May 14, 2014
PARTIES' 2014, 2016 WISH-LISTS COULD PORTEND DISASTER

ANALYSIS & OPINION BY RUSS STEWART

by RUSS STEWART

It is often said: Be careful what you wish for. You might get it. And, soon thereafter, you might regret it.

That mind-set applies to the Republicans nationally in 2014, which is portending to be an anti-Obama “wave” year, similar to 2010. Democrats benefited from anti-Bush “waves” in 2006 and 2008. Republicans could optimally gain ten U.S. Senate seats, giving them a 55-45 majority in that chamber; they will surely retain their 234-191 U.S. House majority, perhaps adding 6-10 more seats. But then the bickering, squabbling, slashing, repealing, spinning, and maybe even impeaching will start, with the president vetoing every bill the Republicans pass, and the Republicans burying every Obama proposal.

By 2016, the GOP congressional majority will be as monumentally unpopular as Barack Obama. The party’s 2014 triumph will be a precursor of Republican disaster, so tarnishing and corrupting the party’s brand that no Republican presidential candidate can win.

Which brings us to the Indispensable Woman – Hillary Clinton. Democratic strategists readily acknowledge that, if she runs, they retain the presidency – despite Obama’s burgeoning unpopularity and public fatigue; if she doesn’t run, a Republican wins the White House. Does anybody believe that Joe Biden, Marty O’Malley, Andrew Cuomo, Brian Schweitzer, Mark Warner, Kirsten Gillibrand or Deval Patrick will be the next Democratic president?  Warner, a Virginia senator, has deep-pockets and is only moderately liberal; he could be, absent Hillary, 2016’s Jimmy Carter – enough non-Obama and non-liberal to win the primaries in a field of liberals.

But the Democrats’ problem is that, as president, Hillary Clinton can never fulfill expectations. She will undoubtedly win in 2016 as the “change” candidate, and that perception is based solely on her gender. She will stimulate a huge outpouring of women voters in urban, northern and coastal areas, and her candidacy will encourage a plethora of female Democrats to seek congressional and state offices. Many will win, thanks to Clinton, and Democrats will likely regain a congressional majority.

Then the problems erupt. At age 69 (in 2016), Hillary Clinton is no longer the flaming feminist of her youth. She will have evolved into a kindly, nurturing grandmother, sort of an American version of Israel’s Golda Meir, whose raison d’etre for running is that it’s time for Washington politicians to act like adults, not schoolyard brats. Of course, the other reason is that she can win – and nobody passes up that opportunity, even if she has no particular agenda, nor any significant policy differences with Obama.

And then, as the 2020’s approach, and the Baby-Boomer generation is ensconced in restless retirement, America will be treated to the endless spectacle of the antics of the “Old Couple” – Hill and Bill – in the White House. They used to be the “Odd Couple.”

And congressional Democrats, invigorated and in the majority, will interpret the 2016 result as a vindication of their liberal agenda. They will expect Clinton II to be Obama II, not a replication of Clinton I. And when Clinton II does not act like Obama I, the Democrats will be perplexed and angry, with the Reid-Pelosi wing embittered at the “triangulation” and trimming of the Clinton wing, who will be more focused on raising money and entrenching themselves than electing congressional Democrats.

In 2018, the Republicans will engineer a huge comeback, retaking Congress, and setting the stage for a Republican presidential win in 2020. From a political perspective, 2018 is a critical year, since 36 states elect governors, and they, in conjunction with state legislatures elected in 2020, will control the 2022 redistricting.

The Republicans’ 2010 sweep is why John Boehner is U.S. House speaker; the party elected enough governors and won enough legislatures to create a decade-long House “lock” – which only Hillary Clinton can undo.

A good Democratic 2016 will result in a good Republican 2018, and probably a good Republican 2020, which will result in a good Republican 2020s decade. But politicians think only in the short-term. They want power now.

Here are some facts to support my hypothesis:

2014: The U.S. Senate, with 6-year terms, has three classes, dating back to the nation’s founding. In 2014, 33 seats are up (plus three vacancies with 2-year terms). In 2008, in the Obama sweep, Democrats won 20 of those 33 seats. That means Democrats have greater 2014 vulnerability, with more states “at risk.”

In the 2010 Republican sweep, the party gained eight seats, and goes into 2016 holding 24 of 34 seats. Republican incumbents in Illinois, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, New Hampshire, Iowa, Arizona, Kentucky, Georgia and Florida are at serious risk. In fact, formidable Democratic women are already positioning themselves to run against those Republicans. If Republicans gain a 55-45 senate majority in 2014, it could easily become a 52-48 Democratic majority after 2016.

But then comes 2018. The 33 senators – 25 Democrats and only eight Republicans – are up. A sizeable number of Democrats, buoyed by the 2012 Obama wave, or aided by inept Republican opponents, are at risk – those in Indiana, Missouri, Wisconsin, Ohio, North Dakota, Florida, Montana, Virginia. Blowback against an unpopular or embattled Clinton Administration could give the Republicans a 4-8 seat 2018 gain, a majority, and gridlock going into 2020. Interestingly, Virginia’s Senator Tim Kaine (D), elected in 2012 by a 224,525-vote margin (53 percent), and a former governor and Democratic national committee chairman, is atop Clinton’s vice-presidential list. He’s young enough (age 56) to run for president in 2020 or 2024. And, to be acceptable, Clinton needs a white male as a runningmate – not a black, Hispanic, or another woman.

In non-presidential election years, such as 2014, turnout among the Democratic base falls significantly. That’s why Republicans swept in 2010: Anti-Obama (and anti-Obamacare) Republicans and independents were energized, while minorities failed to vote in 2008 numbers. The Democrats’ 2014 strategy is simple: Avoid a nationalized referendum on Obama, and localize it by running a whole lot of white women, thereby appealing to the one demographic which may vote in 2012 numbers – independent women.

In many key 2014 U.S. Senate races, the outcome will depend, as it did in 2010, on drop-off. When a third of the 2008 Obama voters abstained in 2010, Republicans won; if that recurs in 2014, Republicans will win. In 7 states, for governor or senator (NH, LA, GA, NC, TX, WI, KY), female Democrats are up against conservative male Republicans.

In Louisiana, 18-year incumbent Mary Landrieu (D), who voted for Obamacare, faces congressman Bill Cassidy (R). In 2008, Landrieu won by 988,298-867,177, a 121,121-vote margin (52 percent), aided by a heavy minority (Louisiana is 33 percent black) and pro-Obama vote. But Obama still lost the state 1,148,275-782,989. Landrieu ran 205,309 votes ahead of Obama, getting a lot of white (and John McCain) votes. In 2010, incumbent U.S. Senator David Vitter (R) was re-elected 715,415-476,572 (57 percent). Vitter got 432,860 fewer votes than McCain (a 38 percent drop-off), but his opponent (D) got 306,417 fewer votes than Obama, and 511,726 fewer than Landrieu – drop-offs of 39 and 51 percent, respectively.  

2010 turnout was down by 658,000 – 36 percent. In 2012, Obama lost the state 809,141-1,152,262 – same as 2008.

It was deja vu in North Carolina, where first-termer Kay Hagen (D), another Obamacare backer, faces state Speaker Thom Tillis (R). Hagen beat Elizabeth Dole in 2008 by a 361,801-vote margin (53 percent), getting 2,249,311 votes while Obama got 2,142,651 votes  (50 percent). In 2010, the Republican senator, Richard Burr, was re-elected 1,458,046-1,145,074 (55 percent), with the Democratic candidate getting one million fewer votes than Obama. In 2012, Obama lost the state,

Landrieu and Hagan can only win by demonizing their male opponents, and avoiding any Obama connection. But if Democratic drop-off is 30-35 percent on Nov. 4, both will lose – along with a lot of others.

In Kentucky, Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell (R) faces a dicey challenge from youthful state Secretary of State Alison Londergan Grimes (D). A 30-year incumbent, with high negatives, McConnell cannot be a bully by attacking her, as Grimes has no tie to Obama. So McConnell will spend over $15 million to portray the contest as McConnell-versus-Obama, since Obama got only 38 percent  in 2012. Grimes will spend $8 million to make the race a referendum on McConnell, portraying him as part of the Washington “problem.”

If Republicans win a Senate majority, it will increase the pressure on Hillary Clinton to run in 2016.

In Illinois, 2016 is already underway. U.S. Representative Tammy Duckworth (D-8) and black state senator Kwame Raoul (D) both want the Democratic senatorial nomination. Incumbent Mark Kirk (R) won by 59,220 votes in 2010, in turnout of 3.7 million. Obama won Illinois by 1,388,169 votes in 2008, and by 884,296 votes in 2012, in turnouts of close to 5.5 million. Hobbled by a stroke, Kirk’s feisty recovery engenders sympathy and admiration, but that will not translate into votes. Kirk’s ailments have precluded him from vigorously campaigning, and he has not evolved into a sympathetic or iconic figure.

If Clinton, an Illinois native, runs, she will win the state by at least one million votes. That makes Kirk a goner.

E-mail Russ@russstewart.com or visit his website at www.russstewart.com.