The long-anticipated 2010 midterm elections are upon us, and the Republicans have officially taken control of the House of Representatives. Recent CNN reports show the Republicans with 226 House seats and the Democrats with 154. The Democrats, however, have (as was widely predicted) maintained control of the Senate, with CNN reporting their Senate seat total as 51 (versus a 46-seat total for the Republicans).
While tonight’s election returns were cause for much celebration among Cornell’s conservative groups, at least some of the campus liberal community remains skeptical about their true significance.
For instance, Junior Editor-in-Chief of the Cornell Progressive Sarah Greenberg commented that the election results do not indicate the major political upheaval some make them out to. She asserted that the Democrat’s losses were a result of poor campaign strategy rather than mass dissatisfaction with liberal political agendas.
Cornell Democrats Executive Board member Sam Moss, too, contends that the real effects of tonight’s elections on Washington policy-making are dubious. He predicted that, since the country still faces the same “fundamental problems” it did two years ago, tonight’s results will not entail much change in the policies coming from Congress. He also (correctly) noted that without a Senate majority or a Republican in the White House the Republicans’ recent electoral gains will only guarantee limited gains in power.
Ultimately, only time will tell the true impacts of tonight’s midterms, but, at least for now, with numerous Republican victories in both Congressional and gubernatorial races, the country seems to have taken a definitive step to the right.
What the House majority means is that any legislation needs significant GOP support to get through. If Congress had looked like this two years ago, we would have had no stimulus and no Obamacare. At least they can still block cap & tax.
I don’t get it sam, how do you differentiate between “frustrated to the left” and “taking a step to the right”?
I think the larger issue here Sam is that your “Obamamania theory” is becoming increasingly difficult, if not impossible, to falsify. Will you ever admit that there is a finite, non-zero probability that there are people who have legitimate qualms with the Obama agenda? That is, people who are not homophobes, racists, fox news watchers, or bible thumping conservative nutjobs who actually don’t like the expansion of government? You see as a conservative I will willingly cede that there are liberals who have legitimate arguments for the issues they support, but you don’t seem to be willing to acknowledge the same.
But since you made the point, here’s the data that prove you’re wrong:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/141032/2010-conservatives-outnumber-moderates-liberals.aspx
5% increase in those who consider themselves conservatives, 2% drop in liberals since 2008. That’s not a giant leap, but it’s a definite step to the right. Sorry Ferenc, I’m not trying to rub it in your face here (since you certainly did not rub it into mine in 2008), but you can’t just spin November 2010 like this. It was a loss. Acknowledge it as such and move on.
Good point, Dennis. It’s hard for me to understand how the Dems could possibly spin this as anything but a repudiation of their legislative agenda, and watching them try over the last 24 hours has certainly produced some comical results.
I think the greater solace for Dems must be that they’ve won the only thing that should matter: the direction of policy in this country. This Congress pushed through more substantive legislation than any since perhaps LBJ’s Great Society–legislation that will have a significant long-term impact on this country, for better or worse. Liberals should acknowledge that they got trounced, but be proud of and talk up their legislative accomplishments, arguing that they chose policy over politics. (A lot of truth to this, I think.)
For thoughts on this far better than my own, I refer to pundit-geniuses Jonathan Chait at TNR and Ross Douthat at the NYT:
http://www.tnr.com/blog/jonathan-chait/78910/was-it-worth-it
http://douthat.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/11/02/was-it-worth-it/
I think the most important lesson of the election is that there is no such thing as an “enduring majority.”
Bush + Rove tried to establish one with things like Part D in 02-05. That failed. Then Dems roll us in 06-08 and we’re told “the country has moved left!” And now the GOP wins 65+ seats in the House.
Ferenk: in response to my editorial you said “I disagree with much of what you’ve said, not on differences of policy but on perceptions of reality. It is these competing perceptions of what is real and true that define our national divide right now, more so than the outcome of midterm elections during a down economy.”
Again, as Dennis points out, your go-to response to just about any critique of liberal policy is that the critique is actually an ill-conceived perception of reality. This election can’t POSSIBLY be a refutation of Democratic principles, just angry people people being angry. What Dennis just pointed out is that you’re taking part in the exact type of evasion techniques I criticize in my article! How insulting to the American people your statement is.
I guess I’ll continue the level of debate you’ve initiated and respond by saying, “na-uh, YOUR perception of reality is wrong!”
I agree with both Dennis and John. It is worth noting that I certainly was not suggesting the country’s “step to the right” was permanent. That doesn’t, however, make it any less real.
Mr. Ferenc, Obama ran on “bringing us together” and all of that, as well as a moderate does of liberalism, of course. The “bring us together” shtick has turned out to be total BS. A bunch of pundits considered to be conservatives fell for it, e.g. Davids Broder/Brooks, Kathleen Parker… And what happened? His major policy initiatives have passed solely with Democratic support. George W. Bush was far more bipartisan of a president than our current one.
This is what I find irritating about the “Sanity movement.” It’s a bunch of liberals saying “things would be so much better if everyone was reasonable.” READ: “things would be so much better if everyone agreed with me, because my positions are based upon reason alone.” (Obama fits in perfectly!) Of course it’s again BS, because a particular political ideology–liberalism–underlies it all.
P.S. Post fixed.
Thank you, Farragut
So?
Wait, the NYT agrees with you?? I retract all of my previous statements. What a fool I am…
Oh wait! The Journal agrees with me: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703506904575592371391780744.html?mod=WSJ_hp_mostpop_read
Yay! Since 434,487 more people read the WSJ than the NYT, I must win!
I retract my retraction!!
You’re off your rocker, sam.
Exactly.
I don’t think anyone here is really arguing that the basic political alignment of the nation has changed just because of this one election. As I said earlier, I never suggested that the country’s step to the right (with respect to the makeup of Congress) was permanent or somehow indicative of a deep shift in political and social norms in American society. Rather, I simply observed that– for now, at least– one of the country’s major policy-making institutions has moved to the right. Make of this move what you will.