Q: What is your analysis of this election?The 2018 Trump and 2010 Obama midterm results are parallel elections in contrast. While in both years the sitting president was not officially on the ballot, nonetheless it was a referendum on them. Both elections signaled partial repudiation of a sitting president and his party, how divided the country is politically, and how the results did and likely will not break the gridlock in the country.
In 2010 the Obama presidency was repudiated at the polls by what the president did and did not do. He bailed out the banks during the height of the economic crisis, but failed to help homeowners, unions, and others who supported him. He took his base for granted and assumed they would show up to vote but they did not. He was repudiated in an election frustrated by a demand for change that did not occur, but his party also lost because much of the public thought they overreached.
Trump lost in 2018 for the very reasons why he won two years ago. In 2016 Trump successfully appealed to the backlash against identity politics by making his own appeal to identity politics. He played on fear and prejudice two years ago, benefiting from the racial backlash against Barack Obama and also from the sexism and mediocrity of the presidential campaign that Hillary Clinton had waged. He won because he tapped into the anxieties and anger of an electorate that had largely been ignored by the economy, Democrats, and the establishment Republicans, and he benefited from a sense of complacency that the Democrats had in thinking that a person like Trump could never win. Trump’s win was also a product of geography and an electoral college that over-weighted votes from rural areas.
But in 2018 many of these conditions worked against him, or simply did not exist. Officially it was not a presidential election but everyone knew it was a referendum on Trump. But this time there was no electoral college to over-weigh rural votes, instead the geography of the election was not on swing states but instead on swing congressional districts where the battle line was in affluent and well-educated districts where suburban women, repulsed by the sexist and racist campaign that Trump waged, showed up this time to vote against him. Moreover, in 2018 there was no Hillary Clinton on the ballot to run against, reducing Trump’s electorate to a core base of voters that was far smaller than it was two years ago at a time when the Democratic voted in greater disciple and numbers than two years earlier. The result was that Democrats took control of the US House, leaving the Senate with the Republicans and a presidency with Trump. The most likely scenario is political gridlock.
Q: With the results so far, how is the US Congress changed?
Democrats had a good night in recapturing the House as expected while the Republicans strengthened their control over the Senate. There were no surprises here. The US was never really within grasp of the Democrats, with them having to defend 26 seats to the Republicans 9, and many of the Democrat seats were instates Trump won. In terms of the House, Republicans had to defend a lot more seats, especially in affluent suburbs, and this is where the Democrats had their strength among women responding to and motivated by the Me Too movement.
The Republican Senate is more conservative than the current one and the Democratic House more liberal than the current one. Politically the two chambers are moving in opposite directions.
Q: How was this election for the Republican Party? The Senate is a bright spot for the Republicans as well as holding on to some very close governorships. Trump and the Republican Party will be able to point to these victories–including taking some senate seats from Democrats–as a sign of a victory and not a total rejection of the president and their party.
Q: How was this election for the Democratic Party?
This was mostly a good night for the Democrats. They took the House ass expected, won some major governorships and legislatures, and also forced the Republicans to defend some critical seats that should have been easy wins, such as in Georgia. More importantly, with the control of the House they have new leverage against the president.
Q: Where were young voters (under age 30) in this election?
Approximately 17% of the population is between age 18 and 29. Exit polls suggest that 13% of the voters were under the age of 30 on Tuesday. Generally one can say that the Gen Zs and Millennials appeared to show up almost in proportion to their population. However, we do not have precise enough data to really say how Gen Z did, but a good hypothesis based on preliminary data is that their showed up more than two years ago.
Q: Is the Midwest still the Trump stronghold?
Yes and no. Trump and Republicans hold pick up in Missouri and North Dakota but election returns in Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan suggest a resurgent Democratic Party support. The Midwest is not solidly moving toward Trump and Republicans and this suggests a more complicated 2020 strategy for Trump.
Q: Political scientists talk of critical elections and realignments? Did this happen?
In 2016 and now 2018 we are seeing a significant shift in the political bases of the Democratic and Republican parties. Democrats have all but lost rural America and appear to be losing white males without college education. Democrats are becoming a party of educated women in suburbs and urban liberals. This shift in base means a shift in politics.
Q: What do Democrats do next?
Their first choice is whether to make Pelosi speaker again. The liberals may want this but if they do that, it plays into Trump and the Republican hands who will run against her in 2020. The second choice is what is their agenda. Do they push for investigations against Trump or move their policy agenda. The former strategy is about pushing impeachment and doing other investigations. This is an important check but if it dominates the Democrats strategy then they are set up as obstructionists in 2020. The alternative strategy is pass their entire agenda, send to the Senate and the president, and force them to respond. If it is passed, great, if not, run on this agenda in 2020.
Q: What's next in the last two years of Donald Trump's presidency?
Gridlock, gridlock, and gridlock. Policy wise little gets done and now the president will fact incredible scrutiny from Democrats. I doubt Trump changes his strategy and becomes more conciliatory. That is not his political instinct. But this is a problem. If the president and Trump cannot win over suburban women their base remains narrow and the road to victory in 2020 is difficult.
Q: How does the election affect US foreign policy?
Very little. Presidents have far more power internationally than domestically and I see no basic change in what Trump will do.
Q: What are other key points of this election that you would highlight? This election now sets up the 2020 presidential election. In places the president in a new position that will expose his weaknesses. The election changes the political geography for the two parties, and it also makes it easier for the special prosecutor to do his job, thereby exposing Trump to more scrutiny from him and the Democrats.
Q: What happened in Minnesota and Why?
Minnesota proved to be a mirror of national politics in many ways but not others. Minnesota Republicans tried to nationalize the state elections by running on immigration, but as former US House Speaker Tip O’Neill once said, all politics is local. Issues that play well nationally don’t always play well locally, and in part that is why statewide Democrats did well. Minnesota with four swing congressional districts showed it was a major battle ground which helped decide control of Congress. Minnesota largely followed the pattern of national politics where Democrats won the suburbs and Republicans did well in the rural areas, and one can predict that the Iron Range is now permanently lost to the DFL, perhaps turning the Democratic Party ever more into an urban metro party. And the key to success for Democrats taking control of the state house also was through the affluent suburbs, producing a Minnesota pattern of divided government that parallels national politics.
One result of the election is that with five new members of Congress, Minnesota will have one of the least senior congressional delegations in the nation. However, Colin Peterson will head up the House Ag committee and Betty McCollum will have an important leadership position too.
No comments:
Post a Comment