Liberal Professor Writes: Cancel The Midterms

Just a day before the midterm elections, a liberal associate professor from Duke University, David Schanzer, wrote a piece in the New York Times titled 'Cancel The Midterms'.   He sums up his argument with the following words:

"The main impact of the midterm election in the modern era has been to weaken the president, the only government official (other than the powerless vice president) elected by the entire nation. Since the end of World War II, the president’s party has on average lost 25 seats in the House and about 4 in the Senate as a result of the midterms. This is a bipartisan phenomenon — Democratic presidents have lost an average of 31 House seats and between 4 to 5 Senate seats in midterms; Republican presidents have lost 20 and 3 seats, respectively."

So, apparently, Schanzer does like the fact that a President's power is weakened as a result of midterm elections.  However, what Schanzer fails to tell his readers is that, even though the President's party loses seats in Congress in almost all midterms, more often than not, it doesn't necessarily change control to the opposing political party. This, is noted in this graph from Wikipedia:

Click on Image to zoom

Over the years since World War II, more Republican Presidents have had to contend with the Democrat's control of the House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate (in blue). From 1957 to 1977, the Democrats held control of the House for 40 years.  Similarly, from 1957 to 1981, 26 years straight, Democrats controlled the Senate.  Only now, with Obama possibly being weakened further, does Schanzer seem concerned about an opposing Congress.

But,  I would argue that if we didn't have midterm elections in 2010, when the House majority went to the Republicans and the Democrats lost their super majority in the Senate, Obama would have had two additional years to ram through his radical, liberal agenda.  And, just like 2010, this year's midterms may further weaken a low-rated President's power by shifting the Senate to the Republicans. Only then, maybe, Obama might start compromising with Congress on the legislation that really matters to the people of this country.

Simply, having midterms is an insurance policy that extremism doesn't prevail in governing.

Lastly, Schanzer is being disingenuous by not disclosing his Democrat past.  Thus, readers unjustly think he's writing from a professorial viewpoint and not a political one.

Reference:

David Schanzer: New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/03/opinion/cancel-the-midterms.html?ref=opinion&_r=0

"Prior to his academic appointments, Schanzer was the Democratic staff director for the House of Representatives Committee on Homeland Security from 2003 to 2005. He previously served as the legislative director for [Democrat] Sen. Jean Carnahan (2001-2002), counsel to [Democrat] Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. (1996-1998)...": https://www.coursera.org/instructor/davidschanzer

Gallup Polling Suggests Democrats Are Again In Trouble In This Year's Midterm Election

In 2010, America saw a sea change in politics with Democrats losing big at both the federal and state levels.  At the federal level, the Republicans retook the House of Representatives and the Senate Democrats lost their two-thirds, legislative super majority.

In that year, more than anything else, ObamaCare was adversely on the minds of the voters.  But no group was more active in punishing the Democrats for the health care law than seniors.  A post election analysis showed that 61% of those aged 65 years or older turned out to vote.  The highest percentage of any age group. Of those 55 to 65, the turnout rate was still relatively high at 54%. Only 37% of those 25 to 44 voted that year.  Worse yet, only 21% of the nation's youth turned out.

One only has to look at this graph from Gallup to understand why 2010 was such a bad year for the Democrats:

 

As this chart shows, Democrats went from a positive 13% party affiliation advantage among seniors in 2006 to a negative 6% disadvantage in 2010.  That's really surprising because the drop took place during the supposed Great Recession.  A recession that the Democrats were constantly blaming on Bush and the Republicans.  Even the "younger" Americans trended away from the Democrats but still left their party with a 2% voting advantage in 2010.

While Gallup suggests that the Democrats have recovered from their 2010 lows, seniors are still a negative for the Democrats; and, if 2010 was a midterm blueprint, they and their high turnout are the one's who will probably decide who wins or loses in the Fall.

In another polling report, Gallup also indicates a loss of  Democrat party affiliation among all whites and all non-whites:

In this polling result, the Democrats bottomed out in 2011 with their party reflecting a 14 percentage point disadvantage among all whites.  On top of that, a normally solid base for the Democrats, saw a drop from a high of 58% to just 43% in 2011; meaning that, no longer, were Democrats able to hold a majority against non-whites.  In the case of whites, there has only been a recovery of 2 percentage points since 2010.  For non-whites, the story is even more grim with support for Democrats still less than a majority at 45%.

Now, none of the above charts reflect any attitudinal changes that may have taken place since the roll out of ObamaCare.  However, my guess is that there has been another 2010-like shift away from the Democrats.  If so, I truly believe the Democrats will lose big again with the loss of control of the Senate.

References:

Why Older Citizens are More Likely to Vote: http://money.usnews.com/money/retirement/articles/2012/03/19/why-older-citizens-are-more-likely-to-vote

U.S. Seniors Have Realigned With the Republican Party: http://www.gallup.com/poll/168083/seniors-realigned-republican-party.aspx

U.S. Whites More Solidly Republican in Recent Years: http://www.gallup.com/poll/168059/whites-solidly-republican-recent-years.aspx

pb