Which House party has more support?

Quick, which party's House candidates got more votes this election?  The Republicans, of course.  Right?  Chief anti-tax zealot Grover Norquist points to Republicans' holding their majority in the House as validation of their anti-tax zealotry and encouragement for them to hold the line during the upcoming "fiscal cliff" negotiations.

Actually, Democratic candidates won more votes than their GOP counterparts.  But thanks to extensive gerrymandering, many of the Democratic House voters are all crammed into the same mostly-urban districts, handing them huge victories while Republicans win closer races elsewhere.  I am represented in the House by Marcia Fudge, who was unopposed in 2012 and who has never received less than 80% of the vote in a general election.  Meanwhile, my area's previous representative, Betty Sutton, lost her bid by a margin of 52.2% to 47.8% after her district was eliminated in Republican-run post-Census redistricting.

Ohio has 16 congressional districts.  Pennsylvania has 18.  Obama won both states, so one might expect that Democrats might at least be competitive in the House delegations.  Unfortunately, thanks to how the lines are drawn, they only managed to win 9 of the 34.

Why should tactics matter?

A Romney campaign volunteer details the complete failure of Romney's GOTV effort, which was based on a web app that didn't work for shit.  They tried to use a centralized online system to replace local volunteers keeping track of who's been contacted and who hasn't.  The system massively failed, thanks to a number of technical glitches like not having "http://www.url" automatically go to the actual site at "https://www.url", or on the night before the election e-mailing a 60 page pdf that volunteers were expected to print out and take with them on Election Day.

I appreciate that the ability to organize a large organization capable of running a quality GOTV effort might be a positive indicator for one's ability to be President.  But things like whether abortion is legal or if 45 million people can have health insurance should not be decided based on some idiot web developer somewhere forgetting to set up a website properly.

Avoiding a high-stakes election process where such tactics and mistakes are so important would be healthy for our democracy.  It's yet another reason that expanded early voting procedures are worthwhile.  In this case, Romney's team would have had more time to work out the kinks in their system and prevent a situation where their side in the battle of ideas has to start from a deficit.

The path forward for the GOP

There is no way to read last night's results as anything other than a rejection of the Republican Party.  Romney was clearly their most electable candidate; I doubt there's anyone out there thinking "If only we'd gone with Newt..."  He was running against a weak incumbent with a still sky-high 7.9% unemployment rate, but he lost, and by kind of a lot.  Assuming Obama holds on in Florida, he will win by 126 electoral votes and about 2.6-3 million popular votes.  That's a ton of ground to make up if they want to win next time.  Ongoing demographic changes and a (presumably) improving economy will make 2016 a huge uphill climb for Republicans.

Who exactly is waiting in the wings to lead them in that struggle?  Young guns like Paul Ryan and Marco Rubio have a chance to take over the party, but their Republican generation is more conservative, and this election's outcome demonstrates that "more conservative" likely isn't the way to go.  Romney's standing clearly improved after he Etch-a-Sketched away his conservatism at the first debate, and the most conservative Senate candidates lost in places like Indiana and Missouri.  Turning to the right would seem to only hurt their chances.

Of course, if the economy still stinks, Democrats would not be able to blame it on Bush eight years hence.  I suppose it's possible that Republicans would double down on obstructionism and let us fall over the fiscal cliff.  If they try that tactic and the economy still grows, like it should, Democrats would get all the credit.  Their only real hope is that the economy is still sputtering along for four more years.  

Election Night live blog

7:29 - Stop the presses; Obama's up 77%-22% in South Carolina.  Blue landslide!

7:56 - Must be the red parts of Virginia that have reported so far, with Kaine and Obama way behind with 8% in.  Weird that NBC isn't remarking on it, since it sure looks remarkable on the screen.

8:01 - NBC says "too early to call but we are showing an Obama lead" for Pennsylvania.  Romney just about has to win Ohio to have any real chance.

8:15 - TalkingPointsMemo.com says exit polls show party ID in Ohio was at D +7, which is a great number for Obama and in line with the polls that showed him up in the state.

8:32 - Brian Williams commented that it's a bad sign for Romney that places like North Carolina haven't been called yet.  First global statement I recall hearing.

9:04 - Still no surprising results in terms of who won what, but a quick call of Michigan for Obama, along with still no call for North Carolina or Florida point to trouble for Romney.

9:44 - Indiana goes for the Democrats.  When will Republican voters learn that they can't nominate crazy people and expect to take over the Senate?  And Elizabeth Warren won in Massachusetts.  It's still early, but things are going well.

9:52 - New Hampshire for Obama!  Now even if he loses Ohio but wins Iowa, Nevada, Minnesota and Colorado (all favored to win), he wins!

10:00 - CBS moves Ohio to "lean Obama".  That would end it, if it becomes official.  NBC just said Iowa and Nevada both "too early to call" with Obama in the lead.  Current states already called plus Ohio plus Iowa and Nevada + sure wins on the coast and Hawaii = win.

10:13 - Fuck superstition.  If this were a baseball game, they'd be putting up plastic in the Democrats' locker room right now.

10:17 - Let me tell ya, if you're a fan of schadenfreude, you have to head over to the blog on The National Review.

10:31 - Drudge is already trumpeting the popular vote totals.  Golly I sure hope Obama gets a clean win.

11:17 Victory!

12:14 - If Republicans can't win with unemployment at 7.9%, when could they ever win ever?

1:08 - who's the GOZp leader tomorrow?  Boehner and Cantor are fighting over the House, McConnell just lost seats, Romney and Ryan just lost to a weak incumbent.  Who decides the next Republican strategy?

Election Day live blog

0748 - Voting has occurred.  I was there within a few minutes of polls opening at 0630, and it took just under an hour.  Long lines.  Neither of the vote counting machines at my precinct were working, so they just had us put the ballots into a locked box to be counted later.  Since I was waiting in line with lots of rich old white folks, I'm pretty sure Ohio's Republican Secretary of State and well-known vote manipulator Jon Husted will make sure my vote is counted.

0751 - FiveThirtyEight gives Romney an 8.4% chance of winning.  This is almost exactly the odds of rolling two six-dice and totaling exactly a 4.

0755 - Races to watch include Ohio, Virginia, Colorado, Florida, New Hampshire, Iowa, Nevada, North Carolina, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania.  Obama's leading in all of 'em but Florida and North Carolina.

Senate races include Ohio, Wisconsin, Virginia, Massachusetts, Missouri, New Mexico, Indiana, Connecticut, Pennsylvania and Florida.

1250 - Looking at the schedule of poll closings, we should get a pretty good idea early on what kind of night we're in for.  North Carolina, Florida, Virginia, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania and Ohio all close by 2000.  If Obama wins North Carolina and/or Florida, turn out the lights, the party's over.  Winning Virginia +/- New Hampshire makes Ohio not matter all that much, as Obama'd probably still get to 270 even without it.

1832 - Drudge's headline:

EXIT POLLS TIGHT
R: NC, FL
O: NH, PA, MI, NV
TOSSUP: OH, VA, CO, IA

Seems like the sort of mixed result that will keep people coming back to Drudge's website all night.

1846 - OK, I kind of expected more action during the day today.  At 7, network coverage starts, so there should be some motion soon.

The Stakes

A brief review of some of the many things to be decided tomorrow:

-45 million more people would have health insurance under Obama's plan than Romney's.  Health insurance makes it much easier to see a primary care provider (such as myself) and to afford whatever treatments one's PCP would suggest.

-$2 trillion potentially wasted by a Romney Pentagon on nuclear missile submarines and tanks we don't need, all to try to scare people hiding in caves and in populated cities.  $2 trillion is enough money to buy a $529 iPad 3 for each of the 2.2 billion children in the world and have $836 billion left over to hook 'em all up to the internet.  Buying an iPad for each of the roughly 130 million people born every year would cost about $68 billion, which is way less than the annual difference between Romney's plan and Obama's.

-I'd like to have a line in here about taxes, but who the hell knows the effects on taxes of a Romney win.

-An Obama win would mean government would continue to be run by people who think government's important, which helps with things like disaster relief.

-A Romney win rewards complete, automatic refusal to compromise with the other party, as well as blatant voter suppression.

-Roe v Wade likely wouldn't survive a Romney win.

Process matters

If anyone out there's still undecided, please consider the effect of a Republican victory would have on each party's approach to governance.

Republicans have spent the past four years, starting with a meeting on Obama's Inauguration Day, uniformly opposing any Obama initiative, even if it's the Heritage Foundation's health care plan, a stimulus bill whose largest component is tax cuts, or John McCain's cap-and-trade system.  By forcing the majority party to get to 60 votes all on its own to pass any major legislation, we guarantee a perpetually paralyzed government, only able to do anything when one party reaches a rare level of electoral dominance.  Our system can only realistically work if legislators are willing and able to compromise.  Rewarding Republicans for four years of obstruction would encourage the newly-minority Democrats to behave similarly against Romney.

Similarly, the Republican Party needs to be punished for its manipulation of voting laws.  Voter ID laws disenfranchise real voters to combat supposed voter fraud.  Republican legislatures in states Ohio and Florida restrict early voting, leading to long lines and more barriers to voting.  They aren't able to show any real reason to do these things, leaving only partisan advantage as a plausible explanation.

A Republican victory means more of the same, as so often happens when some behavior earns a reward.  But losing an election against an incumbent with a 7.9% unemployment would hopefully be enough of a wake-up call to cause them to re-examine their behavior.  Our system just doesn't work if one party acts like the Republicans have.

Christie '16

Over the past week, Obama's gained about a point in the national polls.  There really hasn't been much news in that time except for Hurricane Sandy.  78% of respondents give Obama positive reviews for his handling of the storm's aftermath.  Much of the positive coverage of the response has centered around Obama's relationship with NJ Gov. and prominent Romney surrogate Chris Christie, who has so repeatedly and effusively praised Obama's response that it has prompted questions like "What's Christie up to?" and "Is Chris Christie throwing Mitt Romney under the bus?"

Romney has been basing his argument on apocalyptic arguments of freedom versus tyranny, posing as the guardian of the free market against the overreaching power of the big bad State.  As one whom prominent conservatives used to openly pine would save them from having to settle for Romney, Christie makes a potent messenger to vouch for the ability of the anti-colonial Marxist to work with Republicans in a moment of crisis.  And Christie has gone out of his way to embrace Obama, praising him repeatedly and touring the damage with him.

Why would Christie choose to undermine Romney's message so completely and repeatedly?  As a GOP governor in a blue state, it's reasonable to think he might want to avoid looking like a hyper-partisan.  But with his national stature, he would likely have no trouble raising vast sums to swamp his opponent in his re-election race.

He must be looking toward a presidential, perhaps making his embrace of Obama is an early bet on bipartisanship and an abandonment of Tea Party absolutism that eliminates anyone who even considers compromise.  Such a stance might be necessary if the GOP in 2016 will face running against an incumbent party that just added 12 million jobs in four years.  If demonizing Democrats doesn't work with unemployment at 7.9%, it certainly won't work next time.  Christie's positioning himself to operate in a less-polarized environment.  EDIT: He's also jabbing the guy who strung him along on the VP thing.

Romney admits to protection-racket politics

Paul Krugman had an interesting column this morning in which he points out that electing Romney because Republicans won't ever work with Obama, while Senate Democrats might work with Romney, would amount to rewarding "protection-racket politics".  From literally the beginning of Obama's term, Republicans decided to oppose him on everything.  They pushed the economy to the brink during the debt ceiling crisis.  Krugman reasonably projects that they would continue to resist any efforts by Obama to do anything, but giving in and just electing Romney so at least something gets done would encourage such obstruction in the future.

While Krugman can sometimes be somewhat over-the-top in his criticisms of Republicans, he was right on in this instance.  His premise was completely and immediately confirmed by the Republican nominee himself today, during Romney's "closing argument" speech in Wisconsin, where he said:

You know that if the President is re-elected, he will still be unable to work with the people in Congress. He has ignored them, attacked them, blamed them. The debt ceiling will come up again, and shutdown and default will be threatened, chilling the economy. The President was right when he said he can't change Washington from the inside. In this case, you can take him at his word.

 The debt ceiling crisis was, and perhaps will be, entirely a Republican construction.  Prior to this Congress, the debt ceiling was always increased without controversy.  But because Republicans wanted to pass things for which they didn't have enough votes, they chose to hold the economy hostage to get what they want.  Romney admitted today that the GOP plans to repeat the tactic, once again threatening to drag us all down.  This is no different from a mobster threatening a citizen for protection money.  Give us what we want, or else.

Readings

Jonathan Chait lays out the argument that Obama has been a great President.

Rich Lowry makes his case for Mitt Romney.

EDIT:
Obama makes the case for Obama, and Romney makes the case for Romney.