The Congressional Divide

What, if anything, characterizes the split between the members of congress backing Clinton and those backing Obama? I think Mark Schmitt has it about right:

With the elected officials who are superdelegates now split evenly between Obama and Clinton, it seems that there are now two congressional parties, defined not by ideology but by attitude: On one side, older liberals like Ted Kennedy joined with those elected more recently who have the combativeness necessary in the Bush years; on the other side, a middle-generation elected and brought up under the assumptions of the '80s and '90, very roughly speaking.

Perhaps not too surprisingly, Clinton seems to be strongest among people who saw their major political ascent occur during the period of her husband's presidency. Among both the newer cohort of Democrats, and the old-school folks who were in town long before Bill Clinton, she has less appeal. As Mark says, one interesting thing about this divide is that though it's very heated at the moment, there's relatively little substance to it and therefore good reason to think the congressional party will be reasonably unified irrespective of the election results. That's a real contrast to a period when you had much deeper and more meaningful intra-party ideological divides.

Comments

Of course there will be a hardened core of intransigent sore losers. They'll stay on the sidelines or worse in a fit of animus actually work for McCain's election. Will McCain suffer similar losses in segments of his base? Will evangelicals really sit at home or support a Democrat because McCain isn't the second coming of Barry Goldwater? I think there will be those on both sides acting stupidly in the context of their personal sentiments and party beliefs. The question isn't whether Obama or Hillary be hurt in the general but which party will suffer the most for inevitable defections.

Posted by steve duncan | April 5, 2008 10:35 AM

You say that there's "little substance to it," but that's just wrong. I would think that after 20 years of the democratic strategy of capitulation, you would realize that political strategy is a substantive issue. Can this country really stand four more years of Democrats who subscribe to the capitulation strategy? I just disagree that's not a substantive problem.

Posted by Josh Yelon | April 5, 2008 11:27 AM

Josh is onto something. the split among elected officials is just superficial because both candidates have similar positions, and more importantly, similar priorities. the profound split is the one between party officials. it's the DLC, which the Clintons built on the premise that Democrats have to be GOP-lite and equally partisan, versus Howard Dean's DNC (and the netroots, and the 50-state party). the importance of *that* fight can't be overstated because the outcome will determine whether we'll see a Democratic ascention or a "permanent Republican majority".

Posted by al | April 5, 2008 11:40 AM

I used to think the Dem infighting would lead to mass defections in the fall, to McCain.

But I've changed my mind. When the general election begins, the stories about Bush administration failures, etc. will surface again, forcing McCain to choose sides...inevitably, McCain will be forced to defend positions that will enrage Democrats, and the anger will shift toward the Republicans.

Posted by AKBY | April 5, 2008 11:58 AM

"Will evangelicals really sit at home or support a Democrat because McCain isn't the second coming of Barry Goldwater?"

I imagine a good deal of evangelicals would sit one out for good ol' Barry after his words RE: Jerry Falwell, abortion, and gays in the military. However, your intended point of some uber-conservative backlash versus McCain still holds. I don't know if it will be his "moral issues" stances as much as his reputation as "Juan Amnesty".

Posted by gaucho | April 5, 2008 12:17 PM

I used to think the Dem infighting would lead to mass defections in the fall

The worry isn't about massive defections but 3-4% not voting at all. In 1994, Repubs voted and Dems stayed home. In 2006, the reverse happened. Dems in 2006 got 52% of the vote. The last Dem presidential candidate to get over 50% of the vote was Jimmy Carter in 1976 at 50.1%. Every tick of a percent is crucial.

Posted by Mike | April 5, 2008 12:59 PM

Another amazing "split", this time between "older liberals" and "successful Democrats".

What a crock. Hacks like Matt seem to spend all their time trying to find ways to divide the American people up into easily categorized groups.

This, in a nutshell, is how the Democrats went from controlling almost everything to controlling almost nothing in about two decades.

Posted by Robert Powell | April 5, 2008 1:01 PM

The irony here Matt is that Teddy Kennedy is Mr. Establishment in Washington, and there is more political calculus in trying to polish the luster on a fading machine with the new hotness, than some type of idealistic partnership. It is also very symbolic that Kennedy was a big partner in getting through the only piece of meaningful domestic legislation of the Bush II adminsitration- namely no child left behind, which of course has been a terrible disaster. So it comes as no surprise that the the Bush II democrats are partnering with Mr. Establishment, while brading themselves as "change agents".

Posted by patience | April 5, 2008 1:51 PM

"Congress" in the sense of the (U.S.) Congress is a proper noun, and should be capitalized, as opposed to speaking of a congress in some purely descriptive sense.

Posted by Paul Campos | April 5, 2008 1:56 PM

It is also very symbolic that Kennedy was a big partner in getting through the only piece of meaningful domestic legislation of the Bush II adminsitration

Judas!

Don't worry when HRC is running the show these scum will all be out on there asses.

Posted by Mike | April 5, 2008 2:11 PM

Yesterday, on NPR, they interviewed King County Commissioner (Seattle, WA) Ron Sims. He's a black man from a state that went overwhelmingly (2 to 1) for Obama and a county that was even more pro-Obama. He is currently undecided. When discussing Clinton, he talked about all the things the Clintons did to get him into office and how he owes them. He didn't discuss policy at all.

I imagine a lot of Clinton's superdelegate support is patronage-based, with a lot of favors being repaid and threats of political retribution being thrown around.

Posted by ben | April 5, 2008 2:22 PM

This would suggest that, you know, super-delegates are exercising their own judgment and whatnot.

Posted by socctty | April 5, 2008 2:40 PM

You know, the whole Obama-Clinton ticket makes no sense on so many levels, but the excitement it would cause would be worth it.

The false differences they've created about each other are accepted as truth, and bringing them together would make the Obama-Clinton ticket seem seem like the perfect ticket -- especially with the highly-visible Clinton as VP (a great position for her to be in for 2012).

Posted by Chris_ | April 5, 2008 4:01 PM

This, of course, is yet more evidence that people who support Hillary tend to do so because they look favorably upon a restoration of the Clintons to power.

Of course one would think that was sort of obvious. And yet so much of the commentary on this contest is based on the implicit assumption that people would only tend to support Hillary if they were rejecting Obama for some reason.

Posted by DTM | April 5, 2008 9:28 PM

Ron Sims is is not King County Commissioner, he is King County Executive and he is pretty widely known for being the constant center of scandal/controversy. I am from Seattle, born and raised, and he has is someone that I have always considered a bit of a shady character. But he is politically astute and simultaneously scratches the backs of the developers and the environmentalists and therefore he remains.

The Clinton's were certainly helpful for both Sims and fmr. Seattle Major Norm Rice (also Black). In Rice's case, they helped channel federal money to to developers, particularly the famous Pacific Place boondoggle among other things. And I am sure they helped Sims get in with donors when he faced a tough re-election fight a couple years ago.

It seems like there is a constant refrain from the Clinton superdelegates, the only excuse that they have is patronage. Just look at Sheila Jackson-Lee's comments.

What would I be if I went back on my word to an individual that I've worked with for more than a decade

Says it all really.

Meanwhile, superdelegates that actually need to win elections this fall, particularly West of the Mississippi, all support Obama. You have to wonder why would both of Washington State's female Senators support Clinton, but the female Governor supports Obama? Could it have something to do with her re-election bid? Remember she barely won the first time in a crazy Florida-like scenario.

Gender means nothing when you've gotta win. And that should give a good indication why Cantwell is backing out of her Clinton support recently. Is it so important that Clinton be the Democratic nominee that it is worth throwing a woman Governor in Washington State under the bus? After seeing what the Republicans did in the 90's with taking over the state houses, it has to be more important to the party to keep Washington blue than to give Hillary the nomination.

I can guarantee that if Hillary wins the nomination, Hillary will lose Washington, Gregoire will lose and Washington could go red for a while. Murray is safe, but Cantwell is on thin ice and she could get the boot her next time around too.

Posted by Bubba | April 5, 2008 9:55 PM

I'm pretty ambivalent about this. On the one hand, with regard to Iraq and health care and a number of other policies, I am pretty far to the left and find the DLC's and moderates' positions to be, shall we say, very annoying. On the other hand, back in the late 80s and early 90s, I was a big fan of the DLC and Clinton because I believed—and still believe—that the Democratic Party at that time was too captive to a few core interest groups, such as labor. I don't think there's any denying that the Democratic Party of the 80s was ineffective and out-of-touch with majority American opinion.

And there's the rub. Majority American opinion is far more centrist or rightist on many issues than is that of most of us who identify as progressive or liberal. In our version of democracy, a party has to reflect majority opinion in many or most respects in order to be effective. However, a truly effective party also has to have the courage to lead the public where it discovers it wants to go. This last bit, I think, points at the conflict in my opinion about the DLC and probably at conflicts within the DLC and its generation of elected officials. The question is: is being a "New Democrat" being someone who reaches out to the center/right to pull them leftward or does it mean anchoring center/right and pulling the left rightward?

Generally, I strongly think that the former is what should be the case. But it's become obvious to me over the last 12 years or so that a large portion of DLC affiliated Dems are actually of the latter philosophy. They really are pseudo-leftists, even by the weak American definition of the term "left".

That said, and while I want to emphasize that I strongly support such supposedly far-leftist policies like nationalized health care (and much less so any watered down or non single-payer version), I continue to strongly support free trade and strongly disagree with anti-globalists. In that case, and probably a few others, it's fair to characterize my own position as being center/right, assuming that the position is descriptively center/right and not inherently center/right (which I don't think it is). In this you can see my ambivalence.

What I really don't like, but understand, is the rise of dogmatism associated with the netroots. Obviously, it's because many people feel, with justification, that since the Clinton era the Democratic Party has been burdened with ideological traitors. But there really should be some room made for those who support policies that are controversial, as long as a coherent case can be made that they are truly progressive. For example, all of my enthusiasm for trade arises from humanitarian concerns about raising the standard of living in the developing world. I'm excruciatingly aware of the complaints against trade that arise from those concerns and I believe they could be addressed with an enlightened trade policy that is motivated by humanitarian concerns and not—as is usually the case—merely the interests of the wealthy and increasing the reach of US-based corporations. This is only one example of heterodox positions that are heresy only because they are, de facto, not inherently. I support some degree of ensuring ideological conformity, insofar as it protects the party from true traitors, such as perhaps Penn is. But a very narrow-minded and uncritical ideological conformity should be abhorrent to most progressives and liberals.

Posted by Keith M Ellis | April 5, 2008 9:57 PM

Ted Kennedy, more than probably any sitting member of Congress, has done more to push progressive legislation through Congress. It's no wonder that HRC has been trying to take credit for his accomplishments, like S-CHIP.

Posted by Reality Man | April 5, 2008 11:35 PM

Keith,

The difference today is that all of these Democratic interest groups that had the party stuck in neutral back in the 80's in a squabling and losing coalition (Labor, Feminists, African-Americans, etc) have now all moved to the center because of the DLC. These groups have moved so far center that they have actually caught up with the majority of American opinion, it is just that America doesn't know that yet.

The DLC and the Clinton's on the other hand want to keep moving the party rightward. At the time, they believed that and it was necessary to sidle up to big corporations and the rich because Democrats needed soft-money contributions to compete with the extensive Republican small donor operation that was created and run by folks like Rove, Atwater and in the 90's Ralph Reed.

Now with internet fundraising and with at least a temporary advantage in the digital divide between Democrats and Republicans (I wonder if it will be a permanent difference due to the Republicans whole nostalgia message and constituency?) the Democrats now have an extensive small donor base with no need for the sugar daddies and furthermore, the Democrats have a message that is consistent with the majority of Americans. It is just that the branding is poor. So the DLC and the Clintons feel that we need to out Republican the Republicans in order to kill that negative "liberal" brand.

80s and 00s Democrats don't see why that is necessary at all. For the 80s Dems, they finally see the chance to feel proud to be a Liberal. And for the 00s, they just don't give a crap about labels and care more about policy. In '92 the message was that the Clintons are not perfect, but we need a win. Today, the message is, we don't need the undermine principles to win, we can win just as we are because it is the policies that are important and the American public will connect with that because the fear of losing just doesn't matter that much anymore.

Posted by Bubba | April 6, 2008 1:50 AM

how many of obama's supers are from red states?

Obama is not that far removed from the DLC.
Post partisan is very similar to beyond ideology the DLC technocrats pushed at the beginning. His economics are more DLC than even Clinton.

Ted Kennedy has fought the good fight for a very long time but his support of Obama is driven at least partly by his desire to keep the Kennedys the first family of Democratic politics. If Hillary won, that title would pass to the Clintons.

Posted by conjecture | April 6, 2008 6:19 AM

conjecture,

It is both: many "red state" Dems and many "blue state" Dems support Obama (Kennedy is hardly alone in the latter category). That mirrors a greater effect in the primaries, with Obama solidly beating Clinton both among self-described conservatives and self-described liberals--she only keeps it close among self-described moderates.

What that all suggests is that there is more to politics than ideology--which is not exactly news--and that Obama appeals to many people who do not agree with him completely on ideological grounds.

Posted by DTM | April 6, 2008 4:23 PM

I put together some data on U.S. House superdelegates and found there were three surprises given what Schmitt and Yglesias have been saying:
1. Hillary does well with pre-Clinton Dems, regardless of whether they are from the 80s or previous decades.

2. Sen. Clinton is not as popular as I expected with folks that got their first election to the House while on the ballot with Bill. The exception is the class that was on the ballot with Bill in his 1996 re-election.

3. Sen. Obama clearly wins amongst the newest U.S. House Democrats, but only among the most recent class of representatives does he outright dominate.

You can view the data at:

http://elvaliente.wordpress.com/2008/04/06/a-house-divided/

Posted by Julio Gonzalez Altamirano | April 7, 2008 2:40 AM