With six weeks to go until Election Day, the midterms aren’t unfolding as we all expected earlier this year, when Republicans were better than even money to retake the Senate and a lead-pipe cinch to flip the House by a substantial margin. There are, of course, plenty of reasons you can cite for this change in the political climate, from the backlash to the Supreme Court’s Dobbs decision to somewhat better economic news to Donald Trump’s continued presence on the campaign trail to bad GOP-candidate selection. It’s nerve-racking, of course, because with Democrats holding the slightest of majorities in both congressional chambers, very small micro-trends in just a few states or districts could have enormous consequences for the parties and for the country (the consequences extend, of course, to state-level positions, not just governors but election-supervising secretaries of State).
But as political observers anxiously parse polls and hold up weather vanes to test partisan winds, Cook Political Report’s Amy Walter offers another way of looking at this election cycle:
“In a recent op-ed for the Washington Post, political scientists John Sides, Chris Tausanovitch, and Lynn Vavreck write that American politics has become more polarized and calcified. Events and the responses to them from politicians no longer have the ability to deeply and fundamentally reshape our politics or political coalitions. ‘Voters and leaders in the two major parties are not only more ideologically distant from each other but also more likely to describe each other in harsh terms,’ they write. ‘In the fall of 2020, 90 percent of Americans said there were important differences in what the parties stood for — the highest number recorded in almost 70 years of American National Election Study surveys.’
“Moreover, they write, voters are ‘less likely to change their basic political evaluations or vote for the other party’s candidate.’ This calcification of our partisanship ‘produces rigidity in our politics — even when dramatic events suggest the potential for big changes.’
“In other words, if every election is an existential fight, then every election will be close. Or, as the Democratic strategist told me, ‘notably competitive.’”
If true, this would mean not only fewer “persuadable” swing voters to produce big shifts in the results from election to election, but likely a reduction in the sorts of “enthusiasm gaps” thought to affect partisan turnout patterns in the past. Elections would be more like a series of huge pre-mobilized armies meeting in a series of huge clashes with no prisoners taken (and little cooperation across party lines between elections). Even if that’s an exaggeration of the degree of gridlock from which our government and our electorate is suffering, we might truly be entering a period in which swings in party voting are limited. And as Sides, Tausanovitch, and Vavreck note, the “calcification” of party and ideological divisions can become self-perpetuating:
“Calcified politics and partisan parity combine to produce a self-reinforcing cycle. When control of government is always within reach, there is less need for the losing party to adapt and recalibrate. And if it stays on the same path, voters have little reason to revise their political loyalties.”
To be clear, very close elections can have variable outcomes. And in our winner-take-all system, the stakes will remain high. It will obviously make a great deal of difference which party wins the White House in 2024. Control of the Senate, moreover, depends as much on near-accidents of landscape than on the overall voting strength of the two parties, since only one-third of senators face voters each cycle. Democrats are benefiting from a modestly positive Senate landscape this year. Republicans should have a big Senate advantage in 2024. There is no guarantee either party can muster a governing “trifecta” in the future. As Republicans learned in 2017–18 and Democrats have learned in 2021–22, a trifecta isn’t all that if you can’t rigidly discipline all your troops all the time.
When white-knuckle time arrives just before Election Day this year, the odds are pretty good there will remain a lot of uncertainty about exactly what will happen when the votes are all counted (assuming we can get bipartisan buy-in on the results as officially certified, which is hardly a safe assumption at present). If Democrats managed to hold onto both congressional chambers, they may well feel vindicated by voters and go on to undertake an ambitious agenda in the next two years. More likely we will have a return to divided government and even more uncertainty and gridlock as we enter still another momentous election cycle.
Obama could be fairly criticized for launching competing health care reform messages that create logical inconsistencies. But health care reform isn’t being killed by logic but by gut punches. I would argue that “death panels” burrow into the psyche on many more levels than cost. Uncaring bureaucrats, anti-life liberals, big brother, etc. Obama struggles to keep the public discourse rational while the Republicans, Fox News, and conservative pundits counter with preposterous emotional attacks. The attacks are so provocative that the media just can’t help paying way too much attention. The Obama administration should have been ready with powerful evocative answers. Of course, this isn’t easy — I’m not sitting any fantastic rejoinders. But maybe someone should see if some of Jon Stewart’s writers might like to do a little moonlighting while their boss is on vacation.
Isn’t the problem that Obama said he was focused on cost-controls and, also, that everyone would get to keep what they had, and that we’d insure the uninsured? Seems to me that it was of the administration’s “have-cake-eat-too” argument that raised suspicions. As the post says, I don’t know there was any way to avoid controversy on this difficult issue. But certainly the approach the administration took certainly doesn’t seem to have helped the administration win over the public…
Obama’s message on health care was going to be attacked, and attacked hard, no matter what it was. There is no such thing as an attack-proof health care messsage. Too often, Democrats succumb to something analogous to a “blame the victim” mentality which goes something like this: look how bad they’re attacking you – how dumb could you be! Well, guess what, the Republicans were going to attack no matter how carefully crafted the message. Instead, Obama deserves blame for an ineffective counter-attack. It appears that he, his administration, and the Democratic party were completely unprepared for the Republican’s fire storm of misinformation and distortion. Instead of wailing about the attack they’ve engendered, I wish the Dems would start thinking one (or more) steps ahead. Failing to anticipate the inevitable Republican onslaught is a good way to get beat everytime.