Near the end of the Q & A period when Dr. Terrence Jones’ spoke to the West County Dems, an audience member asked if there was any chance of getting rid of the electoral college:

And, finally, Jones commented on the difficulty of convincing CEOs that universal health care makes good economic sense. After his remarks, an audience member offered an interesting idea for phasing in universal health care.

Jones’ response to the woman’s idea was that he doesn’t know enough about health care policy to comment. He said that if people keep asking questions about a topic on which he’s not an expert, then by, say, the fourth question, they’ll get beyond the realm of his knowledge.

That last questioner had done so. But that’s all right. Regardless of whether he could comment, it was an idea worth hearing explained.  

Terrence Jones pointed out that the lack of straight ticket voting hurt Democrats in the downticket races. A follow up question, then, was that as long as we can’t depend on straight ticket voting for coattails, what can we do to improve our win rate in state legislative races in 2010:

We’re going to seriously need to win more seats in 2010, because the legislators in the 2011 session will be deciding on redistricting the state House and Senate districts:

The last posting about Jones’ speech at the West County Dems will cover the possibility of electoral college reform and health care reform.

As far as the races in Missouri, Terrence Jones echoed this blog’s disappointment with the Dem showing in state legislative contests (only three seats gained in the House and three seats lost in the Senate). Then he commented on the statewide candidates who won (including his answer to the question in the title of this posting):

Asked why Sam Page lost, Jones had this analysis:

My next posting on Jones’ speech to the West County Dems will feature two brief clips: one on redistricting, the other on what we can do to improve our performance in state legislative races in 2010.  

As far as the races in Missouri, Terrence Jones echoed this blogsite’s disappointment with the Dem showing in legislative contests (only three seats gained in the House and three seats lost in the Senate). Then he commented on the statewide candidates who won. (You’ll find his answer to the question in the title of this posting):

Asked why Sam Page lost, Jones had this analysis:

My next posting on Jones’ speech to the West County Dems will feature two brief clips: one on redistricting, the other on what we can do to improve our performance in state legislative races in 2010.  

At the November meeting of the West County Dems, Dr. Terrence Jones, political science professor at the University of Missouri, St. Louis, deconstructed Obama’s win. It wasn’t as if we hadn’t heard the reasons for Obama’s success before, but Jones offered a succinct summary of the contributing factors, complete with just enough stats to cinch his points.

Dr. Jones moved beyond an analysis of election day and offered some thoughts about what happens after the changing of the guard. Of course, as he pointed out, having the White House is wonderful, but there are two other branches of government. He took a brief look at them.

In the legislative branch, the gains were impressive, but not overwhelming. Enough Republicans–more than enough– still hold office, especially in the Senate, to gum up the works unless Obama can manage compromises and find consensus. Jones did not mention the tough time Pelosi can expect from Blue Dog Democrats, but we all know that they’ll present problems for the leadership.

As for the courts, the Supremes are split four and four so that wherever Kennedy falls on an issue, that’s where the Court goes. But beyond SCOTUS, consider the circuit courts where the atmosphere is not congenial on issues we progressives care about. Upwards of 2,000 cases are decided each year in circuit courts, as opposed to fewer than 100 in the Supreme Court; and ten of the thirteen circuit courts are controlled by Bush appointees (either Bush 41 or Bush 43) or Reagan appointees. Dealing with such courts will present a challenge for Obama.  

As will dealing with the expectations of the youthful voters who helped elect him. Jones figures that their idealism is likely to be unrealistic and that Obama will have to temper their expectations without disillusioning them.

But despite these difficulties and despite the current financial crisis, one can look upon these trying times as an opportunity. As Rahm Emanuel pointed out: “Never let a good crisis go to waste; it’s an opportunity to do important things that you would otherwise avoid.” Congress and the president will surely be changing the tax code to something fairer and investing in our neglected infrastructure, as well as getting us out of Iraq sooner than Bush would have.

And although, in one sense, it makes no difference whether our president happens to be white or happens to be black, the fact that we elected an African-American has already made a huge difference in how the rest of the world views us.

The rest of Jones’ comments dealt with state politics, and I’ll summarize those in the next posting.