Having closely watched congressional developments over the last few weeks, I’ve concluded that one much-discussed Democratic tactic for dealing with Trump 2.0 is probably mistaken, as I explained at New York:
No one is going to rankĀ Mike JohnsonĀ among the great arm-twisting Speakers of the House, like Henry Clay, Tom Reed, Sam Rayburn, or evenĀ Nancy Pelosi. Indeed, he still resembles Winston ChurchillāsĀ descriptionĀ of Clement Atlee as āa modest man with much to be modest about.ā
But nonetheless, in the space of two weeks, Johnson has managed to get two huge and highly controversial measures through the closely divided House: aĀ budget resolutionĀ that sets the stage for enactment of Donald Trumpās entire legislative agendaĀ in one bill, then anĀ appropriations billĀ keeping the federal government operating until the end of September while preserving the highly contested power of Trump and his agents to cut and spend wherever they like.
Despite all the talk of divisions between the hard-core fiscal extremists of theĀ House Freedom CaucusĀ and swing-district āmoderateā Republicans, Johnson lost just one member ā the anti-spending fanatic and lone wolfĀ Thomas MassieĀ of Kentucky ā from the ranks of House Republicans on both votes. As a result, he needed not even a whiff of compromise with House Democrats (only one of them, the very Trump-friendlyĀ Jared GoldenĀ of Maine, voted for one of the measures, the appropriations bill).
Now there are a host of factors that made this impressive achievement possible. The budget-resolution vote was, as Johnson kept pointing out to recalcitrant House Republicans, a blueprint for massive domestic-spending cuts, not the cuts themselves. Its language was general and vague enough to give Republicans plausible deniability. And even more deviously, the appropriations measure was made brief and unspecific in order to giveĀ Elon MuskĀ andĀ Russ VoughtĀ the maximum leeway to whack spending and personnel to levels far below what the bill provided (J.D. VanceĀ told House Republicans right before the vote that the administration reserved the right to ignore the spending the bill mandated entirely, which pleased the government-hating HFC folk immensely). And most important, on both bills Johnson was able to rely on personal lobbying from key members of the administration, most notably the president himself, who had made it clear any congressional Republican who rebelled might soon be looking down the barrel of aĀ Musk-financed MAGA primary opponent. Without question, much of the credit Johnson is due for pulling off these votes should go to his White House boss, whose wish is his command.
But the lesson Democrats should take from these events is that they cannot just lie in the weeds and expect the congressional GOP to self-destruct owing to its many divisions and rivalries. In a controversialĀ New YorkĀ TimesĀ op-edĀ last month, Democratic strategistĀ James Carville argued Democrats should āplay deadā in order to keep a spotlight on Republican responsibility for the chaos in Washington, D.C., which might soon extend to Congress:
“Let the Republicans push for their tax cuts, their Medicaid cuts, their food stamp cuts. Give them all the rope they need. Then let dysfunction paralyze their House caucus and rupture their tiny majority. Let them reveal themselves as incapable of governing and, at the right moment, start making a coordinated, consistent argument about the need to protect Medicare, Medicaid, worker benefits and middle-class pocketbooks. Let the Republicans crumble, let the American people see it, and wait until they need us to offer our support.”
Now to be clear, Congressional GOP dysfunction could yet break out; House and Senate Republicans have struggled constantly to stay on the same page on budget strategy, the depth of domestic-spending cuts, and the extent of tax cuts. But as the two big votes in the House show, their three superpowers are (1) Trumpās death grip on them all, (2) the willingness of Musk and Vought and Trump himself to take the heat for unpopular policies, and (3) a capacity for lying shamelessly about what they are doing and what it will cost. Yes, ultimately, congressional Republicans will face voters in November 2026. But any fear of these elections is mitigated by the realization that thanks to the landscape of midterm races, probably nothing they can do will save control of the House or forfeit control of the Senate. So Republicans have a lot of incentives to follow Trump in a high-speed smash-and-grab operation that devastates the public sector, awards their billionaire friends with tax cuts, and wherever possible salts the earth to make a revival of good government as difficult as possible. Democrats have few ways to stop this nihilistic locomotive. But they may be fooling themselves if they assume itās going off the rails without their active involvement.
Note that Zogby has just classified AZ, CO, VA, and NC as “battleground states”. I thought these states were supposed to be RED. š
PS: VA hasn’t gone Democratic in a Presidential election since 1964.
Very interesting if you look at this poll state by state.
Using WSJ definitions and expanding it, if you take “Tier I” Kerry battleground states (five of them MI, MN, NH, PA & WA) to be states where he is ahead above the margin of error, adding the electoral votes gives Kerry only 245. Still not enough to win. If you make another set of “Tier II” Kerry battleground states as states where Gore won and Kerry is ahead (OR, IA, NM, WI), then Kerry wins with a total electoral vote of 274. In other words each one of these 9 states is a Kerry MUST WIN, since any of these in the Bush column and Bush wins. OTOW, what is interesting is that there isn’t a single battleground state where Gore won last time and Bush is ahead now. I’m not a professional politician but it must be easier to convince someone to vote Dem again, than to get people to change their mind and admit they were wrong 4 years ago.
Still, although this proves it really is a ballgame,
Kerry has the advantage in turnovers and hopefully politics is like football….
The strategy should be to pound on the four Tier II states (and throw in Nevada (cheap), West Virginia(maybe?) and Florida GOTV), focus on the Tier I states and hope for the best in Missouri, Tennessee and maybe West Virginia.
But what about Colorado?
A lot of people in Ohio work/ed in industries at least tangentially related to Defense, so there’s that. The state has also been leaning right over the past few years – I think in part due to the flagging influence of organized labor as the jobless rates grow.
Put it another way: Bush leads is 3 of 16 swing states.
1. Bush’s lead in NV is 0.6% and the WSJ paints it bright red!
2. Arkansas is a swing state?
3. What’s up with Ohio? Did all the unemployed move to Illinois?