Visit Nate Silver’s Fivethirtyeight.com or the New York Times data blog “The Upshot” in the lead up to the midterm elections, and one was greeted with constantly updated graphics handicapping Republican chances for regaining the Senate to a decimal point. On the whole, political pundits from all over the country have been nothing short of obsessed with the question of whether Republicans will take the Senate in 2014.
But such a fixation with statistical probabilities rests on one flawed assumption: that a Republican takeover of the Senate will have vast implications for the country. This may have been true for any other period in American history, but the current, polarized nature of congressional and Presidential politics, combined with aa temporary, atypical large number of Democratic seats up for grabs, mean that the shift from a blue to red Senate will have next to no affect on the American people.
First, a Republican majority senate would come nowhere close to a super majority, meaning Democrats would still retain the votes to filibuster any majority-sponsored legislation. Though Senate Democrats have wasted no opportunity to critique frequent Republican usage of the filibuster during the period of Democratic control, there is no reason to think that Democrats will not make use of the one minority party-friendly political tool when put in the same position. And should partisan Republican legislation somehow overcome the filibuster, it will still have to survive a likely Presidential veto.
Thus, while Republican legislation passed by the House in 2012 would die at the hands of a Democratic majority in the Senate, it now will simply perish at the feet of a filibuster or veto. A Republican Senate will not make passing legislation easier, nor will it somehow bypass both parties’ inability to compromise. The forces resulting in the least productive Congress in American history would not be mitigated or evaded.
Furthermore, a Republican-controlled Senate and House could ironically result in the continued implementation of Democratic policy. President Obama has shown little hesitation in utilizing Executive Orders to bypass Republican opposition in Congress. Faced with not only a Republican House but a Republican Senate as well, he may very well abandon any hope, if he has not already, at producing any Democratic-friendly legislation via Congress. Without options to enact meaningful policy change and in need of a way to energize a pessimistic Democratic base, Obama could easily continue to use his executive authority to change policy, especially in regards to issues like immigration and climate change.
But what about long term implications, like if Republicans win the White House in 2016? Republican control of both the legislative and executive branch would admittedly grant them the authority and political strength to enact a Conservative agenda. But the odds of such a scenario are extremely slim—not just because Republican success on a national scale has become much harder to achieve, but because the Senate map in 2016 will almost certainly ensure a Democratic retaking of the Senate.
This year’s Senate map is incredibly advantageous for Republicans, with Democrats having to defend 21 seats; only 15 Republican Senators are up for reelection. And of the Democrats fighting to retain their seats, several are running for reelection in traditionally conservative states like Arkansas and Louisiana, where Mitt Romney trounced President Obama in 2012. Fast forward to 2016, and you get an even more lopsided picture—in the Democrats’ favor.
In 2016, Democrats will only have to defend nine seats, while Republicans will defend a whopping twenty-four. And of the Democrats up for reelection in 2016, none are from states that Romney won in 2012. Conversely, 7 Republican Senators will be running in states that Obama won in his reelection bid. And importantly, Republicans will not be able to rely on their traditional midterm turnout advantage; with 2016 being a Presidential election year, the more diverse and younger Democratic electorate will go to the polls in larger numbers. A Democratic-controlled Senate in 2016 is thus nearly guaranteed.
Therefore, with a Republican senate only nominally affecting the legislative process for the next two years, and a certain Democratic takeover in 2016, no drastic Republican-sponsored change can be expected. That is, unless congressmen begin to reach across the aisle and quell the tide of polarization—perhaps the one thing more unlikely than a Republican Senate in 2016.
© 2024 Harvard Political Review. All rights reserved.