Read Sam Tanenhaus's defence of Obama from the last issue of Prospect
It was a worse night for the Democrats than any of their strategists had reckoned. They lost control of the Senate by a bigger margin than even gloomy predictions had expected, leaving control of both houses of Congress in Republican hands. They lost in seats they had considered safe, in nearly every competitive contest, and they lost governorships in traditionally “deep blue” states such as Massachusetts and Maryland.
They can’t blame “the map”, although the pattern of seats up for contest did favour Republicans. This was an anti-Obama vote, and Republicans had succeeded in determining that the campaign was fought on their terms—all about President Barack Obama, not much overall about the recovering economy.
What now? With two years to run, can a president who was all but invisible during this campaign, other than in Democrat strongholds on the east and west coasts, achieve anything? And how do these results shape the 2016 presidential race? It is not quite as bad for Democrats as the night of 4th November suggests.
On the face of it, Obama is even more boxed in than before. For six years, he has faced a hostile, partisan and obstructive House of Representatives—and now he has both houses against him.
The immediate question is whether Republicans seek to dismantle Obamacare, or the Affordable Care Act, the programme of extending healthcare insurance which is his greatest achievement—and one likely to be rated more highly in years to come than it is now. They probably won’t try to scrap it overall, but might try to amend it. Many congressional Republicans loathed the programme from the start, for the element of compulsion by the federal government to buy insurance; others objected when forced to switch health insurance providers. The Republican-controlled House of Representatives has already voted to repeal or strip funding from the programme more than 50 times. Obama may have to defend it with presidential veto—but may want to accept amendments, not all of which the White House rejects. On a second front, if he tries to bypass Congress on immigration policy, a point of unyielding confrontation, there will be a bloody battle.
However, in other areas gridlock has been less complete than rhetoric would imply. Legislation on the postal service and other practicalities has passed without drama. The question is now whether more can be done at the pragmatic level. Housing finance is one area where reform has begun, then got stuck, but there is much agreement. The US also badly needs new roads, bridges, and infrastructure on a grand scale; it is striking how (other than in the rapidly growing south west) it now often looks like an old country. The International Monetary Fund in September cited the US and Germany as countries which badly needed more government-funded infrastructure spending. It noted that 32 per cent of major roads in the US are in poor or mediocre condition, and that between $124bn [£76bn] and $146bn annually in investment will be needed to improve it. That is a lot more than the $100bn spent on such improvements at all government levels, it said.
It was a worse night for the Democrats than any of their strategists had reckoned. They lost control of the Senate by a bigger margin than even gloomy predictions had expected, leaving control of both houses of Congress in Republican hands. They lost in seats they had considered safe, in nearly every competitive contest, and they lost governorships in traditionally “deep blue” states such as Massachusetts and Maryland.
They can’t blame “the map”, although the pattern of seats up for contest did favour Republicans. This was an anti-Obama vote, and Republicans had succeeded in determining that the campaign was fought on their terms—all about President Barack Obama, not much overall about the recovering economy.
What now? With two years to run, can a president who was all but invisible during this campaign, other than in Democrat strongholds on the east and west coasts, achieve anything? And how do these results shape the 2016 presidential race? It is not quite as bad for Democrats as the night of 4th November suggests.
On the face of it, Obama is even more boxed in than before. For six years, he has faced a hostile, partisan and obstructive House of Representatives—and now he has both houses against him.
The immediate question is whether Republicans seek to dismantle Obamacare, or the Affordable Care Act, the programme of extending healthcare insurance which is his greatest achievement—and one likely to be rated more highly in years to come than it is now. They probably won’t try to scrap it overall, but might try to amend it. Many congressional Republicans loathed the programme from the start, for the element of compulsion by the federal government to buy insurance; others objected when forced to switch health insurance providers. The Republican-controlled House of Representatives has already voted to repeal or strip funding from the programme more than 50 times. Obama may have to defend it with presidential veto—but may want to accept amendments, not all of which the White House rejects. On a second front, if he tries to bypass Congress on immigration policy, a point of unyielding confrontation, there will be a bloody battle.
However, in other areas gridlock has been less complete than rhetoric would imply. Legislation on the postal service and other practicalities has passed without drama. The question is now whether more can be done at the pragmatic level. Housing finance is one area where reform has begun, then got stuck, but there is much agreement. The US also badly needs new roads, bridges, and infrastructure on a grand scale; it is striking how (other than in the rapidly growing south west) it now often looks like an old country. The International Monetary Fund in September cited the US and Germany as countries which badly needed more government-funded infrastructure spending. It noted that 32 per cent of major roads in the US are in poor or mediocre condition, and that between $124bn [£76bn] and $146bn annually in investment will be needed to improve it. That is a lot more than the $100bn spent on such improvements at all government levels, it said.
