Why Democrats don't really control the Senate

The Democratic Party thought it had avoided a huge beating when they held the Senate on November 2nd. The firewall the DSCC built against a Republican Senate was mostly due to the meddling of Tea Party groups and a favourable mix of Democratic and Republican incumbents up for election. Neither of these factors is going to help them over the next two years. It is likely the Senate is going to be hardly recognisable as the body in which the Democrats hold a majority.

Even though 2012 is going to be the year President Obama (presumably) is on the ballot, there is little chance Democrats are taking their seats for granted. There are a total of 23 Democratic seats up for re-election (including independents) versus only ten Republicans. Not only are there more Democratic seats up for grabs, but they are also seats deep in red territory. Democrats such as Ben Nelson (D-NE), Kent Conrad (D-ND) and Joe Manchin (D-WV) are all conservative Democrats who will do everything they can to run against a president unpopular in their respective states. They will likely buck their party at every opportunity.

Many would counter by saying many Democrats from states such as Virginia and Missouri would tend to vote with the President more often because many young voters will be present during the Presidential contest. This is all but certain, however, as the electoral map is looking very different than in 2008 and core parts of Mr. Obama's base have been demoralised.

2012 is also an interesting year in which many of the prominent moderate Republican senators are up for re-election. Senators Scott Brown (R-MA), Olympia Snowe (R-ME) and Richard Luger (R-IN) will all face the prospect of running as a Republican in states Obama will likely carry. You may argue about Indiana, but this is definitely the case with New England. This will likely cause them to vote against their party. However, this automatically disqualifies them for winning their primary. This often trumps considerations for the general election (see Arlen Specter) and they will probably try to win their primary despite their past voting records.

All of these factors mean the Senate will be far more conservative than its partisan composition suggests. It is likely a good idea President Obama postponed debate over the Bush tax cuts until 2012, when Senators will have an incentive to make smart decisions.

Leadership battles today matter for tomorrow's Democratic Party

It was only a week ago Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) was predicting the Democratic majority in the House of Representatives would be preserved following Tuesday's midterms. Needless to say, not many people listened to her. Now that the Democratic Caucus is over 60 members smaller than it was during the 111th Congress, a leadership shakeup is inevitable. Several prominent committee chairmen, notably James Oberstar (D-MN) were voted out of office. Now, with several prominent Democratic moderates calling for Ms. Pelosi to step down, she is seriously considering their advice. 

If the Democratic Party knows what's good for it, it will push back against the Blue Dogs in the House and vote Ms. Pelosi the minority leader. Nancy Pelosi is one of the best Democratic speakers of the House we have seen for a generation. Not only has she managed to cajole a fractured caucus to support controversial measures such as health care and climate change, but she managed to do it by fairly large margins. Closely related is her ability to raise huge sums of money for those who support her agenda. 

If Pelosi does decide to run for minority leader, it is very likely she will be successful. The House Blue Dog Caucus, her most formidable political barrier, was nearly halved on Tuesday when they were subjected to the brunt of losses in the House. Moderates such as Jim Matheson (D-UT) have a lot less to work with than they did before the losses. The disdain the Republican Party has shown for her is proof she is effective at passing President Obama's policies. 

Another leadership position waiting to be filled is the chairmanship of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC). Robert Menendez (D-NJ) has chaired the committee during this election cycle, though not with any particular flare. Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) was widely credited with helping to sweep the Senate for two years in a row in 2006 and 2008 while he was chair. He is now being encouraged to take the helm again for 2012, when the Democrats have a huge majority of seats up for reelection. 

It is likely Mr. Schumer may be the only chance the Democrats have to hold the Senate in 2012. Since Obama's reelection prospects are looking dimmer by the day, there is no way they can count on a huge wave of Democratic turnout. What the Democratic Party truly needs is a prodigious fundraiser who can help push candidates across the finish line. Once though of as a contender for position of Senate majority leader, he is now freed up to pursue this powerful role.

One way or another, the Democratic Party has to employ all the resources it has to pull itself out from under the boulder it now finds itself. Pelosi and Schumer are two of the best shots we have to regain the legislature. 


Update 10/5/2010: It appears Nancy Pelosi will run for House minority leader when the new session convenes. This is good news for the Democratic Party.

The good, the bad, and the ugly for the Administration

First the good news. The latest attempt to cap the leaking oil well is reported to have worked, meaning no more oil is leaking into the Gulf of Mexico. It is only a test, though, and will be removed if the pressure is found to be too high in the well. In addition to this, the Wall Street Reform bill has now passed the senate. It will likely be signed by President Obama by early next week. These are both incredibly good news for the Administration, who have been desperate for some good news.

Now the bad news. The public confiderence in the Administration is heading south, says a new poll. This could have to do with the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, the economy, and the budget deficit. Whatever the problem, this is not good news.

Finally, the ugly. For the first time ever, President Obama is trailing or tied with ALL of his potential 2012 challengers. That's right, Barack Obama is tied with Sarah Palin. No, this is not Rasmussen. Worse, it is the Democratic Public Policy Polling firm. The Administration should be worried about this news. President Obama has somehow maintained favorability ratings much higher than most other mainstream politicians. That he is trailing people with even lower poll numbers than himself means the country is no longer behind him. Watch to see how the Wall Street Reform bill and the Oil Spill cap affect his numbers.

Who will be riding the Ron Paul blimp in 2012?

There is a spirited debate over who actually constituted Ron Paul's base in the 2008 presidential primaries. Ron Paul successfully captured the young Republican vote and created much enthusiasm among this demographic. This is insignificant, however, as young Americans are overwhelmingly Democratic or independently affiliated. The key to Ron Paul's base is the current following of the Tea Party.

Ron Paul's son, Rand Paul, is currently the front runner in the Republican senatorial primary in Kentucky to fill the open seat of retiring senator Jim Bunning. He has never held political office before this campaign and shares many of the libertarian views of his father. He has quickly pulled away from the establishment candidate, Trey Grayson, capturing much of the die-hard Republican base that one needs to win any Republican primary fight. His campaign is relevant, because it is drawing on much of the Tea Party movement's enthusiasm and supporters.

So my question is, will Ron Paul run for president in 2012? And if he does, will he become the Tea Party insurgent for the Republican nomination? Ron Paul is no orthodox conservative. Instead, he is a paleo-conservative, a dying breed of anti-interventionist Republicans. It would be easy to criticize many stances he has taken which pitted himself against the neo-conservatives in his party, particularly on international issues. For instance, he opposes the Iraq wars and all foreign involvement. He also does not believe in free trade, favoring protectionism. Some of these stances could be criticized by the modern conservative base who love to point out flaws in a candidate's credentials.

Sarah Palin, once thought to be the darling of the Tea Party movement, is now completely irrelevant from the 2012 elections. Ron Paul could fill this vacuum of anti-establishment anger present in the primary electorate. It would be easy for him to overcome a moderate candidate such as Mitt Romney, but he would have to change some of his stances. It will be interesting to see if Paul molds himself into something more digestible, or continues to pursue his unique path of libertarianism. If the Kentucky senatorial primary stands as any lesson, it is likely that conservative voters will hop on the Ron Paul blimp, only to pull it down during the general election.