Tim Talks Politics - The Weekly Brief, November 9, 2018
The Weekly Brief - November 9, 2018
What we know
If you’d like a really good breakdown of the midterms, what the different numbers are and what they could mean going forward, look no further than this excellent piece of work by former advisors to Bill Clinton and George W. Bush. It sets a really good context for what is shared below.
The TLDR version of what we know for sure:
Democrats took control of the House
Republicans strengthened control of the Senate
Democrats picked up several governorships
Democrats made gains in state legislatures, but GOP still maintains leads
Turnout was the highest its been for a midterm (47%) since 1970
The real discussion is now trying to interpret, spin, slice, massage, and otherwise explain an election that defies any one narrative. In a word, it was anti-climatic.
Weak Parties
Despite their continued dominance of the American political scene, the Republican and Democratic parties have struggled to achieve unity of message and platform over the last decade and a half. This election, according to AEI, continues to erode the institutional strength of the parties.
Yuval Levin, at the Ethics at Public Policy Center, argues that such a mixed outcome not only points to weak parties, but a political transition that offers an opportunity for redefinition… if the parties will learn the right lessons.
The Dems won...
The Center for American Progress may have waxed a little hyperbolic by calling Democratic victories this last week a “repudiation” of the Trump presidency. However, one shouldn’t downplay the real gains made by Democrats at the state level.
Besides gaining a handful of governorships, the Democrats also made gain is several state legislatures as well. Those gain don’t necessarily mean majorities, but rather breaking supermajorities. The Atlantic suggests that this may be forming the ground game for the 2020 election.
Many of those state level gains came as the suburban vote turned blue, particularly the female suburban vote. That combination may be part of future Democratic coalitions.
But what did they gain?
So the Democrats achieved some real successes, but the fading of the blue wave to a blue ripple, even on the back of increased voter turnout had plenty of observers fretting over the ability of Democrats to capitalize on the gains.
Despite the wins, Dems still hold a majority only in the House. Even at the state level, Republicans still retain a majority of governor’s mansions and state houses. So maybe a better way of describing this outcome for the Dems is that they stopped the bleeding?
Certainly the lack of a decisive mandate moves the ideological battle for control of the party in 2020 to the foreground.
Going forward, the question for the Democrats thus becomes one of whether their message actually translates to a broad enough coalition. The defeat of Beto O’Rourke in Texas is a cautionary sign of running too far to the left as some of the party’s newly elected youngbloods would like it to go. Bret Stephens at the New York Times suggests that would short circuit any positive momentum the party may be building.
The GOP won
The Trump standard of victory seems to be “just don’t fail.” It’s a low bar approach to measurable success that seems to have worked so far, at least in terms of consolidating his base. With that frame in mind, the GOP scored some victories as well.
The biggest victory was blunting the “blue wave” that seemed all but assured up until the Kavanaugh hearings. Indeed, every lackluster election that goes by gives the GOP more time to broaden its appeal to a more diverse electorate, something the Democrats seem to struggle with.
This may seem counter intuitive AND counter narrative, but Pew Research notes that the GOP is finding itself picking up a small, but increasing share of Muslim votes.
However, does a “just don’t fail” standard really move you forward?
But what did it lose?
All that being said, the GOP still should be concerned about 2020. More red Senate seats are up for reelection (see suburban vote notes above), as will be the President. What this week revealed is that Trump is a mixed bag for getting results.
As a direct endorser of candidates, he fails, but as a “culture warrior in chief” he seems to succeed. If you’re the GOP, you let Trump rail at the Democrats from a safe distance, but how will that play in a presidential election year?
A bigger divide?
In all the analysis and hand wringing over division and polarization, two groups seem to have been singularly overlooked: David Brooks at the New York Times reminds us that the working class still doesn’t feel heard (not good if you’re trying to avoid populist politics); and Elaina Plott at the Atlantic speculates on the future role of moderates in the polarized American political space.
For many pundits across the political spectrum, the prospect of a divided government means only one thing: America is more divided than ever. Ironic isn’t it?
Another point of agreement in analyzing the outcomes is that this election seems to be indicating a gradual realignment driven by emerging political tribes whose full influence may not be felt until 2020.