Thoughts about the Election/Looking Forward Thread

[sam h]

I imagine we will have plenty of posts about the recounts and so I thought I would start a thread about some broader trends coming out of the election and some ideas about the road ahead. Here are a few points I think are especially interesting:

(1) Territorial Polarization

Democratic pickups were overwhelmingly located in the northeast and midwestern “border” areas. We are thus seeing a continuation in the congress of the trend that has been present in presidential elections for some time. Dems are consolidating their strength in their geographic stronghold. Pennsylvania, once targeted by the GOP as the easiest part of the northeast to make inroads, now is looking much bluer. New Hampshire is almost entirely blue at this point. Perhaps most importantly for future concerns, Ohio also has experienced a huge color shift (more on this below).

(2) The End of Southern Domination?

For the first time in a very long while, the party controlling congress will not be the dominant party in the south of the country. As much as we heard about the Dem’s “50 state strategy”, this is a huge point – there is a winning congressional coalition that can be carved out of the northeast, west, midwest, and select urban districts elsewhere.

(3) Looking Ahead to the Presidential in 08

The biggest news for the Dems is that Ohio and (to a less important extent) New Hampshire have gotten much bluer. Not only did Ohio overwhelmingly elect a democratic governor and senator, they also elected two candidates who are pretty ardent about meat and potatoes distributive Democratic domestic issues. This bodes well for the Democratic presidential nominee in 2008.

I think it is hard to tell how yesterday's results affected any specific candidate. My only intuition is that the gains Democrats made in Ohio and New Hampshire gives some incentive to the party to be more conservative about their nominee. Holding the Kerry states and keeping the newly blue Ohio is a winning formula. What you don't want is somebody with an obvious weakness (ie, Hillary) that might be exploited to change the conversation.

(4)Looking at the Future Congressional Outlook

The senate is obviously a lot easier to forecast in this respect than the house. Overall, the picture looks very rosy for the Dems in the senate. Because the Dems won so many total states yesterday, and because there were quite a few close GOP wins in 2002/2004 when the party was in much better shape overall, it looks like the GOP will be playing more defense in 2008 and 2010. Specifically, there are GOP senate seats up in 2008 in Colorado, Minnesota, and New Hampshire that also seem very winnable for the Democrats right now. The GOP strategy will probably focus on holding these and targeting Dems in Arkansas and South Dakota. As I said, who knows what will happen in the house? All that is clear is that 15 seats will be a lot for the GOP to pick up in the next cycle given that we still have a GOP president. Bottom line is that there is a pretty good chance of a democratic senate for the next six years and a democratic house for the next four.

(5) The GOP's Response

I think this is the big wildcard right now. The smart move is one that heads to the center, where the Dems just beat them pretty badly. But because so many centrist congressional Republicans just lost, the already shrinking "big tent" looks even smaller today. Its hard to organize a shift back toward the center when the powers-that-be are increasingly less likely to be of a centrist persuasion. I think one of the biggest points here comes out of exit polling regarding the economy. Despite the booming Dow and good underlying fundamentals in many respects, people who cared about the economy broke strongly Democratic. We hear a lot about how the GOP has to get back to its economic and fiscal fundamentals - the whole "we came to change Washington but Washington changed us" line - but it is not clear to me at all that this is really part of a winning strategy.

[Nate tha\\\' Great]

[ QUOTE ]
I think it is hard to tell how yesterday's results affected any specific candidate. My only intuition is that the gains Democrats made in Ohio and New Hampshire gives some incentive to the party to be more conservative about their nominee. Holding the Kerry states and keeping the newly blue Ohio is a winning formula. What you don't want is somebody with an obvious weakness (ie, Hillary) that might be exploited to change the conversation.

[/ QUOTE ]

The conventional wisdom -- well, at least the Tradesports widsom -- is that yesterday's result tends to entrench a McCain versus Hillary matchup.

[sam h]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think it is hard to tell how yesterday's results affected any specific candidate. My only intuition is that the gains Democrats made in Ohio and New Hampshire gives some incentive to the party to be more conservative about their nominee. Holding the Kerry states and keeping the newly blue Ohio is a winning formula. What you don't want is somebody with an obvious weakness (ie, Hillary) that might be exploited to change the conversation.

[/ QUOTE ]

The conventional wisdom -- well, at least the Tradesports widsom -- is that yesterday's result tends to entrench a McCain versus Hillary matchup.

[/ QUOTE ]

I can believe this on the McCain side quite easily, since it is clear to me that the lesson from today is that the GOP needs a centrist candidate with white working class appeal, which is basically McCain's relative forte. I think the Dems winning the senate helps Hillary in that it gives her a bigger platform in the next year or so, and potentially the opportunity to be more heavily in the mix on defense issues. As far as it shows that the Dems don't necessarily need to swing for the fences, it may help her against certain other possible candidates. But within the parameters of a more conservative strategy, I still think she looks relatively worse compared to people like Edwards right now.

That said, she is a huge favorite at this point and other events/internal decisions will clearly play a much larger role in possibly knocking her off that perch than anything directly coming out of this election.

[Nate tha\\\' Great]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think it is hard to tell how yesterday's results affected any specific candidate. My only intuition is that the gains Democrats made in Ohio and New Hampshire gives some incentive to the party to be more conservative about their nominee. Holding the Kerry states and keeping the newly blue Ohio is a winning formula. What you don't want is somebody with an obvious weakness (ie, Hillary) that might be exploited to change the conversation.

[/ QUOTE ]

The conventional wisdom -- well, at least the Tradesports widsom -- is that yesterday's result tends to entrench a McCain versus Hillary matchup.

[/ QUOTE ]

I can believe this on the McCain side quite easily, since it is clear to me that the lesson from today is that the GOP needs a centrist candidate with white working class appeal, which is basically McCain's relative forte. I think the Dems winning the senate helps Hillary in that it gives her a bigger platform in the next year or so, and potentially the opportunity to be more heavily in the mix on defense issues. As far as it shows that the Dems don't necessarily need to swing for the fences, it may help her against certain other possible candidates. But within the parameters of a more conservative strategy, I still think she looks relatively worse compared to people like Edwards right now.

That said, she is a huge favorite at this point and other events/internal decisions will clearly play a much larger role in possibly knocking her off that perch than anything directly coming out of this election.

[/ QUOTE ]

The candidate whom I think it hurts the most is Obama. He's the one clearly "outside the box" candidate the Democrats have, and they may conclude that they don't need such a thing with the momentum at their backs.

It probably also hurts distinctively moderate candidates like Evan Bayh. They'll think they can get someone closer to the center of the party into the Oval Office.

I don't think it affects Al Gore's chances one way or the other, because I honest-to-god think that Gore will make his decision based on whether he "needs" to run to save the world from global warming.

John Edwards is probably not affected one way or the other, but I think he remains a "1-A" alternative for the sort of Democrats who would vote for Hillary.

So I think the McCain-Hillary battle is fairly likely.

As far as the veep nominees go, I'll predict that Hillary will chose Bayh. I think McCain needs to nominate someone who is (1) young and healthy; (2) moderate, but does not clash with his strong personality (e.g. no Giuliani). A midwesterner would probably also help, but there aren't too many midwestern stars in the GOP right now. Thus, I think it probably defaults to Romney or Huckabaee.

[NT!]

If the Dems do win the Senate I think it's pretty unlikely they take the presidency in 08 running anyone named Clinton.

Swing voters won't want one party running everything. Combine this with running a woman for President and I don't think the Dems will win.

[Nate tha\\\' Great]

[ QUOTE ]
If the Dems do win the Senate I think it's pretty unlikely they take the presidency in 08 running anyone named Clinton.

Swing voters won't want one party running everything. Combine this with running a woman for President and I don't think the Dems will win.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree that it might have been slightly better for the Dems in 2008 if they had won the House but not the Senate.

[sam h]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think it is hard to tell how yesterday's results affected any specific candidate. My only intuition is that the gains Democrats made in Ohio and New Hampshire gives some incentive to the party to be more conservative about their nominee. Holding the Kerry states and keeping the newly blue Ohio is a winning formula. What you don't want is somebody with an obvious weakness (ie, Hillary) that might be exploited to change the conversation.

[/ QUOTE ]

The conventional wisdom -- well, at least the Tradesports widsom -- is that yesterday's result tends to entrench a McCain versus Hillary matchup.

[/ QUOTE ]

I can believe this on the McCain side quite easily, since it is clear to me that the lesson from today is that the GOP needs a centrist candidate with white working class appeal, which is basically McCain's relative forte. I think the Dems winning the senate helps Hillary in that it gives her a bigger platform in the next year or so, and potentially the opportunity to be more heavily in the mix on defense issues. As far as it shows that the Dems don't necessarily need to swing for the fences, it may help her against certain other possible candidates. But within the parameters of a more conservative strategy, I still think she looks relatively worse compared to people like Edwards right now.

That said, she is a huge favorite at this point and other events/internal decisions will clearly play a much larger role in possibly knocking her off that perch than anything directly coming out of this election.

[/ QUOTE ]

The candidate whom I think it hurts the most is Obama. He's the one clearly "outside the box" candidate the Democrats have, and they may conclude that they don't need such a thing with the momentum at their backs.

It probably also hurts distinctively moderate candidates like Evan Bayh. They'll think they can get someone closer to the center of the party into the Oval Office.

I don't think it affects Al Gore's chances one way or the other, because I honest-to-god think that Gore will make his decision based on whether he "needs" to run to save the world from global warming.

John Edwards is probably not affected one way or the other, but I think he remains a "1-A" alternative for the sort of Democrats who would vote for Hillary.

So I think the McCain-Hillary battle is fairly likely.

As far as the veep nominees go, I'll predict that Hillary will chose Bayh. I think McCain needs to nominate someone who is (1) young and healthy; (2) moderate, but does not clash with his strong personality (e.g. no Giuliani). A midwesterner would probably also help, but there aren't too many midwestern stars in the GOP right now. Thus, I think it probably defaults to Romney or Huckabaee.

[/ QUOTE ]

This sounds like a reasonable analysis. I agree with you especially about Obama. He is clearly the type of "swing for the fences" candidate that doesn't seem so necessary now.

A lot just really depends on whether enough internal power brokers coordinate and decide to back a different horse than Hillary, be that Bayh, Richardson, or Edwards. I think a lot of insider apprehension remains about Hillary right now, but actually coordinating and translating that into an effective campaign for someone else is not that easy to do.

As far as a running-mate for McCain goes, I agree with you about the basic paramters. I just don't think it will be Romney though. He gives them no geographical advantage, his mormonism is still a net negative, and his centrist credentials have begun to wear thin toward the end of his time in Massachusetts.

[Dan.]

Oh God, the terrorists have won. Now that the Democrats are in office, I expect that random building will start exploding and civilians everywhere are in danger.

Atleast that's what fox news tells me.

[Nate tha\\\' Great]

[ QUOTE ]
As far as a running-mate for McCain goes, I agree with you about the basic paramters. I just don't think it will be Romney though. He gives them no geographical advantage, his mormonism is still a net negative, and his centrist credentials have begun to wear thin toward the end of his time in Massachusetts.

[/ QUOTE ]

You may be right about Romney. It's actually fairly hard to come up with a good pairing for McCain, though. Dick Lugar would be interesting, but he's four years older than McCain. Chuck Hagel has probably been too outspoken on Iraq. Colin Powell remains an intriguing possibility, I guess.

[CharlieDontSurf]

If its Hillary vs. McCain they might as well not even hold the election...it'll be a bloodbath with Hillary getting slaughtered.
She's a woman, she viewed as a lefty bitch...she's basically one of the most hated women in the country. I'd be surprised if she doesn't lose by at a minimum 8%.

Lindsey Grahm/Chuck Hagel/etc
McCain will pick a friend over someone who might be a bit better demo wise