GOP control of Congress doesn't help Obama

Washington Post blogger Chris Cillizza is floating another silly up-is-down argument about how President Obama would benefit from Republican control of Congress:

How would the health care fight have played out differently if Republicans were in control of the House?

It's impossible -- though fascinating -- to game out what might have happened but what's clear is that there would be a significant higher bar for Republicans to not only provide alternative proposals but also to work with the President to try to find common ground.

And, if they didn't, Obama could easily use the GOP as a foil -- a symbol of everything that's wrong with government and why it's not working for the American people.

One needs only look back to the last time a Democrat occupied the White House to see the potential political efficacy of such a strategy.

Bill Clinton came into office in 1992 with Democratic majorities in the House and Senate but his presidency foundered in the first two years due to a number of factors not the least of which was his inability to pass his own health care bill.

The Republican takeover of Congress in the 1994 election gave Clinton an enemy in the form of House Speaker Newt Gingrich (Ga.). Clinton played off of Gingrich masterfully -- never more apparent than in the government shutdown of late 1995 -- and found ways to work with the Republican-led House on initiatives (welfare reform being the most obvious) that cast him as a bipartisan bridge-builder.

The result? A second term for Clinton in a race that was remarkably easy given where his political fate stood two years prior to the 1996 election. (Cynical Congressional Democrats will note that while Clinton won re-election in 1996, it took the party another ten years to reclaim the House and Senate majorities they lost in 1994.)

Not everyone ascribes to the Clinton model of benefiting from divided government when it comes to Obama in 2012, however.

"Power is better," said one senior Democratic party strategist. "His opponent is who matters, and if [Republicans] are still in the minority it will continue the empowerment of their crazies and will make him look better and better and will cause awful headaches for their nominee."

Ultimately, Obama as well as Vice President Joe Biden, who has traveled the country in support of House candidates, will do everything they can to preserve a Democratic majority in the chamber this fall.

But, if, as some political handicappers are beginning to predict, the House flips in the fall, there's a reasonable case to be made that it could accrue to Obama's political benefit in 2012.

As I noted a few weeks ago, the suggestion that Clinton's easy victory in 1996 was "the result" of his triangulation strategy is nonsense. The economy decided Clinton's fate, and it will decide Obama's too. Republican control of the House will hinder Obama's ability to achieve his policy objectives and provide him with relatively little political benefit.

Comments

[JP]

Looking at the graph "Bread and Peace Voting in US Presidential Elections 1952-2008 Bill Clintons's 1996 dot lies about four percentage points above the linear model. Wouldn't this imply that Bill Clinton did better in 1996 than the bread and peace model would otherwise have predicted?

[bnyhan]

He did overperform relative to the model's prediction -- see my previous post on how his move to the center may have increased his margin. The point, however, is that Bread and Peace and other models predicted a Clinton victory based on the fundamentals. While there are some errors in these forecasts, the economy is clearly the driving force in presidential elections, not divided government or ideological positioning.

[MartyB]

So which is it Brendan? Is it "nonsense" or did it "increase his margin"?

You sometimes really take a black and white approach to some questions in your original posts that you admit later are really more nebulous....

[bnyhan]

I stand by what I wrote. Suggesting that "[t]he result" of the triangulation strategy was Clinton's victory in 1996 without discussing the economy is indeed nonsense. Credible estimates of the benefits of moving toward the center in presidential elections are substantially smaller than Clinton's final margin.

[MartyB]

OK, I get your emphasis Brendan - fair enough.

[JP]

Clinton over-performed relative to the model, but I don't see any evidence to suggest that his move to the center was the cause. I can just as reasonably argue that his excellent saxophone abilities brought out the musician vote.

Until someone has evidence to suggest otherwise all I feel safe saying is Clinton over-performed. My original comment should have ended as a comment not a question.

[Don H.]

It would be funny if the Republicans took control of both houses and then Obama vetoed everything to put forth. He would be the "Just Say No" President.

Let's hope for 67 in the Senate ;)