The Future

Obama winning big moves everybody in Obama's direction b/c he has the list of donors and volunteers that makes him a credible threat to whack anybody, Democrat or Republican.

Here are some Republican Senators up in 2010 who won't want to face Obama's list of donors and volunteers: Martinez (Florida), Isakson (Georgia), Vitter (Louisiana), Bond (Missouri), Gregg, (NH), Burr (NC), Voinovich (OH) & Specter (PA).

I think everybody wants to put the adversarial aspect of the Bush years behind them. Democrats don't like to govern this way. And the Republicans don't want to be on the receiving end of this.

Obama will look for face-saving ways to get Republicans to support his agenda. And enough Republicans will recognize it's a good deal that they will play ball.

Will there be House Republicans who make strident speeches? Yep. But the House of Reps doesn't have a filibuster. There's not much the GOP can do to obstruct the Obama agenda in a weak minority.

And the next two cycles don't look good for the GOP. I expect another big wave of retirements in 2010 when Republicans with seniority realize they will never be in the majority again in their careers. And then in 2012 everybody plays on a new map, with many of the changes written by Democrats.

after the recriminations, infighting, and power plays, the different factions will try to promote, and then coalesce around, the young (or young-looking) likable pol they deem more electable than any other to become the future standard-bearer. Multiple cage matches between Palin, Jindal, Huckabee, Romney, Crist, maybe even Allen.

But no one comes out a clear victor, mostly because the money men have cold feet and can't decide who to lose on this time.

So from those ashes the visionary seizes his moment. Newt does his Wormtongue thing and announces in April 2011 his candidacy for President, with his running mate already by his side: the newly retired and sainted General David Petraeus.

Democratic Party moves to the right. That doesn't sound promising.

To stop the Republicans we became the Republicans.

Well this is SORTA what happened to the British (English!) Conservatives, and they did as a result burn-through 3 very right-wing leaders in the process, but it has only taken them 10 years to come to their senses and elect a more appealing leader; and although a week is a long time in politics, 10 years really isn't.

I gotta go with Palin being here to stay, though whether that means she can actually win anything outside of Alaskan senator is another story.

I expect the conservative GOP remaining in Congress to radicalize a bit and resort to their normal tactics of belligerence and trying to grind the wheels down.

The business wing of the party is between a rock and a hard place, not sure what they're going to do, not sure they'll know either for awhile, but yes they will need to be kissing up to the powers that be in the meantime, in order to defend their interests.

Back to Palin, I don't see her running for president in 2012, but more being a charismatic leader, as that election could end up being very tough to win.

2016 would be a better target for her, with Obama retiring and Biden probably not running or vulnerable, and in the meantime she could remain governor and possibly even challenge Murkowski for the Senate seat in 2010.

Which are the centrists of the new Democratic Senators?

Not Merkley in Oregon, not Franken in MN (knock wood), not Shaheen in NH. Tom Udall in New Mexico supports an ERA amendment. Mark Udall doesn't look much like a centrist either. Kay Hagan in NC looks like an economic populist (but refuses to mention LGBT issues at all). Jim Martin in Georgia (knock wood) also looks like an economic populist. Mark Begich in AK does look like a centrist. And Lunsford in KY and Musgrove in MS are both DINOs who probably won't win anyway (and the important question with them is whether they would be the sort of DINOs like Ken Salazar who spend their time bad mouthing Dems, or if he'd be the good sort of DINO who votes against the party when he disagrees, but doesn't speak ill of the party.

Five out of eight doesn't seem any worse than the Democratic Senate distribution currently. Plus, 5 new center-left Senators means that the Dems can afford to ignore more of the Blue Dogs when they have to, and still get to 50.

I'm not going to go through the house, where I have been paying much less attention, but the same applies. More Dems, some of whom are center-left instead of center-right, means more center-left Dems in the House, means diminshed power for the center-right Dems.

Wow. "hardcore". "true believers".

Tell us, Kevin: who are the hardcore true-believers in the Democratic party? Do they include any Senators from Illinois?

I am much more concerned about purging the Hawks from both parties than their supposed leanings-I am tired of the Pentagon and their 800 Bases and Patriot Missiles in Poland. I am also tired of Cheney's Halliburton Company thinking that they can control Government for profit and Big Oil that can get the Republican's in Congress to sit up and beg when they whistle! I would also love to see the Senators involved with UBI get indicted and Jailed-I am a terrible Capitalist when Capitalism is Un-American!

"If this happens, the upshot is that both parties get moved to the right. Most of the Democratic pickups will be in centrist states and districts, which will move the Democratic caucus moderately toward the center."

True, but the country's politics will be moved to the left. The median vote in the House right now is something like Zack Space, Henry Cuellar, or Nick Lampson. If 2/3s of incoming Democrats are to the left of those guys, the median vote becomes someone like Jim Cooper, Artur Davis, or Tim Walz ... folks who are substantially less conservative.

The big issue right now is that it looks like we are not going to get a filibuster-proof Senate, which means that a small number of Republican Senators and Joe Lieberman are going to have a lot of power. Which Senators are most likely to go against their party, and on which issues?

Sarah Palin will fade away to Alaska, starting about 48 hours from now. Nobody likes her--even Conservatives realize that they have better spokespeople available.

they'll be back in 4 years.

the Dems will fail to do what they promised (because the Rs won't let them). and the Rs will run against the Do-Nothing Dem in '12.

I'm not sure an election with the numbers you stated would lead to a rightward drift in the Democratic Party. It always seemed to me their previous rightward drift was a result of fear, having a strong Republican opponent using Fox, Drudge, Broder come after them for appearing too leftish. If they lose some of that fear because of the results of this election, that would probably cancel out any rightward drift because of Democrats From The Heartland.

As for the Republicans rightward drift, that all depends on how aggressively an Obama Presidency deals with them. Having a bully pulpit to rail against "wacko" Republicans and blame them for any halting of legislation bringing economic relief might limit them no matter how right-wing they are.

... I should add that there will be a net leftward shift because the political offices that the right loses will generally be replaced by more liberal politicians.

I suspect Palin really is stupid, meaning she has little cognitive abilities, but she certainly does light up people below the Keyes Horizon. I guess that means she'll be a Fox News commentator or have a regional talk show.

"Will these folks rally around Sarah Palin as their conservative savior? "

The last person to be a failed VP candidate and go on to win the presidency was FDR. Palin is no FDR.

Kevin's point about the national parties moving incrementally to the right after a big Obama/Democratic victory makes sense, even if it's initially counter-intuitive, but there won't be a rightward shift in policy. The replacement of George W. Bush (and Cheney!) ensures more enlightened policy from the top. What's more, any rightward ideological shift in the congressional caucuses will be mitigated to the degree that Obama is a successful leader as president. After all, nothing is more sacred to your average politician than re-election. If President Obama is maintaining decent approval ratings and making progress in restoring our confidence and economy, politicians of every stripe will sidle toward him a bit. That could wipe out the tendency for the party caucuses to be more conservative in the new congress.

Of course, the notion that Obama will be a counterweight to an ideological shift in congress depends on the degree to which he governs from left of center. He's a pragmatic and moderate politician (in addition, you know, to being a secret Marxist, Muslim, socialist, communist, and redistributionist), so it remains to be seen exactly where he'll end up on the political spectrum.

I would like to see a time capsule archive of the dire predictions of the right of the terrible fate of the country after an Obama victory. In four or eight years, it can be opened, and we can all see how it panned out.

Perhaps it would be wise to remember the words that God gave to Israel in Deuteronomy 8:10-18

10 When you have eaten and are satisfied, praise the LORD your God for the good land he has given you. 11 Be careful that you do not forget the LORD your God, failing to observe his commands, his laws and his decrees that I am giving you this day. 12 Otherwise, when you eat and are satisfied, when you build fine houses and settle down, 13 and when your herds and flocks grow large and your silver and gold increase and all you have is multiplied, 14 then your heart will become proud and you will forget the LORD your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery. 15 He led you through the vast and dreadful desert, that thirsty and waterless land, with its venomous snakes and scorpions. He brought you water out of hard rock. 16 He gave you manna to eat in the desert, something your fathers had never known, to humble and to test you so that in the end it might go well with you. 17 You may say to yourself, "My power and the strength of my hands have produced this wealth for me." 18 But remember the LORD your God, for it is he who gives you the ability to produce wealth, and so confirms his covenant, which he swore to your forefathers, as it is today.

When the country has recovered its standing in the world, and the people have gained wealth and security we, like Israel, will be tempted to say "I did this on my own strength. I don't need responsible and helpful government. Those who are poor are to blame for their own plight, and I don't want to pay for bailing them out." Then there will be a turn to the right again, as the newly-prosperous try to consolidate and hold their wealth. People need to be reminded that they were miserable with a failing economy, social injustice, torture and domestic spying in the name of 'security' and a government with contempt for the constitution.

On Wednesday morning the Republicans operatives will be trading excuses and accusations, jockeying for a shrinking number of positions within the party, but also for metastacizing nodes among the right-wing nonprofits. I hope that they continue to bleat about Obama's unfair financial advantage over McCain.

Given their narrow view of the world, they are likely to see money as the only difference between victory and defeat. I hope that retain their blindness to their intellectual and moral bankruptcy for a few more election cycles, because being wrong and being stubborn about it will provide voters with a clear choice.

I hope that Congress takes the financial whiners up on their challenge and engineers campaign-financing rules that serve the electorate rather than the media. If Republican spending is curtailed, so is the Republicans' ability to appeal to the majority of the voters.

If issues and solutions, not image, increase in prominence, the Republicans have nothing to offer at present. Each party has to build on precedent to some extent, and the Republicans will come out of the 2008 elections having proved that none of their ideas work--that they simply do not understand anything except how to amass wealth while bleeding the productive people and sectors dry.

The hard core that clings to the Republican label after this election may be even more reactionary, but it can be structurally quarantined if its access to funding is limited. Minority rule is expensive. The ideologically committed don't cost so much, but they tend to be unpresentable. It costs money to hire more presentable candidates who will trade tolerance for selfish, malicious idiocy for power and cash. If the power and cash are limited by public campaign financing, limits on private financing and campaign expenditures, ethics rules, transparency, and law enforcement, the crazy right will have a much harder time wedging its agents into office.

I believe the professionals in the GOP will conclude that they were simply out-organized on a massive scale. That grassroots organization produced not only volunteers, votes and activism but also a tidal wave of donations. As a result, one of the least likely of national candidates is now on the verge of an historic landslide. That lesson will not be lost on the cognoscente in either party...

You said earlier that
"The cause of liberal change is better served by Obama in 2008 than it would have been by Kerry in 2004."

Now you are saying that his victory will move the country farther to the right. I agree with you, since he has not run with a liberal message. But how is this serving the cause of liberal change at all, much less better than Kerry, someone with a stronger liveral record and views, would have? Creating lieal change is not even on Obama's radar.

Yeah, just like both the parties moved to the left after the last two Bush victories.

1. Assign a number to each congressional seat representing its position on a left-right scale (say -100=extreme left, +100=extreme right).

2. Assume (for a moment) that these numbers do not change after the election -- i.e., each seat retains its position on the left-right scale.

3. If, after the election, the Democrats pick up seats from the Republicans, then it is true that the numerical average (or center of gravity) of both parties will move to the right. But the average for congress as a whole remains the same.

4. If you relax constraint #2 above (i.e., some individual seats actually move slightly to the left after the election) then it is perfectly possible that each party moves to the right, but congress as a whole moves to the left. This is what Nicholas Beaudrot also argued above.

The key error that Kevin makes in this post is that states can be represented as "centrist" or liberal in some kind of meaningful way. But as I think Andrew Gellman has shown recently, there is a real difference between states like those in the South, where you have conservative Republicans and moderate Democrats, and those in the Southwest/mountain west, where you have conservative Republicans and very liberal Democrats. In the first, replacing a Republican with a Democrat generates a new Democratic senator who is to the right of the median in the existing caucus. But in the second, the newly elected Democrat may be just at or even left of the existing median. So its just incorrect to say that newly elected Democrats must be to the right of most of the existing party, since they represent places that had just previously had GOP reps. Instead, you need to actually look the particular candidates and state parties, and in this years race they're overwhelmingly progressive. Consider that even Lunsford and Musgrove have strongly endorsed EFCA.