do something good, and you've squandered your opportunities with finger-pointing and the blame game. so please, step aside. you're fifteen minutes are up.
Sagely put, Mr. Kornaki. The rift the DNC's back room deal making with the Obama camp has succeeded in an almost irrevocable break within the party, with literally millions of members vowing to either resign from the Democratic party, vote Republican, or both in the November election. Contrary to the widepsread claim the Hillary Clinton divided the party by staying in a race until the last primary WITH A LEADING, RECORD BREAKING POPULAR VOTE, it is the DNC leadership under Howard Dean and the arbitrary enforcement of their own rules favoring Obama that caused this split. Witness the exponential growth of websites and blogs decrying this: JustSayNoDeal, PUMApac, hireheels, riverdaughter, ladyboomer, the list goes on, and that is not even counting the plethora of disturbing, substantive information about Obama's associations that continues to emerge almost daily. Yes indeed, the GOP can give thanks to the DNC for once again stealing defeat from the jaws of victory.
The Democrats lost in '94 because they did not fight back against the Republican slime machine. Dem leaders were too busy being "above the fray" to answer the insane attacks coming from the right. Republicans never do this.
You heard it from me first: McCain will be lucky to win Arizona. Obama is surfing on a wave of popular revulsion at everything the Republican Party has stood for for the last 30 years. They are about to reap the whirlwind for their incompetence and thank god for that! The Democrats will widen their majorities for the foreseeable future until the bloodsucking leadership of the DOP (Disgusting Old Party) is eradicated root-and-branch and a new Republican Party takes its place as a loyal opposition.
OBAMA TO FIGHT FOR GOD AND COUNTRY
Obama, the victorious Kennedy Liberal, will purge the defeated Leiberman Neo-Liberals from the Democratic Party. These Crypto-Neo-Marxists have corrupted the Democratic Party for the past 60 years, with their ideological notorious contempt for Christian culture, the Constitution, patriotism, historical fact, and for Kennedy Liberals.
I have seen him in town-halls, and he is masterful off-script.
I have seen him in town-halls, and he is masterful off-script.
Me talk pretty one day.
Obama Presidency will be the destruction of the Democratic Party.
Obama has divided the democratic party, then went on step further and moved half of that to Chicago, making another major split.
Whether he took they there to teach them dirty Chicago politics.
Break them down and use his fine mind conditioning on them and have them do what he wants for them. Possible a new party arising.
He sure did not want to stay in Washington, the place he wants to make home for 4 years. Something is fishy about it.
I am a democrat and do not trust him any further than I can spit and I can't spit.
With the lies he told the people, blatant lies not political campaign promises. Down right lies, straight faced
even when caught, no remorse or care about lying. Proven by coming back and lying some more.
The man is scary and The people and especially the Democrats should be extremely concerned right now.
His campaign he ran against the President, the government and getting people to turn on their own president and the government should concern you.
He has shown no respect, no honor and no loyalty. except to himself.
Best to Open your eyes and see what is unfolding in this country, it does not look pretty.
Yeah, that Obama - what a dummy! Busted a*s to go from Occidental College to Columbia University, then onto Harvard where he edited the Law Review. Don't they just give that job to the first person who raises his hand? Adjunct professor at the University of Chicago Law School (5th best in the country - ha! Do you even have to APPLY?!) teaching constitutional law - most passe subject ever - and now the U.S. Senate. What, he couldn't get a real job? You're so right, he's exactly like the scarecrow. EXACTLY. I'll take jet crashin', 894 out of 899 rankin' at Annapolis (before you get all hot over his getting into Annapolis remember who his father and grandfather were), Sunni and Shia confusin' McCain any day of the week and twice Sunday. Because smart people are stupid, after all.
I have 3 reasons why I am not comfortable voting for Obama:
Mayor Coleman A. Young
Mayor Dennis Archer
Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick
Three African American men who took highest office in the City of Detroit, and abused that role causing the city and it's people to never recover from the things that they had done. Not only is the city now bankrupt, but it's a shell of it's former glory.
Barack Obama and other high profile politicians are attempting to limit the right to use on-demand, short term financial assistance. A number of cities and towns are also attempting bans on the industry, with several more attempting to follow suit. American citizens from all across the nation are fighting the legislation hoping to have their voices heard to prevent the abolishment of the payday loan industry. Regardless of the hundreds of thousands of potential jobs lost, these politicians are encouraging the elimination of this matter generally for personal political gain.
Post Courtesy of Personal Money Store
Professional Blogging Team
Feed Back: 1-866-641-3406
Home: http://personalmoneystore.com/NoFaxPaydayLoans.html
Blog: http://personalmoneystore.com/moneyblog/
What you don’t know CAN hurt you, especially if you make important decisions based on erroneous information. The present argument concerning the pros and cons of cash advances, and what’s in store for the future of the payday loan industry is something about which you should be knowledgeable. There are politicians from every party that have approved legislation in a number of states, cities and towns that limits or prohibits your ability to get a payday loan. Some politicians are even trying to completely eliminate the Payday Loansindustry. What the politicians don’t know can hurt you: these anti-payday loan laws are mostly established on the false concept that payday lenders have the same ethical outlook on their customers as illegal loan sharks. Now is the time to spread the good word about payday loans to those close to you in order to preserve your financial freedom.