1hundredsixty8

In team sports, there is an adage that “when you win big, you’re probably not that good, and when you lose big, you’re probably not that bad.” The implication is that we frequently misconstrue the reasons for our successes or failures. It is not surprising, then, that the conclusions we draw are often misguided. As recent history illustrates, this phenomenon is especially evident in electoral politics.

George W. Bush’s second term as President ended with his low approval ratings weighing down the entire Republican Party. There were obvious reasons, the big one being the economic disaster of 2008 and subsequent government bailout of the banks. Facing a population weary of wars in Iraq and Afghanistan that seemed to have no clear objectives, the Republicans had lost their Congressional majority in 2006. Having played the tax cut hand in Bush’s first term, the Republicans had no magical policy candy offering to counter the historical imperative which said the Presidency generally switched between the parties after two terms. Bush’s major second-term policy initiative was a tepid wave in the direction of privatizing Social Security, a non-starter. The probability was that the Democrats would win back the White House in 2008; the only drama lay in Barack Obama securing the Democratic nomination over Hillary Clinton.

Obama‘s election generated a new narrative: His campaign team had intelligently cobbled together a new Democratic coalition of young voters, women, and minorities; the Republican, John McCain, won the majority of white voters. Looking at the aging white demographic that formed the core of the Republican base, the Very Special People (to borrow a term from Paul Krugman) began to forecast the impending demise of the GOP as a national party. After all, the thinking went, the young, the various minorities and women would swing more to the Democrats. By mid-century, whites would no longer be the majority demographic segment of the population. And the GOP seemed reluctant to reach out to any of these groups.

The march to sustained Democratic electoral success lasted two years. The lethargic pace of economic recovery, missteps by the Obama Administration and the Democratic Congress and, ultimately, the unpopularity of the continued bailouts, the Affordable Care Act and the government’s budget deficits as economic stimulus opened the way for a populist backlash and a “shellacking” at the polls. Propelled by Tea Party activism and the money spend by wealthy conservative donors, the Republicans managed to control the messaging and regained the majority in the House. More significantly, they  also won the majority of state legislatures and governorships. Mistaking the general sense of anger and frustration affecting those struggling through the tough economic times, the VSP began to talk among themselves about how the backlash against Obama would continue right through the Presidential election of 2012. The buzz was about the real possibility of the GOP retaking the White House.

And again they were wrong. The extent of Republican anticipation was so great that, after the election, it was reported that Mitt Romney was truly shocked by his defeat. There was hand-wringing among establishment Republicans and they even commissioned an “autopsy” to analyze the cause of their failure. On the Democratic side, discussions of the “Obama coalition” and the demise of the Republicans as a national party were again in vogue. As for not regaining the House, the Democrats placed the blame on a variety of externalities- gerrymandered Congressional districts, Obama’s short-comings as a leader, the misplaced frustration coursing through the electorate.

So now it is two days past the 2014 mid-term elections and the Democrats have again suffered a major defeat, losing control of the Senate, and watching as the Republicans increased their majority in the House and extended their grip on state governments. While the Congressional leaders Mitch McConnell and John Boehner took a moderate tone in post-election statements, other Republicans were quick to do their end zone dance. The chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee characterized victory as opening the way to “a 100-year majority.” The Very Special People wasted little time in enumerating the difficulties the Democrats will face going forward.

If the past six years have taught us anything, even with modern polling and data mining techniques, predicting the future in politics is a tricky business. The Obama coalition did not show up to vote in these past two mid-terms. In fact, this year was a near-record low in overall turnout, with a reported 38% of eligible voters casting ballots. The question is how successful the Democrats will be in getting the no-shows back to the polls in a Presidential year.

2016 will also present an opportunity for the Democrats to retake the Senate. They will need to defend 10 incumbent seats, but the Republicans will have 24 Senators up for re-election. It is unlikely the composition of the House will change much until after the 2020 Census and then it will be a hard slog for the Dems, given GOP control of a majority of state legislatures, the bodies that control re-districting.

One thing is for certain: the business of speculating on the outcome of the 2016 elections will continue to offer employment opportunities for those Very Special People.