When the New York Times' John Harwood reported that a top Obama adviser told him that progressives "need to take off the pajamas, get dressed and realize that governing a closely divided country is complicated and difficult," it was a rejoinder that expressed far more than Village disdain for grassroots pressure and activism. It represented a deeper assertion, pervasive in political circles, that says we all must be patient with the Obama White House because we're only 10 months into the new administration. "Governing a closely divided country is complicated and difficult" is a euphemism for both "stop pushing so hard," "don't expect so much change so fast," "he's trying to do too much too fast" and every other similar dollop of conventional wisdom.
David took aim at the counsel for patience, pointing out how quickly Reagan moved in his nine months in office. But what about the claim of a "closely divided country?" Does this look "closely divided"?
If you're not pre-hypnotized, the above charts look none too "closely divided". But, you might wonder, how do the current House and Senate look in historical comparison? Since popular election of Senators started in 1914, we've had 48 Congresses. The current Senate is tied for the 13th most lopsided majority, in the top 1/3 of the size of Senate majorities (more in the extended entry):
There have been 16 Senates with majorities of less than 55 votes. While one could plausibly argue that all these were "closely divided"--at least in a relative sense, they represent the bottom 1/3 of the size of Senate majorities--the exact opposite of the group that the current Senate majority belongs to.
Lopsided House majorities are noticeably more common, but the current House majority is still in the top half of House majorities over the same time period--21st, to be exact:
What's more, the smallest 16 House majorities include all six Republican majorities from 1995 through 2008. How often did we hear about those majorities being "closely divided"???
Looking at presidential elections since 1914, the 2008 election does look relatively close--it's just 14th out of 24:
But re-election margins tend to be much bigger than first-term elections. And divided government has been the dominant pattern since 1968, If compare Obama's election in 2008 to other first-term presidential elections since 1964, only George H.W. Bush got a larger majority:
Not to mention the fact that Obama was elected as part of Democratic trifecta--quite the contrary of George H.W. Bush or Ronald Reagan. In short, the record is clear. The 2008 Democratic trifecta represents an electoral victory that's solidly in the top 1/2 to 1/3. Given that the largest majorities in this time period came during the New Deal Era, and relied on a substantial number of Southern Democrats, this numerical measure is, if anything, an under-representation of how significant the current majorities are.
Finally, there is the most basic measure of all--how the American people identify politically. Here's Pollster.com's chart of party identification over the past year. While independents play an increasingly significant role, there is nothing remotely close to parity between Democrats and Republicans:
Note in particular the lack of any great surge around the August recess, when a tremendous conservative astroturf effort was launched. The didn't even get back to the level acheived in June, and they're now down almost a full three points since then, as can be clearly seen in my summary chart of month-by-month averages of the above data. Note how the Democrats have been increasing their dominance over this time period since one year ago, quite the opposite of the Versailles "Dems are doomed" narrative that a few trolls around here have been pushing of late:
Republicans may gain some ground in Congress next year--particularly if Dems continue running away from their base, and from positions that are more popular with voters than they are. But that won't be because of any great surge in Republican Party ranks. It will be because of Democratic base demoralization--just as in 1994, plus a relatively small energized GOP base. This in turn would reflect elite political priorities, rather than the politics of the nation as a whole. And that is the only way that the modern GOP can continue to survive, much less thrive.
For reference, here are all 48 congresses, listed in order of the size of majority, first sorted by Senate majority size, then by House majority size:
STATE BLOGS
