By J. Randolph Evans – Why do folks read this column? Based on the letters to the editors, there are a few reasons (some not so good, some downright funny). One good reason is that readers get a pretty good preview of things to come long before they happen. As political insider Matt Towery often notes, prognosticating is a lot of fun at the time, but can be a little dicey when looking back. Well, prognostications in 2010 were fun. At the risk of an “I told you so” criticism, here are a few.
In the first column of the year (January 4, 2010), readers saw this: “In the United States Senate, 2010 will be the year of change. A five vote margin would of course be a huge change. With these numbers, an actual change in control from Democrats to Republicans is possible although unlikely.” As it turned out, Republicans gained five seats (plus Alaska Senator Murkowski (I)). It was well short of an actual change in control.
Later that month (January 27, 2010), the column painted the overall political picture as follows. “Once again, it appears that President Obama and National Democrats have concluded that they have a ‘messaging problem’ and not a ‘message problem.’ . . . . Charles Cook, a well-known pollster, described the situation as a car crash in slow motion. Only a change in direction can stop an inevitable crash in the political landscape. The President made clear that there will be no change in direction, so just watch for the crash.”
And a big crash it was on November 2, 2010.
There was a little inside information here and there. Here was one example on February 6, 2010. “To have any chance of recapturing control of the Congress, Republicans must convince voters that they can be trusted again to hold the line on spending. Do not be surprised to see in the fall a supercharged Contract with America that is called the ‘Covenant with America on Taxes and Spending.’” Of course, many months later, Republicans did release their Covenant. Admittedly, it was neither supercharged, nor a factor in the election. But it did happen just as predicted.
Georgia politics were front and center. Long before qualifying, this column flatly stated that “by and large, it will be musical chairs in Georgia politics at a truly dizzying pace.” And it was.
After qualifying, here was the data reported to readers: “Fifty three (53) Georgians signed up to run for statewide office – fourteen (14) candidates signed up to run for Governor; three (3) candidates for Lieutenant Governor; seven (7) for Secretary of State; five (5) for Attorney General; six (6) for School Superintendent; ten (10) for Commissioner of Insurance; three (3) for Commissioner of Agriculture; four (4) for Commissioner of Labor; and, five (5) for Public Service Commission.” And, on August 9, 2010, the following appeared: “In all, seven of Georgia’s eight constitutional officers have left or will leave this year with only Lieutenant Governor Casey Cagle left seeking reelection to his current post.” Republicans swept it all.
No one escaped criticism. During the GOP Primary and in the GOP Primary Run-off, this candid assessment of the negative campaigning appeared: “Where things get a little off track is when the small differences become big issues in attacking the character of candidates with words like ‘lies,’ ‘dishonest,’ or ‘untrustworthy.’ Of course, the media loves such smear-fests. And, based on the number of brochures and commercials, so do political consultants. Make no mistake. It is one thing when candidates put their credibility on the line by denying historical facts. It is quite another, however, when the only difference is just how supportive they are on a particular issue. Candidates, and their consultants, do voters a disservice when every policy difference is accompanied by a ‘liar’ label. Eventually, voters just tune out or turn off.”
And that is exactly what happened.
Some predictions unfortunately proved even worse than projected. Consider this from July 2010: “[a] lame duck session of Congress in 2010 could contain well over 50 Members who will not be held accountable for their votes. These are the kinds of dynamics that create real risk for the American representative form of government. Unfortunately, the Obama Administration and Congressional Democratic leaders have already proven that they will act to circumvent the will of the voters. Earlier this year, Massachusetts voters sent a clear message on healthcare with the election of Republican Senator Scott Brown. In response, President Barack Obama, Speaker Nancy Pelosi, and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid employed clever parliamentary procedural rules to bypass the checks and balances of the system to push through what is now called “Obamacare.” There is no reason to believe the same thing will not happen after November.”
And it did.
Keep reading.