Massachusetts Daily Collegian

A free and responsible press serving the UMass community since 1890

A free and responsible press serving the UMass community since 1890

Massachusetts Daily Collegian

A free and responsible press serving the UMass community since 1890

Massachusetts Daily Collegian

Same game: Why Obama is ‘unfazed’

(Olivier Douliery/ABACAUSA.com/MCT))
(Olivier Douliery/ABACAUSA.com/MCT)

Liberal commentator Dana Milbank of The Washington Post noted last Wednesday that President Obama seems “unfazed” by the results of the 2014 midterm elections.

Nothing has changed in Washington, D.C., as The Onion so perfectly summarized in its Election Day headline: “Republicans Poised To Retain Control Of Senate.”

While the Democrats have had a nominal Senate majority since 2006, the Senate has become “supermajoritarian,” meaning that if one party won’t compromise, a simple majority of 51 votes isn’t enough to pass legislation. Instead, the majority party needs 60 votes, or a “supermajority.”

In reality, their majority died in February 2010, when Scott Brown was sworn in as senator from Massachusetts and Sen. Minority Leader Mitch McConnell doubled down on his obstructionist agenda.

He obviously did not meet his stated goal, which was to make Obama a one-term president. Yet the obstruction continued as Republicans won the House in 2010, and in not using their legislative power, brought the economy back to the brink of recession with the budget crisis in 2011.

The 2014 election changes nothing. Without a Senate majority, House Republicans shut down the government in 2013, and Democratic nominations and broadly supported public policies, such as gun background checks and minimum wage increases haven’t received enough Senate Republican votes to make it to the floor.

If obstruction continues to be the GOP agenda – as McConnell and John Boehner have signaled with calls to repeal the Affordable Care Act almost five years after its passage – then Obama and the Democrats will be in exactly the same position as they have been since 2010.

But liberal commentators and Senate Democrats are pointing fingers at Obama.

Most commentators are focusing on Obama’s perceived lack of concern with the election results. I don’t buy that. Nothing has changed; he shouldn’t be more concerned than he was last Monday.

More cutting criticisms come from Sen. Majority Leader Harry Reid and Senate Democrats, according to Washington Post reporter Paul Kane. They accuse the Obama administration of being politically inept, particularly regarding the 2012 “fiscal cliff” crisis. If Congress had let the nation “go off the cliff,” tax rates would have gone up across the board, giving political power to the Democrats. Instead in a post-reelection high, Obama cut a deal with congressional Republicans and dealt away one of the Democrats best political hands.

A strategy of obstruction will also doom the Republicans in 2016. Yes, Democrats lost in several key Senate races, but Republicans had a distinct electoral advantage in 2014, as they did in 2010. With the Democrats more reliant on a younger, less white base, they face additional difficulty in getting out the vote. This is especially true in midterms, when turnout is lower.

The GOP was also defending “red” territory. Most of the contested seats were last up in 2008, Obama’s first election and a Democratic wave. The Democrats had no opportunity to expand, only defending Republican-leaning seats in a Republican-leaning election.

However, winning big in 2010 allowed Republicans to have control over U.S. House redistricting, locking in GOP control of the House for 10 years (barring extreme circumstances).

Most states’ partisan processes packed Democratic voters into districts, while keeping Republican voters spread out. Fewer Democrats win by a blowout every time, while more Republicans win closer elections by smaller but still comfortable margins.

Republicans are at a further disadvantage in 2016 because they will not have their electoral foil, Obama, to bully. As Mara Liasson, NPR’s national political correspondent, said last Tuesday night, “There hasn’t been a clash of visions. Mostly the Republicans have run on a message of Obama, bad.”

The GOP will be running against a strong economy and a white Democrat, all while attempting to convince younger and less white electorate to vote for conservative policies. And Obama’s future won’t be a factor, meaning the GOP cannot tap into the American electorate’s latent racism.

“Obama, bad,” won’t be enough next time around.

Whether it’s Nixon’s “law and order” campaign in 1968, Reagan’s black “welfare queen” in 1976, Willie Horton in 1988 or Obama in 2010 and 2014, winning an election is easier when you can demonize black people and their political representatives.

That’s a luxury the Republicans won’t have in 2016.

Zac Bears is the Opinion & Editorial Editor. He can be reached at [email protected].

View Comments (24)
More to Discover

Comments (24)

All Massachusetts Daily Collegian Picks Reader Picks Sort: Newest

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

  • J

    Josh KatzJan 11, 2015 at 10:58 am

    So did you watch it? Or did you watch the swearing in of the new Republican Senators or Congressmen?

    Reply
  • Z

    Zac BearsJan 8, 2015 at 3:07 pm

    Man has to deal with veto-proof Democratic majorities in both GC houses. Very different from a national party representative (Maj. Whip Scalise?)

    Reply
  • J

    Josh KatzJan 8, 2015 at 12:25 pm

    Did you watch Governor Bakers swearing in today?

    Reply
  • J

    Josh KatzDec 21, 2014 at 4:51 pm

    Your belief that those who voted Republican support ” trust babies” is disingenuous and doesn’t reflect the values of many of those who voted for Republicans in 2014. My parents are clear examples of that. Nice try painting Republicans as fat cats and Democratic voters as those who ” work three jobs”. It’s not exactly concise to make such simplistic assumptions such as that. How did catch phrases such as “Republican Obstructionism” work out amongst voters in the past midterm election? By a smear campaign I think you mean the Republicans effectively communicating to the voters how inept the Obama administration was in handling the flawed Obamacare rollout, responding to turmoil within the Middle East, and being concerned with the IRS targeting those who financially support Conservative or Tea Party Candidates. As you acknowledge this election was a referendum on the Presidents policies and the voters proved that in the past election. If Democrats won the Senate and won back some seats in the House during this past election you would have certainly not cried that this past election was “illegitimate”. Illegitimate to you means not getting the end result that you envisioned.

    Reply
    • Z

      Zac BearsDec 22, 2014 at 2:55 am

      Not Republicans, Republican policies. Republicans generally advance policies that help those with more money pad trust funds while Democrats generally advance policies that help people with less money have an easier life.

      “Never forget that this Obama socialist cabal plays by the Chicago rules of dirty politics.”
      http://www.theblaze.com/contributions/i-have-the-smoking-gun-in-obamas-irs-scandal/

      Reply
  • J

    Josh KatzDec 17, 2014 at 10:28 pm

    My mother works nearly 70 hours a week balancing multiple part time jobs while my dad works nearly the same amount of hours as well at his job. They voted with the majority of those within Massachusetts who opted to take time out of their busy work schedules to perform their civic duty and choosing to vote for Governor Elect Charlie Baker, and others who fought to bring fiscal restraint to Beacon Hill. Many of these people such as my parents were interested in supporting those who wanted to make a less burdensome regulatory and tax climate within the Commonwealth and throughout the country. They were not interested in supporting trust babies and wanted to fight against senseless proposals such as the gas tax which was soundly defeated. Big business which you despise supported this tax raise by the way. http://www.bizjournals.com/boston/blog/mass_roundup/2014/10/business-groups-pile-in-big-to-defeat-question-1.html

    Sorry Zac but the Republicans image is changing and the midterms reflected people’s dissatisfaction with Democratic governance over the past six yearshttp://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/poll-gop-gets-a-bounce-from-midterm-wins/2014/12/16/f079582a-8566-11e4-a702-fa31ff4ae98e_story.html. I’m looking forward to a grown up congress taking control in a couple of weeks and the Senate being able to do its job and passing a budget for the first time since April of 2009.

    Reply
    • Z

      Zac BearsDec 20, 2014 at 4:39 am

      Nice diversion. I never talked about your parents. Making voting easier is the first step towards legitimizing elections in the U.S.

      I cannot wait to watch Cruz, Rubio and Paul run McConnell around the Capitol for the next two years while the Democrats regroup. I’ll gladly admit that the Democrats had no answer to party-of-no obstructionism and the successful smear campaign against the president. (Reality check: Affordable Care Act has reduced the uninsured rate to near record lows while cutting health care cost growth to its lowest rate since 1960; emissions are at the lowest point in decades; Obama admin. job growth is 6 times that of Bush II; stock market at record highs; U.S. economy strongest on global stage; etc.)

      Anyway: “MassBenchmarks: ‘Considerable reason for optimism’ seen in Massachusetts economy” http://www.masslive.com/business-news/index.ssf/2014/12/benchmarks.html

      Reply
  • J

    Josh KatzDec 7, 2014 at 10:37 am

    Let’s relax with the ad hominem attacks, and not make any wide ranging assumptions about me because frankly you don’t know me. A win is a win and in the American Electoral System, and if you are disappointed with how the system works I invite you to fight to change it. “Only” 52% ( The percentage that Baker Got) of the electorate is the majority. There is no way you would complain that when a Democrat wins a close election that ” he/ she represents the will of only 50% of the electorate”, because that doesn’t fit into your personal narrative. Your rationale for why the Democrats lost in the midterms sounds awfully similar to a team making excuses and not admitting defeat after a crucial playoff loss. By your logic, your are saying that when Massachusetts Junior Senator Ed Markey was elected in 2013 with 54% of the vote ( with an election turnout of 27% of voters ), then that is illegitimate http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Elections/Senate/2013/0626/Edward-Markey-wins-a-low-turnout-big-spending-Massachusetts-Senate-race. Anyway Zac, I am sure you are disappointed about Landrieu getting clobbered last night in Louisiana and that race culminating what was a Republican wave in 2014. Even if you want to spin it or not acknowledge their success this past election, the electoral gains speak for themselves.

    Reply
    • Z

      Zac BearsDec 7, 2014 at 4:00 pm

      I would agree that any election with such low turnout is popularly illegitimate. And I never attacked your personhood or character; I described your support of Republican candidates who support ending policies like the inheritance tax (securing 1% trust funds everywhere), that attempt to provide equality of opportunity for all Americans.

      On the “wave:” http://time.com/3580155/despite-midterm-wave-americans-not-particularly-thrilled-about-gop-control/

      Reply
  • J

    Josh KatzDec 5, 2014 at 2:04 pm

    I’ll happily buy you a drink while I’m in Law School on January 21, 2017 Zac . Still didn’t see you negate any of my points above or acknowledge the lack of Democratic success in the 2014 midterms. You had to change the subject because you didn’t want to face the reality. Don’t get too caught up with polls when no candidates have officially declared and the election is 23 months away. That usually doesn’t work out very well. Also, Martha Coakley was up 15 points in September of 2013 against Charlie Baker, in a state with 11% registered Republicans. We all saw how that turned out.

    Reply
    • Z

      Zac BearsDec 6, 2014 at 10:57 am

      It was an election of historically low turnout. Baker represents the will of only 50% of Massachusetts voters (25% of eligible voters) and the GOP Congress represents the will of only 35% of U.S. voters (17.5% of eligible voters). People who would vote Democrat are too busy working three jobs because their wage increases have been siphoned off by the trust fund babies you support.

      Reply
  • J

    Josh KatzDec 5, 2014 at 12:14 pm

    Again it’s 2014 and you can complain all you want but the Democrats got beaten pretty badly during the midterms and a Republican Congress is in power. As you know President Obama has nearly the same popularity ratings that Bush did back in 2006, 6 years into his presidency. Most liberals besides yourself have accepted this reality by now. It’s about time to do the same.

    Reply
  • J

    Josh KatzDec 3, 2014 at 4:39 pm

    Let’s just say one month later and your still licking your wounds. Governor Baker has some Democrats in his cabinet but also several Republicans. I think you were trying to imply that Republicans can’t be qualified for a cabinet position. Very logical assertion. The reason Democrats lost ( yes we’re still talking about this) and voter turnout was down was that independents and many Democrats were disappointed with Obama’s policies. You can also kiss the Obama agenda away Zac. Tea Party Radicalism is certainly a nice buzz word but it certainly didn’t work out this past election. Time to stop being bitter Zac and making excuses. It’s over the Democrats got yes “trounced” in the midterms. Even Debbie Wasserman Schultz admits that. I look forward to seeing an article from you as to how the Obama administration will have to move to the center and actually work with the Republican Congress. Have a nice break.

    Reply
    • Z

      Zac BearsDec 3, 2014 at 8:36 pm

      Seems to me that you’re in for the obstructionism you’ve been dishing out. We’ll see how you feel after a few years of Clinton II.

      Reply
  • J

    Josh KatzNov 26, 2014 at 3:12 pm

    In January of 2015 there will be a Republican Majority in the Senate and the largest majority in the House since 1928. Those are the numbers that actually matter now, as in 2014 . You seem to not want to talk about why the Democrats got trounced in house races, senate races, and in gubernatorial races in blue states such as Massachusetts, Illinois, and Maryland. Instead you spend most of the article coming up with hypotheticals about why you think the Democrats will win big in 2016, when the Republican led congress hasn’t even taken taken power yet. That’s basically denying the present while engaging in wishful thinking for the future. Also, thanks for providing the articles about Governor-elect Baker’s cabinet selections. They seem very well qualified and accomplished.

    Reply
    • Z

      Zac BearsNov 30, 2014 at 2:16 pm

      One percent isn’t “trounced,” and they’re not hypotheticals. They’re structural and statistical facts. In any case, you’re right about Baker’s cabinet selections, they do seem very qualified; they’re Democrats! The reason Democrats lost is because there was 35% turnout instead of 50% turnout. Tea Party radicalism means that when more people vote, Democrats win. Explains all of the voter ID laws and new limits on early voting/registration.

      If the rules don’t work anymore, change them! That’s the rich Republican way.

      Reply
  • K

    KrisNov 18, 2014 at 4:02 pm

    Would significantly damage your weak counter agrument.

    Reply
    • Z

      Zac BearsNov 19, 2014 at 5:53 am

      Prove it, then.

      Reply
  • K

    KrisNov 18, 2014 at 3:55 pm

    How about you ignore the senators, since they only respresent entire states. Then break down the representatives in terms of the majority race in the district they represent?

    Reply
    • Z

      Zac BearsNov 18, 2014 at 3:58 pm

      Wouldn’t change the fact that Congress is not representative of the U.S. population.

      Reply
  • J

    Josh KatzNov 14, 2014 at 5:09 pm

    For those such as yourself who are still bitter about the Republicans success in last week’s election, want to ignore the present political reality, and want to look far towards the future this article is perfect for you http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2014/11/13/and-now/aR88GX2jjZJCo7qBbek12I/story.html. It’s never too early to think about the 2018 Massachusetts Gubernatorial race even though REPUBLICAN Governor elect Charlie Baker has not even taken office yet. Any analysis or evidence as to how Republicans won the last weeks election by demonizing black people? As Kris says, try telling that point to Mia Love, Tim Scott, and those who have been disappointed with the Democratic Party’s policies aimed towards helping black people.

    Reply
  • K

    KrisNov 10, 2014 at 9:39 am

    It’s been six days and you are still crying in your Wheaties… Now, I don’t agree with much that Mia Love or Tim Scott, or even Ben Carson have to say, but they do prove that you’re a race baiting moron. And by the way, “Bush bad” was enough in 2008.

    Reply