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 rank Mike Johnson among the great arm-twisting Speakers of the House, like Henry Clay, Tom Reed, Sam Rayburn, or even Nancy Pelosi. Indeed, he still resembles Winston Churchill’s description of Clement Atlee as “a modest man with much to be modest about.”
But nonetheless, in the space of two weeks, Johnson has managed to get two huge and highly controversial measures through the closely divided House: a budget resolution that sets the stage for enactment of Donald Trump’s entire legislative agenda in one bill, then an appropriations bill 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 the House Freedom Caucus and swing-district “moderate” Republicans, Johnson lost just one member — the anti-spending fanatic and lone wolf Thomas Massie of Kentucky — 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-friendly Jared Golden 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 give Elon Musk and Russ Vought the maximum leeway to whack spending and personnel to levels far below what the bill provided (J.D. Vance 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 a 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 controversial New York Times op-ed last month, Democratic strategist James Carville argued Democrats should “play dead” 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) Trump’s 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 it’s going off the rails without their active involvement.
I’d welcome the passage of the Colorado initiative this year, as it would probably ensure Kerry at least a couple of electoral votes in the state (the Denver and Boulder-based areas.) Although it would also ensure Bush a couple (Colorado Springs and Eastern CO).
But I’m reluctant, on the other hand, to embrace this system for the whole nation, especially if it were keyed to congressional districts (as in Maine and Nebraska). Gerrymandering of districts has had generally negative effects on congressional elections; we don’t need it determining the presidency as well.
in other news, race2004.net reports a poll showing that Colorado initiative might just pass.
I still don’t like it, regardless, and I’d think that Colorado voters wouldn’t want it. It should make candidates less interested in working on Colorado.
It’s also not clear what the influence would be on this year’s vote. If it passes and only, say, New Hampshire and Colorado go from Bush 2000 to Kerry, then if Kerry loses Colorado, he’s still a vote short; if he wins, it’s a tie. In contrast, if it doesn’t pass, New Hampshire and Colorado (if they’re the only shifts) give Kerry the win.
On the other hand, if Kerry holds the Gore states and takes New Hampshire and Nevada, the Colorado states that would come in a loss would put him over the top.
Weird.
Keep watching this race. It’s gonna be interesting all the way.
pempel-
I’d attribute this to chance variation. There’s not much going on there, and a 4% Bush lead is in keeping with a good number of polls.
I agree with Wilbur about Ohio. There’s NO WAY that Bush is ahead by 11%. The Ohio Poll is notoriously pro-GOP. In 2000 Bush only won by 50-49% (combined Gore-Nader) and since then the Ohio economy has declined more than almost any other state.
In live near Dayton and the normally GOP suburbs in my area have as many Kerry signs as Bush ones. I’ve lived in the same neighborhood for over four decades, and I’ve NEVER seen so many Democratic signs. Frankly, the poll showing Bush up by 2% is probably optimistic for Bush!
Unless something drastic occurs, I think Kerry will win Ohio!
Good state polls lately for Kerry-Edwards, but can anyone explain the widening national gap in favor of Bush on Rasmussen’s daily poll? The last four days show Bush moving up from 47.8% to 48.8% while Kerry’s numbers drop from 46.1% to 44.8%. Granted, small changes, but to me a worrisome trend. T.J.
The ARG polls are tremendous news for Kerry (how could polls be so different? Something wierd is going on this year). Here’s the reason they are even better than they look. For anybody who has ever done any political work in Iowa you know that this state is almost completely dependent on how you are organized on the ground – maybe more than any other state in the country. A month ago I saw an interview with somebody from the Des Moisnes register – who really knows this stuff – who said he has never seen the type of organization he’s seeing with Kerry (not the fake stuff there was with Dean, but real professional). So my take is if Kerry is with MOE he is probably ahead. You also have to believe that New Hampshire swings back to Kerry. Again, if you know anything about New England culture you know the whole “neighbor” thing runs deeper than political affiliation. It will be astounding if New Hampshire doesn’t go for Kerry in the end no matter what the polls.
Also, I live in Ohio and the organization here for Kerry is the best I have seen in my lifetime. In the Columbus area you see more K/E bumper stickers and lawn signs than B/C. Also many neighborhoods have organized so well they have their own unique signs like Upper Arlington for Kerry. I have never seen that before. I you have lived in Columbus for the last decade you would know how amazing this is.
Looking over the ARG results…first, they note a 47-46 Bush lead, across the country. They see Bush up 133-132 in states outside the margin of error. They see Kerry up 270-253 in states with any lead. Um, I keep saying this, but this race is gonna be close.
Here are the 27 states with single digit differences, starting with the most pro-Bush, ending with the most pro-Kerry:
Mississippi Bush +9
Louisiana Bush +8
Tennessee Bush +7
Arizona Bush +6
Missouri Bush +6
Virginia Bush +6
North Carolina Bush +5
Arkansas Bush +3
Iowa Bush +2
Nevada Bush +2
Ohio Bush +2
New Hampshire Bush +2
Colorado Bush +1
West Virginia tie
Wisconsin tie
Florida Kerry +1
Pennsylvania Kerry +1
Minnesota Kerry +2
Oregon Kerry +2
Maine Kerry +4
New Mexico Kerry +5
Illinois Kerry +6
Washington Kerry +7
New Jersey Kerry +8
Michigan Kerry +8
Delaware Kerry +9
Maryland Kerry +9
If you do the cut at states being within 3% one way or the other, that includes (12):
Bush 2000 states–Arkansas, Colorado, Nevada, New Hampshire, Ohio, Florida, West Virginia
Gore 2000 states–Iowa, Minnesota, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin
For a 4-6% difference (7):
Bush 2000 states–North Carolina, Arizona, Virginia, Missouri
Gore 2000 states–Maine (and that danged distict…), New Mexico, Illinois
For a 7-9% difference (8):
Bush 2000 states–Tennessee, Louisiana, Mississippi
Gore 2000 states–Washington, Michigan, New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland
I’d think those first dozen states are the main battleground these days, with Maine and New Mexico added given recent polls by other organizations. That yields 7 Bush 2000 states and 7 Gore 2000 states.
But keep an eye on some of those other states to see if there is a discernible shift in the near future.
Just a heads up. The ARG list of all 50 states is now up. I’ve not looked at it yet.
http://americanresearchgroup.com/
I agree that “Shrub” probably is leading, but there’s no reason for Democrats to despair. For example, Florida and Pennsylvania recently swung back (barely) to Kerry although the Rasmussen polls admittedly did not include Nader.
—
It is fascinating to compare the four vote projection sites out there: Electoral Vote Projection Map &
Race2004.net (run by Dems) and FederalReview.com & ElectionProjection.com (both right-leaning). I would love to see a retrospective “fact check” analysis after Nov.3 to find out which methodology proved most accurate in the end. To me, the probabilistic methods favored by FederalReview.com & ElectionProjection.com seem unnecessarily complicated; I suspect Race2004.net gets it right by simply putting states in a “tossup” column if the difference is small. Nobody really knows how PA and FL will work out, for now. It would be premature for “Shrub” supporters to start gloating now, just as it was foolish of Kerry supporters to think last month’s electoral vote tally of ~300 EVs was “safe”. A lot will depend on some very close state races.
MARCU$
Is there any detail available on the Ohio poll? Not good news there. Also, I just saw a report of a poll in Colorado showing a 12% Bush lead, from Ciruli Associates. That’s very different from everything else. ARG, Zogby, Rasmussen, and the Republican POS group all have had the race at only a 1% difference.
The state polls are more evidence that Kerry is in deeper trouble than Ruy thinks.
1. Ohio is basically a swing state- so if the race is even nationally Bush should be leading by no more than 4 or 5 points. Instead Bush leads by 11 – suggesting a 6-8 pt lead for Bush.
2. Iowa should be a Democratic state. Bush’s 5 point lead suggests that he has a big lead nationally.
On the other hand, Kerry’s leads in Michigan and Oregon suggest that this is not as bad for Dems as 1984- but certainly it is comparable to 1988, where Dukakis carried a decent number of states but still not enough to make it close nationally.
Bottom line: Bush doesn’t have the double digit lead that some national polls suggest- but it isn’t dead even either. If it was, Kerry would be leading in Iowa, and Bush’s lead in Ohio would be much smaller.