Patterico's Pontifications

11/5/2008

We Have The Honor Of Living In Interesting Times — A Few Comments On Yesterday’s Results

Filed under: General — WLS @ 12:16 pm



[Posted by WLS Shipwrecked]

First, congratulations to President-Elect Obama and the other winners in the Democratic Party.  But, the easy part is now over. 

I’m struck by a few of the results yesterday, beginning with Indiana. 

Indiana has been a reliably Republican state for many election cycles, with Bush having won it in 2004 by 21% over Kerry.  Yet, it has a state-wide elected Democrat Senator from a famous Indiana family, so it has never been “allergic” to Democrats.

But, while 1.37 million Indiana residents voted for Sen. Obama yesterday, 1.56 million Indiana voters re-elected Mitch Daniels to his second term as Governor — that’s former Bush OMB Director Mitch Daniels.  So, nearly 200,000 voters pulled the lever for both Obama and Daniels — “Change” and “Bush Status Quo” at the same time.

But, Indiana should have been seen by the GOP as the “canary in the coal mine” in 2006.  The reliably GOP state saw three incumbent GOP members of the House — out of 11 total members — lose to conservative democrats.   Richard Lugar is the stalwart Republican presence in the state, but no one would confuse him for the future of the GOP. 

Florida went narrowly for Obama, but a ballot measure banning gay marriage in Florida passed with 62%.  Obama got 4.1 million votes, but the ballot measure got 4.7 million votes.

In California Obama commands at least 6.1 million votes, but opposition to the Constitutional Amendment banning gay “marriage” manages only 4.76 million votes.  At least 1.4 million voters — probably many more because some McCain voters must have voted “no” — who voted for Obama nevertheless voted to ban gay “marriage” under the California Constitution.  That’s a lot of socially conservative voters polling the lever for Obama.

This election reminds me very much of 1992 on a superficial level.  The country was coming through a difficult economic time with the S&L crisis, and the Dems had the new young fresh face who represented generational change, while the GOP was represented by one of its “old hands” who represented a continuation of the policies of the status quo.   In each instance the Dems had the superior politician and ran the superior campaign both tactically and strategically.

The Clintons misread the scope of their mandate in 1993, and paid an enormous price in 1994.  I suspect the Obama administration won’t make that mistake.  But that sets up a very interesting scenario vis-a-vis Congress.

Bill Clinton was a career executive when he came to Washington.  He was used to running the government apparatus of Arkansas, and making the legislature bend to his will.   Yet when he got to Washington he traded some a very liberal Congressional Dem wish-list for their support on his plan to take over the health care system.  He never really recovered from the disaster that resulted from both.

Obama, on the other hand, has never been anything other than a legislator — and at every step he has looked to his party’s leadership on how to vote. 

He has spent less than 4 years in the Senate — actually involving himself in Senate affairs for only the first 2 years — so I’m guessing he has few close personal associations with Dem senators there, and even less with senior members of the House.  Not having come “through” Washington during his rise to the top, and never having been part of the Clinton machine, it’ll be interesting to see how Obama tries to make the gears of his administration mesh with the gears of the old Dem Bulls in Congress — guys and gals who have been there for DECADES waiting for their opportunity to pass legislation what will have a friendly reception when it gets to the Oval Office. 

Never having been in the role of a party leader before, but rather having served consistently as a loyal foot-soldier in the party’s efforts, will Obama buck the Old Bulls in the Congress to avoid the types of mistakes Clinton made in moving too far left too fast?

But, regardless of which way he goes, he’s likely to disappoint a huge bloc of voters who supported him because of what he represented. 

If he moves aggressively in step with the left wing of the party through House members like Pelosi, Frank, Rangel, Dingel, and Waxman, those 200,000 voters in Indiana who voted for both him and Mitch Daniels — as well as millions of other ticket splitters across the 50 states — are going to quickly abandon the “Change” bandwagon.

If he moves more cautiously and keeps the left-wingers in Congress in check out of prudence and pragmatism, he’s going to disappoint the left-wing nuts who watch Keith Olbermann and listen to Randi Rhodes.  You’ll see it when he keeps Robert Gates on as Sec. of Defense for a year, and suddenly finds wisdom in the advice and go-it-slow approach of Gen. Petraeus in Iraq. 

Finally, if Hillary has ANY aspirations to be President, I doubt it would wait until 2016.  Bill Clinton is going to be shuffled off to the side by the Obama Administration so as to not be an annoyance.   The only way to stay in the limelight and have a chance to attract a glow from history, is to get back into the inner circle of power.  Obama’s not going to give it to him.  He’s got to get Hillary into the WH in 2012.  

Kennedy v. Carter all over again?  Teddy always wanted to be President.  So does Bill Clinton — again.

— WLS Shipwrecked

27 Responses to “We Have The Honor Of Living In Interesting Times — A Few Comments On Yesterday’s Results”

  1. I’m struck by a few of the results yesterday, beginning with Indiana.

    I am sick to my stomach.

    WLS – The biggest driver here was money. McCain spent a miniscule portion of dollars here, and Baracky has been on the air since the primary, and the last month was an absolute deluge of attack ads.

    Daniels got 81% of the vote in my county, while McCain got 61%. So, 1 out of 5 voters in my county that voted for Daniels, also voted for Baracky.

    JD (5b4781)

  2. Regarding the gay marriage initiatives in Ca. and Fl., is it possible that the huge number of voters coming out for Obamas reflected an increase in latino and black voters who traditionally have been against gay marriage?

    Oiram (983921)

  3. McCain has just learned how bad that campaign finance reform idea really was.

    As for Hillary, Obama will neutralize her by giving her Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s job.

    Official Internet Data Office (df6254)

  4. I wonder how the leader of a party votes “present”?

    And how many judgement calls are now “above his pay grade”?

    Harry S Truman he ain’t.

    Dr. K (f196bc)

  5. #1 The biggest driver here was money careful JD your starting to sound like a whinny Democrat.

    Oiram (983921)

  6. It’s going to be worse than you’re suggesting, I think. If he wasn’t planning on an aggressive, left-wing legislative operation, he almost certainly wouldn’t have picked Rahm Emanuel for his Chief of Staff. If the game plan isn’t for Obama to make hopey-changey noises while the White House coordinates a Pelosi bill-gasm, I’ll be surprised.

    I think the picture is clear: he’ll want to look moderate and prudent and centrist, to keep the image as “governing from the center”, while the only check on the wishlist will be Republican filibusters — with Emanuel playing hardball, when necessary, to break off a few and get to sixty.

    Joel Rosenberg (5ec843)

  7. Comment by Oiram — 11/5/2008 @ 12:37 pm

    Labeled by The Master!

    Another Drew (579482)

  8. #7 Thank You?

    Oiram (983921)

  9. The Clintons misread the scope of their mandate in 1993, and paid an enormous price in 1994. I suspect the Obama administration won’t make that mistake.

    I wouldn’t be so sure. Obama is far more liberal than Clinton. I think it would be very difficult for Obama to resist his natural impulse, especially with a like-minded legislature.

    aunursa (1b5bad)

  10. #1 The biggest driver here was money careful JD your starting to sound like a whinny Democrat.

    It is not whining, Mario. It is a fact. I have no idea where one can get a breakdown of spending on ads by state, but it had to be 10-1 Baracky here for at least 2 straight months.

    JD (5b4781)

  11. Comment by JD — 11/5/2008 @ 1:05 pm

    JD, Media Matters might have that info.

    Another Drew (579482)

  12. Oiram Regarding the gay marriage initiatives in Ca. and Fl., is it possible that the huge number of voters coming out for Obamas reflected an increase in latino and black voters who traditionally have been against gay marriage?

    Apparently yes, what I’ve read is that white voters in CA voted against Prop 8, Latinos were about evenly split, BUT black voters voted for it by a 70 to 30 percent margin. If they had not done that, the proposition would have lost.

    Peccator Dubius (0a6237)

  13. AD – Are you kidding me? I would rather drink bleach and eat my own feces than go to mediamatters.

    JD (5b4781)

  14. Interesting that the last two Democratic Presidents and First Ladies have both been Ivy League lawyer couples, the Clintons from Yale, the Obamas from Harvard.

    Peccator Dubius (0a6237)

  15. I think we may indeed be witnessing the interim stages of the blood feud of all blood feuds, vis a vis Obama and the Clintons. Once Obama sent his henchmen (aka Rangel) out to call Bill Clinton a racist, the die was cast. Watching Clinton offering only token support for the man who beat his wife was something amazing to behold – only Clinton could get away with offering endorsements akin to “well, he’s over 35, and a native – born citizen, so why not?”

    Hilarious.

    Dmac (e30284)

  16. I forget to mention that after listening the Clinton continually hammer on Bush almost as soon as he left office, just wait until the inevitable missteps by Obama occur – you ain’t seen nothing yet.

    Dmac (e30284)

  17. listening “to” Clinton. Ahem.

    Dmac (e30284)

  18. I expect an Obama-led purge of the Clintonistas forthwith.

    Techie (62bc5d)

  19. The Obama victory killed Michael Crichton. He couldn’t hold on any longer.

    daleyrocks (60704b)

  20. I’ll always vote for these amendments banning Gay marriage because there is no gay rights under the Constitution. My vote simply reflects reality rather than how I feel about gay marriage.

    If pro-gay marriage people want gay marriage, they’ll have to bring their own ballot proposal. I will never EVER consider voting for gay rights unless they do this.

    Roy Mustang (2f688e)

  21. I voted for the Florida gay marriage ban as a result of the propaganda in favor of it.
    The opposing forces did not mention gays in any way. They made the issue as one in which the amendment would prohibit domestic partnerships among heteros–specifically older couples, who allegedly rely on these to obtain visiting rights in the hospital, etc. But one ad made the mistake of mentioning why these older couples don’t actually marry–because that way the woman can continue to collect off her dead first husband’s Social Security instead of her own, and thereby get more money sucked out of the governmental teat. I instantly resolved to vote for it, just to keep that sort of ‘have you cake and eat it too’ arrangment.
    However, I voted for Barr. (Stood in line two hours. He’s better appreciate it.) So I’m not one of the people who voted both for El Cambio and Amendment 2.
    I think that Obama is driven not by a liberal agenda but by a personal power agenda. He will now spend the next four years doing whatever he needs to do to get re-elected–which will mean he’ll be a centrist. Disappointed moderates might go to the GOP, but disappointed leftists can only go to the Green Party, and no doubt pissing off some leftists will attract more moderates to make up the loss.
    If he is reelected in 2012, he might then go for a superliberal agenda. But I think the GOP will have recovered enough of its conservative soul to be able to blunt that.

    kishnevi (4fe729)

  22. I hope you are right, Kishnevi, and I admire you for standing in line for 2 hours to vote for Barr. You are a man of principle.

    DRJ (cb68f2)

  23. Comment by DRJ — 11/5/2008 @ 8:09 pm

    Or (don’t take this the wrong way), terribly silly.

    Another Drew (579482)

  24. They were trying to disenfranchise kishnevi, but he would have nothing to do with that.

    JD (008a90)

  25. My inner recovering Democrat did almost talk me into voting for Obama; then I started to mull the idea that after all, being a grumpy older white guy, I should vote for the grumpy older white guy.
    But when I got to the booth, I inked in Barr and went on to the other questions.

    Actually, there were a few other things on the ballot I wanted to vote No on, and I really stayed in line because of that, more than any loyalty to Barr. (I haven’t even seen how poorly he fared.) But there were a couple of amendments that would further screw up the property tax scheme in favor of some special interests, and a county charter amendment that would give the county commission all the figleaf it would need to impose a global warming scheme on the whole county. Unfortunately, not enough people voted no on the tax schemes. I haven’t heard about the county charter amendment, but something tells me it passed.

    kishnevi (aea3ff)

  26. found the LP vote totals at the LP website: not every state is listed, but Barr only got 16000 odd votes–two tenths of one percent. Even for a LP candidate that’s pretty pitiful.

    Two LP candidates were elected to very local offices.

    kishnevi (3a3033)

  27. The interesting times in which we live are going to get a whole lot more interesting once Obama and his leftist illuminati ideals get to the White House. Get ready to see America changed into a Socialist Republic.

    Jeff (7082b1)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.0889 secs.