Playing in Traffic Is Not Safe Politics

Are Democrats beginning to rationalize that losing the Senate majority wouldn’t be as bad as some fear?

WASHINGTON, DC - JULY 16: Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) (C), speaks to the media while flanked by U.S. Sen. Tom Udall (D-CO) (L) and U.S. Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-OR), after attending the weekly Senate Democratic policy luncheon at the U.S. Capitol July 16, 2013 in Washington, DC. Democrats gathered a the luncheon to discuss their agenda.
National Journal
Charlie Cook
July 7, 2014, 6:33 p.m.

While I have nev­er seen any­one lit­er­ally thrown un­der a bus, I would ima­gine it is quite a grisly sight. In polit­ics, we oc­ca­sion­ally see someone throw an in­di­vidu­al or a group on their own team un­der one. That is not a pretty sight either.

Early this year, we saw Sen­ate Demo­crats throw their House brethren un­der the pro­ver­bi­al bus with a Jan. 29 story in Politico head­lined, “Demo­crats: Cede the House to Save the Sen­ate.” It noted that Demo­crats’ hold on their ma­jor­ity in the up­per cham­ber was tenu­ous, while over on the House side, the Demo­crat­ic Con­gres­sion­al Cam­paign Com­mit­tee was rais­ing money hand over fist des­pite hav­ing little chance of re­claim­ing the ma­jor­ity House Demo­crats lost in 2010. It didn’t take a rock­et sci­ent­ist to fig­ure out that Sen­ate Demo­crats were try­ing to re­dir­ect fun­drais­ing from what they saw as a lost cause on one side of the Cap­it­ol to what they saw as a much more im­port­ant one on their side.

On one level, it was pretty ob­vi­ous that the odds were ex­ceed­ingly long for House Demo­crats and more like 50-50 — give or take 10 points — on the Sen­ate side. But these kinds of stor­ies are usu­ally played out in the weeks or fi­nal months be­fore an elec­tion, not in the first month of the elec­tion year. To me, it was both un­der­stand­able and un­seemly, and cer­tainly not very subtle. I could only won­der just how angry House Minor­ity Lead­er Nancy Pelosi was with the story, par­tic­u­larly giv­en that I had heard her de­liv­er a very spir­ited de­fense of Demo­crats’ House chances just a few weeks earli­er. But as the old say­ing goes, “Polit­ics ain’t bean­bag.”

We saw it again this past week with The Wash­ing­ton Post’s in­im­it­able Dana Mil­bank writ­ing a column Ju­ly 4 sug­gest­ing that per­haps the Obama pres­id­ency might be­ne­fit from Demo­crats los­ing their Sen­ate ma­jor­ity. The crunch­ing sound you heard was the bones of Sen­ate Demo­crats un­der a bus, a pretty fair in­dic­a­tion that someone in or close to the White House was be­gin­ning to ra­tion­al­ize why such an out­come might not be as bad a thing as some might think — all lo­gic to the con­trary.

Mil­bank ar­gues, “The pre­vail­ing view is that a Re­pub­lic­an Sen­ate would only com­pound [Pres­id­ent] Obama’s woes by bot­tling up con­firm­a­tions, doub­ling the num­ber of in­vest­ig­a­tions, and chip­ping away at Obama­care and oth­er le­gis­lat­ive achieve­ments.”

Now here comes the bus. Mil­bank con­tin­ues, “Yet there’s a chance that hav­ing an all-Re­pub­lic­an Con­gress would help Obama — and even some White House of­fi­cials have wondered privately wheth­er a uni­fied Re­pub­lic­an Con­gress would be bet­ter than the cur­rent en­vir­on­ment. Re­pub­lic­ans, without Harry Re­id to blame, would own Con­gress — a body that in­spires a high level of con­fid­ence in just 7 per­cent of Amer­ic­ans, ac­cord­ing to a Gal­lup sur­vey last month find­ing Con­gress at a new low and at the bot­tom of all in­sti­tu­tions tested.” Crunch.

All of this re­minds me of a lunch con­ver­sa­tion with a seni­or White House ad­viser just a few weeks be­fore the Demo­crats’ dis­astrous 2010 midterms, when they lost their House ma­jor­ity and saw their Sen­ate edge cut by more than half, los­ing six seats. The ad­viser ap­peared genu­inely dis­in­ter­ested in the midterm elec­tion, seem­ing to only want to talk about which Re­pub­lic­ans might ac­tu­ally jump in­to the 2012 con­test.

To be sure, Obama is run­ning around the coun­try do­ing fun­draisers for the Demo­crat­ic Sen­at­ori­al Cam­paign Com­mit­tee, as he does for oth­er party en­tit­ies. But a lot of the good­will built up by do­ing sev­en-di­git fun­drais­ing events is un­done by those in and close to the White House, whose loy­alty seems to be only to The Man and not the best in­terests of the party. Sure, if Re­pub­lic­ans “own” Con­gress, then the Obama White House will have a bet­ter angle of at­tack, but — and you can call me old-fash­ioned — it is nev­er a good thing to lose a Sen­ate or House ma­jor­ity.

That is not to say that Re­pub­lic­ans shouldn’t worry about the pos­sib­il­ity that if they hold the House (highly likely) and win a ma­jor­ity in the Sen­ate, that some of the more exot­ic GOP mem­bers would be em­boldened to do things that could be dis­astrous for their party. That should be a le­git­im­ate con­cern.

But for Obama, while yes, he would be re­cor­ded as the first Afric­an-Amer­ic­an pres­id­ent, he would also be re­membered for hav­ing lost a House ma­jor­ity in his first-term midterm elec­tion and the Sen­ate in his second term — a fairly in­aus­pi­cious re­cord, with the Af­ford­able Care Act cred­ited as hav­ing as­sisted in the play.

What We're Following See More »
LOTS OF STRINGERS
Inside the AP’s Election Operation
4 hours ago
WHY WE CARE
THE QUESTION
What’s the Average Household Income of a Trump Voter?
4 hours ago
THE ANSWER

Seventy-two thousand dollars, according to FiveThirtyEight. That's higher than the national average, as well as the average Clinton or Sanders voter, but lower than the average Kasich voter.

Source:
VERY FEW DEMS NOW REPRESENT MINING COMMUNITIES
How Coal Country Went from Blue to Red
6 hours ago
WHY WE CARE
STAFF PICKS
History Already Being Less Kind to Hastert’s Leadership
9 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

In light of his recent confessions, the speakership of Dennis Hastert is being judged far more harshly. The New York Times' Carl Hulse notes that in hindsight, Hastert now "fares poorly" on a number of fronts, from his handling of the Mark Foley page scandal to "an explosion" of earmarks to the weakening of committee chairmen. "Even his namesake Hastert rule—the informal standard that no legislation should be brought to a vote without the support of a majority of the majority — has come to be seen as a structural barrier to compromise."

Source:
‘STARTING FROM ZERO’
Trump Ill Prepared for General Election
9 hours ago
THE DETAILS

Even if "[t]he Republican presidential nomination may be in his sights ... Trump has so far ignored vital preparations needed for a quick and effective transition to the general election. The New York businessman has collected little information about tens of millions of voters he needs to turn out in the fall. He's sent few people to battleground states compared with likely Democratic rival Hillary Clinton, accumulated little if any research on her, and taken no steps to build a network capable of raising the roughly $1 billion needed to run a modern-day general election campaign."

Source:
×