Lessons From the Past

---

---

Our political system is an amazing thing.

It really is. Oh, I know we all complain about things that government does or doesn't do, and we get mad at our elected officials from time to time — but nearly without exception our system has permitted us to make peaceful periodic changes in our elected leadership. We take that for granted, but we wouldn't if we lived in many other places in the world.

But our system also has its idiosyncracies.

The pendulum is always swinging, and the out–of–power party always has plenty of reasons to be energized by midterm elections, starting with the clear historical trend that favors the folks who are outside looking in. This time it is the Democrats' turn as the out–of–power party, and everything seems to point to a big year for them. The president's approval numbers remain low, and Democrats continue to hold a lead in the generic congressional ballot.

Along with that, nearly three dozen Republicans in the House have announced their intention to retire, and more seem likely. The terrain certainly looks favorable for Democrats in 2018.

But history has some cautionary tales.

Let's start with the most recent history that Democrats ignore at their peril.

In 2016 polls showed Hillary Clinton with the lead over Donald Trump — and, indeed, Clinton did win the popular vote by a considerable margin.

But the United States has never elected its presidents by popular vote. It has always elected its presidents by electoral vote, and Clinton's popular votes were too heavily concentrated in the coastal states to influence the Electoral College. (In fact, if you took California's vote entirely out of the mix, Trump would have won the popular vote as well as the electoral vote; Clinton's margin in California was about 3.1 million whereas her margin nationally was 2.86 million.)

The same thing appears to be likely in this year's congressional races. Democrats are concentrated in urban districts, and the Democrats' nominees in those districts are likely to pile up impressive margins. Nancy Pelosi, for example, routinely rolls up incredible margins in her Bay Area district. It's even likely in some places here in Texas, where Clinton carried the metropolitan counties of Dallas, Travis, Bexar and Harris by wide margins.

But all you need to win an election is a single vote. You'd like to do better than that, of course, but some Democrats are likely to roll up huge margins in some districts — when many of those votes would be more beneficial elsewhere.

In Texas, outside of the metro counties and the ones that border Mexico, Republicans still dominated in 2016 — and likely will continue to do so. Some Democrats are salivating at the thought of the open seats that have been held by Republicans, like the South Texas district that has been represented by Republican Lamar Smith for more than 30 years. Smith is retiring, and there have been rumblings of how Democrats think they have an opportunity there, but one of the Democrats seeking the seat once served on Pelosi's staff. That might help win the Democratic primary, but it isn't likely to be a general–election winner in a district that voted for Trump by 10 percentage points.

That brings me to another point. The Democrats, like the Republicans in the first midterm of the Obama years, are engaged in a battle from within. The battle is between the establishment and the extremists. At stake is the direction of the party.

As the battle plays out, the establishment will prevail in some places, and the loose cannons, who are typically the most energized in the midterms, will prevail in others.

Democrats are certain to try to nationalize the campaign, but midterms are not national campaigns. They are held in every state and every House district, but the issues and candidates vary. It is tempting to vote for the loose cannons because they typically oppose everything the in–power party does, but Democrats need to remember how some of those loose cannons worked out for Republicans in the past.

In 2012, Missouri Republican Todd Akin made his widely reported remarks about "legitimate rape" that helped politically endangered Sen. Claire McCaskill win a second term by 16 percentage points. McCaskill is back, still politically vulnerable and running for a third term in a state that voted for Trump by nearly 19 percentage points.

Similarly, Indiana Republican Richard Mourdock's remark that "even if life begins in that horrible situation of rape, that it is something that God intended to happen." Mourdock won the nomination by defeating six–term incumbent Richard Lugar in the primary.

Indiana has only voted for a Democratic presidential nominee once since 1964, but it voted for the Democrat in that Senate race, Joe Donnelly. He, too, is up for re–election — in a state that supported Trump by slightly more than 19 percentage points.

McCaskill and Donnelly were originally expected to lose in 2012, and their victories are big reasons why, when Democrats need to win only two seats from Republicans to have a majority in the Senate, they must defend more than two dozen Senate seats in November.

Democrats have a rare opportunity in 2018, but it is not a slam dunk.

The Politics of the Unusual

---

---

Tomorrow Americans in some places are going to the polls, but this being an odd–numbered year means that most elections will be held next year.

Which brings me to another point: There is conventional wisdom about everything, I suppose, but it only goes so far, and then you're in uncharted territory.

The upcoming midterm elections of 2018 are a perfect example.

On the one hand, there is the conventional wisdom that the president's party always struggles in midterm elections. This is not a recent phenomenon. This is something that has been happening throughout our history. It doesn't disproportionately affect either party. George W. Bush's Republicans suffered just as much in 2006 as Bill Clinton's Democrats in 1994 or Barack Obama's Democrats in 2010.

Sometimes it is a very modest thing, with the president's party losing little ground, if any, on Capitol Hill; other times it is quite spectacular.

There are exceptions, of course, but those elections are usually preceded by a one–of–a–kind event — such as when George W. Bush's Republicans gained ground in Congress in the election a year after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

There was no precedent for that in American history.

I guess the closest thing would be the election that was held the year after the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor, but that would not have been a good predictor for 2002. Franklin D. Roosevelt's Democrats struggled in the 1942 midterms. Quite a different voter response. But it was a different world. Americans hadn't been able to watch the attack live in their living rooms in 1941.

There were other differences, too. Most, if not all, of the casualties at Pearl Harbor were in military service. They had agreed to put their lives on the line when they signed up. Their losses were tragic, but, to be honest, they came with the territory. Most, if not all, of the casualties on Sept. 11 were civilians. The folks who were working in the Twin Towers that morning took certain risks when they took their positions, too — there are risks with every job, aren't there? — but those risks had never before included the realistic possibility of an airplane deliberately crashing into your workplace.

Back to 2018.

On the other hand, while conventional wisdom can provide some helpful clues to voter behavior, recent elections have revealed an independent streak that was never seen before in the electorate — well, it had been seen before but never in the numbers we saw last year. Maybe the voters don't like being taken for granted and decided en masse — a la Peter Finch in "Network" — not to take it anymore. Folks in both parties have been guilty of taking voting blocs for granted. So if the voters feel taken for granted, it seems to me that candidates in both parties should be particularly sensitive to their constituents' concerns right now.

There are other things that usually contribute to the incumbent party's prospects — the pocketbook issues that directly affect people's lives. Is the economy thriving or sputtering? Is unemployment high or low?

The approaching midterms should provide fascinating research and lecture fodder for political scientists. They know the conventional wisdom, and they have been watching the news. They know that the polls indicate how unpopular the president is. That makes it sound like 2018 should be a big year for the out–of–power party. All the precedents of the last two centuries point to it.

Except that there is no precedent for 2018, either. Not really.

And that, I guess, is one of the consequences of the 2016 election, an election that was widely believed to be Hillary Clinton's to lose. And then she did precisely that.

We have rarely, if ever, had presidential elections like that one — in which one candidate seemed all but certain to win and then did not — and in my studies of history, I have found only a couple of elections that came close. One was the 2000 election in which Vice President Al Gore won the popular vote but lost the vote that has always elected America's presidents — the electoral vote. The other was the 1948 election, in which Gov. Tom Dewey was widely expected to defeat President Harry Truman — and then failed to do so.

But there were precedents for those elections, even if one had to go back a ways to find them. The 2016 election was decidedly not politics as usual — which, by definition, has no precedent.

Consider this: Hillary Clinton spent most of the 2016 campaign arguing that Donald Trump was unfit for office — but he won, anyway. Clinton in particular and Democrats in general have been quick to blame this on misogyny and, implausibly, racism, but that misses the greater point. I know many people who voted for Trump (before that some of them even voted for Obama twice), and I have yet to hear any of them say anything that could be interpreted as misogynistic motives behind their votes.

Those voters consistently expressed their concerns about specific issues — the economy and jobs — and they responded to the candidate who addressed those issues. Nothing new about that. Pocketbook issues are at the very core of politics as usual.

The voters knew Trump hadn't been a saint. They knew he had said and done things they didn't like, but they chose him anyway — which is a clear indicator that modern voters are more than willing to consider unconventional candidates to solve heretofore conventional problems. We are in a period of the politics of the unusual, and the 2018 midterms will tell us just how far the pendulum has swung, just how much the voters are willing to overlook in pursuit of a larger goal.

Further complicating the situation is that the economy is humming along. Like him or not, Trump's administration has presided over some of the results the voters wanted. Democrats can argue that the pieces of the recovery puzzle were put in place by the previous administration's policies, but the voters don't tend to think of things in those terms. They remember who was president when unemployment dropped below 4% or GDP exceeded 3%.

In other words, all bets are off for next year — and for 2020 — and for elections as far as the eye can see.

My major in college was journalism. My minor was history. I studied a little political science in college, and I have studied it informally for years, but I have never heard a lecture or read an entry in a textbook that discussed how an unsuccessful candidate for public office who had been expected to win should behave.

Instinct tells me that such a person would foster considerable good will by being gracious and sincere — and mostly silent.

But rather than acknowledge her own failings as a candidate, Clinton and her subordinates have spent the last year casting blame on others, the lion's share of which has been directed at Donald Trump and his alleged collusion with Russians — which, it turns out, was based on manufactured material from a dossier that had been paid for by the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee.

That revelation led to the uncovering of what could well turn out to be a veritable rat's nest of, to say the least, unsavory activity. While the full extent of it may not be known by Election Day next year, the fact that this has been causing some Democratic angst is clear in the fact that Sen. Elizabeth Warren, regarded as one of the leading candidates for the 2020 nomination, criticized the Clinton campaign and the DNC literally within hours of online publication of Donna Brazile's explosive allegations in Politico.

It is important for political observers not to get carried away with the idea that open seats — in which the incumbents, for whatever reason, are not running — represent opportunities for the parties that do not hold them. It is true in some instances, not true in others.

Take, for example, the congressional district in which I live — Texas' Fifth District, which has been represented by Republican Jeb Hensarling since January 2003. Hensarling announced recently that he won't be running for another term next year.

I have already heard some Democrats speak of how this is an opportunity for them to grab a House seat from Texas, especially since Dallas County (where the Fifth District is located) was one of the few counties to support Hillary Clinton a year ago.

I read an article in the New York Times over the weekend that didn't go so far as to say that vacancies meant easy opposition pickups but it strongly implied that the midterms will "reshape" the House.

That may be true in districts where the incumbent barely won the last time, but Hensarling has a long record of winning by wide margins. So, too, do Republican presidential candidates in the Fifth District. I feel safe in predicting that Hensarling's successor will be a Republican. The question is whether the district will choose a constitutional conservative like Hensarling or more of an establishment candidate.

Still, as I say, we're living in the age of politics of the unusual.

Will Control of the House Flip in 2018?

---

---

I've heard a lot of talk recently — mostly from hopeful Democrats — that control of the House of Representatives will flip next year after eight years of Republican rule.

Given the current party division in the House, that would require the Democrats to make a net gain of two dozen seats.

Can it happen? Historically speaking, yes, of course. It has happened before. It is mathematically possible that it could happen again.

But will it happen again? Ah, that is a different question. To answer that question in May 2017 when the election won't be held for another 18 months requires a crystal ball — after all, who, at this point in the last election cycle (i.e., May 2015), predicted that Donald Trump would be the next president of the United States?

No one knows in which kind of world voters will be living when they go to the polls 18 months from now, and that will play an important role in the elections.

Now, it is true that, historically, a president's party loses ground in Congress in a president's first midterm elections, but all midterms are not created equal. Sometimes a president's party loses ground in one chamber but not both — Richard Nixon, as disliked as he was even by many who voted for him, lost ground in the House but not in the Senate in the midterm elections of 1970. In fact, Nixon's Republicans actually gained a couple of Senate seats but remained in the minority.

Four years later voter backlash over Watergate led to a loss of 48 House seats for the Republicans.

And, while sometimes presidents lose House seats in bunches, as Obama did in 2010, other times presidents lose only a handful of seats. In 1990 George H.W. Bush's Republicans lost only eight House seats. Four years earlier Ronald Reagan's Republicans lost only five House seats.

One–term presidents — Jimmy Carter and George H.W. Bush are recent examples — only have one midterm election. For presidents who have been elected to two terms, second midterm election results have been decidedly mixed. Barack Obama's party lost control of the Senate in his second midterm after losing control of the House in his first. George W. Bush's Republicans lost control of both chambers of Congress for the first time in more than a decade in his second midterm. But Bill Clinton's Democrats picked up seats in the House and saw no change in the Senate in the midterms of 1998.

Clinton's experience was rare for presidents and seems to have been fueled by voter backlash over the impeachment proceedings against Clinton. That is what seems to be necessary for a president's party to gain ground in the midterm elections — extraordinary circumstances that offset the natural enthusiasm that comes from being the party that is outside the White House looking in.

Prior to the Clinton years double–digit losses in the House — at least at the level that Democrats need next year — were uncommon in American politics. They did happen from time to time but not as regularly as they have since Clinton came to power.

Reagan's party lost 26 House seats in the midterms of 1982, but the party of his predecessor lost only 15 seats four years earlier. In between Reagan defeated Carter by 10 percentage points.

American democracy is a dynamic thing, always shifting in response to economic, social and political conditions — and the elected officials' responses to those conditions.

Such conditions are always changing. That is why it is a disaster waiting to happen if a candidate campaigns on the assumption that simply because a party has been winning for years in a state or district it will continue to do so. History is a pretty good indicator, but it is not foolproof, as Hillary Clinton should have learned on election night.

No modern president has faced an economy as horrendous as the one Franklin D. Roosevelt inherited in 1933, but the conviction that he was trying to right the ship enabled his party to make gains in both chambers in the midterms of 1934.

It runs deep in the American DNA to reject the notion of single–party rule in which one party controls all the levers of the federal government. Such a situation existed in the first two years of Obama's presidency — Democrats even held a seldom–seen veto–proof (and also filibuster–proof) majority in the Senate.

But the passage of Obamacare led to the voter backlash that resulted in Republicans seizing the majority in the House.

As much as Americans tend to reject the concept of single–party rule, though, it is important to remember that House races usually favor the incumbent. Congressional districts are concentrated, as small constituencies are wont to be, and tend to be the perfect examples of Tip O'Neill's pearl of wisdom that "all politics is local." Most House incumbents, regardless of party, keep their fingers on the pulses of their districts — if they don't they are almost sure to lose in the next election.

A few states have populations that are small enough that they are entitled to only one member of the House; in those instances, the House members are, essentially, statewide representatives like the state's two U.S. senators. But most states have more than one House member, thus concentrating the constituents' interests. A largely rural district can co–exist next to a largely metropolitan one — and, thus, different issues will matter to the constituents in each.

Even within districts, there can be pockets where the prevailing interests are different than in the rest of the district.

Currently Charlie Cook, perhaps the foremost observer of House politics, says Republicans hold 197 solid seats. That leaves 44 Republican–held seats, of which Democrats need to win 24 to seize a slim majority, that represent far more plausible takeover opportunities.

Of those 44 seats, though, Cook says 19 are likely to remain in Republican hands, which trims the Democrats' margin for error considerably.

Based on that, if the elections were being held today, Republicans most likely would hold on to a majority in the House.

But the elections are not being held today.

Stay tuned.

Prepare Yourself for the Sixth-Year Itch

---

---

When I was growing up, political observers spoke of Election Day as if an invisible army of voters marched to the polls on that one day. It was often referred to, informally, as Decision Day.

But since the advent of early voting, Election Day really is more of a deadline, a finish line if you will. Election Day in the United States is on November 4 this year. In most states, voters have been trickling in for weeks. For the most part, I guess the only ones left who haven't voted really are undecided — or they have been prevented from voting early for any of a number of reasons, like work or illness or family obligations.

In short, the decisions have probably already been made in many places. We just won't know the outcomes until sometime Tuesday night when the official counts are known.

And so the suspense, such as it is, continues.

There is no suspense in the House. Republicans are all but sure to retain the majority, perhaps even add to it. Conventional wisdom holds, though, that Republicans probably already control nearly all of the districts in which (officially or unofficially) Republicans outnumber Democrats. After the 2010 midterms, Republicans held 242 House seats, their highest number since the first Truman midterm in 1946, when the GOP held 246 seats.

Two years ago, the Republicans lost eight seats in the House so their total now is 234, which is still greater than the number of seats Republicans held after the 1994 midterms. They would need a net gain of 12 seats to match their postwar high.

I don't really pay much attention to House races besides the one in my own district. They aren't very good barometers of national trends or moods. They're primarily local races, especially in the big cities where they may cover only a few square miles — as opposed to the mostly rural Arkansas district in which I grew up, which encompassed (and still does) several counties. However large or small they may be geographically, a district's issues tend to be local in nature. What matters to voters here in Dallas County, Texas, probably will not matter at all to folks in King County, Washington, or Franklin County, Missouri.

So I don't spend much time on House races — unless there is clearly an illogical imbalance that seems likely to be reversed. There was a time, earlier in this election cycle, when the popular mindset among Democrats was that they would hold the Senate and perhaps seize a majority in the House. Those hopes took a pounding when Republicans won a special election to fill a House vacancy left by the death of the Republican incumbent, who had won more than 20 consecutive elections. Democrats believed they had a good chance to win the seat because the district voted for Barack Obama in 2008 and 2012 — and the idea of making that seat flip fueled hopes of an unlikely midterm shift in the direction of the president's party.

No one spoke of that after the special election. Larry Sabato's Crystal Ball, which is almost always accurate in its predictions, says the GOP is on course to gain nine seats, which would create the Republicans' second–highest total since World War II, eclipsing the number of seats the Republican held after the 2010 midterms.

There is no real suspense in this year's House races, except for a handful of districts, many of which are open seats.

There is, however, a lot of suspense surrounding Senate races. The Republicans need to win six seats to seize control of the chamber. Five would produce a 50–50 split, and, since vice presidents vote in case of a tie, a vote that goes straight down party lines would end up voting the way Democrats want because Joe Biden would break the tie.

The only way Republicans can avoid that is to win an outright majority. That seemed much more problematic for them a year or so ago, but today Sabato says Republicans are likely to win between five and eight Senate seats. He says it is all but certain Republicans will win open seats in Montana, South Dakota and West Virginia, which have been generally conceded to Republicans for months now, as well as the seat in Arkansas.

Sabato also thinks Republicans are in a position to win Democrat–held seats in Alaska, Colorado and Iowa, but polls have been showing those races as neck and neck.

And, to further complicate matters, there are those races in Louisiana, Georgia and Kansas. Louisiana and Georgia could go to overtime, so to speak, if no one wins 50% of the vote on Tuesday. In Kansas, the incumbent Republican is facing a serious challenge from an independent who has been coy about which party with whom he would caucus if elected.

Republicans insist that North Carolina Democrat Kay Hagan is in trouble — indeed, recent polls show her lead within the margin of error. Heading into the final weekend of the campaign, the North Carolina race is regarded as too close to call.

As I have been saying all along, a president's approval rating is always a factor in any midterm election — but especially when it is a president's second midterm election. I'm sure everyone remembers the 2010 midterm election, when Republicans took more than 50 seats from the Democrats. Barack Obama's approval rating was in the mid–40s just before that election. It's two or three points lower than that now.

OK, let's look at the approval ratings for presidents who were midway through their second terms. That doesn't apply to everyone, of course — only those presidents who were in office for two midterm elections. One–term presidents like Jimmy Carter and George H.W. Bush are excluded.

In 2006, George W. Bush's approval rating was mostly in the upper 30s when voters went to the polls. Democrats gained a net of six Senate seats and 30 House seats in that election.

In 1998, Bill Clinton's approval rating was in the 60s just before the election. He managed to buck the trend of the so–called six–year itch, in large part because of the public's perception of congressional Republicans having overreached in their attempt to impeach Clinton. The numbers in the Senate were unchanged as each party took three seats from the other. Democrats won a net of five seats in the House.

In 1986, Ronald Reagan's approval rating was in the 60s when the elections were held, but his party still lost eight seats in the Senate and five seats in the House.

In 1974, Gerald Ford had to preside over the midterms in the wake of Watergate and Richard Nixon's resignation. Ford's approval rating plummeted after he pardoned Nixon, but it was still in the upper 40s, even lower 50s when the elections were held. In what was likely more backlash against Nixon (as well as Ford's pardon), voters gave Democrats 49 House seats that had been held by Republicans and three Senate seats.

In 1966, Lyndon Johnson was in office for his first midterm, but it was the second of the Kennedy–Johnson years. Johnson had been elected by a landslide in 1964, but the public mood had soured in the subsequent two years, and Johnson's approval rating was in the mid–40s. Johnson's Democrats lost 47 House seats and three Senate seats.

President Eisenhower was pretty popular through most of his presidency. In 1958, his approval rating was in the low to mid–50s, but that didn't help his party in his sixth–year midterm. Republicans lost 48 House seats and 13 Senate seats.

Harry Truman wasn't elected to two terms, but, after succeeding Franklin D. Roosevelt three months into his fourth term, it was pretty close. He was president during the midterm of 1946 and again during the midterm of 1950. His approval rating in late October 1950 closely mirrors Obama's today. Democrats lost 28 House seats and five Senate seats.

That is the trend just since the end of World War II, but it has been repeated throughout American history. Prior to the end of World War II, the last two–term president whose party did not lose ground in both chambers of Congress in the sixth–year midterm was Theodore Roosevelt in 1906, who succeeded the assassinated President William McKinley in the first year of his second term. In what would have been the second midterm of McKinley's presidency (and the first of Roosevelt's), Republicans did gain ground in both the House and Senate.

All that predates approval rating polls; we do know, however, that Roosevelt's party won three Senate seats in the 1906 midterm but lost 28 House seats. And Woodrow Wilson's Democrats lost ground in both chambers in 1918. Eight years later, in the sixth–year midterm of the Harding–Coolidge administration, Republicans lost ground in both the House and Senate.

Even Franklin D. Roosevelt's Democrats lost ground in the House and Senate in the second midterm of his presidency in 1938, two years after he was re–elected by a landslide.

The odds are always against an incumbent president's party in the second midterm of his presidency. To beat the six–year itch, a president has to have phenomenal approval ratings, which Obama doesn't have, and extremely favorable domestic and foreign conditions, which he obviously doesn't have.

I'm going to predict that Republicans win the Senate seats in (1) the three states that have been conceded to them all along — Montana, South Dakota and West Virginia — plus (2) the Democrat–held Senate seats in Arkansas, Louisiana, Colorado, Georgia and Iowa. I also think they will hold on to the seats in Kansas and Georgia. The Louisiana and Georgia races might come down to a runoff, but, in the end, I think the Republicans will prevail.

I think Kay Hagan might be re–elected in North Carolina simply because she appears to have run a smarter race than most of her colleagues.

Thus, my prediction is that Republicans will gain eight Senate seats — enough to give them the majority in both chambers of Congress.

The Silver Lining

As I have observed here before, I grew up in Arkansas.

And when I was growing up, there was a saying that nearly everyone around me could be heard to utter, at one time or another: "Thank God for Mississippi!"

I don't know how long they were saying that in Arkansas — and it's been awhile since I lived there, so they may well be saying it still ... for all I know. But it was always an article of faith, and I wouldn't be at all surprised if it still is.

It stemmed from the fact that Arkansas usually ranked 48th or 49th in nearly every category — but Mississippi was usually 50th.

That was the silver lining for Arkansans — who weren't proud of the fact that the state lagged so far behind the others in nearly every meaningful category but who were grateful for the existence of Mississippi, without whom Arkansas would have been dead last in so many important things.

In the wake of yesterday's abysmal jobs report, supporters of Barack Obama have been grasping at anything that can give the news a positive spin. A negative jobs report at this stage of the president's re–election campaign cannot possibly help his cause, but that hasn't stopped his backers from trying to give the news a positive spin.

Call it their "Thank God for Mississippi" moment.

As usual, the White House got its rah rah from the New York Times. But it didn't strike me as being quite as enthusiastic as it usually is.

"The slow economy is getting slower," wrote the Times, apparently ignoring the influence of public policy while seizing the opportunity to criticize the president's congressional critics.

"Republicans in Congress seem more determined not only to block any boost that President Obama wants to give the economy," opined the Times, "but they are preparing to take the nation's credit rating hostage again over the debt ceiling. Mitt Romney, the Republican presumptive presidential nominee, has no new ideas."

The Times did acknowledge, however, that the numbers were "daunting." Unemployment went up (0.1%, to be sure, was not an astonishingly high number by itself, but it was alarming and disappointing for an administration that saw much more robust job creation a few months ago and was hoping for clear evidence of steady improvement); weekly wages went down (thanks to a drop in average hours worked); and nearly 5½ million Americans are now regarded as long–term unemployed.

The hardly unexpected news caused a chain reaction, along with Europe's economic woes, on Wall Street as each of the stock exchanges lost more than 2% of its volume.

But the Times chose to blame congressional Republicans, who have controlled only the House (and that for barely more than a year) since the 2006 midterm elections — "There's no sign that Washington is prepared to shoulder this responsibility," said the Times, declining to hold the president accountable — although it did acknowledge that, "[i]n the meantime, millions of Americans need jobs."

The Philadelphia Inquirer blithely called the jobs report a "letdown" that "baffled" economic experts who had anticipated better. I can assure you of one thing: When the experts are baffled, the rank and file become jittery, and they express themselves at the ballot box.

Many experts suggested that a (temporary) scapegoat is the fact that many of the unemployed who had given up the search were encouraged by job gains earlier this year to re–enter the workforce. The jobs still aren't there, but more people are actively looking for them.

Obviously, most of us would like to see those who have given up find a renewed resolve within themselves to seek employment. But, when they do, they can be so darned inconvenient.

I don't know if it was all those formerly discouraged job seekers jumping back into the far from tranquil employment waters, but few of the president's usual defenders have had anything to say about the latest job report. I guess they couldn't find a silver lining.

Jimmy Carter has been an unapologetic supporter of Obama, but, after he lets the news sink in and he reviews the unambiguous election returns on November 7 — and recalls how he has been reviled for more than three decades as the worst modern American president (which lets some rather notorious 19th–century chief executives off the hook) — he may be the only Democrat who can truly find a silver lining ...

What will Jimmy Carter say on that November day? Thank God for Barack Obama?

You Can't Spin This

---

---

I've seen this countless times before — and, as Weird Al Yankovic put it in his parody of MC Hammer's hip hop song, I can't watch this. I feel as if I have seen this before, and I don't want to watch this again.

But I don't really have a choice.

The monthly jobless report was released today, and, in the wake of recent economic reports, it came as no surprise to learn that unemployment went up to 8.2% in May. It was, however, a bit of a surprise that only 69,000 jobs were added to the economy in May — and, considering the fact that job gains in recent months were revised downward, it may well be that, when the dust finally settles, there may be no net job gains in May — there may even be net job losses.

Sixty–nine thousand jobs doesn't even cover average monthly population gains — let alone make a dent in the number of long–term unemployed.

Barack Obama's re–election campaign has been banking on continued evidence of an economic recovery — even the 0.1% gains that have been witnessed in some recent months would be preferable to the loss that was reported today. Economic experts have been saying for several weeks that they think the jobs situation will deteriorate this summer.

In other words, the worst is yet to come.

If a gain of any kind had been registered in May, it might still have been possible (if the economy managed to lower the unemployment rate by 0.2% per month) for the rate to be as low for Obama this November as it was when the voters re–elected Ronald Reagan in 1984.

And that is what the Obama campaign craves — an opportunity to run for a second term with a jobless rate equal to the one that existed for the Gipper.

Ain't gonna happen.

The first half of Reagan's first term resembled Obama's, with unemployment rates in double–digit territory. But the economy began to recover in 1983, and Reagan was re–elected, even though the unemployment rate was higher than it had been for any incumbent seeking a second term since the days of FDR.

However, the recovery of 1984 was more sustained, far more robust than this one, which has gone in fits and starts, like all the other "recoveries" since we were told the recession ended three years ago. Where Reagan sprinted to the finish line under the "Morning in America" banner, Obama is limping in that direction.

And jobs reports like the one that came out today are pressing the president into the "stay the course" mode that Reagan followed in the 1982 midterm elections — and resulted in the loss of 26 House seats for Reagan's Republicans — which doesn't have the inspirational quality of hope and change.

"Obama sees the glass as half full, arguing the economy is slowly improving and asking voters to trust him to help nurture a full recovery," writes Tom Raum of the Associated Press.

"No president since Franklin D. Roosevelt during the Great Depression has won re–election with an unemployment rate as high as it is today," continues Raum.

"It was 7.2 percent when President Ronald Reagan defeated Walter Mondale in 1984."

That doesn't inspire confidence, especially since Obama has shown a marked inclination to lecture people (one of the prominent criticisms of Jimmy Carter when he ran against Reagan in 1980).

Even the New York Times, normally a cheerleader for the Obama administration, has found it hard to put a positive spin on this.

"Economists can explain away a month or two of disappointing numbers," writes the Times' Shaila Dewan. "But this was the third consecutive disappointing monthly performance by the job market, following a winter of solid gains, convincing many that the economic recovery has, for the third year in a row, lost momentum."

Three strikes and you're out.

I can't watch this.

Parallel Lives

---

---

The recent release of Sarah Palin's memoir, "Going Rogue: An American Life," has made me ponder the course of her political career and that of the other woman who was a running mate on a major party ticket a quarter of a century ago, Geraldine Ferraro.

Certain similarities jump out at me, starting with their ages. Both were in their 40s when chosen to be running mates. Ferraro was 48, which was within the range of most previous Democratic running mates. Palin, on the other hand, was 44, the youngest Republican running mate in 20 years (considerably younger than Dick Cheney or Jack Kemp had been).

Initial surveys indicated that both were popular choices, although they ran into trouble once their conventions were over and the campaigns began in earnest. Palin's problems in the 2008 campaign have been well documented, but, in case you need a reminder (or you are too young to remember the 1984 campaign), not only was Ferraro criticized for a style that was regarded by some as reckless and defiant, but she had problems with her family as well. Less than a month after being nominated, Ferraro had to face relentless questioning about her and her husband's finances.

That was a distraction, but Ferraro wasn't helped by her shoot–from–the–hip style. After telling reporters that she would release her tax returns but her husband would release only a tax statement (his explanation to her, she said, was "Gerry, I'm not going to tell you how to run the country, you're not going to tell me how to run my business"), she made a remark that dogged her: "You people married to Italian men, you know what it's like." Republicans sensed a gender–neutral opportunity to attack and they didn't let it go to waste.

Both Palin and Ferraro had somewhat limited political careers prior to being nominated, and their lack of experience frequently was compared (unfavorably) to the abundance of experience possessed by their opponents. After Ferraro's debate with George H.W. Bush and Palin's debate with Joe Biden, both were said to have performed better than expected, but they were hammered, nevertheless, by the opposition for their "extremist" political views, and both lost the general elections by wide margins — even though it could be rightly said that the opposition's presidential nominees were more popular personally than their policies.

Ferraro and Palin were chosen in large part to appeal to female voters. It was a roll of the dice that didn't pay off. They may well have attracted some female voters, but exit polls indicated that neither succeeded in winning the women's vote. After the 1984 election was over, most political observers agreed that no potential Democratic ticket could have defeated Ronald Reagan, and, following last year's economic meltdown, the same probably could be said of any potential Republican ticket in 2008. Blaming the female running mates strikes me as convenient but ultimately indefensible.

Like Palin, the year after the campaign, Ferraro published her memoir, "Ferraro: My Story," which was a bestseller. There was talk about her political future, and she was labeled a "rising star" in party politics, but, beyond founding a political action committee that had as its mission the goal of electing 10 women in the 1986 Congressional elections and two unsuccessful bids for the Senate in the 1990s, Ferraro's political career was over.

There is talk today about Palin's political future as well. What that future holds has been debated since Palin's resignation as governor of Alaska a few months ago, but she still clearly appeals to some Republican voters.

I hear some of today's Democrats fretting about Palin. What will become of the nation, they ask, if Sarah Palin is nominated for president in 2012 — and, God forbid, actually wins? I've heard some cite, as an ominous sign, reports from the Des Moines Register that suggest that more than two–thirds of Iowa Republicans have a favorable opinion of Palin.

"That's close to the 70 percent who hold favorable views of former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, who won the 2008 caucuses," writes the Register's Thomas Beaumont, "and it's higher than the 66 percent who view former U.S. House Speaker Newt Gingrich favorably. Palin's number is also higher than that of former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, runnerup in the 2008 caucuses, who is viewed favorably by 58 percent of the state's Republicans."

I would give a lot more credibility to those numbers if this were November 2011 and the Iowa caucuses were a few weeks away. But even that couldn't be viewed as conclusive. In mid–November of 2007, polls indicated that Hillary Clinton and Mitt Romney would win the Iowa caucuses.

I may be wrong, but my inclination since July has been that, unless she runs for and wins a seat in the Senate or the House next year, Palin ultimately will not pose nearly as much of a threat as many Democrats fear. She will have no recent achievements to bolster a political record that was — to put it charitably — quite thin in 2008, but it was acceptable for a vice presidential nominee. It will be far less plausible for a potential president.

Beaumont quotes a former director of the state's Republican Party, who claims Palin is misunderstood and has been victimized by mistakes that were not hers. Therefore, this isn't about achievements. "She's getting the chance to set the record straight."

Fine. I'm all in favor of personal redemption. But my belief has been that resigning her post will work against her when many Republicans ask themselves the tough questions that caucus participants must ask about every candidate. Typically, if you don't have recent achievements, you'd better have a record of achievements. Palin doesn't have the latter and she quit the former. That's not exactly a bumper sticker slogan.

Even today, more than two years before the next Iowa caucuses, there are signs that decision will hurt a potential Palin candidacy. A GOP activist told the Register that Palin "needs a policy platform, with a conservative organization or media outlet, to boost her credibility."

And, even though she enjoys high favorable ratings from Iowa Republicans, Beaumont reports, "24 percent of Iowa Republicans view Palin unfavorably, compared with 12 percent for Huckabee." Party activists told Beaumont they believe the decision to resign has a lot to do with that.

Democrats who are worried about 2012 are getting ahead of themselves. They need to be promoting the idea of getting all their senators and representatives on the same page.

History says the party in power will lose ground in the midterm elections. Lately, public opinion surveys are saying the same thing.

Without the bullet–proof majorities in Congress, how much of his agenda can Barack Obama expect to push through in the last two years of his term? How will his record of achievements look then? I suppose that depends on exactly how much ground is lost in 2010.

See, that achievements thing works both ways.

What's the Meaning of it All?

Gail Collins has an amusing column in the New York Times that essentially rejects the claims one hears from both sides about what Tuesday's elections really mean or don't mean.

Collins, who, like many of her colleagues at the Times, is an unapologetic Barack Obama supporter, belittles the assessments that portend bad news for her president next year. Collins apparently doesn't think there is any lesson to be learned from the elections. That's true, of course.

Except that it isn't.

The point that Obama's supporters have been trying to make for months — that he is still personally popular — has been repeatedly shown to be correct in public opinion polls. But those supporters have been ignoring something else that the polls have been saying — that Obama's policies are not popular with voters.

When they go to the polls in 2010, voters will not find Obama on their ballots. But they will find senators and congressmen who voted on issues Obama has promoted. They won't be voting on Obama. They will be voting on his agenda. And, in the past, the American people have frequently shown that they have an intriguing relationship with presidents they like but whose agendas they do not like.

In part, that was a point the voters reminded us of Tuesday.

The voters said a lot of things on Tuesday. Some of it had to do with Obama. But there were other factors, too. In general, anyone who truly believes the election — which was as limited as an election held in an odd–numbered year can be — was a genuine referendum on the Obama administration either has no clue what he/she was talking about or was indulging in some wishful thinking.

But that doesn't mean there weren't some valuable lessons to be learned from the elections on Tuesday.

For that matter, in spite of her liberal leanings, Collins stumbled into truth when she remarked in her column: "The defeat of Gov. Jon Corzine made it clear that the young and minority voters who turned out for Obama will not necessarily show up at the polls in order to re–elect an uncharismatic former Wall Street big shot who failed to deliver on his most important campaign promises while serving as the public face of a state party that specializes in getting indicted. They would not rally around Corzine even when the president asked them!"

Yes, Corzine is all those things that Collins says — and less. Obama may have been snookered by polls showing that Corzine had a chance to be re–elected and, thus, unsuccessfully gambled with his political capital when he came to New Jersey to campaign for the governor.

But the election results show that those young and minority voters who helped Obama win last year were not enticed to return to the polls this year with the president's name absent from the ballot. That was a limited problem this year. It will be much more widespread next year.

Obama's victory in last year's presidential election clearly was historic. But history cannot be viewed in bits and pieces. It must be seen in total.

With that in mind, one of Collins' colleagues, Ruy Teixeira, has some worthwhile advice for folks in both parties — relax. It's not necessarily as bad for Democrats as Republicans would like to believe. And it's not as good for Democrats as they would like to believe.

"Far more consequential," Teixeira writes, "is the historical pattern that the new president's party tends to lose seats in the first midterm election."

And Teixeira is on to something with the suggestion that the gubernatorial elections in New Jersey and Virginia "tell you nothing about who will gain seats in 2010 or how large that gain will be."

Very true. What happens in November of 2010 will be determined, to a great extent, by what happens between now and then. From that perspective, Tuesday was a warning for Obama and the Democrats. You can't continue to pass the buck on unemployment, the voters were saying. Millions are hurting, but little has been done to encourage job creation.

That perception can be reversed, at least in part, but Obama and the Democrats will have to be more proactive. The House and Senate took a good first step by extending unemployment benefits, but that is, at best, a short–term answer. The ongoing problem will be apparent for all to see tomorrow when the jobless report comes out at the same time Obama is signing that legislation extending benefits.

The economy, especially unemployment, will be a huge player in 2010, and other charismatic presidents — notably Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton — learned the hard way that voters have short memories. Reagan found that blaming Jimmy Carter and Clinton learned that blaming George H.W. Bush had no real value with the voters in the midterms.

In the modern vernacular, Reagan and Clinton took ownership of the economy when they were elected and, therefore, had shouldered the responsibility for it for two years when the midterm elections rolled around. Many Obama voters may not think that is fair. Indeed, it may not be. But that's been the truth about American politics for a long time.

That is the historical lesson with which each president must come to terms. And, in Obama's case, it is compounded by the problem that is presented by the demographics that led to his election. Young and minority voters do not have histories of regular participation in elections, but they turned out in droves to help Obama win last year.

The challenge for Democrats is to get these voters back to the polls when Obama is not on the ballot. History says it can't be done.

That does not mean it's all good news for the Republicans. The GOP's gubernatorial candidates in New Jersey and Virginia were more appealing than their Democratic counterparts, which made it easier for Republicans to draw their voters to the polls.

But if they are expecting to ride a wave of discontent to a 1994–like victory in next year's congressional elections, it's not going to be that simple.

Once again, Teixeira seems to be on to a truism. "If any repudiation is going on, perhaps it is of the conservative wing of the Republican Party," Teixeira writes, citing the special election in New York's 23rd congressional district.

New York is clearly — to use a popular phrase — a "blue state," but its individual districts have more distinct personalities, and the 23rd is a good example. For the first time in more than 100 years, a Democrat will represent that district. He defeated a conservative third–party foe when the Republican candidate, a moderate, withdrew and endorsed him.

Republicans have long spoken of being a "big tent," but the party appears to be little changed from the party that nominated Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan and both Bushes. It still uses social wedge issues in a divide and conquer strategy that worked pretty well through most of the last four decades.

But in a place like America, where the electorate becomes more diverse with each passing day, it doesn't work as well as it did in 1968.

Again, what happens next November will be, to a great extent, the product of what happens between now and then, but common sense says the Republicans will need to nominate candidates who are more inclusive if they expect to make real headway. That means shifting more to the center and seeking candidates who are more representative of the Republican Party that existed when George Romney was mentioned as a potential president rather than the party that currently seems prepared to nominate his son in 2012.

If the GOP is successful in that endeavor, that will actually be good news. It will mean a reduced emphasis on wedge issues. That may necessitate giving up on active opposition to abortion rights or same–sex marriage or mindlessly supporting a wasteful, unwinnable war against marijuana. It should mean more of a debate on the role of government — and there could hardly be a better time to examine the role of government than a time of the greatest economic upheaval since the Depression — and sources of much–needed tax revenue.

That is the challenge for Republicans. Recent history says that cannot be done, either.

Well, one of those truisms most likely will fall next year. If neither does, there won't be much movement on either side.

And history says that won't happen, either.

Split Decision

In the light of day, it appears that voters in Maine repealed the same–sex marriage law.

The law was receiving a narrow endorsement last night, but late returns ultimately went against it.

Not so the vote on the medical marijuana law. More than 58% of Maine's voters supported easier access to the substance.

Maine's vote on same–sex marriage seems to be the only thing that changed overnight.

The outcome in Virginia is unchanged from last night. Republican Bob McDonnell was declared the winner of the governor's race early in the evening, continuing a trend that has been constant for more than 30 years.

And, in what may be the biggest election surprise of 2009, New Jersey still has a Republican governor–elect this morning, in spite of the fact that the president and several other high–profile Democrats came to the state to campaign for the Democratic governor.

So now we move on to 2010.

Perhaps Democrats have learned — once again — that they are not imbued with the divine right of kings because they won a majority in Congress in 2006 and 2008 and won the presidency in 2008. I had hoped they had learned that lesson in the 1990s, but it appears they will need more than one lesson.

And my guess is they will get more than one lesson.

The Votes Are In

Turnout for today's elections was light, as it usually is in odd–numbered years. And I know that polls close at different times in each state. But the results seem to be coming in at a frustratingly slow pace.

• I've been watching the election returns, and I've heard a lot of theories about what has happened in Virginia. There will be theories about New Jersey and New York, too, I'm sure, but, at this point, Virginia is the only place where today's election results are known.
  
  Some people have spoken of the Democrats' inability to bring young and minority voters to the polls without Barack Obama on the ballot, and I think that may be a factor, but I think it is more likely to be a problem next year.
  
  Most people seem to agree that this election is not a referendum on Obama's presidency. Nevertheless, I have heard some saying the results represent an anti–incumbent mood. That's a tougher case to make, as far as I am concerned, at least in Virginia. State law bars the incumbent from seeking a second consecutive term, and he seems to be personally popular, but his popularity doesn't seem to be transferring easily to the Democratic standard bearer.
  
  The Republican's triumph doesn't seem to be connected to any sort of anti–incumbent mood in Virginia.
  
  My suspicion is that it has much more to do with what I believe to be the real historical trend. The party that has won the White House has lost the governor's office the next year ever since the Carter presidency, as I wrote in May.


• But an anti–incumbent mood may well have played a role in New Jersey; if the projection that was just made a few minutes ago by CNN holds up, the Republicans are going to win the governor's office there. And the Democratic incumbent is on the ballot — so it is plausible to conclude that this is a referendum on his performance in office.
  
  For that matter, the outcome in New Jersey could be seen as, if not a referendum on Obama, certainly an early temperature reading. And there may be some findings Obama would do well to heed.


• But the White House says Obama isn't watching the election returns. It will say that he is "watching the game." It won't positively confirm which game. Football? Can't be the NFL, unless he's watching a recording of the Falcons–Saints game from last night. ESPN2 is showing a college game, but do you suppose Obama is really more interested in the Bowling Green–Buffalo game than the outcome of the New Jersey election? He was campaigning in New Jersey last week. He had some interest in it then.
  
  Baseball? Can't be. Today is a travel day in the World Series.
  
  I suppose he could be watching the NBA, as some of his aides speculate, but that season is just getting started, and the NBA will still be playing in April. Over the next three years, Obama will have to work with the New Jersey governor, in one way or another, because of the economic difficulties with which the state is being forced to contend.
  
  So I find it hard to accept that he is paying no attention to the election returns tonight or that an NBA game has his attention instead.


• I think 2010 probably will be the real backlash election. The hurdles facing the president and his party seem clear. Obama won't be on the ballot. And he risks alienating some supporters by actively trying to transfer some of his star power to incumbents who may be in trouble, like Chris Dodd and Harry Reid. But he is the leader of the party, and his personal appeal was responsible for attracting many voters who belong to demographic groups that are not normally electorally active. It will be a challenge to get them to return to the polls. Many are ignorant about the way things work and somehow got the idea that a single election could be eternally binding, whereas the folks from the opposition party already are motivated — as they usually are.
  
  Nothing gets a politician's attention like election returns — normally, unless one happens to be the president and thinks that, in some way, he is above such things. But I doubt there is any truth to that tale about his election night activities. And one can sense something of a sea change already occurring within the ranks. Democrats already are making noises about delaying action on health care reform until next year — if not sometime after the midterm elections.
  
  The window of opportunity for Obama and the Democrats to get some things done in the first half of his term seems to be slamming shut.
  
  Perhaps some of the Democrats who were on Capitol Hill in the first years of the Clinton presidency now remember the beating the party took when it emphasized health care reform over job creation and, perhaps belatedly, want to take steps that can avoid a repeat of that experience.
  
  Based on what I'm seeing tonight, I think the battle next year will be won and lost with independent voters. Since independents seem to favor a progressive social agenda, that might be a good place to start in the campaign for their allegiance. On the surface, it looks like more of a reach for Republicans than it is for Democrats.


• A couple of social issues were on the ballot in Maine, though, and supporters of both are leading with just under 30% of the vote counted. About 51% of the voters are endorsing the law that was approved by the legislators and signed by the governor allowing same–sex marriage. And more than three–fifths of voters support expanding the list of conditions that could be treated with medical marijuana.
  
  Once a reliably Republican state in presidential elections, Maine has shifted toward Democrats in recent decades, but it is represented in the Senate by what may be the last Republican moderates — Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins. Neither will face the voters in 2010 so it does retain some of its political roots. But the Republican Party that is admired in Maine has more in common with Abe Lincoln than Newt Gingrich.
  
  For many years, though, Maine had a reputation for recognizing emerging social issues. "As Maine goes, so goes the nation," the saying went. The saying originally referred to Maine's tendency to be on the winning side in presidential contests, but it also has been a political barometer for social issues. The present political climate may be giving it the opportunity to reclaim that role.
  
  But there, as elsewhere, the returns tonight seem to be driven by independent voters.
  
  Neither party is in the position of claiming a majority among self–identified voters in most states. The ones who call themselves independents typically hold the key to electoral success. To ignore what their votes can tell you is to court disaster.
  
  That may hold some cues for Obama, who has not been an advocate of either cause but may want to revise his position to curry favor with independent voters, many of whom supported him last year but seem to be abandoning his party in New Jersey and Virginia this year — and might abandon it in other places next year.

Well, that's just a thought. But the numbers in Virginia and New Jersey, compared to what we saw a year ago when Obama carried both states, are startling.

The battle of the 2010 midterms began in earnest tonight.

A Tale of Turnout

I seem to be in a Mark Twain kind of mood today (see my earlier post on Walter Cronkite). Consequently, I'm going to start this post with a quote I'm proud to borrow from Twain.

"Reader, suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself."

I've written before of my admiration for Michael Barone and his knowledge of voting trends.

So I think it is worth listening when, as we move forward into an era that seems sure to have an influence on political participation in this country that is unlike anything most of us have witnessed in our lifetimes, Barone observes that "we live ... in a decade of vastly increased voter turnout."

Between 2000 and 2008, he writes, turnout went up 25% "when population went up only 8%."

And, since 1998, Barone reports, turnout has gone up 20% in House elections.

This, Barone points out, does not happen frequently. "To find three consecutive [presidential] elections in which the percentage increase in turnout each time was larger, you have to go back to the three contests between 1928 and 1936," he writes.

A critical factor in the equation appears to be polarization in our politics. "We lament it," Barone writes, "but it inspires many people to go to the polls." Indeed it does.

Barone also mentions party organization. "Both Republican and Democratic strategists believed, going into the 2004 election, that it was better to get your own supporters registered and to the polls," he writes, "than to concentrate on the dwindling number of moveable voters."

The key to capitalizing on all this, he says, is the "balance of enthusiasm." Enthusiastic voters are likely to participate without much prodding. "If your side is more enthusiastic, you'll get more volunteers, more contributions and more people taking the trouble to vote for you even without any prompting."

And that leads Barone to speculate, asking "Which side does it favor now? We can look for clues in the turnout in the primaries for governor in New Jersey and Virginia earlier this month." Those numbers, he concludes, favor the GOP.

"[I]f I were the Democrats," he writes, "I'd be worried about the balance of enthusiasm. If I were the Republicans, I'd be mildly optimistic."

Now, it's worth pointing out that Barone may be biased when he makes his analysis. He is known to be conservative. But I have found his methodology to be sound and mostly bias–free over the years.

I'll admit that it's hard to draw sweeping conclusions from the handful of elections that we've seen in 2009. And many things can affect the turnout — including the fact that presidential elections always generate more excitement than midterms or off–year elections do.

And when it comes to drawing "clues" from the modest electoral activity we've had so far, Barone is as good as there is. Both parties would be wise to pay attention.

Especially Democrats. If the midterm elections were a couple of months away, the Democrats would need to find a way to put a happy face on

• rising jobless rates in almost every state,


• a "down" week on Wall Street and


• rumblings among Democrats that Obama's health care plan is "on the rocks."

Or, to put it in terms Twain would understand, if the senators and the members of the House who face electoral challenges next year don't pay attention to what Barone says, they're idiots.

The Future Is Now

If you've lost your job or your home, you already know that the future — for you — is now.

It's not that immediate for presidents most of the time. Certainly not for this president, who hasn't been in office for six months yet, enjoys the continued good will of the people and won't have to ask for their votes for another three years.

But, for one–third of the members of the Senate and all of the members of the House, the campaign trail for 2010 beckons.

And for them, as Amy Walter points out in National Journal, "the long view isn't politically feasible."

They must be prepared to face some tough questions about the economy. And they must be prepared to answer those questions soon.

The unemployed will want to know when they can expect things to turn around — if there is scant evidence, at that point, of a blossoming recovery. As Walter observes, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer may have circulated, at a recent breakfast, an "impressive list" of a baker's dozen initiatives the administration has enacted. "But the next election will be a referendum on the economy. Period."

And Walter proceeds to bring the matter into focus for both Democrats and Republicans.

"If things are looking good, then Democrats can make the case for why it's important to keep their party in charge," she writes. "If it's not, then all the bragging about the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act or Credit Cardholders' Bill of Rights won't mean much."

Maybe it seems unfair to be judged in this way. It may well be.

But life isn't fair. I imagine that just about everyone who is unemployed would acknowledge that.

Maybe it's unrealistic to expect to see signs of a recovery as soon as next year, given the fact that this recession is seen as the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression.

Well, unrealistic or not, you play the cards you're dealt.

From the incumbents' perspective, it would be great to run with GDP humming along and unemployment about as low as it can possibly get.

But that isn't the hand we've been dealt.

At least, not yet.

The Fickle Finger of Fate

Remember a few years ago when voters in Iraq had their index fingers dipped in purple ink to show that they had participated in the election?

Apparently, a similar practice was followed in some recent local elections in India, and the mark from that election apparently is still visible.

So, in the current general elections, the Election Commission has decided to mark the middle finger on the left hand.

Now, when India's voters are asked to prove their electoral participation, perhaps they can simultaneously demonstrate what they think of the process itself — or the eventual outcome.

And the Winner Is ...

The Democrats have maintained their hold on the 20th District House seat in New York.

For nearly two decades, Republicans held the 20th, until Democrat Kirsten Gillibrand won the seat in 2006. Gillibrand was re–elected in 2008, but she was appointed to replace Hillary Clinton in the Senate in January, making a special election necessary to replace her in the House.

The vote tabulation took nearly a month to complete, but Democrat Scott Murphy now appears to have won by 399 votes.

Republicans had hoped for an electoral backlash against Barack Obama's stimulus package and budget in the form of a victory in the 20th District, but they were disappointed.

And now, Stuart Rothenberg rubs some salt in the Republicans' electoral wound by writing in Roll Call that the suggestion that the Republicans can recapture the House next year is "lunacy and ought to be put to rest immediately."

Rothenberg points out that three prominent Republicans — House Minority Whip Eric Cantor, former Speaker Newt Gingrich and campaign consultant Tony Marsh — did not predict the 40–seat shift that would be needed for a GOP takeover. They merely said it was possible.

Rothenberg is adamant, though. "It isn't (possible)," he states.

"[T]here are no signs of a dramatic rebound for the party, and the chance of Republicans winning control of either chamber in the 2010 midterm elections is zero," Rothenberg writes. "Not 'close to zero.' Not 'slight' or 'small.' Zero."

To achieve the kind of massive swing that the Republicans need, it is necessary for there to be a wave of public dissatisfaction of tsunami–like proportions. "You can cherry–pick your way to a five– or eight–seat gain, but to win dozens of seats, a party needs a wave," Rothenberg writes.

But — the recent "tea parties" notwithstanding — no such wave appears to exist.

"Waves are built on dissatisfaction and frustration, and there is little in national survey data that suggest most voters are upset with President Barack Obama's performance or the performance of his party," Rothenberg writes.

"Obama's job approval generally falls between 55% and 63%, and his personal favorable numbers are as strong or slightly better. The trend line on the right direction/wrong track question shows a growing optimism, as do attitudes about the direction of the economy."

A lifetime of observing politics in this country has taught me never to say "never." We're only about one–third of the way through 2009. Who knows what might happen between now and November 2010?

Polls are only snapshots of opinion at a moment in time. But the numbers, Rothenberg says, "show a public that is more upbeat than it was before the last election, and optimism produces status quo elections, not an electorate demanding change."

Rothenberg concedes there are millions who disagree with Obama's policies, "[b]ut those people have never liked Obama, and more importantly, they don't come close to constituting a majority of Americans.

"Most Americans — even many of those who are still worried and pessimistic — are willing to give Obama more time and to give him the benefit of the doubt."

Voter patience is not infinite. But the voters seem to understand that it was an extensive mess the new president inherited and, as long as the voters are willing to give Obama that benefit of the doubt, the prospects will remain bleak for Republicans.

Republicans Win Races in Louisiana

I'm not sure what to think of the House elections yesterday in Louisiana.

Republican Anh "Joseph" Cao unseated Rep. William Jefferson in the 2nd District.

The 2nd District has a history of being represented by a Democrat. Jefferson was first elected to his House seat in 1990.

When he takes office next month, Cao will become the first Vietnamese-American in Congress. He fled Vietnam with his family when he was a child.

It was a narrow win — less than 2,000 votes separated the two candidates.

And it's possible, as the New Orleans Times-Picayune observes, that, if the two House races had not been postponed by one month by Hurricane Gustav, Jefferson could have survived if the district had elected its representative on Nov. 4, when greater numbers of blacks were drawn to the polls by Barack Obama's candidacy.

The other district, the 4th District, has a history of being represented by a Republican, but Rep. Jim McCrery, who held the seat for 20 years, chose to retire. A Republican, John Fleming, was elected to replace him.

Thus, as the Times-Picayune points out, "Louisiana bucked the national trend and wound up with a congressional delegation of six Republicans and a single Democrat. Three Democrats represent Louisiana in the current Congress."

There are two unresolved House races left — in Ohio and Virginia. The results in Louisiana give Democrats an advantage of 255-178.

And there's one unresolved Senate race — in Minnesota. At the moment, Democrats hold 56 seats and two seats are held by independents who caucus with them. Republicans hold 41 seats.

This Should Really Be the Final Election of 2008

Two congressional districts in Louisiana are holding elections today. They are holding these elections now because the process was delayed by Hurricane Gustav.

Notorious Rep. William Jefferson is running for re-election — and appears to be the favorite — in the 2nd District. The race in the 4th District is to replace the retiring incumbent. The district leans Republican. So a split appears possible. In fact, it appears likely.

At the moment, Democrats hold a 255-176 advantage in the House. Two other races remain unresolved. The Republican candidate in Virginia's 5th District wants a recount, and the race in Ohio's 15th District appears to be headed for court.

Once those four House races — and the still-unresolved Senate race in Minnesota — are settled, the new Congress will be ready to begin its work.

The 'What-Ifs' of History

For a student of American history, there may be no more compelling mind game than the "what-if" questions.

They reverberate through our nation's history, urging us to contemplate the road not taken.

Kenneth Walsh of U.S. News & World Report has begun exploring the "what-ifs" of our national political experience in weekly installments on U.S. News' web site.

Each Wednesday through September, Walsh is writing about the 10 most consequential elections in our nation's history.

The first two installments have focused on the elections that put Abraham Lincoln in the White House. In Walsh's first article, posted on July 23, he wrote about the 1860 election, in which Lincoln was first elected to the White House.

Shortly after Lincoln's election, Southern states began to secede. In what may be a classic understatement, Walsh observes, "Lincoln immediately was thrown into the cauldron of crisis."

---

---

If that is Part I of the story, Part II follows in the July 30 article, which examines Lincoln's re-election in 1864 and how it contributed to the North's successful conclusion of the Civil War.

For Lincoln, re-election was public vindication of his war policies. It's something that might not have happened if the North hadn't defeated the South at Gettysburg in 1863.

Union victories became more numerous in 1863, "and the North's military success became the most important political development of the 1864 presidential campaign," writes Walsh.

"Perhaps most gratifying to Lincoln, the soldiers doing the fighting gave [him] a huge margin ... even though they knew that re-electing Lincoln would mean continuation of the conflict and the likelihood that many of them would be killed or wounded," Walsh writes. "But they also knew that re-electing Lincoln would virtually guarantee victory, complete with the end of slavery and the preservation of the Union, and these were their top priorities."

Walsh concludes, "In the end, Lincoln's profound legacy was created and propelled by two elections — the one in 1860, which triggered the war, and the election of 1864, which enabled Lincoln to win it."

If those two elections were the bottom two on Walsh's list, I look forward to reading about the other eight.

Back to the Future

If you look back in time through the misty haze of the last century, to the presidential election of 1908, you can see some interesting parallels to the campaign of 2008.

For example, both 1908 and 2008 will be remembered in the history books as the conclusions of multiple-term Republican presidencies. Actually, in 1908, the Republicans had held the White House for three consecutive terms, but William McKinley, who was elected in 1896 and 1900, was assassinated in 1901. His successor, Vice President Theodore Roosevelt, served almost all of McKinley's second term, then was elected to a full term on his own.

It appears that the only similarity between the progressive Roosevelt and "compassionate conservative" George W. Bush is the fact that both served more than a full term as president.

In 1908, after all, America was not involved in a war, as it is in 2008. And, for the most part, Americans were prospering in 1908. The 2008 economy is in a recession -- and, while some Americans don't appear to be struggling, millions of Americans are hurting financially.

But, if you look a little bit closer, you will see that several political observers have compared the presumptive Republican nominee, John McCain, to Roosevelt. Is that good news for the Republicans? Well, the right-wing nature of today's Republican Party would be at odds with the progressive nature of the Republicans of 1908. Perhaps McCain would have been more comfortable in Roosevelt's era.

It's important to remember, though, that, in 1908, Roosevelt wasn't running. His hand-picked successor was running, however. And that certainly is a difference between 1908 and 2008. Bush may have endorsed McCain, but he did so once McCain had already wrapped up the nomination. Bush never expressed his choice during the competitive Republican primaries and caucuses.

We may never know which candidate was Bush's preference, unless he chooses to disclose that information in his memoirs.

When the Democrats meet in Denver for their national convention in late August, it will be the first time they've nominated their presidential candidate in that city in 100 years. The 1908 convention was held in Denver, and the party's nominee (for the third time) was William Jennings Bryan of Nebraska.

Obviously, the Democrats will not be nominating a candidate for the third time when they gather this summer -- although one can draw a modest comparison to Bryan if Hillary Clinton is the nominee. If that comes to pass, it will be the third time in the last five elections that the Democrats have had someone named Clinton at the top of their ticket -- and, of course, the Clinton who was nominated the first two times was Hillary's husband.

I've heard and read suggestions that, if Hillary Clinton wins the nomination and goes on to win the election, Bill Clinton would be the real king -- behind the scenes. I have no proof to support or discredit that theory, but if one subscribes to it, I guess that person also would be inclined to look at Hillary's nomination as a third Clinton nomination by proxy.

In theory, the Democrats could have nominated a black candidate 100 years ago -- although whether such a candidate could have succeeded nationally is unlikely, given the nature of the attitudes of the times. Even so, the Constitution said blacks could vote -- but a variety of roadblocks prevented many from voting in the South and in other places. So, while it was technically possible, it was highly unlikely that someone like Barack Obama would have been considered for the nomination.

But a woman almost certainly couldn't have been a factor in the proceedings. A few states allowed women to vote in 1908, but women didn't get that right constitutionally until 1920.

And, because women weren't allowed to vote in most states, it stood to reason that you wouldn't have been likely to see many female faces at a political convention in 1908. They weren't delegates, and their names certainly weren't being placed in nomination for president or vice president.

Nor would you have seen any black faces at a political convention in 1908. Unless you happened to be attending a minstrel show when the convention wasn't in session.

Of course, the whole nominating procedure was different 100 years ago. Delegates to the conventions -- and the candidates for whom those delegations voted -- were decided by each party's elders in the proverbial smoke-filled rooms. Party primaries are a relatively recent political phenomenon in this country.

For the record, the Republicans have never held their national nominating convention in Denver. In 1908, the Republicans gathered in Chicago (where they met in five consecutive presidential election years, from 1904 to 1920) and nominated their candidate, William Howard Taft, in the Chicago Coliseum (which was torn down in 1982).

The Republicans aren't holding their convention in Chicago in 2008 (the last time Chicago played host to the Republican convention was in 1960, when Richard Nixon was nominated to run against John Kennedy).

The GOP will gather in Minneapolis-St. Paul this year. It's been more than a century since the Republicans came to Minneapolis to nominate their presidential candidate. The last time was in 1892.

---

---

What were the big electoral prizes in the 1908 general election, and how do they compare to the prizes 100 years later?

Well, in 2008, clearly the biggest prize is California. It offers one-fifth of the electoral votes a candidate needs to be elected. No other state comes close.

But, in 1908, California was not even a blip on the national radar. The top two prizes in the 1908 election were New York and Pennsylvania. Both are still large states, but the roles have been reversed, in a few ways.

For one, New York and Pennsylvania each offered more than three times as many electoral votes as did California in 1908, but today California dwarfs both states. California has more electoral votes in 2008 than New York and Pennsylvania combined.

Also, in 1908, Taft carried New York, Pennsylvania and California en route to receiving two-thirds of the electoral votes. If a candidate carries all three states in 2008, he/she will have nearly 40% of what is needed to be elected. (In 1908, those three states gave Taft about 34% of the electoral votes he needed.)

Today, voting trends suggest that the Democrats are the favorites in New York and California, and they've won Pennsylvania (albeit narrowly at times) in the last four elections.

Whether those trends hold up in 2008 may depend upon how much the losers in the Obama-Clinton battle resent the winners and whether they choose to support the eventual nominee in the fall. Today, surveys indicate that there may be a schism in the party that could threaten its chances of success in November.

The rest of the top 10 electoral prizes in 1908, in order, were Illinois, Ohio, a tie between Texas and Missouri, Massachusetts, Indiana, Michigan and a tie between Kentucky, Iowa, Wisconsin and Georgia.

One hundred years later, the top 10 electoral prizes are California, Texas, New York, Florida, a tie between Illinois and Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, and a three-way tie between Georgia, New Jersey and North Carolina.

Some of the prominent players in 2008 were hardly even factors a century ago. Florida's population in 1908 was so small that it was the least significant state in the South -- and it offered only one electoral vote more than states like Vermont and New Hampshire. In fact, Maine was bigger (in terms of electoral votes) than Florida.

For that matter, Kansas and Mississippi each offered the same number of electoral votes as California.

But in 2008, California is the biggest electoral catch, and Florida is the fourth-largest prize.

A lot of things changed between 1908 and 2008.

During the Great Migration, for example, millions of blacks moved from the South to places like Detroit and Chicago, as well as California, adjusting the electoral importance of states where those blacks could participate. By the time Theodore Roosevelt's cousin, Franklin, was elected president in 1932, population shifts were already apparent in many places, changing the emphasis of presidential campaigns. California's population had more than doubled, with the influx of blacks and Depression-era Dust Bowl migrants, while Southern and Midwestern states were showing declines in their populations.

And, as advances in technology allowed hot and humid places like Texas and Florida to acquire air conditioning and other creature comforts, the populations in those states grew.

They became particularly attractive for Northern retirees looking for places to live that had warmer climates, once the federal government began to link cities and states with the highway system that sprang up in the middle of the century.

I guess, if there is a lesson to be taken from the 1908 campaign, it would be that success can be fleeting.

Taft was elected by a 2-to-1 margin in the Electoral College in 1908. But Taft never wanted to be president, and it showed. His ambition had always been to be chief justice of the Supreme Court. And, when he ran for re-election in 1912, he carried only two states and finished third behind Democrat Woodrow Wilson and Roosevelt, who ran as the Progressive candidate.

Maybe Taft wished upon a star because some wishes apparently do come true. The former president was chosen to be chief justice by President Warren Harding in 1921 and served in that position until about a month before his death in 1930.