As you regulars know, I've been noting here regularly that GOP obstruction could perversely end up benefiting Republicans politically, because voters may end up holding Dems accountable for government dysfunction, since they run the place.Hey, there's a decent call. Unfortunately the effect of the "enthusiasm gap" where Republicans are more eager to vote in 2010 is also a symptom of the true problem and not the cause. The bigger problem is that the Village is holding the Democrats responsible for government dysfunction.
Here's yet another data point for this argument, though I'll admit it's highly speculative. What if the GOP's successful efforts at obstruction in the Senate are also partly responsible for the "enthusiasm gap" between the two parties, which is also widely expected to help Republicans?
As long as Democrats are being blamed for not capitulating to Republican demands, in a world where controlling 59% of Congress is not a majority and is doing things "against the will of the people" then the Democrats are going to lose and the GOP is absolutely counting on it.
So while this is a good question, it's also akin to asking why a bacterial infection from a gunshot wound might be adversely affecting one's health. Greg's usually very bright, but he's ignoring the elephant in the room for sure.
On the other hand, the whole Dave Weigel thing just shows ignoring the elephant is far safer for your job security in the Village.
3 comments:
Ya know I am curious, how did Bush get 5 trillion worth passed without having the majority the Dems do? Is it Repubs are much better/dirty/etc at politics than the Dems?
Oh no, there are plenty of bad Dems who have been in Congress far too long.
It's just a lot easier for the Republicans to get what they want when they enlist their help.
i.e. Bluedogs?
Stupak, Nelson, etc
Post a Comment