False Rumors of the Democratic Demise

Depending on where you get your news, this upcoming Congressional election is, well, up in the air. CNN Headline News, after showing a number of highly relevant YouTube videos, will likely give a BREAKING NEWS update about how the election looks like a potential disaster. Glenn Beck of Fox News will probably pull out his chalkboard and show how ACORN and Karl Marx prove that this election spells the ultimate demise of the Democrats. Rachel Maddow from MSNBC might even concede that the election is looking problematic.

Now, whether this uncertainty has been generated solely by the news media or whether it represents a genuine trend among voters is a difficult question to answer, but one worth considering. Since the Democrats relinquished their “supermajority” of 60 votes in Congress with the loss of the Massachusetts Senate seat to the GOP, the pressing question seems to be whether this shift was simply an anomaly or whether the Democratic stronghold of our government has already collapsed.

In defense of the punditry, the cause for alarm does not solely stem from Scott Brown’s winning the seat formerly held by Ted Kennedy. This year, 12 senators will retire: a potentially frightening number, especially since many of the retirements came with glib remarks about how “discouraging” it is that “politics as usual” has come to “halt efforts at bipartisanship,” among other currently marketable political sound bites. Especially since the advent of a new generation of political figures like Sarah Palin, it has become popular to rail against Washington, and these retirees have taken that idea to heart.. However, the idea that these resignations are indicative of a real trend immediately falls apart when one considers the data. It was only 14 years ago, in 1996, when an even greater number of Senators retired. Of the 13 retirements in that year’s election, only three resulted in the win of a Republican challenger to a Democratic incumbent, despite the general trend of GOP gains since 1994. In fact, in 1996, the GOP actually lost seats in the House. Retirements are not the end of the world.

Moreover, the furor created by the loss of a single seat in the Senate belies another, greater reality: namely, the fact that the Democrats’ “filibuster-proof” majority in the Senate was an illusion. In 2008, when the Democrats achieved a sweeping victory, images of a new era of Democratic control appeared. Progressive reform seemed imminent, and the majority of the country was swept up in excitement. But what followed? Sweeping progressive reform? Not a chance. Even with 60 Senators caucusing with the Democrats, they were basically incapable of voting as a bloc. Today’s Democratic Party, for better or worse, is comprised of too diverse a set of ideologies to agree on a platform, let alone an issue as contentious as health care reform. So for practical purposes, little has changed now that the Democrats hold 59 seats instead of the precious 60. Unless the GOP picks up another nine Senators and 40 Congressmen, little else is likely to change. Granted, every additional vote is helpful, but the holy grail of 60 seats really was never that holy. A truly unbeatable bloc would require a much larger, much more unified majority, which is not in the Democrats’ cards.

So what about the Republican dream for this election? Is it a likely prospect? In the House, the answer is simply no. Polling overwhelmingly suggests that even if the Democrats were forced to cede several seats, the Democratic majority in the House is there to stay for the time being. The currently pushed message is one of populist anger, but if that is the case, everyone is angry at the vague notions of “Washington” and “politics as usual.” Trust in the Democratic Party has declined somewhat, but the Republicans have not met with corresponding gains. Nobody has been able to genuinely capitalize on whatever fervor there may be.

Be that as it may, the Senate races will be much more complex. If we really stretch the term, there are roughly ten “toss-up” states for available seats. Of those ten, Democrats presently hold six of the seats and Republicans hold four. So even if these seats are truly for the taking, the percentage split of which party holds the toss-up seats does not trend to the left or right — the breakup is in line with the number of seats each party holds in the Senate as a whole. Furthermore, the Republicans are no more unified in their efforts to capture these seats than the Democrats. For example, in Kentucky, where some believe the Republicans may hold a slight edge, there exists a potentially dangerous divide for the GOP between the newcomer, Rand Paul (son of famous libertarian Ron Paul) and the more traditional party favorite, Trey Grayson. Ultimately, even if the GOP picks up some of these contested seats, it will be exceedingly difficult for the party to keep the four seats that it presently owns and capture another five seats from the Democrats.

All in all, if there are any legitimate trends to be found in light of recent events, it is the increasing alarmism that has colored what used to be bona fide news organizations. The reality is that bold, sweeping claims of impending doom sell more newspapers and do more for ailing ratings than more reserved, boring predictions of what is to come. Besides, “the Death of the Democratic Party” has a certain ring to it — how could anyone pass that up?