Midterm election results won’t matter much for Democrats

If the gods of election outcomes came down from the clouds, appeared to the Democrats in their dreams and told them they were going to lose a midterm election in the next decade but could pick which one it would be, every single Democrat should cheer for an absolute face-crushing in the midterm election that is four days from now.

I don’t write this hoping that Democrats will lose their majority in the Senate, or that the gap between the Republican majority and the Democrat minority in the House will widen, but rather to suggest that even if it does happen (and it looks likely to), it won’t matter for the Democrats. In fact, it might even do more to help them when it will matter — 2016.

First, it has been a bizarre midterm season. In the late spring and early summer, two issues (one for each party) consumed the midterm buzz. For the Democrats, there was Obamacare, which polled miserably for months and gave any Democrat incumbent night sweats. On the Republican side, there was immigration reform, which a majority of polled Americans supported, but which Republicans in the House of Representatives refused to bring to a vote.

None of that matters as much anymore, because ISIS and Ebola happened. Though those issues won’t necessarily distract voters from perennial domestic problems, they have provided enough of an impact to knock Obamacare down to third on the list of national issues in a Wall Street Journal Poll, behind the economy and the ever-specific “dissatisfaction with government.” Even though the economy is doing well, the Ebola issue and, before it, ISIS, sucked much of the time away from Democrat incumbents who would have rather been talking about the steadily improving economy.

Even worse for Democrats, Ebola and ISIS have restructured the midterms into an election more focused on national security, which has increased the salience of Republican-based issues — Republican voters and the party do better when elections are about national security. To borrow a phrase from a campaign professional and friend of mine, the ISIS and Ebola issues have turned soccer moms into “security moms,” which doesn’t bode well for Democrats.

Second, even if the Republicans take the Democrats’ majority, they won’t take a large enough majority to pass things without Democrat support. Anyone who has glanced at a headline in the past year knows that when it comes to supporting each other’s ideas, Republicans and Democrats are more likely to hold hands and go Christmas caroling at the White House. In effect, the next two years will be a repeat of the last two: the only difference will be that Republican-authored legislation will be getting shut down instead of Democrat-authored legislation.

It could always be worse, though — one reason there has at least been some semblance of productivity in the Senate is that the Democrat majority has been able to (albeit very slowly) confirm many of the judges and executive officers that Obama has appointed. But a huge backlog of folks waiting to be confirmed still remains, and if that backlog gets worse, the Senate will be forever stuck in “confirmation land,” not in “law land.”

The third and most compelling reason that the midterms won’t matter for Democrats? The pain will only be temporary. In 2016, the next time Congress faces elections, several signs offer hope that the Democrats will roar back. First is the math issue: In 2016, 24 Republican Senate seats are up, compared to the Democrats’ 10. Unlike this year, which pits many candidates against each other in more Republican states, 2016 sees contests in many more Democrat-friendly territories. An additional weapon in the Democrats’ arsenal? Presidential election years encourage Democrat voters to turn out in more numbers than off years do. If the Republicans take the Senate, Democrat candidates in 2016 will be able to point at two years of gridlock under Republican leadership. The Democrats will also likely run Hillary Clinton, who is already wildly popular, for president. That gives Democrats a fighting chance in the House of Representatives, which means that unlike the next two years, one party could have both houses beyond 2016.

The premise of this article might sound like a coach who, seeing his team lose ground in the fourth quarter, puts in the second string and starts pumping the team up for the next game. Except it’s not: In fact, such a metaphor would be problematic for two reasons.

One, there is cause to suggest that this game doesn’t matter and in the next game, which matters more, the bookies have my team winning by a large spread.

Second, I’m a college student who goes to the University of Southern California. Around here, folks tend to avoid comparing themselves to football coaches.

Nathaniel Haas is a junior majoring in political science and economics. His column, “State of the Union,” runs Fridays.