Blogging the midterms: Is the conservative era over?

This is the first in an occasional series of posts I'll be doing on the Progress blog looking at the next few weeks in the US congressional elections. Before diving in, I'd like to make a plea. If anyone reading has something they would like to know about the contests, put them in the comments. I'd really like to know what Progress people are interested in, and am happy to give a view on whatever people reading the Progress Blog would like to know about.

Right! How to begin? Three things. First I'd like to give a quick update on where we are. Second, a brief word on the possible reasons for an upset. Third, I want to point you towards today's must read article in the Times by David Brooks.

Where are we at. It goes something like this. The democrats are significantly ahead in the generic ballot, meaning when Americans are asked "do you like Republicans or Democrats" people say Democrats by a 10-25% margin. Pace gerrymandering this would mean a big gain in both the House and Senate. As it is it means the Democrats are likely to take the 15 seats they need to take back the House of Representatives, and come 1-2 seats shorts of the 6 they need to take back the Senate. The important thing to realise is that under the British election system this would be a landslide - that is how unpopular the Republicans have become. The list of reasons why is long, but can be boiled down to (in order of importance) Iraq, the economy and Mark Foley. In a sense the Foley scandal was the most important because it produced the biggest swing the polls. But the deteriorating situation in Iraq is now, unbelievably, a winning issue for Democrats. The economy always was - despite strong growth the American public is seeing median declining wages and incomes, and is unhappy about its lot.

The only thing which can stop the Democrats taking back the House, as of now, is turnout. The Republicans are about 1 electoral cycle ahead of the Democrats in their turnout operation. We saw this in 2004 where the GOP matched the Democrats, and possibly bettered them, in getting their voters out. This time round everyone i speak to expects them to do so again. The scariest paragraph i read this week came tucked in the end of a Poll in Tuesday's Washington Post:

Both parties are making extraordinary efforts to turn out their voters in November. Twenty-nine percent of registered voters said they had been contacted by one party or the other for their votes, and three in 10 of those said they had been contacted by advocates for both parties. Republicans appear to be doing a better job of contacting independents. In the poll, 45 percent of those independents who said they had been contacted said they were urged to vote for Republicans, while 17 percent said they were urged to vote for Democrats. The rest said they were contacted by both sides.

With numbers like this suggesting a 3:1 advantage on GOTV, more in key states, this thing isn't over yet. If the Republicans come back Karl Rove and RNC Chair Ken Melman will officially become deities of the conservative movement.

Finally, if you can get a copy, you should really try to read David Brooks in today's New York Times. He put his finger on something very significant about these elections - namely that a generational shift is occurring in American politics. Since the late 1970s there has been one story in American politics - the rise of conservatism. It went like this:

Reagan won. Bush 41 adapted Reagan. Clinton reacted to Reagan/Bush, and won. Gingrich beat Clinton. Clinton reacted back. Americans rejected Gingrich. Bush 43 adapted to Gingrich, and won again.

That whole process is now over. These elections are historic because the American people are rejecting Republican governance in the same way that the British people did in 1997. The big difference is that in 1997 in the UK we had a Labour party ready to govern, with a formidable leadership team. The Democrats, as yet, have no such agenda or vision. Time will tell if they can use the next two years to come up with one. That's it for this time - let me know if there is anything I can tell you about the elections, the candidates, or anything else in the comments.

 

Comments

[Mike Bennett]

Hi I'd be interested in what's happening with the Corporations and the Democrats? Even more than here business is a major force in US politics and my view is that we now have two "business" parties in this country.

Are both parties corporatised in the US or are the Democrats prepared to stand up to business?

[Richard Phillips]

sorry to put you on the spot, James, but you say the Dems are likely to fall just short of picking up the senate. can you give us a quick summary of the party's chances in the key battleground senatorial races?

[Ashton McGregor]

James

Your last paragraph is the key issue. Pelosi (and to a degree Reid) has managed to get some discipline instilled into the House Democrats but they don't yet present an alternative to conservatism on their terms - they are coasting on anti-incumbent sentiment much in the way that Cameron is here. It is difficult to see how that position will change beyond the mid-terms. There is not clear position for the disparate Democrat strands to coalesce around in my view. Quite how the cultural conservatives and triangulators in the Party can form a sensible platform together with the liberals is beyond me.

[James Crabtree]

Right. Good points, both of those. I'll post on them shortly. The issue of corporations is completely fascinating, as are the Senate races in Tennessee and Virginia. So, yes, ill do the for sure. Anyone for anything else?

[James Crabtree]

Right. Good points, both of those. I'll post on them shortly. The issue of corporations is completely fascinating, as are the Senate races in Tennessee and Virginia. So, yes, ill do the for sure. Anyone for anything else?

[James Crabtree]

Ashton - I think that’s right –and perceptive. This is clearly a GOP loss, not a Dem gain. There is some truth to the argument that Pelosi would make – when someone is running towards the cliff edge, get out of their way. Her strategy was the same on Social Security – her answer to the question of when there would be a democratic plan was “how about never?” so, yes, there are concerns about what comes next. I think I’d be more concerned about the Dems than Cameron, for instance. Cameron has more substance, and more agency. I’ll try to address that in a post.

[David Brede]

You say that the Republicans are one cycle ahead in their turnout operations. As this will be a key issue in 2009 if not before in the UK, is this a sheer hard work issue or something other than that?

[James Crabtree]

David - no, sadly, its much worse that that. Technologically they are a long way ahead, and they also have gotten better at traditional “knocking up” style GOTV, now known as the 72 hour campaign. Put simply – they have been doing this since 2002, and we are only just starting. Hence, 1 cycle. And the implications are just fascinating for progressives. If you can, in a sense, make new Republicans it means you completely undermine the calculus of electoral politics. You no longer have to run the centre. Which is just what they do – win by being extreme. I’ll write about it a little on a subsequent post.

[Richard Phillips]

James - it seems that there's been a slight up-tick in George Bush's approval ratings. Is this - combined with the GOP's negative blitz and fundraising advantage an indication that the Democrats may have peaked too early?

[James Crabtree]

Richard - can you send me that polling data? I haven't read today's papers yet, but i haven't seen any evidence of a GOP comeback since Foley, beyond what one might think of as a dead cat bounce comeback.