Underreact
Tuesday, January 26, 2010 at 9:52PM Over the last few days, the punditocracy has lit up over the election of Scott Brown to the United States Senate, and as could be expected in the era of the 24 hour news cycle, pretty much everyone has overreacted.
I am not going to downplay the election, Brown's election is significant. While Republicans winning in Massachusetts isn't as rare as some in the GOP want to suggest (anyone remember Governor Mitt Romney), it is consequential and yes, there are lessons to learn.
That being said, everyone should underreact, take a deep breath and listen to what the voters are saying.
I know that hyperbole sells papers and gets you quoted, and the easy thing here is to say this is a massive repudiation of the Obama agenda and the start of a new GOP alignment. But quite honestly, that is as ridiculous as those who said that Obama's election marked the end of the GOP.
From where I sit, here are the main lessons of the Brown win.
1. Candidates matter. Brown was an excellent candidate who tapped into the populist (not conservative) anger in the country. He was engaging, energetic and interesting. He was a better candidate than Coakley in virtually every category. Polls across the country show people are really looking at candidates more than parties (just look at polls in AL, GA Governor's races). Parties can not just throw up warm bodies and expect to win.
2. People are restless and want solutions. No shocker here. Average families are tired and worried, and they want their leaders to roll up their sleeves and get to work. Brown didn't run as a rank partisan (nor did Governor Christie in NJ). Republicans who read this as an endorsement of more partisanship will be sadly disappointed in November.
3. Democrats did not react quickly enough. I am shocked that national Democrats didn't see this coming. I am not sure that earlier response would have made the difference, but that being said, Dems were slow to respond. I am confident that the return of David Plouffe will ensure that better systems are in place to ensure this doesn't happen again.
4. Basketball players from Tufts are winners. Since they both went to Tufts and both play basketball, the Scott Brown win is definitely good news for Dan Gelber--a statement no less absurd than any of the other 1000 politicians trying to claim some shred that they are "the next Scott Brown"
So what comes next? At the risk of being proven wrong, here goes:
1. President Obama will come out of this stronger. The short history of the President's political career does show one recurring theme: this guy knows how to rally. Every time he is being counted out---after losing his Congressional bid, early in his Senate race, in late 2007, after New Hampshire, after the primaries, after the Palin bump--you name it, he's come back stronger. Moreover, voters like Barack Obama as a person, see him as an adult and want him to succeed.
2. To my Republican colleagues who say he is done: Remember Reagan. There were a lot of similarities between Reagan and Obama's initial campaigns. Both outsiders, both having to really prove themselves in the debates before cruising to election. Now there Presidencies seem very similar. Right now, the President's average approval is 49%, the same as Reagan's in early 1982 (it was an average of 42% in Gallup polls throughout 1982). Yet he cruised in 1984, both because the economy improved and...
3. Partisan purity loses. Republicans, who right now are rushing to require partisan purity tests for party support, best heed history (Dems in 1984) and their own former party chair, Haley Barbour, and remember that "People are crazy if they think we win by getting more pure. We win by getting big." Reagan found his feet, was helped by a recovering economy and ran against a perfect foil. For a party that can't run to the right fast enough, they may well be teeing up the same ball for Obama in 2012.
4. Voter anger is aimed at both parties. Right now the voters don't like either party, and that's bad for the party in charge. A recent poll showed 93% of Americans think there is too much partisan fighting and 61% blame both parties equally for the nation's troubles.. If I was a Florida Republican, I wouldn't be overjoyed by the Brown win, I'd be a little worried. Look at the Governor's race. One nominee is a relative newcomer who has a long business background and a reputation for getting things done, the other has fingerprints on almost 30 years of federal and state decision making. Where do you think frustrated voters are more likely to land?
5. The Democrats are better for the loss. I know some in my party don't like to hear this, but the loss will do the body good. I'd much rather be having the conversation on adjusting course and strategy in February of 2010 than after a bludgeoning in the late fall of 2010. But that being said, Democrats over the next few months have to be bold (and bold isn't always ideological) in Congress, led by a President who is actively selling his agenda and bolstered by an engaged grassroots.
Reader Comments (3)
Great post. Lots of chatter about Massachusetts, and you've laid out clear reasons for why Dems lost.
I'm not so sure we ever REALLY had 60 votes in the Senate, anyway - with LIeberman and Ben Nelson (not Bill) both being half-@$$ at best on health care reform.
To me, this is good news for the legislative agenda - the pressure is off. Do what you can do with 59 seats (which should be a LOT) and blame the Repubs for what doesn't pass. Your point #2 is exactly right - the Dems still hold the White House and both Houses of Congress....time to start getting things done.
He is getting crushed with independents. There have been three major elections in states that Obama won in 08. Obama has stumped and ran ads for all three. All three have lost by wide margins. In VA, the guy lost by 18 or so points. In NJ he was an incumbent and lost by like 4. In Mass the sitting AG lost to a no nothing state senator by 5.
Might have to disagree with you here. Moderates have been saying this for a while though.
Not to mention Obama has had 7-9 Democrats from conservative districts opt not to run for reelection.
Guy is in trouble. I really don't know where he pivots. I'd advocate tax reform and try to get the Republicans defending the wealthy via a "wealth debate."
But who knows.
By picking Bush's first string at the Defense Department and his second string at Treasury and banking, Obama cut the legs off his first and second reasons for winning the election, and by not appointing any number of folk who wanted to prosecute the war crimes and limitless felonies, and even wrote books that could be just turned over to the courts as indictments, he cut the legs off the third and strongest reason for getting elected, all this from even before he took the oath of office, till a month after.
Had he at least avoided the appearance of same as before, the Republicans would have been cowering like the bullies they are, instead he showed them sweet reasonableness and treated them like they were honorable human beings who just wanted the best for America.
This is rather like running up to a polar bear and expecting to have it act like a family dog, perhaps fetch frisbees as well.