To be sure, things could change in the four months between now and November 2. The GOP's failure to get Republicans to vote in the May 18 special election in Pennsylvania's 12th District underscores that the party can't just sit back and await spontaneous combustion in terms of turnout. Still, the potential is here for a result that is proportional to some of the bigger postwar midterm wave elections. These kinds of waves are often ragged; almost always some candidates who looked dead somehow survive and others who were deemed safe get sucked down in the undertow. That's the nature of these beasts. But the recent numbers confirm that trends first spotted late last summer have fully developed into at least a Category 3 or 4 hurricane.Digby has a theory on why that is.
You can't help but wonder if the Democrats have decided that having the votes of "liberals, African-Americans, self-described Democrats, moderates and those living in either the Northeast or West" just aren't worth having so they are going to fight the Republicans for every last one of those John McCain voters. How else to explain the ongoing derision of their rank and file? ("They look like absolute idiots" is the quote that comes to mind.)So does Greg Sargent.
I tend to fall into the camp that holds that the Dem base's lack of enthusiasm is out of sync with the size and scope of the accomplishments racked up thus far by Obama and Dems. The excitement around Obama's victory was so intense, and the sense of a "big change moment" was so palpable, that people were bound to feel let down despite Obama's clearly historic achievements.Me, well, let's be honest. There's a pretty large contingent out there that enjoys kvetching about how doomed we are, and it happens at the drop of a hat (or an Obama poll number.) I'm here to remind you that instant gratification in politics just doesn't happen, folks. It's not a short-term tactics "win the 24-hour news cycle" game, but a long term "build the foundation, shore it up, and then build upon that" kind of deal.
But reasonable or not, something is apparently turning off these voters in a big way.
Look at the past. The New Deal. Civil Rights. Women's Suffrage. This stuff didn't get passed in 18 months and the world was magically better, it got improved in stages, fits and starts, suffered setbacks and challenges, and those were overcome through perseverance and effort. Obama's smart enough to get that necessity dictates he play the short game as well as the long one, but the problem is he's playing them against each other. Long term he wants to build the Democratic base. Short term he wants to get Republican votes.
What Obama doesn't get is that there's zero way he can get Republican votes in the short term (at least not until he shows Republican voters that his long term plan is working for all Americans). The economy is making that really, really hard. The austerity hysteria as a result of that is making it near impossible. Obama's going to have to make a choice here.
The Dems should be running on "Here's what we've done and why you should vote for us!" and not "So what are you going to do, vote Republican? I didn't think so."
Posts
8 comments:
The Dems should be running on "Here's what we've done and why you should vote for us!"
Health care that you didn't want. Ontop of it we had to bribe people to vote for it.
Have a $13 Trillion deficit.
The stimulus, "but it's not 12 or 13 or 15"
Showed our inept ability to handle a crisis with the oil spill.
A few broken promises
Let's not forget the tax on white people...
Lied to the American people about the most open and transparent administration/congress in history.
(I've got more but you get the point...)
"So what are you going to do, vote Republican?"
Yes, because I should vote Republican for their many accomplishments over the last 18 months like...
umm...
well...
hmm. Why, it seems they've done nothing but attack Obama and filibuster legislation that is designed to try to fix our many problems.
Why would anyone want to reward these guys again? What exactly have then done for America? Because if I recall, when they were in charge, we plunged into a massive recession. That's what they did for us.
Meanwhile, Obama has an impressive number of accomplishments even by the history of past presidents. It doesn't matter to you Waffles, because you will attack Obama no matter what he does and pretend you're not a rabid, partisan conservative Republican.
Honestly. Get a new shtick, please.
So you have no answer? You're basically saying what I've said. It's a choice between the lesser of two evils, we just differ on which side is the less evil at this point in time.
Filibuster? If the roles in the Senate were reversed you would be hailing the Dems for holding up legislation until they could gain a few seats and force compromise or do away with certain pieces of legislation all together. See it's only ok if you're side does it.
That makes you a hyopcrite.
"Obama has done so much" is just as ignorant of a statement. Not all change is good, and a lot of change in the midst of this recession is going to cause businesses to be even more conservative than they would be anyway. That's not to say he shouldn't make any changes, but he's going in so many different directions. I wonder why that is? It wouldn't have anything to do with his party having the majority in both the House AND Senate would it? Cause that would make him just another politician. So much for all that hope and change
It doesn't matter to you Waffles, because you will attack Obama no matter what he does and pretend you're not a rabid, partisan conservative Republican.
I point out the other vantage point that your liberal sites don't but that makes me a wingnut. Go into some liberal blogs and post about how you think people should have the right to own guns (which you've stated) and see if you're not called the same or worse.
Thanks for showing any of your readers that you really don't know why you follow the Dems, maybe it's just because the liberal blogs you read tell you to...
What makes you a wingnut is that in the months you've been constantly trolling my blog with nothing better to do, you still haven't offered anything other than:
A) Ignoring all the evidence and arguments I and others have made about Obama and the Democrats accomplishing real change in 18 months,
B) Declaring everyone who disagrees with you a hypocrite and loser,
C) Repeatedly saying how this is such a terribly biased blog and that I can't think for myself when you keep coming back again and again spouting the same debunked talking points over and over.
You've gone beyond annoyance into just...sad territory.
How did you debunk this point?
Go into some liberal blogs and post about how you think people should have the right to own guns (which you've stated) and see if you're not called the same or worse.
Plus others.
I didn't say "All of his changes have been terrible"
Not all change is good
And some of the comments in that list are interesting. You can name 100 things he's accomplished and yet what I named above trumps all of those in the American people's eyes.
Declaring and proving are actually different. I've proven time and time again that you are a hypocrite. The only person who I've dignified as a "loser" is tman and that's for obvious reasons. I've never denied enjoying the blog, it's a great way to stay open to both sides of the argument. Sometimes you come to center, most times you're reading sites like Daily KOS, Media Matters, TPM, Huffington Post, memorandum, etc. Do you think those sites are entirely honest with everything?
I read your argument, and then read the opposition (if I haven't already read about both).
Now when our children and grandchilren are stuck with paying the bill we can tell them hey this is what was accomplished while we spent your future...
14. Limited lobbyist's access to the White House:
(now they go to the coffee shop next door)
16. Answered questions at the first online town hall from the White House that were submitted and voted on transparently by the public at WhiteHouse.gov:
16a Bribed Senators
95. Enhanced earth mapping:
Oh and also
30. Ordered the closure of the prison at Guantanamo Bay and a review of our detention and interrogation policy, and prohibited the use of torture:
Should that really be counted?
41. Announced a new U.S.-Mexico border initiative:
initiative - an introductory act or step; leading action:
accomplishment synonyms: completion, execution, consummationm acquisition, proficiency.
42. Concluded cyberspace policy review:
Really? So every review Bush did should be counted as an accomplishment?
43. Announced a strategy to address the international nuclear threat:
So announcements count to now?
44. Established a new "U.S.-China Strategic and Economic Dialogue":
Talking to nations counts too now.
30. Ordered the closure of the prison at Guantanamo Bay and a review of our detention and interrogation policy, and prohibited the use of torture:
Should that really be counted?
And it goes on and on. How many of these are fluff? How have these directly affected the lives of the American people?
Should everything, no definitely not, we don't see half of what happens, but come on, this is a pathetic attempt to justify him and the Democrats. Blame Bush, Blame the GOP and point out each and everything including reviewing policies, and talking to other nations as reason to be applauded. Sorry it doesn't cut it.
And you dismiss the entire list out of hand, thus proving my point.
*bows*
Thanks for playing.
And you dismiss the entire list out of hand
Where?
How many of these are fluff?
Is not dismissing the entire list, but thanks for playing.
Post a Comment