The following text
contains Flat Rock resident LeRoy Goldman's predictions for the 2014
Congressional races and the 2016 election, as delivered in a lecture Friday at
Blue Ridge Community College.
Goldman's predictions for the 2014 and '16 elections
By LEROY GOLDMAN
Guest Columnist
Hendersonville Times-NewsGuest Columnist
Published: Saturday, November 1, 2014 at 4:30 a.m.
It's nice to be back at Blue Ridge College, and to see familiar faces
in the audience. This afternoon I plan to discuss two topics. First we'll look
at the dynamics of the 2014 Congressional election, and I'll try to predict
winners and losers in the key races. Hopefully, I won't end up with too much
egg on my face. After the break I plan to turn our attention to the issues that
will shape the 2016 election. I believe that election will be a pivotal one for
the nation. At the end I'll take your questions.
The
2014 election
So, most of us know Congress is hopelessly broken. You don't have to
take my word for it. There have been numerous polls that document our
collective disdain for Congress. My favorite was published by Public Policy
Polling last year in which it found that the American people by wide margins
favored head lice, colonoscopies, root canals, cockroaches, or Genghis Khan
over Congress. Congress, I suppose, could take some morsel of solace from the
finding that it did come out ahead of Lindsay Lohan and the Ebola virus. The
poll's overall result for Congress was 85% unfavorable and 9% favorable. The
part that mystifies me is the 9%!
Unfortunately, the breakdown in Washington is by no means limited to
Congress. The Presidency and the Executive Branch are similarly paralyzed, but
that is not the subject of this lecture.
2 of 13
We've been in the grip of this paralytic force now for almost 20 years.
And that covers the Presidencies of Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Barack
Obama. It began with the Congressional election in 1994. It was the Republican
Revolution. It was Newt Gingrich and his Contract With America
The issue, more than any other, that brought the GOP to power in the
House was Health Care Reform. Bill Clinton had campaigned extensively for it in
1992. Not long after taking the oath of office President Clinton attempted to
move the issue forward by naming his wife, Hillary Clinton, as the person
responsible for putting the legislation together and getting a Congress
controlled by the Democrats to pass it. She failed. The bill she produced was so
complex, so convoluted, that no one understood it. By the summer of 1994 the
Democratic leadership on Capitol Hill decided not to bring it up for a vote,
and for good reason. They knew it would not have passed.
The Clinton's bungled handling of Health Care Reform had brought the
GOP out of 40 years of wandering in the Wilderness. We can lament, though not
be surprised, that the GOP could not resist their irresistible temptation for
vengeance. By 1998 the Government was paralyzed. The Lewinsky Affair and the
House vote to impeach President Clinton on charges of obstruction of justice
and perjury were the icing on the cake.
Clinton left office under a cloud, and, in a contested election
ultimately decided by the United States Supreme Court, was succeeded in office
by George W. Bush. Bush won the electoral vote by a whisker, 271-266, while
losing the popular vote by over 500,000 votes. It was the fourth time in the
nation's history that a presidential candidate had won the popular vote and
lost the election. The others occurred in 1824, 1876, and 1888.
3 of 13
Eight months after having taken the oath of office The Bush
Administration and the nation were rocked by the 9/11 terrorist attack on the
World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Those events and America's military
interventions in Afghanistan and Iraq dominated and ultimately destroyed the
Bush Administration and the Republican majorities on Capitol Hill.
In 2006 the Democrats recaptured the Senate and the House of
Representatives. And two years later Barack Obama handily won the Presidency
based upon a campaign of Hope and Change as the nation's economy began its
plunge into the deepest recession since 1929.
President Obama chose to ignore the lessons of how Health Care Reform
had backfired on the Clintons in 1993-94. Thus, with the economy in free fall,
he chose to make Obamacare his top legislative priority in 2009. He foolishly
turned the job of writing the legislation over to Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi.
The bill the Democrats produced was as mind numbingly complex as was
Hillarycare fifteen years earlier. Although the President attempted dozens of
times to explain the bill to the American people, he failed. They never
understood it, and a majority of Americans opposed it, and still do.
The debate over Obamacare divided the nation and lit the fuse that gave
the Tea Party just what they sought—power. In the 2010 election they gained 63
seats and took control of the House of Representatives. In addition The GOP
made significant gains in state legislatures all across the nation. They gained
720 new state legislative seats, the most since 1928. And most importantly they
made those gains just at the time of the new census and the congressional
redistricting that follows it.
In many states, including North Carolina, the new GOP majorities began
a process of gerrymandering that would cement their hold on the House of
Representatives for a decade going forward. By stupidly repeating the health
care overreach of the Clintons, President Obama neutered his Presidency during
his first year in office. It's no wonder that by 2014 he felt compelled to give
voice to his inability to govern by saying, “I've got a phone and I've got a
pen.” Yes, many of the House Republicans are uncompromising zealots. But it was
Barack Obama's naivete, hubris, and incompetence that put them in the catbird's
seat.
The conclusion is inescapable. The Government of the United States is
broken and paralyzed. The evidence is everywhere evident. Large majorities of
the nation's citizens believe the nation is on the wrong track, and many
believe that their children's future will be worse than theirs has been. The
President's approval rating is dismal, and Congress' is worse. President Obama
is a lame duck.
History teaches us that the Congressional election that occurs in the
sixth year of a President's tenure is a harsh referendum on the President. In
1958 The GOP lost 48 seats in the House and 13 seats in the Senate in Ike's
sixth year. In 1974 the Republicans lost 49 seats in the House and 3 in the
Senate as Watergate sunk the Nixon Administration. In 1986 The GOP lost 5 seats
in the House and 8 in the Senate in the twilight of the Reagan Administration.
In 1998, the outlier in this pattern, The Democrats gained 5 seats in the House
and lost none in the Senate as the Clinton Administration waned. In 2006 the
GOP lost 31 House seats and 6 Senate seats as President George W. Bush's
Administration collapsed.
What then can we expect next Tuesday? It would appear that what's on
the horizon should be significant gains for the Republicans in both the House
and the Senate. I don't believe that will occur in the House. The Senate,
however, is a different kettle of fish. Let's go to the predictions.
House of Representatives
The current lineup in the House is 234 Republicans and 201 Democrats.
Thus, the Democrats would need to gain at least 17 seats next Tuesday in order
to recapture the House. That will not happen, and you can take that prediction
to the bank. And you can be just as confident that the Republicans will not
substantially increase their majority in the House. The reason is clear. The
GOP so significantly gerrymandered so many House seats in 2012 that essentially
all of the low hanging fruit has already been harvested by the Republicans.
By my count the GOP is safely in control of 230 seats, and the
Democrats have control of another 188 seats. If I'm right, that means only 17
of the House's 435 seats are in play—only 17! When all is said and done the
Republicans will modestly increase their majority in the House by about 8
seats. Mark Meadows will win handily here in the 11th District of North
Carolina. I predict that lineup of the House, as the 114th Congress convenes,
will be 242 Republicans and 193 Democrats.
The best way to gauge how the House election is going is to keep your
eye on five districts: the 1st in New Hampshire, the 3rd in West Virginia, and
the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd in Iowa. All of them, except Iowa-3, are currently
represented by Democrats. And in Iowa-3 the Republican incumbent is not seeking
reelection. All five seats are toss-ups. If the GOP wins three or more of them,
it's going to be a big night for House Republicans.
Finally, it's difficult to exaggerate the corrosive effect of
gerrymandering gone wild to the effective working of the legislative process.
Here's my favorite example—one of many.
In 1932 John Dingell, Sr. was elected to Congress from the 15th
district of Michigan. Dingell was a New Deal Democrat and found a safe home in
the overwhelmingly Democratic and Polish district on the West side of Detroit.
Dingell served until his death in 1955. He was succeeded in office later that
year in a special election by his son, John Dingell, Jr. Today Dingell Jr. is
the longest serving member in the history of the House of Representatives. Now
88 years old he is not seeking reelection. But the story's not over. Turns out
that the Democrat seeking election to Dingell's district is his wife, Debbie
Dingell. She's 28 years his junior and only 60. She, of course, will win this
coming Tuesday and with a little luck will be able to continue Dingell
dominance of this district for another 20 years or so. If she can make it to
2032, the Dingells will have held this seat for a century. Call it the Divine
Right of Dingells.
Don't think for a moment that you pick your congressman on election
day. They pick you, long before election day, through the corrosive and
undemocratic process of gerrymandering.
Senate
The current lineup of the Senate is 55 Democrats and 45 Republicans.
Included among the Democrats are two independents who caucus with them, Bernie
Sanders of Vermont and Angus King of Maine
36 Senate seats are up for grabs on election day. 21 of these seats are
currently controlled by Democrats and 15 are controlled by Republicans. Thus,
the playing field is tilted in the direction of the GOP because the Democrats
have more seats to defend next Tuesday. And the Republicans have another and
more significant advantage in this election cycle. There are several incumbent
Democrats seeking reelection from states that are conservative, voted for
Governor Romney in 2012, and are hostile to President Obama. These states
include Alaska, Arkansas, Louisiana, and, of course, North Carolina. These
Democratic incumbents are deeply vulnerable.
Of the 36 seats up for election I believe that 13 of them are in play.
Democrats will successfully defend 11 of their 21 at risk. And the Republicans
will successfully defend 12 of their 15 at risk. If I'm right, the Democrats at
that point would have control of 45 seats and the GOP would control 42 seats.
Thus, the outcome that we care about will be determined by what happens
in those 13 states which are in play. They are: Montana, South Dakota, West
Virginia, Kentucky, Georgia, Alaska, New Hampshire, Arkansas, Louisiana, Iowa,
Colorado, Kansas, and North Carolina.
Montana
Democratic Senator Max Baucus chose not to seek reelection this year.
He is currently the U.S. Ambassador to China. His vacancy was filled by former
Lt. Governor, John Walsh. But after winning the Democratic primary earlier this
year, Walsh was hit with plagiarism charges in a 2007 research paper he
authored. Walsh has pulled out of the race and was replaced by Amanda Curtis.
The winner of the Republican primary, Congressman Steve Daines, is the
prohibitive favorite to win the Senate seat in this deeply Red State. Montana
is a pick up for the GOP.
South Dakota
In Ruby Red South Dakota, Democratic Senator Tim Johnson announced he
would not seek reelection. The Republicans nominated former Governor Mike
Rounds, and the Democrats nominated former congressional aide, Rick Weiland.
That on its face is a mismatch, but there is a wild card in this deck. Former
Republican Senator, Larry Pressler is running as an Independent and he has
refused to say which party he would caucus with, if elected.
The national Democratic Party is pouring money into South Dakota in the
closing weeks of the campaign in the hope of derailing Rounds. It won't work.
Rounds wins and South Dakota
West Virginia
Five term Democratic Senator Jay Rockefeller has announced that he will
not seek reelection. During the latter years of his service, West Virginia has
moved inexorably from Blue to Red. The Republicans have nominated Congresswoman
Shelley Capito, and the Democrats nominated West Virginia's Secretary of State,
Natalie Tennant. Capito wins going away, and this is another GOP pick up.
Kentucky
Thirty-year incumbent, Mitch McConnell, the Republican Minority Leader
of the Senate, seeks reelection in Kentucky. He is opposed by Kentucky's
Secretary of State Alison Lundergan Grimes. Grimes has fought a spirited fight
and she has had ample financial support and the help and assistance of
prominent Democrats such as Bill and Hillary Clinton. There is no doubt that
the Democrats are as motivated to take down the Republican leader of the Senate
this year as the Republicans sought in vain in seeking to oust Senate Majority
Leader Harry Reid in Nevada in 2010. It's difficult to imagine a more
destructive leader of the Senate than Harry Reid, but, if anyone's up to the
task, it's Mitch McConnell. Grimes falls short, Kentucky is a hold for the GOP,
and Senator McConnell will try to hold his breath and lick his chops in
anticipation of all of the returns from the other states holding Senate
elections Tuesday night.
Georgia
Republican Senator Saxby Chambliss is not seeking reelection. The
Republican nominee is wealthy businessman David Perdue. Perdue is the cousin of
former Georgia Governor, Sonny Perdue. The Democrats nominated Michelle Nunn,
the daughter of former Georgia Senator Sam Nunn. The Libertarian Party has
nominated Amanda Swafford. If no candidate receives at least 50% of the vote, a
runoff on January 6th will be required. Georgia has been a reliably Republican
state for many years. But it is also a state that many believe has begun the
transition to Purple. The polling in Georgia has been neck and neck. Perdue
wins, but he probably will have to do it in the runoff in January. Georgia is a
Republican hold.
Alaska
Freshman Democratic Senator, Mark Begich seeks reelection. He is
opposed by Alaska State Natural Resources Commissioner, Daniel Sullivan. Alaska
is a reliably Republican and conservative state. Unsurprisingly, it is one of
many states where President Obama is viewed as an ineffective leader and or is
simply despised. Sullivan wins, and Alaska
New Hampshire
Freshman Democratic Senator Jeanne Shaheen seeks reelection. She is
opposed by Republican Scott Brown. Brown served in the Senate from
Massachusetts from 2010 until 2012. He was the surprising winner in the
election to fill the seat that Senator Ted Kennedy had previously held for 47
years.
New Hampshire used to be a conservative and Republican state. Not
anymore. Now it is a swing state. Its Governor and all four members of its
Congressional delegation are women. Only one is a Republican. Polling in New
Hampshire has consistently shown Shaheen with a lead of about 5 points.
But this is a state worthy of close attention, not only in respect of
control of the Senate, but also as an early marker of the mood of the
electorate in a swing state as we approach the 2016 presidential election. New
Hampshire is one of four swing states that are the most important in Tuesday's
election. The other three are Colorado, Iowa, and North Carolina because the
outcomes in these four will tell us a great deal about whether the Republicans
can compete and win in the swing states that determine which party will win the
Presidential election in 2016.
An upset victory by Scott Brown would be a very good omen for the
Republicans. Watch to see how late into the night it takes for the networks to
call this race. The longer it goes the better will be Republican outcomes in
the other three crucial Swing states, Colorado, Iowa, and North Carolina.
However, Shaheen wins and New Hampshire is a Democratic hold.
Arkansas
Two term Democratic Senator, Mark Pryor, seeks reelection. He is
opposed by Republican Congressman Tom Cotton. Pryor has been popular and he has
been sensitive to the conservative nature of the Arkansas electorate. But this
year the climb is too steep. Tom Cotton wins. Arkansas is a Republican pick up.
Louisiana
Democratic Senator, Mary Landrieu seeks a fourth term. She is opposed
by two Republicans and a Libertarian, Congressman Bill Cassidy, retired Air
Force Colonel, Rob Maness, and Brannon McMorris. Louisiana's election differs
from the other states. The election next Tuesday is a “Jungle Primary”. If no
candidate receives more than 50% of the vote, there will be a runoff between
the two top vote getters in December. Landrieu barely survived two close and
controversial elections and run offs in 1996 and 2002. The outcome Tuesday is
likely to produce another result which will require a December run off between
Senator Landrieu and her principal challenger, Congressman Bill Cassidy.
Senator Landrieu will rely on her brother Mitch, who is the Mayor of
New Orleans, to turn out record numbers of African-American voters on her
behalf. But there's a formidable problem. In 2000 the population of Orleans
Parrish was 485,000. In 2010 it had declined to 345,000. Think Hurricane
Katrina. Landrieu's luck has run out. Put a fork in her, she's done. She will
lose Tuesday night or in the December run off. Louisiana is another Republican
pick up.
Colorado
Democratic Senator Mark Udall seeks a second term. He is opposed by
Colorado Congressman Cory Gardner, a Republican from the 4th Congressional
district which encompasses the Front Range in eastern Colorado. This is the
second of the four vital Senate battles in Swing States that will provide
insight into the extent to which the GOP can successfully compete in the states
that must be won in order to win the Presidency.
The Udall Campaign has hammered away relentlessly on one issue,
contraception, abortion and what the Democrats call the GOP's War on Women.
About half of his TV advertising has been devoted to this one issue. His
obsession with this issue has earned him the nickname, “Mark Uterus”. The
approach is right out of the 2012 Democratic playbook that worked so well in
bringing African-American, Hispanic, and single and divorced white women to the
polls to vote for President Obama and other down ticket Democrats.
But this time it's not working nearly as well. Gardner has run a
campaign that has successfully inoculated him from being perceived as an angry
white male who is obsessed with women and “reproductive” issues.
The Denver Post, which supported Udall in 2008 and President Obama in
both 2008 and 2012, has endorsed Gardner. In its editorial endorsing Gardner it
castigates Udall for having run an “obnoxious one-issue campaign”. Gardner
wins. Colorado is a pick up for the Republicans.
Iowa
Senator Tom Harkin, a Liberal Democrat, has represented Iowa in
Congress since 1975. He was elected to the House in 1974 and then to the Senate
in 1984. He is retiring. The Democrats have nominated Congressman Bruce Braley.
The Republicans have nominated Joni Ernst, a member of the Iowa State Senate.
This is the third of the four crucial Senate battles in Swing states.
George W. Bush carried Iowa in 2004, but President Obama carried it in 2008 and
2012.
The polling in Iowa has been nip and tuck for months. Initially Braley
held a small and statistically insignificant lead, now Ernst does. Braley is
from Eastern Iowa, where most of the state's Democrats reside. Ernst is from
Western Iowa, where the Republicans rule the roost.
Braley is a lawyer who put his foot in his mouth early in the Campaign
by making disparaging remarks about farmers. Ernst grew up on a farm where she
castrated hogs. She made headlines several months ago when she said, “When I
get to Washington I'll know how to cut pork. Let's make 'em squeal.” Ernst is a
Lieutenant Colonel in the Iowa Army National Guard and has served 21 years in
it and the United States Army Reserves. She carries a gun in her handbag.
During its 168 years as a state, Iowa has never elected a woman to
Congress or as its Governor. Next Tuesday night that's going to change. Joni
Ernst wins. Iowa is another Republican pick up.
Kansas
Three term incumbent Republican, Pat Roberts, seeks reelection. He is
opposed by wealthy businessman and Independent, Greg Orman. Chad Taylor, who
won the Democratic nomination, has since dropped out of the contest and his
name will not appear on the ballot next Tuesday. Kansas is an overwhelmingly
Republican state. It last elected a Democrat to the Senate in 1932.
But Roberts, who is 78, is deeply vulnerable. Earlier this year it
became known that he does not own a house in Kansas. His residence is in the
Northern Virginia suburbs of Washington. In the Republican Primary earlier this
year Roberts only received 48% of the vote.
Orman is much younger than Roberts and has run an aggressive and clever
campaign. He has refused to say which political party he will caucus with, if
he wins this Tuesday. All he's said is that he will caucus with the party that
has a “clear” majority. But he won't say what the meaning of “clear” is. Orman
has said he voted for Obama in 2008 and Romney in 2012.
Orman reminds me of the title character in the 1960 movie Elmer Gantry.
Burt Lancaster played Gantry and won an Oscar for Best Actor. Gantry was the
fast talking con man selling religion to small town America – in Kansas no
less.
The national Republican Party is going all out to save Roberts. What an
embarrassment it would be for the GOP if they did not take control of the
Senate simply because they lost a seat in Republican, rock-ribbed Kansas. This
one's going to be a squeaker, but my money's on Roberts to win by a nose.
Kansas is a Republican hold.
North Carolina
Freshman Democratic Sen. Kay Hagan seeks reelection. She is opposed by
Republican Thom Tillis, the Speaker of the North Carolina House of
Representatives, and Sean Haugh, the nominee of the Libertarian Party. This is
the fourth and final Swing State that we want to pay close attention to.
Throughout this hard-fought and increasingly bitter campaign, Senator
Hagan has maintained a narrow, but consistent, lead of about 4 points. However,
in mid-October the margin began to narrow. The Real Clear Politics average of
all polls at that time was Hagan 45.1% and Tillis 43.6%, a margin of 1.5% for
Senator Hagan.
Throughout the campaign, the Libertarian candidate, Sean Haugh, has
polled at about 5%. Haugh is a 53-year-old pizza delivery man. He has little or
no financial support, and his campaign has relied upon the videos that he posts
on YouTube. Traditionally third party candidates like this fade as election day
approaches. But most of the votes Haugh receives would otherwise be Tillis
votes. In a very close race, Haugh may play the role of spoiler for Tillis.
Hagan should be extremely vulnerable in this race. North Carolina was
the only swing state that voted for Governor Romney in 2012. It is a state in
which President Obama and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid are deeply
unpopular. Senator Hagan has been largely invisible during her first term in
the Senate. She's an easy target as one who has been a consistent supporter of
or doormat for President Obama and Leader Reid.
Yet she continues to lead. Why? The answer is that Thom Tillis dug
himself into a deep hole earlier this year while serving as Speaker of the
State House of Representatives. The GOP controls all the levers of power in
Raleigh, the House, the Senate, and the Governor's Mansion. Yet Tillis, Senate
Leader Phil Berger, and Governor McCrory could not accommodate each others
egos. They turned what should have been a legislative session of accomplishment
and competence into an internal GOP pissing match. And they did so around the
incendiary issue of state funding and tenure for North Carolina's teachers.
That has give Senator Hagan just the issue she needed in order to
mobilize and energize the most important part of the Democratic base—women.
That is how she has been able to maintain her lead in the polls.
If Tillis loses, he will have earned “THE BIGGEST LOSER” award of the
2014 Senate cycle. Think of it this way. When you combine arrogance with a risk
averse and unimaginative campaign bad things happen. Hagan wins, and North Carolina
And there you have it. The Republicans take control of the Senate,
though it may take until run-offs are completed in Louisiana in December and/or
Georgia in January to know the final tally. My prediction is that the
Republicans will end up with 53 seats. The Democrats will have 47 seats. And
don't forget this important point. 53 is less than 60. And absent 60 votes, the
Senate will remain in gridlock, paralyzed by the filibuster. The only
difference, and it's a difference without a distinction, is that next year it
will be the Democrats who will be doing the filibustering.
Looking back at presidential elections over almost 75 years reveals a
repetitive and illuminating pattern. Once elected, most presidents are
reelected. Ike won twice. LBJ won what would likely have been President
Kennedy's second term. Nixon was twice elected, as was Reagan and Clinton.
George W. Bush had two terms, and President Obama is now completing his second
term.
And there is more that illuminates the voting behavior of the American
electorate. After two terms in office, the American people tend to turn the
reins of power over to the opposing party. Thus the Republicans recaptured the
White House in 1952, following FDR and Harry Truman, in 1968, following Kennedy
and LBJ, and in 2000, following Clinton. Democrats returned the favor in 1960,
following Eisenhower, in 1976, following Nixon and Ford, in 1992, following
Reagan and George H. W. Bush, and in 2008, following George W. Bush.
So, it would seem clear that the Republicans hold the winning hand in
the forthcoming 2016 presidential election. And there are data that support
this conclusion that go well beyond these historical trends.
President Obama's approval rating has been in the tank for most of this
year. Most Americans no longer view him as a strong or an effective leader. A
large majority of the American people believe that the nation is headed in the
wrong direction. More ominously, many Americans believe that their children
will not fare as well as they have fared. It has come to the point that it
makes little difference whether the public's mood is measured in economic,
social or foreign policy issues, Obama's marks are uniformly low.
His only major legislative accomplishment, Obamacare, managed to tear
the nation in half because of its complexity, and the partisan manner in which
the White House and Democrats on the Hill rammed it through. In fact, the
negative reaction to Obamacare was so incendiary that it fueled the meteoric
rise of the Tea Party. Their rise culminated in their takeover of the House of
Representatives in 2010. And that event occurred at the best time possible for
the GOP. It coincided with the ten-year census and the congressional
redistricting that follows each census. And we've already talked about that
today.
Thus it turns out that for the GOP, Obamacare has been the gift that
has yet to stop giving!
With it President Obama gave the GOP the House of Representatives and
lost the ability to move his legislative agenda through Congress. It was
nothing short of madness.
No matter how you cut it, President Obama is a lame duck. His
legislative track record is thin gruel at best. He has not been able to close
the deal with Congress on any of the major issues that demand attention. These
include tax reform, immigration, regulatory reform, entitlement reform, job
growth, energy independence, and debt reduction. No wonder he was forced to say
earlier this year, “I've got a pen and I've got a phone.” It was an admission
of defeat. It was the plaintive, yet angry, quack of a lame duck.
In addition, a new cloud now hangs over the Obama Administration with
respect to its foreign and military policy in the Middle East and Europe.
Remember that the President defeated Hillary Clinton in the Democratic
primaries in 2008 and then defeated both John McCain and Mitt Romney by
leveraging his intention to remove American military forces from Iraq. Well now
he's back in Iraq and Syria too. The antiwar President now has begun a war on
his watch—a war that he can't pin on George W. Bush or any other Republican. If
it does not go well, if the American people tire of it, and there is good
reason to believe both will happen, the inevitable political fallout will be
exploited by the GOP in the 2016 Presidential campaign.
The point of all of this is that there should be no surprise and no
drama with respect to which party will take the White House in 2016. It should
be a Republican cakewalk. The pattern of presidential elections for almost 75
years and the turmoil of the Obama presidency point clearly in that direction.
BUT NOT SO FAST, KEMOSABE! And here's why.
We all know that Washington is broken. We all know the meaning of Red
State/Blue State and its contribution to the deadlock in Washington. But we are
less clear about the length, nature, and severity of this problem. It has been
tightening its paralytic grip on our government for almost twenty years.
The broad contours of American voting behavior are generally understood
by most of the electorate. In presidential elections we know that minority
groups vote heavily Democratic, especially African-Americans and Hispanics. We
know that voters in big cities and also in their surrounding suburbs also favor
Democrats. We know that voters in small towns and rural America vote heavily
for Republicans. And we know that Protestants cast a large share of their votes
for Republicans, including especially evangelical Christians. Most persons of
the Jewish and Muslim faiths vote Democratic. In 2012 President Obama received
69% and 85% of their votes respectively.
But the most important thing to understand about the growing divide in
our nation's electorate is the gender divide. Men vote Republican in very large
numbers, and women, especially and particularly single and divorced women, vote
heavily Democratic.
In fact the American people are continuing to sort out where and how
they live their lives based upon these growing lines of demarcation and separation.
It's a reality that has ominous implications for the functioning, or more
accurately, the dysfunction of our government. Put another way, and however
uncomfortable it may make you feel, we the people are the root of this problem
that we conveniently blame on our elected representatives in Washington.
Let's take a closer look at the rapidly changing nature of the American
electorate, and how we are walling ourselves off from one another. And let's
look back before we look forward.
Beginning in the late 1930s, and continuing throughout the 1940s and
the 1950s, an ever increasing tide of Black Americans left the South to seek
and find jobs in the cities of the North. They were to become a vital part of
the burgeoning Arsenal of Democracy that ultimately enabled the Allies to
defeat the Axis Powers and bring World War II to a successful conclusion. Not
only did Blacks find jobs in the North they also found a Democratic Party, led
by President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, ready and eager to welcome them. The Republican
Party, the party of President Abraham Lincoln, who had freed the slaves, chose
not to compete for the growing Black vote. The net result is that today
African-Americans vote reflexively, almost autonomically, for the Democrats.
In Presidential terms the most important example is Ohio because no
Republican has ever won the White House without carrying Ohio. In 2012 Governor
Romney carried 72 of Ohio's 88 counties. But he lost the state by 167,000
votes. The explanation is simple—a massive turnout among the state's
African-American voters. In Cuyahoga County, Cleveland, President Obama
defeated Governor Romney by an astonishing 237,000 votes. There were several
dozen precincts in Cuyahoga where Romney received zero votes—zero! NBC News
exit polls found that in Ohio black voters picked Obama over Romney by 96% to
3%.
Surely the GOP wouldn't make the same mistake twice! Surely, they
wouldn't double down by ignoring, or even worse, alienating Hispanics! Or would
they?
In March of 2011, shortly after the completion of the 2010 census, the
Pew Research Center published data respecting the growth of the Hispanic
population in the nation. The numbers are eye popping and their political
ramifications are monumental. The census counted slightly more than 50 million
Hispanics in the nation, 16.3% of the nation's total. Hispanics accounted for
56% of the nation's growth over the past ten years. Racial and ethnic
minorities accounted for an astounding 91.7% of the nation's growth.
Non-Hispanic whites accounted for only 8.3% of that growth.
In the following states the Hispanic population doubled in the last
decade: South Carolina, Alabama, Tennessee, Kentucky, Arkansas, North Carolina,
Maryland, Mississippi, South Dakota, Delaware, Georgia, and Virginia. Virtually
all of these states are bright Red states that have been reliable electoral
votes for any GOP presidential nominee. If the GOP is unable or unwilling to
reach out to Hispanics going forward, that reliability will vanish.
Do you remember the Christmas Classic, Miracle on 34th Street, starring
Edmund Gwenn as Kris Kringle, Gene Lockhart as Judge Henry Harper, and William
Frawley as Charlie Halloran, his political adviser? As the movie reaches its
climax, Judge Harper, you'll recall, was about to rule that there is no Santa
Claus. But Halloran, knowing the Judge is up for reelection, catches his eye
and the Judge calls a recess in the trial and meets Halloran in his chambers.
There Halloran tells him that, if he rules there is no Santa Claus, his chances
of reelection are gone. Of course, you remember how the United States Postal
Service enabled Judge Halloran to rule that Kris Kringle was the one and only
Santa Claus and save his political career all at the same time. Judge Harper
was able to adapt and survive.
The GOP faces a similar apocalypse. Can they adapt? Will they survive?
Any hard look at the way they are dealing with immigration reform suggests that
they are in denial.
Here's another way to visualize the future of presidential elections.
In 1992, the year Bill Clinton first won the White House, 87% of the
presidential vote was cast by whites. In 1996 it was 83%. In 2000 it was 81%.
In 2004 it was 77%. In 2008 it was 74%. In 2012 it was 72%. The trend is
unmistakable and irreversible. For the GOP the point of no return is now!
And what about the gender component of the electorate? In 2000 58
million men voted in the presidential election, as did 61 million women. In
2004 there were 62 million men and 65 million women who voted. In 2008 there
were 62 million men and 66 million women voters. And in 2012 there were 60
million men and 64 million women who cast ballots. As the population ages,
including especially the older, white population, this “cleavage gap” will
continue to grow. It is one that will increasingly favor the Democratic Party.
Yet many Republicans appear oblivious or unconcerned about the
implications of all of these data for their party, their candidates, and the
policies they so strongly support. Is it just stupidity, or what?
Fortunately, it's not stupidity. But it is insularity, physical,
intellectual, and political insularity. It is an insularity that breeds a false
sense of security and serenity that is addictive, evanescent, and crippling.
And it travels on cat's paws.
Don't take my word for it. Instead let's look at fresh data from the
Pew Research Center For the People and the Press that was published last June.
It quantifies and describes the extraordinary, self-imposed political
polarization of the American people. Here are some of the chilling takeaways
from this extensive study that grew out of a national survey of more than
10,000 adults conducted from January through March of 2014.
Republicans and Democrats are more divided along ideological lines—and
partisan antipathy is deeper and more extensive—that any time in the last 20
years. The number of Americans who hold consistently liberal or conservative
opinions has doubled in the past two decades.
Partisan animosity has increased substantially during the same period
and intense partisans of both parties believe the opposing party's policies,
“are so misguided that they threaten the nation's well-being”.
Increasingly Americans are separating themselves into what the Pew
Study calls “ideological silos”. Liberals and Conservatives disagree over where
they want to live, the kind of people they want to live around, and whom they
would welcome into their families.
For example, liberals say ethnic and racial diversity and accessibility
to the arts are important factors in determining where they want to live.
Alternatively, conservatives say living near people who share their religious
views is important in deciding where they live. Conservatives strongly prefer
small towns and rural areas. Liberals prefer cities. More importantly, both
groups are relocating based upon those preferences.
These data take all of the guess work and mystery out of understanding
why a state like Alabama is Red and a state like California is Blue. Think of
it as voluntary secession! 150 years after the Civil War and Blue is still
Blue, but Gray has become Red.
And all of the above is why I believe that the race for the White House
in 2016 will not be the Republican cakewalk that historical precedent suggests.
To the contrary, I believe it will be a real dogfight, well, more likely a dog
and cat fight.
On the
Democratic side there is no doubt that Hillary Clinton dominates the landscape.
If she decides to run, and I believe that she will run, the decision is likely
to be made public early in 2015. Her march to the nomination will not be
uncontested, but neither will it be derailed. The hard fact of the matter is
that she has been thought of as the presumptive nominee for so long that no
credible threat to her ascendancy has materialized. All of those in the
Democratic Party who have presidential ambitions have cowered in Hillary's
shadow. These aspirants include, Vice President Biden, Senators Warren,
Sanders, Gillibrand, and Klobuchar, former Senator Webb, and former Governors
Patrick and O'Malley.
On the
Republican side a spirited, and potentially divisive, contest looms in the
forthcoming GOP primaries. The GOP field is crowded, but it is crowded with a
host of individuals who very likely can not prevail in a general election
against Hillary Clinton. Their political base is too narrow and too
conservative to win enough votes from the center of the political spectrum and
from conservative Democrats. This is the self imposed curse of the Republican
Party's race to the far right over the past two decades. It is a death spiral.
This group
of GOP presidential aspirants include Senators Paul, Rubio, and Cruz, former
Senator Sanatorium, House member Ryan, and Governors Jindal, Perry, Christie,
and Walker, former Governor Huckabee, and Ben Carson.
There are,
however, two other possible nominees. One has not said if he will run, and the
other has said he will not run. They are former Florida Governor Jeb Bush and
former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney. Either one would be competitive in a
national election with Hillary Clinton. Either one could win that election,
assuming they could survive the Republican Presidential primaries with their
manhood in tact.
Watching all
of this play out will be fascinating. Now I'll be happy to answer your
questions.
LeRoy Goldman welcomes comments by email
at: EmailMe
The Shadow Welcomes Comments
No comments:
Post a Comment
Please leave a comment.