How could the same country that voted for Barack Obama in 2008 sharply turn on him so quickly in 2010? In 2014, same question. The generic explanation: There are two different electorates.
In an earlier post, I made the case that demographics should really be only the start of any explanation about why Democrats are probably going to do poorly tonight. At most, demographics help explain why Republicans do better than they should, all other things being equal.
A related myth here is that Democrats do poorly in midterm elections generally. In 1998, they did not. In 2006, they did not. In 2002 and 2010, Republicans gained seats in both chambers.
Setting aside the structural engineering of politics — the gerrymandering of districts, for example — there are some things the Democrats did, and did not do, that hurt them.
The first is that they broke their promise on immigration.
To be sure, Republicans win the obstructionist trophy on immigration reform. But Obama all but promised to act in their stead. He did not. The White House explains his inaction in policy terms: It's better to try something that's ambitious and technically complicated when minds aren't focused on elections. Also, politics: The backlash would embolden Republicans and motivate their base. That's debatable. Had Obama made some big gesture accompanied by strong executive action to pull out of the shadows millions of Latinos, his party might well have rewarded him. Not just Hispanic voters, but other Democratic voters who supported his position. If you don't give someone a concrete reason to vote, something they can hang their minds around, then they've got to be persuaded by an appeal to their fears.
Fine. But here, Democrats know that President Obama remains in charge. They know that the GOP can't do anything awful for the next two years. Democrats tend not be motivated by judges and cultural issues; their base was not set up that way, the Republicans were. Democrats are also confident that they'll keep the presidency in 2016, and if they pay attention to politics, they know that 2016 is cyclically shaping up to be a better year for them. So — really — why vote? Or, put another way, why go out of your way to vote?
Add into the mix a sense that Washington does nothing of consequence. This is a tailor-made message for Republican base voters, who can cast their ballots knowing that more of nothing will get done, and they think that's probably for the better. Democrats, on the other hand, just won't be voting to break gridlock; they'd be voting to get government to do stuff.
Then there's the competency issue. Obama has done a fair job at managing crises. He gets no credit for it. In fact, the sense you'd get by reading the papers or watching TV is that the U.S. government has never been more inept. Fair to him? Probably not. But a blockage in the persuasion pump for Democrats? Absolutely.
Finally, I think the year-long exposure of the Deep State by Edward Snowden reduced the confidence that Democratic voters have in President Obama and Congressional Democrats. Even though I think much of the reporting was not correct, the scandal added to the deep sense that many voters have that Washington operates behind the scenes without regard for their personal liberties, that the presidency really is imperial, and that anyone who we elect to the job becomes corrupted by it.
It has been hard to draw contrasts with Republicans on national security in the post Iraq, post Afghanistan, post Syria/ISIS-whatever-you-want-to-call it era of politics. (Remember, Democrats won in 2006 by drawing a clean contrast on Iraq, with an assist from Katrina.)
