-The Democratic takeover of the House and (probably) the Senate will predictably lead to all sorts of silly analysis. In particular, pundits are going to complain about "gridlock" and whine that Democrats not behaving like a "governing party".
The reality, though, is that gridlock is inevitable. Anything Democrats want to pass can be blocked by a Republican filibuster in the Senate or a Bush veto. Anything Republicans want to pass can be stymied on party-line House votes under unfavorable rules. And no one has any incentive to compromise with a historic presidential election only two years away.
In addition, center-left pundits and media analysts will start holding Democrats to absurdly high standards that they never applied to Republicans. Call it the soft bigotry of low GOP expectations. For instance, Michael Kinsley wrote a column before the election complaining that Democrats' campaign manifesto failed to propose tax increases or a magic plan that would get us out of Iraq. As Kevin Drum put it, "Apparently the only thing sufficiently bracing for Kinsley's brand of tough love would be a joint suicide note from the Democratic Party." Commentators will jump on this bandwagon, calling on Democrats to be "responsible" and pass politically damaging bills like tax increases even though they will have no chance of passage.
-The 9/11 hangover is over. For years, the political aftermath of the terrorist attacks has distorted our politics, making President Bush look invincible and Karl Rove seem like a genius. Neither is true. Now that the effects of that traumatic event have washed away, President Bush is back to where he was before 9/11 -- looking like the Republican Jimmy Carter. And Rove, while smart, is mostly just a hack who was in the right place at the right time. It's going to be fascinating to see how people adjust. The White House continues to be baffled that its post-9/11 playbook doesn't work. And the media, which has been rushing to accommodate itself to Republicans, will whipsaw back as Democrats assert their new power.
-George Allen's apparent loss (pending a recount) is still hard to believe. I feel some pride that I was pointing out Allen's ugly history on the issue of race before it was cool. But my goal was to help stop him from becoming president, not to beat him in this cycle. May we never have to write about nooses, Confederate flags and "macaca" ever again.
-Was it worth $29.5 million for Hillary Clinton to rack up a 67-31 victory? Is anyone impressed? On the other hand, the donor list and infrastructure she has built up may be far more valuable.
-Look for Hillary to punch up her rhetoric on Iraq to match the national mood on the war. But as Noam Scheiber writes, John McCain is the worst positioned candidate of all:
One of the longstanding assumptions about tonight is that John McCain benefits from heavy Republican lossses. The thinking is that it forces a lot of skeptical conservatives to give the guy a second look, since he's demonstrated an ability to win over independents, and since he's generally strong where a lot of Republicans are weak (like the corruption issue). But I'm not so sure about that. In addition to corruption, frustration with Iraq is clearly driving tonight's results. And, as Tim Russert just suggested on MSNBC, it's hard to see how you can be a major-party nominee in 2008 without a plan for withdrawing from Iraq. Well, just about the only person in America other than George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, and Don Rumsfeld who thinks we need to double-down in Iraq is John McCain.
Now, as my colleague John Judis has suggested, it's possible that McCain's position will evolve over the next two years. But, for the moment, he's looking like the first-tier GOP candidate most out of touch with the voting public.
Will the media let Mr. Straight Talk change his position on the most important issue in politics today? Don't be surprised...
-The predictable backlash toward negative campaigning that happens after every election is underway. Writing in the Wall Street Journal, John Ellis denounces the two parties and predicts that the barrage of negativity will lead to the emergence of a third party. It's implausible for reasons I've gone over a number of times. But that won't stop the utopians at Unity '08 from trying to sell the same fantasy for the next two years.
Was it worth $29.5 million for Hillary Clinton to rack up a 67-31 victory?
You bet it was for Hall(19), Gillibrand(20), and Arcuri(24) who all rode Clinton and Spitzer's coattails to victory.
Posted by: Seth | November 08, 2006 at 09:11 AM