Was it Inevitable?

[Skill and Chance]

Looking back to early 2009, was there anything that Obama could have done differently, short of fundamentally changing his ideology (i.e. not being a liberal) to avoid a Republican wave this year?  Was there any plausible path that would have led to a 1934 repeat for him and his party?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_of_Representatives_elections,_1934

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_elections,_1934

Abandoning Health Care Reform after Scott Brown's win might have saved 10 or 20 House seats and a couple of Senate seats, but it would still have been a big GOP win. 

Maybe if instead of the stimulus, they had passed a bill in early 2009 providing funds for the federal and/or state governments to immediately hire the first 10 million+ people who apply for jobs?  The cost would be similar, and if you are a true Keynesian, which Obama probably is, then it shouldn't even matter what you are hiring them to do, but infrastructure improvements would have been ideal.  That's about the only scenario I can come up with, and I doubt it would have passed congress.

 

[tpfkaw]

Have Norm Coleman win the MN senate seat.

[Lief 🗽]

Probably should have pushed for a better stimulus and then more vigorously defended/explained it. Also done healthcare quicker, but the strategy he used on that was basically just learning from the mistakes of Clinton's attempt, so, while obviously a failure in retrospect, it made sense at the time.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Obama misread his mandate coming out of the 2008 election, ignored the town hall meetings during the summer of 2009, ignored Brown victory in Mass....he basically went against the will of the people and now the will of the people is coiled in historic fashion and is poised to strike.

[Skill and Chance]

Have Norm Coleman win the MN senate seat.

That would have helped somewhat, but I think you would need much more drastic changes to keep Obama at 60%+ approval today for a 1934 repeat.

If you simply mean keeping GOP midterm gains in line with historical averages, then yes, that might have done it.

[Lief 🗽]

Obama misread his mandate coming out of the 2008 election, ignored the town hall meetings during the summer of 2009, ignored Brown victory in Mass....he basically went against the will of the people and now the will of the people is coiled in historic fashion and is poised to strike.

53 or 54% of the 40% of adults who decide to vote tomorrow is not "the will of the people." Elections do not measure "the will of the people."

[Oakvale]

Yes, I think so.

I'm at least glad that I wasn't one of those back in '08 projecting further Democratic gains in 2010. I expected a return to normality of some sort - which seems to be what's happening, albeit in a dramatic fashion - the GOP will hold a narrow majority in the House and the Democrats will hold the Senate with by a couple of seats.

[Skill and Chance]

Alternatively, how about having the Dems win a couple more Senate seats in 2008, like GA and KY?  That would cut down dramatically on the highly unpopular wheeling and dealing because no one could hold out as "the deciding vote" on every single policy.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Obama misread his mandate coming out of the 2008 election, ignored the town hall meetings during the summer of 2009, ignored Brown victory in Mass....he basically went against the will of the people and now the will of the people is coiled in historic fashion and is poised to strike.

53 or 54% of the 40% of adults who decide to vote tomorrow is not "the will of the people." Elections do not measure "the will of the people."

well, elections certainly do not measure "the will of the non-voters"

[Kaine for Senate '18]

Of course.  The magnitude may not have been, but the general result certainly was.  There was nothing Obama could do to prevent it, but if he had been more vigorous in defending his policies, we might have seen GOP +25, instead of the GOP +60 that we'll likely see tomorrow.

[The Vorlon]

The party in Power (ie the President's party) just about always takes it on the chin in the first midterm.

The only even semi-recent exceptions are Post 9-11 George Bush (2002) and Post/Intra depression FDR (1934) as I recall. - Neither of which was a remotely "typical" scenario. EDIT, and post Kennedy Assasinatiion in 1962

I think if Obama had made his stimulus more direct in it's job creation that would have helped.

The "stimulus" bill had a surprisingly small percentage of money that actually went to directly create jobs - it was basically a "Christmas tree" that the Dems hung every pet project they had been trying to fund for the last 20 years upon.

Some of these programs had legitimate merit, but they were not "stimulus" in the sense of getting folks back to work "now".

Given the depth of the recession and the fairly modest impact the stimulus bill actually had, I think the cake got baked pretty early on this one.

What did that guy from Arkansas keep saying "It's the economy stupid...?"

[Sam Spade]

The only even semi-recent exceptions are Post 9-11 George Bush (2002) and Post/Intra depression FDR (1934) as I recall. - Neither of wghich was a remotely "typical" scenario.

Also, 1962 with Kennedy.

[Brittain33]

Obama misread his mandate coming out of the 2008 election, ignored the town hall meetings during the summer of 2009, ignored Brown victory in Mass....he basically went against the will of the people and now the will of the people is coiled in historic fashion and is poised to strike.

He did the right thing with health care. Dems would be doing at least as bad, most likely, if it hadn't passed, because the economy would be in exactly the same place and the anti-Bush vote was gone. This is a great long-term victory because it was something the Democrats have struggled with for decades and it was simply the right thing to do for policy. Sometimes, doing the right thing for policy can be unpopular, which is why Republicans are probably never going to carry out any of Paul Ryan's policies, but are heading toward becoming a coalition of seniors (Social Security and Medicare), farmers (subsidies), small businesses, and wealthy people and those who aspire to wealth, financial industry, and natural resource industries, with that driving policy.

If the Republicans can win full control of Congress, abolish the filibuster, and also win the Presidency, they are welcome to try to repeal the provisions of the legislation. It would make for an interesting political process. Maybe it will even happen. That's democracy.

[Brittain33]

Yes, I think so.

I'm at least glad that I wasn't one of those back in '08 projecting further Democratic gains in 2010. I expected a return to normality of some sort - which seems to be what's happening, albeit in a dramatic fashion - the GOP will hold a narrow majority in the House and the Democrats will hold the Senate with by a couple of seats.

Although the Dems are almost certainly heading to some kind of Senate minority from 2013-2017, whether or not they hold it tomorrow. It may be narrow. We'll see. If Obama does well in 2012 and somehow holds the class of '06 together, the class of '08 will go down in flames in his second mid-term.

[J. J.]

The only even semi-recent exceptions are Post 9-11 George Bush (2002) and Post/Intra depression FDR (1934) as I recall. - Neither of wghich was a remotely "typical" scenario.

Also, 1962 with Kennedy.

Ok the first election Post-Assassination of a President - also a pretty atypical scenario.... (fortunately)

He wasn't assassinated until 1963, even after the local elections.

[Oakvale]

Obama misread his mandate coming out of the 2008 election, ignored the town hall meetings during the summer of 2009, ignored Brown victory in Mass....he basically went against the will of the people and now the will of the people is coiled in historic fashion and is poised to strike.

He did the right thing with health care. Dems would be doing at least as bad, most likely, if it hadn't passed, because the economy would be in exactly the same place and the anti-Bush vote was gone. This is a great long-term victory because it was something the Democrats have struggled with for decades and it was simply the right thing to do for policy. Sometimes, doing the right thing for policy can be unpopular, which is why Republicans are probably never going to carry out any of Paul Ryan's policies, but are heading toward becoming a coalition of seniors (Social Security and Medicare), farmers (subsidies), small businesses, and wealthy people and those who aspire to wealth, financial industry, and natural resource industries, with that driving policy.

If the Republicans can win full control of Congress, abolish the filibuster, and also win the Presidency, they are welcome to try to repeal the provisions of the legislation. It would make for an interesting political process. Maybe it will even happen. That's democracy.

I agree absolutely.

There was really no time but then for Obama to pass healthcare - the idea that Republicans only gained because of some Tea Party anger against TEH SOCIALISM!1 is nonsense. As is, the Democrats will suffer a drubbing, but they have some genuinely historic legislation to show for their time in power, and that's what matters in the long term.

[TheGlobalizer]

I think there's plenty Obama could have done along the way to stop the wave.  The main problem is that he has been stubbornly pursuing left-wing fantasies while ignoring the significant majorities that do not subscribe to those views, and denigrating the helpless other team.

To me, it showed both poor tactics as well as poor form.

If he actually stuck to a big part of his 2008 election schtick, which was to curtail some of the GOP's profligate spending (a very valid point), I don't think people would be nearly as outraged.

HCR was a misstep, but salvageable if he had given the GOP some of its pet arguments, like tort reform and some of the cross-border purchasing stuff.  That's supposed to happen in a representative democracy -- it's not a winner-take-all sport.  (Yes, I know the GOP under Bush did it -- and they got what they deserved in 2006/2008.)

Instead, Obama bulldozed ahead with a Dem-only approach to most significant pieces of legislation.  Once the budget was proposed, and the $1 trillion yearly deficits for 10 years were unveiled, the wave was a done deal.  Eyerolling at "dumb Americans" doesn't help, either -- stupid, panicky people vote, too (for better or worse).

The other initiatives (financial reform, cap-and-trade) were decent but at that point vulnerable to the rote "Dem steamroller" complaints from the GOP, regardless of the substance.

I also think that Obama showed himself to have little courage of his convictions -- you'd rarely see him come out, front and center, and take ownership of the more controversial elements of a law.  It makes him look like a dodgy sort of person, hard to vote for or even be excited to vote for if you love him / are on his "team".  His perplexing approach to DADT was among the bigger fails on left-leaning issues -- and one which looks especially stupid after the Pentagon study that recent came out.

Personally, Obama comes across as the guy who's trying to sell a solid left approach under the guise that it's a centrist perspective, and when it doesn't work, he throws the left wing under his tires to get traction.

The key message is that the right is enthusiastically saying "NObama" and the left is left wondering why he's saying "Yes we can, but..."  If you take away the underlying stuff, it makes it much harder for a wave to build, but those quotes stick under the circumstances, rallying the GOP and depressing Dem turnout.

A Clintonian-style Obama would have blunted some of those issues, and the Dems would probably be looking at only a 20-25 seat loss in the House and would easily hold onto the Senate.

But that's just my armchair quarterbacking.  :-)

[Vepres]

Was losing seats inevitable? Yes. Was having a 95% of losing the House? No.

I think hubris was what killed the Democrats (I am not implying Republicans don't have hubris). The stimulus created a lot of buzz, but he was still over 50%. It was shifting from the economy to Democratic agenda items like healthcare and cap-and-trade so early in his term that did him in. He should have spent his whole first year working on economic initiatives (yes, healthcare is the economy, but you know what I mean).

[Oakvale]

Was losing seats inevitable? Yes. Was having a 95% of losing the House? No.

I think hubris was what killed the Democrats (I am not implying Republicans don't have hubris). The stimulus created a lot of buzz, but he was still over 50%. It was shifting from the economy to Democratic agenda items like healthcare and cap-and-trade so early in his term that did him in. He should have spent his whole first year working on economic initiatives (yes, healthcare is the economy, but you know what I mean).

I understand this kind of reasoning, but what about healthcare, then? It was tough enough with massive Democratic majorities, and even a loss of ~20 seats would severely damages the chances of passing said reform.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

The only even semi-recent exceptions are Post 9-11 George Bush (2002) and Post/Intra depression FDR (1934) as I recall. - Neither of wghich was a remotely "typical" scenario.

Also, 1962 with Kennedy.

Ok the first election Post-Assassination of a President - also a pretty atypical scenario.... (fortunately)

Um... Cuban Missile Crisis was 2 weeks before the 1962 Midterms.

[Vepres]

Was losing seats inevitable? Yes. Was having a 95% of losing the House? No.

I think hubris was what killed the Democrats (I am not implying Republicans don't have hubris). The stimulus created a lot of buzz, but he was still over 50%. It was shifting from the economy to Democratic agenda items like healthcare and cap-and-trade so early in his term that did him in. He should have spent his whole first year working on economic initiatives (yes, healthcare is the economy, but you know what I mean).

I understand this kind of reasoning, but what about healthcare, then? It was tough enough with massive Democratic majorities, and even a loss of ~20 seats would severely damages the chances of passing said reform.

You sort of have to pick your poison, I guess. Be bold, and take a beating, or be smart, and go for gradual change in exchange for more secure majorities.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Was losing seats inevitable? Yes. Was having a 95% of losing the House? No.

I think hubris was what killed the Democrats (I am not implying Republicans don't have hubris). The stimulus created a lot of buzz, but he was still over 50%. It was shifting from the economy to Democratic agenda items like healthcare and cap-and-trade so early in his term that did him in. He should have spent his whole first year working on economic initiatives (yes, healthcare is the economy, but you know what I mean).

I said to friend that the White House's biggest mistake was fighting the battles of 2008, not 2010. They needed to shift the focus onto jobs very quickly... the stimulus helped, but it wasn't strategic or broad enough.

[The Vorlon]

He wasn't assassinated until 1963, even after the local elections.

doohhhh!

[Sbane]

I actually think the Stimulus was the main reason for all this anger. A trillion dollars gone and where are the jobs? Where are the big construction projects? The problem was that the money didn't go just for infrastructure projects, something America sorely needs, but rather to a medley of causes. And a lot of that money is still unspent. The point was to spend it as soon as possible. The other issue was the tax cuts. That money was almost entirely saved. I am all for including Republican ideas, but that doesn't mean you include stupid Republican ideas. In a time of uncertainty, of course no one was going to spend money you gave them unless you somehow forced them to.

Healthcare was another big reason for voter anger, but that was due to a perception that Washington just didn't get the real problems out there. I disagree with that notion, since one of the most important things you lose when you lose your job is your healthcare (if they were nice enough to provide you with it to begin with). Losing your house is tough, but in reality it's not a big deal if you at least have enough money to get a small apartment. But losing your healthcare could be deadly. You won't starve in America due to food stamps, and you can find something part time in a service industry if money is really tight but you won't get any healthcare. Not until HCR was passed. That being said the congress spent way too much time on it. Instead of moving the country from an employer based system to an individual system (with assistance from the government as needed) with a national insurance exchange, they just reinforced the current system. No wonder people are pissed.

[The Vorlon]

The only even semi-recent exceptions are Post 9-11 George Bush (2002) and Post/Intra depression FDR (1934) as I recall. - Neither of wghich was a remotely "typical" scenario.

Also, 1962 with Kennedy.

Ok the first election Post-Assassination of a President - also a pretty atypical scenario.... (fortunately)

Um... Cuban Missile Crisis was 2 weeks before the 1962 Midterms.

Ok, I KNEW something big happened then!