The day after

After stewing in the juices of defeat for a while I am finally at peace over last night's election. Although perhaps naive my thinking is now the following:

This does not represent a sound defeat of conservative or right-wing ideas. Obama did not run as a liberal. He ran a campaign centered on tax cuts, bipartisanship and a foreign policy that would bring swift justice to our enemies (e.g. his Pakistan comments). Conversely there were some dogs that didn't bark. He didn't speak of nationalized health care, but rather expanding choices so that citizens can obtain the same coverage offered to members of Congress. Mind you, he may have something else in store, but that's at least what he campaigned on. The topic of Iraq was also absent and Obama has abandoned talk of any hasty withdrawal from the country.

Conversely, McCain didn't run an especially conservative campaign. Yeah, he talked about tax cuts but he also railed about "greed and excess" on Wall Street. McCain had planned to run a successful campaign, like Bush 4 years ago, on foreign policy and Obama's inexperience. But precisely because of McCain's successful push for the "surge" strategy the issue was taken off the table, leaving only the economy -- an issue for which McCain had no comprehensive answer and was forced to latch on to "Joe the Plumber" as a last-minute tactic.

Lastly, the Republicans just got beat by a better candidate. Granted, Obama certainly has his flaws, but he wasn't up against a perfect candidate -- he was up against McCain. McCain was a compelling figure 8 years ago but found himself thrust on to the stage this time simply because it was his turn. McCain projected an image of yesteryear while Obama projected one of tomorrow. Obama articulated an agenda while McCain opted for citations of past achievements and his "maverick" reputation. Faced with a talented opponent, an incumbent president from the same party with record low approval ratings and the onset of recession and financial crisis, it was simply a bridge too far.

So, what's next? As I see it Obama has two options for how to govern. He can either channel his inner ideologue and use the House-Senate-White House trifecta to ram through a liberal agenda or he can take the Bill Clinton route and make more marginal changes while focusing on staying popular. I am cauiously inclined to think that Obama will opt for the latter. This is because Obama's history does not suggest him being much of a leader determined to push through an agenda. He votes the party line, but he is hardly front and center leading the charge. His goal, like Clinton, has been power.

As president Obama will have a different set of priorities and incentives than his Democratic colleagues in the House and Senate. While members of Congress are beholden to often partisan districts or States Obama's constituency is the entire country, and he has to take the collective well being of the country into consideration assuming he desires popularity and re-election. This is why, for example, Carter clashed on occasion with the Democratic Congress during his White House tenure, because their interests often diverged. Obama is no dummy, and surely can remember the 1993-94 period when Clinton attempted a left-wing agenda only to see his party thrashed in mid-term elections.

Which path Obama chooses should be more apparent in the first few months. What will his initial big push be? Will he actively press for card check legislation or the Fairness Doctrine? What are his priorities?

Another topic is what's next for the Republicans, and there is a huge amount of punditry being devoted to how they have to find themselves and figure out what they stand for. Personally, I see it as less dire. All they need to start doing is practicing what they preach. Hold the line on spending. Reform the earmark process. Don't waste time on bizarre social items such as Terry Schiavo. The Republicans were voted out of office in 2006 because of inept handling of Iraq and a seeming lack of competence. This year they were hit by the financial crisis and guilt by associated with an unpopular president.

People talk about how the very infrastructure of the party has crumbled, but isn't this the same party that four years ago secured majorities in Congress and maintained the White House through a massive GOTV effort? Did that suddenly disappear?

And remember, this election could have been a whole lot worse. Republicans were soundly defeated but this wasn't an overwhelming win for the Dems. They didn't get 60 votes in the Senate and picked up less than the projected 30 in the House. People are not automatically averse to voting GOP -- if that were true then why did Mitch Daniels handily secure re-election as Indiana governor while McCain lost?

As for who the next presidential nominee will be I say look to the states, as governorships tend to be the breeding ground of future presidents. The three names I would watch are Sarah Palin of Alaska, Bobby Jindal of Louisiana and Mark Sanford of South Carolina.

Palin certainly made a name for herself during this election cycle and won a lot of admirers from within the base for the perception of fighting the good fight while McCain slumped. I would view her selection, however as a serious mistake. Even if she comes back in a couple of years with added seasoning and knowledge she will still be seen by too many people as the ignorant beauty queen from 2008. Also, this new development certainly isn't going to win her any new admirers. Lastly, we simply aren't going to elect a creationist president.

The better bets are Jindal and Sanford. While Democrats love to tag Republicans as half-wits -- perhaps most notably Bush and Reagan -- the label will be hard to stick to these two. Sanford has had successful stints as a congressman, governor and on Wall Street at Goldman Sachs. Jindal is a Rhodes Scholar and was accepted at both Harvard Medical School and Yale Law. Appointed to head the Louisiana Department of Health and Hospitals at age 25 he saw Louisiana's Medicaid program go from bankruptcy with a $400 million deficit into three years of surpluses totaling $220 million.

That's not to say that it's all puppies and rainbows ahead. Republicans got smoked in the under-30 demographic, one that they also lost 4 years ago. They say that after voters vote for a certain party twice that it tends to stick. I would attribute this to a combination of pop culture (Rolling Stone, MTV, John Stewart), growing up under Clinton and viewing him as a great president and being exposed to relentless left-wing thought in college. How you fight that, I am not sure, but I would suggest starting off with jettisoning all of the social conservative junk. The younger and more educated the voter the less appeal that holds and the notion that people that oppose gay marriage are automatically Republican should be disproven by the fact that the gay marriage ban initiative passed in California while Obama took the state easily.

Look, we weren't a rock-solid Republican country four years ago and we didn't suddenly become a bunch of raging socialists overnight. When the Democrats start nominating a potted plant and winning presidential elections I'll be worried, but we are nowhere near that point.

Oh, and hey, it looks like Coleman has defeated Al Franken in Minnesota. All is not lost.

Update: Related thoughts from Greg Mankiw on the youth vote. Essentially, like me he believes the GOP needs to be more libertarian and less focused on social issues.