Matthew Yglesias has an analysis of two articles in The Atlantic regarding the 2016 election on Vox.com today. I discussed one of the articles in a post yesterday. The bottom line is that I tend to side with Yglesias, but I think the subject requires some additional comment.
Here are the facts, as I perceive them:
- It is true, as Yglesias says, that the GOP is the predominant party in state governments. That will not change in 2016.
- It is also true, due to gerrymandering and natural forms of segregation, that the Democrats have no realistic chance of regaining the House in 2016.
- The Senate is up for grabs. A resounding Clinton victory could make it possible for the Democrats to regain its majority.
- Clinton’s chances of victory in 2016, under current conditions (which will certainly change in ways we can’t predict) are about 60 percent.
- Numerous polls have shown that the GOP electorate holds opinions on issues like tax and entitlement cuts that are inconsistent with those of the establishment, and most of the Republican presidential candidates.
I think the big questions here are as follows:
- What relative weight do you put on winning the presidency, as opposed to Congress and state governments? In other words, which level/branch of government is likely to have a bigger impact on your life in the next four years?
- Would the apparent hostility of the GOP electorate to large tax cuts for the wealthy and entitlement “reform” stop a federal government headed by a President Rubio or Cruz from adopting them?
My reactions are as follows:
- This is a difficult call; it depends to a large extent on what the big issues of the day are and how they affect you. If foreign policy is the biggest issue, then you would rather have the presidency than state governments; otherwise, you might attach more importance to state government.
- I agree with Yglesias on this one. There might be a backlash after the fact, but I don’t see the hostility of the electorate stopping a Republican Party in control of the government at all levels from adopting, at a minimum, huge regressive tax cuts. Entitlement cuts would be tougher, but I think you would see them, too. I absolutely concur with Yglesias that Beinart’s conclusion that a President Rubio would govern to the left of Bush 43 is wrong, because GOP orthodoxy has drifted a long way to the right regardless of the opinions of its voters on discrete issues.