Larry Sabato’s analysis of the midterm elections is pretty much rock-solid from an historical perspective, but I think history is not particularly useful in this case. At least, I don’t think history that goes back before the Gingrich Revolution has a whole lot to teach us about what to expect in this year’s midterm elections. For starters, the last twenty years have given us a couple of highly anomalous midterm results. In 1998 and 2002, the president’s party vastly over-performed, mainly as a result of the Lewinsky scandal and the national reaction to the 9/11 attacks.
We’ve also seen major rebukes of the president’s party (in 1994, 2006, and 2010) that are more in line with historical norms.
Still, that’s a 60-40 split, which is much less convincing as a predictor than if we go back all the way to 1934, as Sabato does.
A much better way to do analysis is to just look at the current conditions and keep everything within its context. The Republicans underperformed in 1998 because there was a backlash over their decision to impeach Bill Clinton, and they over-performed in 2002 because the public trusted the Republicans more to seek revenge for 9/11. The state of the economy, the popularity of the president, and other factors that you can trace through history were not good predictors in those two midterms.
As Sabato points out, the 1986 results had little to do with the president’s popularity or the state of the economy, but were mainly a result of the Republicans having a lot of vulnerable members who had been swept into office in the 1980 landslide.
So, it’s easy to see why the Democrats are entering the election season with big disadvantages, but predicting big Republican wins because of history is not very convincing analysis. What I can say pretty confidently is that the Democrats are structurally blocked from making big gains. In the best conceivable circumstances, the Dems might be able to break even in the Senate and take back the House, but they would probably only control the House with the slimmest of majorities (one or two or three seats). That’s frustrating because we have to compete without the prospect of much of a reward. But it’s a different ball of wax than the doomsday scenario that Sabato predicts.
There really isn’t any reason to think that the people will prefer the Republicans in 2014. Just look at them. This isn’t 1994.
I hope you’re right, but your predictions tend toward the rosy. I guess I’ll split the difference …
TPM looked at the governorships.
It’s concievable the Dems might lose one overall governorship this year, if you can believe it.
I wish Nate Silver’s blog was still active.
Nate Silver’s model can’t do anything until more frequent polling comes in. And because of the dearth of CD-level polling, his model is useless on the House. The Presidential election is his best work because there is deeper historical data and more frequent polling by state.
I recall his Senate predictions were pretty accurate. Of course, those are based on state wide polls.
To paraphrase what I’ve said elsewhere, the electorate is angry and disappointed with both parties. It comes down to who do they hate most. And if, as in my case in most races, they hate both candidates intensely, they may not vote at all. If working class people fail to vote, the Republicans will win.
I don’t buy your analysis of working class voters. There are a lot of white union members and other working class voters who have been voting Republican for bigoted reasons and for religious reasons. Watch abortion be a huge PR push this year. And same sex marriage in some red states. And don’t be surprised with some outright race-baiting of a character that we haven’t seen in a century; the Duck Dynasty flap has encouraged some folks. All of those are appeals to split off the white working class.
I’m a white union member and I talk with others. Political views are very polarized. There are few in an actual middle or moderate position. The Republicans are mostly, as you say, racist and they feel that their party has sold out Tea Party and Libertarians principles to Wall Street. They were shocked that the government did not shut down and default on the debt. At least three (two of which are Southern by birth) are gold hoarders who expect hyper-inflation if the budget is not balanced and the Fed disbanded. The Democrats also feel that their party has sold out to Wall street and doesn’t care at all for white working men, unions, and the Postal Service. I have not heard a one voice support for Durbin. When he issued his statement that he didn’t care if our facility was closed, he sealed his fate with them. They won’t vote for Durbin and they won’t vote for Oberweis, so I conclude that they are not going to vote. As for me, I am going to vote Green for Senate and if Oberweis is the result, so be it.
I don’t like that there will likely be less polling in many, many districts being an off year and all. It increases the margin of high jinks that becomes playable in the vote counting arena.
It’s alive, and considering how early it is, most likely will be active.
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/
Conveniently overlooks the 50 State strategy in the 2006 and 2008 elections. True it was successful in part because GWB and certain GOP incumbents had become intolerable enough to open a window of opportunity for Democrats. But nothing against something loses close to 100% of the time.
Another repeated problem of Democrats own creation other than not bothering to mount effective challenges to GOP incumbents considered invulnerable. When they win in what are perceived as wave elections (1992, 2006, and 2008) far too many of the winners weren’t strong candidates and are vulnerable in the next election or two.
Then there are the many state DEM parties that might as well be brain dead for all the good they do.
There is a lot of anger among Republicans and the feeling that no matter who they vote for, nothing really changes. Not much different from the anger among progressive Democrats.
I predict that the actions of the parties in Congress will set the stage for the actual experience with Obamacare to tip the Congressional and Senate elections. But Obamacare is going to be mixed and only slightly positive instead of the slam-dunk that a lot of complacent Democrats expect.
IMO (gets on soapbox) this is the moment for a Democratic agenda of promises that if given the power they can deliver on in the next two years. It’s an argument that you’ve seen divided government, and you’ve seen government overreach, and that Democrats offer an agenda that will not overreach. Which is:
Raise minimum wage to $15 an hour
Increase Social Security payments by 20%
Eliminate co-pays and deductibles in health care
Impose a financial transaction tax of $1 per million
Eliminate the payroll tax cap.
End the waste of high-stakes testing in education.
At the state level, if Democrats can’t take back Wisconsin, Michigan, and North Carolina, whatever happens in DC won’t matter.
There is enough anger out there to create a wave election for the party that can capture it. Unfortunately Democrats have burned their Hope message. What Democrats argue cannot be vague; it has to be concrete, simple and accountable. And it has to penetrate a billion-dollar media saturation campaign that has already begun.
Analysis of historical trends are easy excuses for the status quo. And Sabato is nothing if not for the status quo.
“Democrats have burned their Hope message.”
That hadn’t occurred to me. It’s not good.
I mostly agree but I think there is a structural component to the election. The congressional seats have been gerrymandered to make it very difficult for a democrat to win.
I also believe that the Democrats have to be seen this year as trying to get things done. The things in your list are a great start. Some will say “but it would all fail in the House”. That is true but it would put the dems on the board as looking to improve the lot of the people.
BTW it is very important, IMO, that the dems push very hard for jobs, unemployment insurance and food stamps. More speeches are not going to help unless you can get the legislation on the agenda, at least in the Senate. Call me nuts, but I think the dems can “negotiate” against those things the GOP may want. I think we missed a chance with the grand bargain and the NDAA.
I think the ACA could be a net negative. I hope not, but in my view there are plenty of problems there that I won’t go into here. It may be time to talk about amendments to the law. (cost, subsidies, insurance regulations, out of pocket limits. )
And yes, there is a good deal of anger out there about many issues like wars, employment, inequality, and you name it. That could easily work in the democrats favor if played right.
The things in a list are not a great start. They are the entire agenda for 2014-2016. And they have side-effects that affect the economy in more profound ways that at first appearance.
If they are going to campaign on this short-list agenda, they need to put those up to show that the Republicans are not with what the people want to see. I would start with the minimum wage and up the ante from the current idea of $10.50 per hour to $15.00 per hour. Consider the number of people who have minimum wage jobs. That is a huge cross-party constituency.
The biggest problem with ACA, Medicare, and Medicaid are the deductibles and co-pays. And the economic arguments in favor of them have proved as hollow as supply-side economics. And it restores the ACA to being an insurance program instead of some kind of health savings plan.
If the Democrats can’t get unemployment insurance and Food Stamps out of this Congress, there are few of those recipients who will be voting for them. And they will stand no chance at all of being credible on anything else. Where are the Democratic challengers taking it to the GOP on these issues? Are there any?
I think there needs to be a full employment program and likely another stimulus or other program to accomplish that. As long as we are putting up wish lists, I also would like an end to wars and more control over the NSA. Give me a little time, I will find more.
Your plan is ambitious. It could be a bridge too far. For example, does the plan have a way to pay for the single payer health care you want? Can you get the support for increased taxes ? Can you get sufficient support to replace the ACA and current Medicare Medicaid programs. That could be another battle like we saw in 2010 and drown out everything else.
We have a target rich potential agenda.
There are four terms to the calculation of GDP: consumer spending, business investment, government spending, and balance of trade (exports minus imports). It doesn’t just take government spending to increase GDP when there is a demand shortfall.
Each dollar put into a local economy, says an old Chamber of Commerce rule of thumb, increases the economic activity six-fold. Double the wages of all people on minimum wage in a demand-deficit (i.e. non-inflationary) economy. What does that do if not create jobs?
We know that deductibles and co-pays do not squeeze wasteful costs out of health care. We have thirty years of experience, first with Medicare and then with private insurers that show that. In fact, there is a lot of evidence that they increase costs by delaying appropriate and more inexpensive care.
We know that US per-person health care costs are twice the best case (Canada’s single-payer system). We know that this cost is from over-reliance on unfunded emergency room care for non-emergency conditions, delayed treatment of chronic conditions, increased costs of administrative and collections staff, and losses to unpaid bills. There is up to $1 trillion of savings that could be squeezed out of the US health care system and still cover everybody and get better outcomes. Not much need for much additional funding.
Eliminating deductibles and co-pays does not create a single-payer system. There are still premiums and subsidies. What it does is eliminate the need for providers to balance bill patients for out-of-pocket expenses and makes providers dependent on prompt payment by insurers and government. That should provide fewer uncollectable bills to providers. And it eliminates a huge hassle for patients. If the US health care system can handle that change, it might delay the political impetus to single-payer. But it would be a very interesting debate to have about ACA instead of the one that Republicans are trying to have.
I can think of lots more things that need to be done. A push for economy in the national security institutions can deal somewhat with NSA. I think the argument for major changes in the legal basis for US national security is overdue and should strip away most of the legal basis laid down in the Truman administration. That will be a huge debate that requires a more engaged public.
I also think that there is an unrecognized long-term difference between military spending, which effectively destroys global economic infrastructure, and those particular kinds of infrastructure spending that decrease the cost of social and economic activity. That’s a long-term discussion that we need to start having about the role of government. And about what should be included as infrastructure. And that is outside of talking about infrastructure as a jobs program.
There will not be effective full employment until there is a global regime of labor standards that match global regimes for goods and capital movements. Corporations are not interested in full employment. The current jobs recession is hunky-dory with them in perpetuity. And the Trans-Pacific Partnership and Trans-Atlantic Free Trade Agreements intend to lock that in by allowing corporations to seek international tribunal actions to overturn national laws in restraint of trade.
There are an overabundance of real issues.
Paying for Social Security increases in the short term by eliminating the payroll tax cap. Increased employment and longer-term full employment policies will offset that bump up. Suppressed wages and salaries and delayed and undercalculated cost-of-living increases have caused Social Security benefits to be effectively less now that the preceding generation in practical (but not statistical terms). The difference is in assumptions of home ownership of seniors. More seniors of this generation are either renting, still paying off mortgages, or paying off the student loans of their children.
The Republican plan is to take some phony issue and make it the battle royal to drown out everything else. In 2010, that phony issue included “death panels” and “taking away Medicare”. That is not going to go away in 2014. No reason to shrink from advocating some real issues.
The agenda is target rich. Finding the ones that resonate with the public and focusing on just those to provide a mandate is what has to happen. Obama studiedly entered office without a clear mandate. That allowed undercutting by the Democratic establishment, by Joe Lieberman, and unanswered obstruction by the GOP–which was thought dead in 2008.
I would love to get into many of those things in more detail, but just a few.
There are a number of countries that use an insurance model for health care. And they have better outcomes and lower costs than we do. There was a post on Daily Kos a few days ago, I believe. Suffice to say here it needs to be highly regulated. So one route other than single payer is to improve upon that. And, of course, premiums, subsidies, maximums and deductibles are part of that. As to which one YMMV. I thought you were suggesting a single payer plan. If not ok.
I don’t buy the rule of thumb multiplier you quote. That aside though an increase in the wage bill to $15 per hour (which I support) could easily trigger a one time increase in the price level as will the increase in SS. And it will increase AD by some multiplier effect though not so much as you many think. I also support those goals too.
The economics of government spending is simply a deficit adds dollar for dollar to the rest of the economy. So a government jobs program that results in a deficit improves the economy by that route as well as consumer demand. I fully support a jobs program. It is time we fixed this through what some call a government employer of last resort.
Target rich. You bet. So many we will have to prioritize.
My understanding is that Germany uses the insurance model but without the co-pays and deductibles and with a standard policy and regulated prices with regulated drug prices as well.
The biggest problem with the ACA is that it doesn’t change the fact that medical care in the US is very expensive.
Transferring the Medicare deductibles and co-pays from the beneficiaries (which I agree makes the program not work for a large portion of that population that doesn’t qualify for the Medicaid or other retirement program subsidy or have other financial means) to the public purse still doesn’t address the cost of healthcare.
If any of the well functioning UHC models used in other countries expended anywhere near what Medicare costs, their programs would be bankrupt. The 2011 US Treasury Report informs us that the cost on a per capita basis, the 48.7 million retired and disabled beneficiaries was $11,275 (total expenditures $549.1 billion). That doesn’t include the deductibles, co-pays, and Part C additional premiums covered by beneficiaries and others. And keep in mind that the percentage of seniors in the US is lower than in those other countries; significantly lower than in Japan and some of the European countries.
Revenues are generated from three major sources: Medicare payroll tax, beneficiary premiums, federal general tax revenues. (Interest on the trust funds also comes from general tax revenues.) 2011: payroll tax – $192 billion; beneficiary premiums $68.5 billion; general revenues $223.3 billion.
Not opposed to imposing any additional (or even substantial) progressive taxes on individuals and corporations. However, supporting more taxes to increase the public burden of extraordinary medical costs for seniors isn’t a wise idea.
Who said transfer them to the public purse?
Most of them are nickel and diming patients through balance billing all-too-frequent disputes of cost between providers and insurers (including Medicare and Medicaid).
Just prohibit them and see what the insurers do to the premiums in the next annual enrollment day and what happens to Medicare and Medicaid health care costs. My prediction is that aggregate Medicaid and Medicare costs will go down because conditions will get caught before they become catastrophic.
If the current new ACA system cannot handle that change, then the obvious next step is single-payer. Because there is $1 trillion of waste somewhere in the system and it jolly well isn’t patient overuse of health care.
So, you’re suggesting that providers accept current Medicare reimbursement rates and no more (zero from the patient) – more or less how Medicaid currently functions although some limited patient co-pays are permitted? Heh, the howls from hospitals and physicians would kill the proposal in a second.
And what about Plan C? Those beneficiaries and providers have already found away to get and keep theirs should anyone make a proposal like yours.
There are no quick and easy fixes to this system that doesn’t address the primary drivers – costs and profits.
The number one driver is the lack of drug cost control.
Don’t fall for the single culprit explanation for high health care costs. It’s embedded everywhere one looks at the costs. Too few cost effective primary care providers and too many high cost specialists (and the more of those in a region, the more they charge in deviance of the “free market” god). Pricey medical devices and Medicare paid for scooters. All those for profit diagnostic, cancer, and dialysis centers. The Taj Mahal of hospitals and clinics. Too many drug prescriptions and too many of those prescriptions are too expensive (a payoff of the drug companies massive marketing/sales budgets and too little face time between doctor and patient). And virtually unregulated, for profit, health insurance companies. Although they may be controlling some of those runaway medical usage and costs, they also require providers to hire more billing and collection clerks to run through their gauntlets; so, it’s probably a wash. A problem is that those armies of clerks can’t be reassigned to provide health care.
I think the drug costs are the leader. They have been exploding and over the last five years I’ve seen the others moderating.
Your last sentence is spot on. Those are the truly worthless expenses, along with executive pay.
Medicare Part D is one reason why drug costs appear to be exploding. It’s the same thing that happens every time health insurance covered benefits are expanded. Doesn’t matter if it’s Medicare, Medicaid, or private insurance. As this one was implemented under the crackerjack Bush/Cheney bureaucrats, it’s particularly atrocious — and some, not nearly enough, CMS corrective action is being taken.
Healthcare in the US is a system that has developed over seventy years — it could have developed into a good enough system with nobody left out, albeit more costly than that in other countries, but it didn’t because there was no advocate for a good enough system — only different factions all vying for more than their share.
“burned their hope message”
How, by expanding access to health care? Or was it the reversing the freefall of the economy that did it? Did he annoy the anti-war crowd by not going to war with Iran? I could go on.
We have a large set of the population that just has Obama derangement syndrome, and the Koch brothers have a lot of money. I would like to think there is some magic agenda the Dems could put up and campaign on that would somehow get people to wake up, but frankly, you could literally dangle five-hundred dollar bills in front of many americans these days and they’d vote for the guy who is offering them rotten sausage on a stick instead. and if you ask them why they’ll tell you how much they love Duck Dynasty.
Add gerrymandering and voter repression, and it’s going to be a very hard year for dems. But even so, I’m quite optimistic that obamacare will be looking very good by november, and that dems will see the benefits at about the right time. Plenty of Hope in not being screwed for health care, despite your aversion to a type of plan most private policy americans have dealt with for years. Even in a poll that came out today we’re seeing Obama’s unfavorables back below 50 as obamacare is smoothing out.
So you think a Democrat could currently run on hope? You think that, along with all those successes you mentioned, people are feeling more hopeful?
It makes sense to argue that it’s the Republicans who burned the Democrats’ hope message–but that doesn’t leave it any less charred. (And doesn’t say anything particularly favorable about we Dems, either.)
By allowing a jobless recovery that has extended five and a half years as a matter of policy. The Democratic caucus and the President’s advisors decided not to yank the economy out of the recession rapidly. They own now what they decided in 2009 when they had momentum and public support.
It’s inconceivable to me that the dems would not win the House in a landslide if they pushed these 3 proposals front and center in every campaign, with Obama working the bully pulpit.
Unfortunately it’s also inconceivable to me that the dems would do this because of a combination of abject stupidity, cowardice and the fact that they obviously don’t really want income equality in the first place.
Their corporate masters won’t tolerate it. This is not the 1936 or 1964 Democratic Party. It is the 1968 Republican Party masquerading as the Democratic Party.
Here’s what you need to know:
public approval rating of congress (including democrats) hovers around a pathetic ten percent.
Our economy STILL Sucks with mediocre monthly job growth reports.
Obama and nobody in congress has any sort of plan to grow our economy and create the kind of job growth we need.
WHY should voters flock to the polls this fall to vote for “democrats”??
Actually Obama does have a plan;
http://www.americanjobsact.com/
But the right wing in congress mostly because of Obama Derangement Syndrome cannot bring themselves to pass it, and help Americans looking for a job, and move the recovery from Wall Street to main street.
superpole never lets reality get in the way of his/her trolling
Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!!! Mommy?
the obvious problem with sophomoric, pointless partisans in bloggo world is you have NO proof our economy is doing significantly better, nor proof whatever “plan” Obama proposes can actually be passed by congress.
FAIL.
name calling is equally pointless and weak.
Yeah a bunch of middle-aged women and gray-haired men are going to spread asphalt in a massive road pork project. Meanwhile everything they buy is made in China except the clothes made in Bangladesh sweat shops. Some plan.
Another weak, very weak Load of crap.
your ignorance of the facts knows no limit.
you’re actually stating here that only middle aged people are out of work??
Hah Hhah hhhah hah Hhahhh!!! that’s a good one! got any other jokes from Red State?
and you’re stating a massive infrastructure would not employ tens of thousands of architects, engineers, construction workers and truck drivers of all ages??
WEAK
I stating it’s mostly middle aged men and women and kids with no work experience. Kids with experience are being hired. People over 40 are not being hired. I was in the fucking lines for two years. I SAW my resume thrown into the garbage as I turned away after submitting it.
But I forget, being old and white means the Democratic party doesn’t want you.
OK; does Obama’s so called plan include a fully funded 25 year infrastructure program??
No? then it’s not much of a plan. fantasy landers here and elsewhere in “progressive” bloggo world are not compelling. Proof being the ten percent public approval rating of congress.
superpole never lets reality get in the way of his/her trolling
That much is very blatant, now.
Hyperbole followed by partisan cracks, but nothing to actually contribute to the ongoing discussion.