Trench warfare to keep Obama on fiscal cliff CNBC, the financial news network, has shifted its big guns from New York to Washington to cover budget negotiations, with a clock ticking ominously on screen to remind politicians of the urgent need for a fix to avoid the fiscal cliff. By Thursday, with 18 days to go to the end-of-year deadline, the instinctive reaction of many in the capital to the countdown was: what's the rush? 18 days? For those jaded by the capital's serial budget wars, that's a lifetime. But seriously, CNBC could just as easily set its ticker for other budget showdowns that lie over the horizon. The US reaches its borrowing limit early in the new year. The deadline for detailed tax reform arising from the framework set in the fiscal cliff talks is likely to be later in 2013, with tax triggers attached to force a deal. All of which is another way of saying that short of a grand bargain in coming weeks, something that is implausible, budget brinkmanship will be a feature of US politics for many years to come. It is not just the gulf between the two parties that militate against closure. Far from settling the core issues of taxing and spending, the 2012 election has in fact entrenched the partisan divide in Washington. Before the poll, Barack Obama suggested optimistically his re-election could "break the fever" on the Republican side by bringing them around to his view that tax rates must rise as part of deficit reduction. But Republicans in the House of Representatives, where conservatives still hold a strong majority, aren't playing by that script. The unfortunate truth for Democrats is that the party's huge losses in the congressional midterm and gubernatorial races in 2010 coincided with the decennial census, a trigger allowing states to redraw constituency boundaries. The result was that Republicans won the right to draw much of the political map and that, says David Wasserman, of the Cook Political Report, means "the deck is stacked." The gerrymander put in place by Republicans in states where they had the ability to do so is a major reason why Democrats would have to win a "tidal wave, not just in 2012, but in any year, to control the House." In many states, Democrats won the collective popular vote in House races but fewer seats. Nationally, they picked up only eight seats, to bring their number to 201 in the 435-member House. Take Wisconsin. Mr Obama won the state in November by a convincing seven points but Democrats only secured three of the state's eight house seats. Or North Carolina, where the Democrats won more than half the votes in House races but less than a third of the seats. The concentration of Democratic voters in cities and along the coast helps their candidate in presidential elections, as activists have an easier job in rounding voters up to get them to the polls. Paradoxically, such concentrations help Republican redistricting, as Democratic voters can be more easily herded into single districts while conservatives claim the rest for themselves. It goes without saying that Democrats redrew boundaries to their advantage where they could. But they picked a bad time to lose in 2010, as Republicans reaped the bulk of the redistricting spoils. So when Mr Obama threatens Republicans that their party's brand will be irreparably damaged if it sticks to its hard line in budget negotiations, not all House members will feel they have to listen. More and more, they occupy safe Republican districts and really need to appeal to Republican voters. A dialogue of the deaf in Washington might suit them just fine. One thing has the potential to change that. If Mr Obama forces a rise in tax rates, which in one form or another is inevitable, and the economy thrives, then the wind might be taken out of Republican sails. But don't count on it. There is no sign that the economy is about to take off. Extended trench warfare, starting with toppling off, at least briefly, the fiscal cliff on January 1, is a much better bet.