As we draw closer to election day it looks increasingly likely that the Democrats will lose control of the House (Nate Silver on 538.com gives the GOP 4-1 odds in favor of such an outcome). They are also likely to lose at least 3-5 Senate seats and could lose control there (Silver does not predict that but does call for a 7-8 seat GOP gain).
Unlike 1994 this is not something that has snuck up on the Democrats. From the moment Scott Brown won his upset victory in January the party was on notice of significant voter discontent.
Yet as many political observers have commented, the Obama administration and the Democratic leadership don’t seem to have gotten the message and have not taken the proper steps to try and curtail the oncoming bloodbath. Mistakes have been made, messages have been mixed, the whole thing has often seemed like a circular firing squad.
Many would simply chalk this up to the old Will Rogers statement that he didn’t belong to any organized political party… he was a Democrat. And there is some validity in the assessment that the party is very good at making a mess of things.
But I am increasingly wondering if a more interesting, and politically clever, strategy is at play.
Could they be losing on purpose ?
Now before you dismiss me as being off my rocker (a charge I am sure many of our readers would lodge well before reading any of my posts) consider the following.
The Democrats know for a fact that they are going to lose seats this fall. In all the years of modern elections there have only been a few occasions where the part in charge of the White House has not lost seats.
Those few occasions have been under circumstances that simply do not apply this time around. So a loss of seats in the House and Senate is all but certain.
Even if they only lost a fairly modest 20-25 seats (which is below most off year elections) they would be down to 230-235 house seats. In the Senate even if they only lost 3 or 4 seats they’d be down into the 55-56 seat range (counting the two independents).
As demonstrated by the past two years, its tough to get things passed even with strong majorities. Setting aside the debate over the Senate and the GOP filibuster issues, the fact is that President Obama has had trouble passing things out of the House, often making it with only 220-225 votes.
So if they lose 25 seats they are now down to 200 votes, not enough. Even if you assume many of those seats were from Democrats who already voted no on legislation you still don’t have much of a cushion to work with.
So the logical conclusion is that regardless of who controls the House and Senate for the next 2 years, it would be equally difficult for President Obama to pass his agenda.
This analysis doesn’t take into account the fact that it’s always tough to get anything done during the 2nd half of a Presidential term because of the approaching Presidential election.
Having concluded that you probably are not going to get much of your agenda passed, then you start considering the long term political ramifications.
With Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Reid/Schumer/etc in charge on Capitol Hill and President Obama in charge at the White House, there is pretty much nobody to blame but the Democrats. You can try playing the obstructionist card but that is going to play more to your base than to the independent voters you need to get on your side for 2012.
On the other hand, with Speaker Boehner in charge in the House and with an almost evenly split Senate, then it becomes a lot easier to convince those vital independent voters that the GOP is to blame for the lack of progress.
You can even play the Clinton triangulation game of putting the GOP on one side and the ‘insider DC Democrats’ on the other. You can revamp your 2008 outsider/change/etc image for 2012 and have another chance at passing your agenda in the 2nd term.
So while my theory may certainly have its flaws, it’s not nearly as ridiculous as it might sound.
And President Obama may be far more clever than we thought.