90 Miles From Tyranny

Wednesday, November 7, 2018

So Much for a ‘Blue Wave’—4 of the Biggest Midterm Takeaways

It wasn’t the blockbuster night Democrats were hoping for.

The blue wave fell far short of some of the major wave elections of the past decade.

In Tuesday’s midterms, Democrats claimed a majority in the House of Representatives for the first time in eight years—but their electoral gains were muted by significant Republican gains in the Senate.

“This is not a blue wave,” CNN’s Jake Tapper said while watching early election results come in. What transpired looked more like a blue ripple.

In the Senate, Republicans solidified their thin majority, with Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas defending his seat in a high-profile race against Beyoncé-endorsed Rep. Beto O’Rourke. Florida Gov. Rick Scott defeated Democratic Sen. Bill Nelson in one of the most important swing states in the nation, and Missouri Attorney General Josh Hawley ousted two-term Democratic Sen. Claire McCaskill, thanks to what many consider the “Kavanaugh effect.”

Historic voting trends suggested Republicans would lose the House. According to Gallup, the president’s party “almost always suffers a net loss” in the House during an off-year election.

While those lost seats will be consequential—producing gridlock and new oversight investigations—historically speaking, the night could have been far worse for the incumbent party in power.

For instance, the first midterm election under President Barack Obama in 2010 was a major electoral defeat for Democrats. Republicans gained 63 seats in the House of Representatives and six seats in the Senate while making significant gains in state houses and gubernatorial elections.

The balance of power shifted Tuesday night, but not as drastically as Democrats had hoped.

1. Historic Campaign Cash Couldn’t Turn Texas Blue

There are some things money can’t buy. The Senate, it appears, is still one of them. Republican Ted Cruz held onto his Senate seat in his hotly contested race against Democrat Beto O’Rourke, who raised a historic amount of campaign cash.

The Center for Responsive Politics estimated the 2018 midterm elections in sum cost a record-breaking $5 billion. Leading in the bank was O’Rourke, who raised an astonishing $70 million. Of that, $53 million came from ActBlue, a nonprofit that enables Democrats to raise money via crowdsourcing.

Overall, the Senate race in Texas cost over $100 million, with Cruz raising another $40 million. Cruz successfully defended his seat, but the race was a nail-biter. With 92 percent of precincts reporting, Cruz had just over 51 percent of the vote, while O’Rourke had 48 percent. That is unusually close for Texas.

While both sides would likely agree that money still matters in midterm elections, it was not the decisive factor in Texas.

2. The Kavanaugh Effect

It was a rough night for red state Senate Democrats who voted against the confirmation of Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh.

Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., was the only Senate Democrat who voted to confirm Kavanaugh. He narrowly defeated his opponent, West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey, in a state that President Donald Trump won overwhelmingly in 2016.

But a significant number of Senate Democrats up for election from states that Trump won in 2016 went down in defeat.

Sens. Heidi Heitkamp, D-N.D.; Joe Donnelly, D-Ind.; Claire McCaskill, D-Mo.; and Bill Nelson, D-Fla., all lost to Republican challengers.

According to the Associated Press, the Kavanaugh issue had a particularly big impact in North Dakota.

“[I]n North Dakota, where Republicans picked up a seat that helped them hold onto control of the Senate, voters concerned about Kavanaugh broke toward the GOP by about 2 to 1,” according to AP VoteCast, which is a national survey of the electorate.

3. A Bad Night for Prominent Progressive Candidates

President Donald Trump went bold last month when he directed Cabinet members to cut spending by 5 percent for their upcoming annual budgets.

This comes nine months after Congress passed its latest budget-busting deal, which sent deficit spending soaring by nearly $300 billion above the Budget Control Act caps.

Asking agencies to cut 5 percent next year is a step in the right direction toward fiscal health and smaller government. The president’s proposal would cut spending by $62 billion beneath the 2020 spending limits.

Notably, the plan would not infringe upon Congress’ Article I power of the purse. So long as 5 percent of funding is cut, lawmakers would be able to prioritize funding as they see fit, ensuring that key national priorities are not neglected.

While encouraging, this 5 percent cut is just a first step. The president and Congress will have to pursue bolder reforms in order to stabilize our growing national debt and avert the looming economic crisis.

One question that should be asked is, why wait until next year to implement these cuts? While roughly 75 percent of appropriations for fiscal year 2019 have already been signed into law, there is still over $300 billion outstanding. Congress could cut more than $15 billion from the remaining bills.

What’s more, the president could put forth another rescissions package, clawing back unnecessary spending after it’s been appropriated, saving billions more.

Since Congress passed the Budget Control Act in 2011, the law has been amended three times to raise the spending caps. Each successive change to the law increased spending and eroded the intent of the law, which was to control the growth of discretionary spending.

The nearly $300 billion debt limit increase passed earlier this year sets up a large cliff at the start of fiscal year 2020, meaning that Congress is likely to push for another deal to lift the cap in the coming months.

Without a commitment to cutting the budget, Congress is paving the way for another massive budget deal for the next two years. Congress would have to raise the caps by $125 billion above the 2019 Budget Control Act cap just to maintain level funding in 2020.

Judging by past budget deals though, the number could be...