"I don't think anyone is hitting the panic button," said Rich Bond, a former Republican National Committee chairman. "But there is an acute recognition of the grim environment that both parties are operating in."
"If the Democrats had any leadership or any message, they could be poised for a good year," Bond said. "But in the absence of that, they have not been able to capitalize on Republican woes. Because of the size of the GOP majority, Democrats have to run the board, and I don't see that happening."
Yeah, it's unlikely Democrats are going to sweep in and take a majority. They still don't seem to have much to offer to improve over the Republicans and I know a lot of people aren't going to make that jump just because they're tired of corrupt Republicans. I don't have the poll right now, but I saw one that said most Americans think most politicians are corrupt. Just because the ones who have been caught are Republican doesn't necessarily mean they think Democrats are any better. However, if Dems could actually change that even slightly in their favor, I'm sure they would pick up some values voters.
In the Senate, 33 seats will be on the ballot in November, 17 of them currently in Democratic hands, 15 controlled by Republicans, and one held by Sen. James Jeffords, a Vermont independent. Democrats now have 44 Senate seats, and need to pick up seven to gain a majority, six if Vermont independent Bernie Sanders replaces Jeffords.
All 435 House seats are on the ballot this fall, and Democrats need to gain at least 15 to become the majority party and take control of the House.
Are those kinds of gains even possible? I'll let my co-contributors tackle that question, because that's not my area. However, I will say that just because people are getting sick of Republicans, there is no reason for Dems to take victory for granted. They still need to offer a better message and a better plan.
11 comments:
Well, a 49% plurality saying they want a Democratic majority is pretty strong especially compared to only 36% saying that for Republicans and 12% saying neither (so even combined they are still below the Democrats). Now, of course, this doesn't mean Democrats will sweep the majority. But it has more to do with the fact that people vote for candidates, not parties, many districts are gerrymandered, the number of seats Democrats would have to win, etc. not your anti-Democrat bias. I agree that this in itself is not cause for celebration nor reason for hope. I agree that the Democrats must still improve and show that they are worthy of being the majority again. However, this is pretty good news for Democrats, and I would argue progressives (how else are we going to impeach Bush? the list goes on...) and I see little reason to be so disparaging. Cautious, yes, but let's not side with GOP spin either.
I'm not talking about spin, and you can forget my "anti-Democrat bias" unless you want me to assume you're blinded by pro-Democrat bias. What I'm talking about is the simple fact that in polls people might lean Democrat for a party, but vote Republican for candidates. I don't think that because 49% of people say they want Democratic control actually means that anywhere near 49% of people would vote Democratic. I think the poll says something, which is that Dems can take advantage of this as individual candidates if they get around to offering a real, unified message.
I think the corruption issue is a gift to the Democrats from the political gods. While most people think all or most politicians are corrupt (as they go out and vote for their own member of Congress I should note) a scandal the likes of which we're seeing with Abramoff gives Democrats a real chance to attack the culture of corruption among the GOP. I also think the Democrats need to be hitting Bush on issues of national security a lot stronger then they are; I know they don't want to be seen as foaming at the mouth, but simply attacking Bush on Iraq isn't going to cut it. He needs to be hit hard over the NSA spy scandal, over revelations that the FBI is going after leftist groups, and over any connections he has to corrupt GOP politicians, etc., etc. The time for fearing Bush's political power is now over; only aggressive, but not over-the-top, attacks will do the trick now.
I agree with Xanthipass. The media is trying hard to spin the Abramoff scandal as bipartisan, but I don't see that holding water. Not a single Democrat accepted money from Abramoff, only groups he was connected to (which were a lot so I think it's difficult to say it was all corrupt. It definitely has been proven yet). People do have a plague-on-both-your-houses view at the moment, but Abramoff just pleaded guilty last week and this story is just coming out so give it some time. Certainly the Republicans went after the Dems for less in '94. I mean, it's gotten to the point where the Republicans are asking Tom Delay themselves not to come back because they are afraid of the damage these guys might do to them, as Nat pointed out.
I also agree with Xanth that an agressive, but not over-the-top, attack strategy will be most effective. I think we need to hit them hard over the next few months, and then lay out Democratic policy ideas in the months before the mid-terms as Gingrich did in '94. I think that is the best path to victory.
That's certainly the way to go, and I would say that it's the easiest way to victory. The problem is the unified "vision" of the Democratic party. Do they have one? I have no inkling of what the Democratic party stands for at the moment nor what problems they're going to try to address when they're in power. In other words, I have no idea what the Dems are "about".
But Nate, in some part, because you don't really follow what they say? I mean, if I didn't send you article you probably wouldn't know.
It reminds of people who were like "What's Kerry's stance on healthcare?" I'd be like "Go to his site it's all there..."
Well, first off that's not true. Second, even if I didn't, are you saying they have a message? And third, in any case, I don't hear that message when I hear a Democrat talk. You know how the Repubs are. They hammer the same points over and over and it gets through to people. I don't see the Dems doing that. If you think it's just me, why don't you take a poll and see if people actually know what the Democrats are about?
Right, but I'm saying, why can't people be more pro-active about finding these things out? There's only so much a candidate or someone can do. I agree they should be doing more, sorry to suggest I wasn't, but still...
You're missing my point. The Democratic party doesn't have a message. There's no finding it out because there isn't one. They don't have a solid agenda as a whole, which is exactly why people can identify with Republicans more. As with any customer-oriented business, you don't blame the customers for being stupid. You find out how to minimize the problems and maximize service. So don't blame the voters; blame the Dems for not reaching them and figure out how to do it.
Well, I think the Democrats need to do a better job for those practical reasons, sure. But I don't think that changes the fact that many people are simply ignorant about the basic, fundamental differences between the two parties and on the issues that are pretty clear right now.
Well, that's absolutely true, but again, that's partly because the Dems don't respond quickly and firmly to Republican propaganda. That's their failure and one they need to work on extensively.
Post a Comment