How Democrats Win Short-Term: Ignore Schumer

Chuck SchumerSchumer’s idea is a faithful reflection of the way Congress thought about politics years ago, when Schumer was coming up through the system. It’s a totally plausible model, which assumes that vulnerable members of Congress can shore up their standing by proving to their constituents that they can win concrete achievements. That is how Schumer has built a career, and he wants to help Democrats in red states do the same, by finding some bills where they can shake hands with Trump and cut ribbons on some bridges, and so on. Schumer’s idea can be boiled down to:

Senate Democrats work with Trump → Voters conclude Senate Democrats are doing a good job → Senate Democrats win reelection.

Yet both empirical research and recent experience show that this dynamic, which seems to make sense, does not actually work at all. The truth is that voters pay little attention to legislative details, or even to Congress at all. They make decisions on the basis of how they feel about the president, not how they feel about Congress. And a major factor in their evaluation of the president is the presence or absence of partisan conflict. If a president has support from the opposition party, it tells voters he’s doing well, and they then choose to reward the president’s party down-ballot.

This dynamic played out during George W Bush’s first term. After 9/11 — an extraordinary event, to be sure — both parties rallied around Bush. This caused his approval ratings to skyrocket, and as a result, Democrats in Congress suffered an unusual beating in the 2002 midterm, which ordinarily would have been an opportunity for the opposing party to record gains. Indeed, the bipartisan halo around Bush persisted long enough to let him win reelection in 2004. Only in Bush’s second term, when partisan cooperation collapsed, did Democrats make major gains.

Under Obama, Schumer logic would have dictated that vulnerable Republicans demonstrate a willingness to work together with the extremely popular new president. Instead, the Republican Party denied any bipartisan support for almost any bill, despite the popularity of both Obama and the proposals at issue. This created a sense of partisan dysfunction that allowed Republicans to make major gains in midterm elections, despite the fact that their party and its agenda remained deeply unpopular. The actual dynamic, then, is:

Senate Democrats work with Trump → Voters conclude Trump is doing a good job → Senate Republicans and Trump win reelection


Senate Democrats don’t work with Trump → Voters conclude Trump is doing a bad job → Senate Democrats win reelection

If Schumer wants to prevent bad outcomes, he might cut some deals with Trump. But those deals are going to put his members at risk. If he wants to protect his red-state seats, he needs to drive down Trump’s approval ratings, which means fighting Trump on everything. It’s unfortunate for the Democratic Party that its most powerful elected official does not seem to understand the basic political dynamic.

–Jonathan Chait
Charles Schumer Is Leading Democrats to Their Doom, Continued

6 thoughts on “How Democrats Win Short-Term: Ignore Schumer

    • Chait’s no dummy. He just has intellectual blinders on with regards to some subjects … especially privatizating schools, which makes him unforgivable in my eyes (my friends are mostly teachers). He ain’t dumb, though.

      • Doesn’t mean I agree with him that often. I often disagree with smart people. Some would say that is because I am stupid but I think it is more I don’t think the same way as like anyone.

        • I’ve known dumb people, dumb people have been friends of mine, and you’re no dumb person. Passionate about your views, which is no sin.

          And I suppose I should give Chait a pass on the school stuff — he’s being a supportive partner. My partner supports the dumb ideas I have. It’s just stupefying to me how so many ostensible liberals are getting snookered by this “reform” nonsense. Don’t they realize the goal of conservatives is full privatization? And that “teaching to the test” creates memorization, not thought?

          We are creating a brain drain — robotic students taught by increasingly insecure teachers. (Applications for education majors are dropping fast.) Right when we need informed citizens more than ever!

  1. This is likely true, but it’s maddening to see it become normalized. It basically means that nothing will ever get done unless one party controls all three legislative parts of the government. It works in parliamentary systems where the legislature chooses the chief executive officer, but in a system that’s designed to rely on conflict between the branches one party rule is much rarer.

    • To be honest, that is a great deal how the legislation in the 1930s-70s got passed. The Dems had such a huge majority that even losing the presidency didn’t do much.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.