Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Do Government Shutdowns Hurt Republicans?
Conventional wisdom suggests Republicans will be harmed electorally by government shutdowns. Is there any evidence for such a claim?
- The government was shut down eight times under Ronald Reagan, the first in the fall of 1981 and the last at the end of 1987. In those six years, Reagan won a massive electoral landslide; the Republicans kept the Senate in two out of three elections, and failed to take the House in three of three elections.
- Bush (41) vetoed a continuing resolution, and the government was shut down for five days in 1990. Democrats held the Senate and the House for the next two elections. Bush lost his 1992 reelection bid.
- The government was shut down twice under Clinton, both times in 1995. The Republicans, having retaken both Chambers in 1994, kept them both for five straight elections. During that time they won two Presidential victories.
- The government was most recently shut down under Obama in 2013. The following year, the Republicans kept the House and won the Senate.
Obviously there myriad factors that determine whether a particular government shutdown is a good idea, but there seems no real precedent to suggest that government shutdowns necessarily harm Republicans electorally.
It’s also worth noting a famous shutdown-fight where the government was not shut down: In 2011, the shutdown was averted at the last minute by a compromise between Republicans and Democrats. In the following election, the Republican Presidential candidate was defeated. The Republicans failed to take the Senate (losing two seats) and kept control of the House (losing a net-eight seats — and the popular vote).
Published in Elections, General
The government has never been shutdown.
The government is shut down when VA hospitals discharge the patients to the street, the SS checks don’t issue, air traffic control ceases, defense forces are grounded, docked or confined to barracks without pay, and Lois Lerner doesn’t get her retirement check.
You will be able to tell by the 6,000 pt drop in the Dow.
(BTW Welcome to Ricochet. Well crafted first OP. I am going to be jealous if this gets promoted to the Main Feed, as well it might)
I agree, the government never shuts down. The worse that seems to happen is that some “non-essential” government workers get paid days off. And the government goes out of its way to scare and inconvenience the public as much as possible.
You are both right. It’s all pretend and it costs more to pretend to shut it down than to just ignore the issue. And Republicans know it so are complicit in the fraud.
Does the Republican base, the presumed audience for this kabuki, even reward the congressional Republicans? Reversing the question “are Republican’s hurt?” – do Republicans gain anything?
They get the budget they want but are afraid to ask for. The Kabuki hurts the party, the nation and helps the Democrats. Do they care? I don’t know.
There have been several posts about this over the last few years. Here’s a recent one by me: Can Anyone give me an example of a shutdown that was attributed to a Democrat by the MSM?
My thoughts run more towards how it is used against the Republicans all the time to the extent that McConnell and other Republicans announce ostentatiously “that there will be no shutdowns.” This kind of announcement is a cry from the heart of a wounded animal saying to its tormentor: “Please — no more, no more.” Who are they afraid of here? Clearly, it’s the media that they fear. This behavior comes from being traumatized.
You are swimming against conventional wisdom here with this one. There is not one member of the “smart set” on Ricochet who will admit that what you are alluding to is in any way shape, manner, or form correct. One minute the voters hold grudges for a whole year and next minute the polls that show things in this instance don’t matter, and visa versa. You are going to find yourself banging your head against a wall with this line of questioning on Ricochet.
Yes and when we, the Voter, try to change this dynamic and make them fear us, we are said to be the problem. You can read it for yourself in the post about the friend Ryan chooses to keep.
It looks like the Congressional sides win. The President loses, either electorally or party wise in the house.
I remember the 1995 shut downs, and while we did retain Congress, we were never the same afterward. Going into the shut downs Gingrich as speaker clearly had moral authority over Clinton. Coming out of the shut downs it was dramatically reversed. We had to scramble every year after that to hold congress and we barely won the presidency in 2000. Actually we lost the popular vote. I would not claim the 1995 as a victory.
There is something to be said for the 2013 shut downs helping Republicans in the long run. I think Boehner maneuvered that one quite well. It came in the off year and it galvanized Republicans while whatever blame was given ultimately dissipated by the election.
The Republican congress was elected in 1994 and their first efforts were in 1995 remember. The fruits of the 1995 work in congress were welfare reform and several years of surplus. And keeping the House for 12 years and the senate for several years was incredible. Historically, the Republicans tended to get 2 years (elections of 1948 and 1952) and then a turnover back to the Dems. 1994 was a landmark election because it actually shifted the government rightward after 62 years of mostly Democratic control. And it’s been a sustained result, wherein finally the Republicans have taken their seat at the legislative table.
Keep in mind too that in 2000 we had a pretty optimistic economic environment, which many sitting VPs would be able to capitalize on. Gore didn’t. Also, who cares that we lost the popular vote? Thankfully our Founders were fortune tellers and designed a system whereby the victor needs to win individual states as opposed to relying on heavily populated areas in few geographic regions. If the Left wants to sit back and claim some sort of mandate because they win NYC, Chicago, Philly, San Fran, and LA, so be it. I’m sorry but winning a handful of cities does not entitle them to completely change the character or the American society.
I think we need to be strictly accurate in order to maintain credibility in this argument. Federal employees who are affected by a shutdown may be paid late, but contract employees who are furloughed do not (generally speaking) get paid for the time they’re not at work. It can affect their bottom line. We know this from experience.
The question where party politics is concerned is, “How many of the people affected by a shutdown (including their families and friends) will change their vote to Democrat from Republican based on the shutdown?” I’m guessing not many. People of a certain mindset tend to ask, “What’s good for the country?” People of another mindset tend to ask, “What’s good for me?”
I leave it to you to discern which is Republican and which is Democrat.
This cannot be emphasized enough. The government becomes the enemy of the people in these situations. Reason enough to squeeze it down to “inconsequential in our lives.”
Here’s the thought experiment needed to drive this home to doubters:
Who’s to say that the Republicans wouldn’t have won the popular vote if it was based on simple per capita majority? If the election rules were different then the campaigning would have been different.
Presently, a candidate is forced out of a state that is easy to sway for more votes once he or she has a strong majority. With a popular vote election, the person could just stay in a single area, city or state and work on increasing the popular vote there where it’s easy to do so.
Our system forces candidates out into areas where the support is more marginal in the hope that he can pick up a state or two that it’s in the “purple” category.
Another thing to note is that states could change the rules (and some have) so that electors are based a little more on the popular vote in that state. Nebraska and Maine presently do have special rules that are different than the rest of the states.
Despite both the experience of both Reagan and Clinton?
I have taken time to write both Senators and my Congressman in support of the tactic and pledged campaign assistance if they follow through.
Ted Cruz tried, the other 2 clowns fold up like lawn chairs in hurricanes.
I don’t know if that meets your definition of gain, but I at least let them know I support them.
It doesn’t appear Obama was effected in his re-election following 2011’s standoff.
Government shutdowns are bad for the big-government Republicans one finds in Washington. They’re good for the rest of us. Obviously they’re therefore bad.
Clinton was reelected.
If you want an example of how republicans are hurt by not pursuing the strategy look no further than the clutching of pearls and breathless wailing every time Donald Trump’s picture and/or poll numbers flash across the television screen.
Again, what shutdown? 2013, two years ago. We all remember back that far don’t we?
I assert that I suffered from the shutdown more than anyone on Ricochet.
I had traveled to Hyde Park NY to dine at the Culinary Institute of America and to visit the FDR Home and Library. Due to the “government shutdown,” the FDR site was closed!
Trauma! Gnashing teeth! I didn’t think that I could go on. But I gathered my strength to return to the CIA for lunch and catch the train down to NYC for dinner and a show.
I don’t agree that voters hold grudges for a year, though I’m not a member of the “smart set”. Voters lose interest quite quickly.
What is clear is that if a shutdown were happening during an election, we would get hammered. Since it is never in the democrats interest to cave to a shutdown, one will eventually collide with an election.
The polling on this couldn’t be clearer. The trendline was going the republicans way until they tried a shutdown late in 2013, and the democrats were bailed out until the Republicans caved. If what you see below in fall of 2013 happened on election day, the Republicans would lose both houses in landslides.
A shutdown therefore only makes sense if the democrats will be so threatened by it that they will cave long before an election. However, the democrats are not fools, and if they cave to this very conservative congress once, there is no limit to the number of times will we use the tactic over the years to get what we want.
They have every incentive not to cave, and are guaranteed victory if the shutdown lasts through an election.
Do not charge the enemy uphill on an entrenched position.
You are the poster child of the smart set.
How do you factor local politics, especially in the House and gerrymandered districts? It seems a stretch to call a landslide.
Indeed he did and in doing so offered the Republicans leverage they were afraid to use lest they lose an opportunity to trash Cruz.
The problem is that both sides are terrified that they the public will learn a certain truth. That the majority of the government is unnecessary.
That said, if your going to shut it down it needs to be done in advance with preparation by the Republicans. The Democrats are always prepared for it, with plans to spin it there way. If your going to shut it down do it for a minimum of 6 months. Don’t pick up the phone when the democrats call. Make them sweat over it.
Its never planned by the Republicans so the Democrats can spin it. A planned shutdown would be something else.
majority of the government unnecessary – check, six month planned shutdown – check
During these six months:
Will Medicare and Medicaid process claims and release checks to doctors and hospitals?
Will VA hospitals remain open?
Will Social Security benefit checks be issued?
Will military payroll, training and operations be funded?
Will FBI and counter-terrorism task-forces continue to operate?
Will air traffic control and airport security continue?
Will the Dept of Education suspend six months ($90 billion) in funding for K-12 and higher ed?
If you say no to any of these, much less all, you are playing Russian roulette with a Glock 9mm
The people who sabotaged the 1995 funding cuts were Republicans. (“Shutdown” is such a binary concept. I don’t trust people who use that terminology — not even Ted Cruz, as he is alleged to have done.)
That is on thing I wondered about, but I decided it might be impossible to determine one way or the other without a book’s worth of research. It is very difficult to determine whether something was advantageous or not when we’re talking about policy goals. Were the balanced budgets of the 90s a result of the shutdown, or were they in spite of it?
It doesn’t seem like shutdowns are harmful enough to be statistically significant, despite polling data to the contrary, though one can hardly know how people will react in the future. I suppose the real question is whether government shutdowns ever give us results that are worth the small negative electoral effect. I think that’s certainly something to be debated, but I don’t see much evidence that they can never be used lest we risk suffering total defeat.
@ Frank Soto
I think you might have touched on something very important: the question of how often we will use the tactic. One obvious disadvantage of shutdowns is the same with any “nuclear option” tactic: once you employ the tactic, it may be very difficult to not use it again when you run up against opposition. Obviously we can’t be the party that shuts down the government at every drop of the hat.
However, shutting down the government is a power given to the Congress by the Constitution, so I think it is obviously something we should at least consider using if we think the situation calls for it.
As for the polling data you provided, I think it deserves a lot of attention and analyzation. A lot of Republicans were quite vocal about their opposition to the tactic, which may have helped turn opinion against the GOP during the shutdown. There is also a question of how long we could keep it going. If we had refused to reopen for another six months, would people have been all that much more angry, or becoming used to the idea and with their short memories, would they eventually forget to notice that it was still shut down? In other words, could a shutdown lasting six or seven months be a perfect argument in favor of limited government in the sense that we could say: “It’s been ten months, government is still ‘shut down’, have you noticed or been harmed?”