How Democrats Can Lose The House

How Democrats Can Lose The House


“I think we’ve got the House,” one California Democrat said to me not long ago. “It’s the Senate we need to focus on.”

I didn’t know whether to laugh or cry. Cry, I think.

This is how Democrats lose the House.

I don’t know that there has ever been a time, in my lifetime anyway, in which perceptions varied so diametrically from one political party to the next as they do now.

If you’re a Republican, chances are better than eight out of 10 that you’re pleased with your president. Probably get a kick out of him too, not to mention the jobs numbers, or the stock market.

If you’re a Democrat – particularly one in a place such as California, where you are mostly surrounded by other Democrats – you cannot imagine how anyone could support him. How dumb could they be?

This is how you cement Donald Trump’s base. With a mixture of contempt and disbelief.

Meanwhile, they are counting on the last laugh. If Democrats don’t “get it,” they won’t win. Simple as that. If we keep thinking the Trump voters had it wrong and “should come to their senses,” we will lose in 2018. If we don’t offer something other than our aversion to Trump, we’ll be no better off after the midterm than before.

I know: Roy Moore lost. Need I point out that the man was notorious for allegedly preying on children when he was in his 30s – and that even so, the president endorsed him, and Moore’s opponent only narrowly beat him? And as best I can tell, the president hasn’t paid any price for endorsing him. He won’t pay any price for pushing the FBI to investigate the Clinton Foundation, although his never-ending efforts to politicize law enforcement should offend any student of the rule of law. But not.

It’s not just Teflon with President Trump. It’s not that the muck doesn’t stick. It’s that in his universe, it’s not muck at all. There are plenty of people, sad to say, who still want to “lock her up.” We don’t win by rerunning the last election, or by trying to convince those who supported Trump that they were wrong to vote for him when they did.

For the record, I’m not at all confident about the House. True, the incumbent president’s party tends to lose seats in midterms. Bill Clinton lost the House in his first midterm. The incumbent president tends to come back and win re-election two years later, it’s also worth noting.

But not so fast.

First, we know politics is local.

Second, incumbents in Congress always win. Democrats need more Republicans to leave in order to truly open up seats.

Third, Republicans have controlled the drawing of district lines in more state legislatures than Democrats. The maps favor them.

Fourth, Nancy Pelosi. I happen to like her, and I think she has accomplished an enormous amount as the leader of the Democrats. But I really liked Hillary Clinton, too. I know this much: I am not America. I live in California, not Ohio.

The challenge for Democrats has never been to win my vote. If you’re a die-hard of either party, it’s not about finding the candidate you like best, because that may well be the candidate with the least chance of winning. It’s about finding a candidate you like who might appeal to people with whom you generally disagree. It’s not easy to think that way, and not near as much fun as cheering for Bernie Sanders. But it’s better than losing.

Susan Estrich’s columns appear regularly in The Oklahoma Observer

January 6, 2018

About Author

Susan Estrich

Susan Estrich Estrich served as a law clerk for Judge J. Skelly Wright of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia and Justice John Paul Stevens of the U.S. Supreme Court. In 1988, she was the campaign manager for Michael Dukakis' 1988 presidential run, even though she had never before managed a political campaign. She was the first female campaign manager of a major presidential campaign, and the first female campaign manager of the modern era. [5] [6] Estrich appears frequently on Fox News as a legal and political analyst, and has also substituted for Alan Colmes on the debate show Hannity & Colmes. She writes regular articles for the conservative website NewsMax, for which she is a pundit.[7] She is also on the Board of Editorial Contributors for USA Today.[8] She is currently a law professor at the University of Southern California Law School and a political science professor at its affiliated undergraduate school. Before joining the USC faculty in 1989, she was Professor of Law at Harvard University, where she was the youngest woman to receive tenure.[9] On January 10, 2008, Estrich joined Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, a law firm based in Los Angeles, where she chairs their Public Strategy in High Profile Litigation: Media Relations practice area. [10][11] She writes a nationally syndicated print column distributed through Creators Syndicate.

Leave a Reply

Please Click the Monkey to Take Our Anonymous, Quick, 6-Question Survey
Observer Archives
Website By
Website By
“Bob’s efforts on our website have been herculean. He’s at the ready, 24/7, for whatever crops up and he’s always on the lookout for ways to refine and improve our site. He has just the right touch to make it more eye-catching, user-friendly and accessible. He was especially invaluable when the theme developer suddenly dropped support, requiring creative patching to keep it going. We can’t recommend Bob highly enough!“ – Arnold Hamilton, Editor, The Oklahoma Observer

Looking for the latest Observer?
Copies are available at the following locations:

Sign up for our email list

Subscribe By Mail
The Oklahoma Observer
PO Box 14275, Oklahoma City, OK 73113
Amazon Smile
Amazon Smile
                                                                                                                                                                        ©The Oklahoma Observer, all rights reserved. Website by: Mr Rogers' Weborhood