What Happened? Why? What Next?

The Democrats certainly got their butts kicked, that's what happened. There is no way around the fact that the Democrats lost, and they lost big time. It was worse in Wisconsin than we certainly all thought it was going to be; nationally, losses roughly matched the predictions which had been made the last four or five months: Great incumbent Senators lost their seats; moderate, well meaning candidates fell at the polls to right leaning GOPers, a number of whom hold rather extreme conservative views. Common sense lost out to frustration, disillusionment and fear.

Now to the million dollar question- Why? Why did a country which swept Democrats into power-local and federal- the last two years, suddenly turn its back and reject everything which the Dems had been fighting for. Democratic policies didn't exactly change, but voter preference did. For what reason? How did the Democrats go from holding power in a number of state legislatures and control in the House of Representatives and the Senate, to losing governorships nationwide, power in the House, a number of Senate seats, and the threat of losing the Presidency.

Well there are a number of reasons how and why this shift happened, some of them more obvious than others.

Firstly it's clear that independent voters, who in 2004 and 2008 swung to the left, fully embraced the Republicans this time around. And the number of independent voters has certainly increased by a huge amount the last decade. Tired of partisan games, no longer content to assign their allegiance to one side of the political spectrum regardless of how they act, independent voters cast their votes on who they think the best candidate is. Sadly, this year criteria for the the best candidate seemed to be selfishly based on who could do the best for 'me'; who will bring the most "financial" rewards to me. With the economy still in the doldrums, independent voters rejected the Democrats and gave power to the Republicans, to see if they could do any better. It wasn't an endorsement of the GOP, it was a rejection of the Democrats.

Short term memoryitis seemed to have struck a large percentage of the population here in the US, as voters forgot that Obama and the Democrats had not gotten the country into the mess it was in, and had in fact only had eighteen months to try and get America back on track. While they had begun to do just that, I think there is certainly an argument to be made that Democrats could have done more, or at least have made a bigger effort to try and do more. They passed the economic stimulus, which in my mind was needed and certainly effective, if only in the short term. And they began to pass measures geared at long term recovery. Compared to all the efforts they spent on passing healthcare however, which was then touted as the crowning achievement of the past two years, economic policies appear to have taken a back seat. Voters across the country saw the efforts Obama and House Dems went to in forcing through healthcare and perhaps wondered why the same fervour was not applied to job creation and deficit reduction. Thus healthcare became one of the central issues of the campaign.

GOP candidates touted the healthcare legislation as a complete waste of time and resources, and it has become a law which has generated widespread animosity, even though it has some incredible benefits to the population. Obama should have spent more time on job creation, but that's not to say healthcare was a bad thing to focus on. In fact, the healthcare bill should have been celebrated and revered, not denounced and hated. The democrats should have embraced the contents of healthcare reform and shouted the benefits from the rooftops to all US citizens. It should have been something which Democrats could have used to attack Republicans who did not vote for it, not the other way around.

The problem lies with communication.

I haven't spoken to a single person since I have been in the US, including Democratic politicians, who could tell me exactly what the healthcare bill entailed. I have heard various parts of it- reducing restrictions on pre-existing conditions, children staying on parents insurance until age twenty-six- but no concrete information. If I, a person extremely interesting in politics, don't know what's going on, how does the average voter fair?

The Democrats did a terrible job of informing voters about the importance of the healthcare bill and what it would mean to them. They should have been shouting these new measures from the rooftops, for they are extremely beneficial and would have been well received. Instead, people were left wondering what the hell all the fuss was about. What were legislators wasting all their time doing? We weren’t to know, as Democrats really did not get the news out there.

The same can be said about economic policies too. When it was passed, the economy was in dire need of the stimulus package. And, albeit slowly, it has been effective in reducing the unemployment rate and easing family burdens. Ask anyone who was given a chance of employment through a stimulus funded public works program, or those who received extra unemployment compensation. It hasn’t worked miracles, but I don’t think it was ever intended to do such a thing. Did it stimulate the economy? Well according to the professionals, the recession is over, and growth is tentatively beginning again. It’s hard to say exactly what would have happened without the stimulus package, but I would say the odds are fairly high of things being much worse.

The Obama administration has also implemented dozens of fiscal reforms and financial oversights, so that such a disaster can be avoided again. Does the average voter know anything about these kinds of achievements? Of course not. Take Wisconsin (ok so it’s the only state I know a little about) for example. The state legislature in Wisconsin passed over fifty different job creation and economic initiatives all geared at helping the state and the people who work and reside within it. On our cross state travels, I don’t think we came across a single person who was aware of this number, even though all the information is in the public domain. In fact, we were at economic conferences full of businessmen and women, some of whom were responsible for studying economic policies and their impact on Wisconsin, and even they were not aware of the number of pieces of legislation which state Democrats had passed, or tried to pass.

Now I don’t want to put the blame on anyone here, as that doesn’t help anybody, but the fact remains that Democrats should have been much more active in making voters aware of the issues and aware of the achievements which they had accomplished. They clearly weren’t finding out any other way, so if Democrats wanted to convince independent voters that they had the best record on the economy or any other issue, then Democrats had to be proactive in getting information out there. As they didn’t, voters listened to what Republicans were telling them; healthcare was disastrous, the economy wasn’t recovering and so Democrats clearly did not do anything, therefore voters should turn to the GOP. It’s easy to go on the offensive when you have nothing to lose, made even easier when your opponents reject the very tactics which offer the best defence.

 

Thus like the Badgers destroyed Indiana 83-20, Republicans trounced the Democrats.

 

One of the major factors in the Democrats defeat in Wisconsin was the ‘blue collar worker.’ For reasons previously stated, these independent voters were instrumental in the Democratic defeat. Perhaps the largest social group affected by the economic downturn, they were unaware of Democratic efforts to help them, perhaps felt betrayed by those they had voted for in 2008, and so cast their ballots for Republicans instead. Not just the odd ballot though, they cast a huge number of ballots, hence why they were so important. Blue collar workers make up thirty five per cent of voters in the US, more than enough to swing victory from one side to another. In Wisconsin, they make up fifty five per cent of voters- a majority. The Midwest was the manufacturing and industrial centre of the US, and thus today still retains a large number of blue collar workers. The Midwest therefore played, and will continue to play a hugely important role in forthcoming elections. Expect intense amounts of media and political attention to this area in the future, for as true swing states, the Big Ten region holds the key to victories for either party in the House, Senate and Oval Office. The numbers from the past election emphasize this point: of the six Senate seats the Democrats lost, four were in the Midwest; Five of the twelve lost governorships hailed from the region, as did one third of GOP gains in the house.

David Brooks, writing for the NY Times argues that until America can figure out how to build a decent future for the working class of the Midwest, the US will fail to prosper. His ultimate point is that of the importance of the region, which despite relying on government help, has become disdainful of it. If Democrats want to be enjoying some victory parties in the coming years, they need to focus their attention on this area, and these voters. They have swung blue in the past, and given the circumstances would be willing to do so again in the future.

More politics, and “What Next” in the coming days.