Friday, April 16, 2010

How To Lose Without Really Trying

Doug Schoen and Patrick Caddell, a pair of Democratic pollsters from the Clinton Triangulation School (Schoen is a regular FOX News guest) is warning that Obama and the Dems must tack hard to the right in order to save themselves from a "November Bloodbath".
The swing voters, who are key to the fate of the Democratic Party, care most about three things: reigniting the economy, reducing the deficit and creating jobs.

These voters are outraged by the seeming indifference of the Obama administration and congressional Democrats, who they believe wasted a year on health-care reform. These voters will not tolerate more diversion from their pressing economic concerns. They view the Obama administration as working systematically to protect the interests of public-sector employees and organized labor -- by offering specific benefits such as pension protection and tax reductions at the expense of all taxpayers.

Democrats must understand that voters will not accept seeing their tax dollars used to pay for higher wages and better benefits for public-sector employees when they themselves are getting higher taxes and lower wages.

Winning over swing voters will require a bold, new focus from the president and his party. They must adopt an agenda aimed at reducing the debt, with an emphasis on tax cuts, while implementing carefully crafted initiatives to stimulate and encourage job creation. This is the agenda that largely motivated the Clinton administration from 1995 through 2000 and that led to a balanced budget and welfare reform. It promoted a modest degree of social welfare spending. This agenda is enormously popular with the electorate and could eventually turn around Democratic fortunes.

Democrats can avoid the electoral bloodbath we predicted before passage of the health-care bill, but in one way: through a bold commitment to fiscal discipline and targeted fiscal stimulus of the private sector and entrepreneurship.
In other words, Schoen and Caddell are saying that the 18% of Americans who are the hard core conservative Tea Party will certainly vote for the Democrats rather than the Republicans if the Dems simply pretend to be the Republicans.

Really?  Because if you believe that, you really are as stupid as these two think you are.  Let's get something straight:  the Tea Party voters are Republicans.  They despise, loathe, and vilify the Democrats every chance they get.   They call Obama a Socialist even when he's not, they yell and scream that he has raised taxes when he's lowered them, and a healthy chunk of them don't even believe he's legally President because they're not sure if he's a U.S. citizen.

What on God's green Earth makes anyone believe for a microsecond that in 2010 with such virulent anti-incumbent fervor out there that incumbent Democrats can convince these voters to not throw them out of office?  What exactly can they do to make hard core Republican supporters vote for the Democrats?

It's idiocy at its core here.  Not only are the Tea Party voters never going to vote for the Democrat, they are not "mainstream swing voters" any stretch of the imagination.  What Schoen and Caddell are trying to do is get the Dems to run as Republicans and scrap Obama's which case they get voted out of office anyway.  Does nobody recall 1996?  It took the Dems a decade after tacking back to the right after 1994 to get the House back, and that was done how?

By running as Democrats.

It's a lesson the Democrats of 2010 need to continue to apply now instead of surrendering to the Tea Party fringe.


In Ur Blog Eatin Waffles (Accept no fail imitations) said...

"the Tea Party voters are Republicans."
Yea, Tea Party is purely Republican, they wouldn't even break from them to support a conservative candidate....except in the case of Doug Hoffman

So your argument is that 18% of Americans are hardcore right members of the Tea Party and therefore hardcore Repubs (by your estimate as I don't see anything supporting this) but the article is about winning over swing voters who's worries coincide with the Tea Parties views.

"Last week, a Rasmussen Reports survey showed that overall more Americans say that they agree with the Tea Party movement on major issues than with the president of the United States -- 48 percent with the Tea Party and 44 percent with Obama. Among independents, 50 percent said that they're closer to the Tea Party, while only 38 percent are with Obama. "

So based on that he's saying to win over SWING VOTERS (not the TEA PARTY) the Dems will have to appear to be more conservative.

But go ahead and continue as you say to "be Democrats" and ignore the American people.

Lowkey said...


We'll blithely skip past the low hanging fruit of the Hoffman nod and double Rasmussen cite, and actually address your point without (much) snark.

The right is going to be out in force at the polls in 2010, and mid-terms are about GOTV, and not much else. Sure, the DNC and the President can run right and try to pick off some of the swing vote that's going to show up. Or, they can energize the Democratic base by doing the things they promised to do last election cycle. If the Donk voters show up in November, ain't gonna be no bloodbath. Except in the chambers of the RNC, when the promised and taken-as-gospel 60 seat flip turns out to be more like 30.

In Ur Blog Eatin Waffles (Accept no fail imitations) said...

So going right would pick up swing voters? Which is the context of the article



The double Rasmussen cite was pulled from the article as well.

Have you read it?

Lowkey said...


I have not, nor do I need to. Efficiency! The point, that you continue to miss, is this:

Yes, the Congressional Donks could pick up a sliver of swing voters by running right, at the cost of many more votes from their own base. Or they could pursue the much smarter electoral math...

...wait for it...

by running as Democrats. You know who is going to get creamed this cycle, regardless of which way the party tacks? The Blue Dogs. Zandar has that one pegged, too. Every Democrat that got elected by methods other than swearing they were Republican Lite has a shot, provided they continue to prove it.

In Ur Blog Eatin Waffles (Accept no fail imitations) said...





Your argument is "If they act like Dems then they will get moar votes!"

Which may or may not be true, but the article states "If they do this they will sway swing votes" which we both agreed on.

So where is the disagreement again?

Anonymous said...

Dear Zandar:

The latest poll from your buddy Kos shows just how fucked the Democrats are in Arkansas.

Obama's numbers are in the 30's there. Among Independents, he's pulling a Bush-like 24%!


Arkansas is ahead of the curve! A couple months from now Obama will be drowning in his own shit and the Dems along with them!

You're right when you say the Democrats won't win because they pretend to be Republicans. They will lose big no matter WHAT they do!

Signed, The Stupid (PS still getting PWNED in your OWN FUCKING BLOG, ASSHOLE!)

Lowkey said...










Zandar's point: article sez "run right or DOOOOM". Zandar sez: maximizing swing votes = bigger overall losses. Waffles sez: swing voters agree with Tea Partiers. Zandar and Lowkey say: okay, then why piss off all of the base to capture what will be, in actuality, very few votes. Ergo, running right moar DOOM, article crap, Clintonista pollster fail yet again, Dems smart to ignore crap advice. It seems, my dear Mr. Waffles, the only thing we disagree on is what Zandar, not the article he cites, is talking about.

Anonymous said...

Cuz thar r moar base than independent amirite?


In Ur Blog Eatin Waffles (Accept no fail imitations) said...

Cuz thar r moar base than independent amirite?


Couldn't have said it better myself.

Ok I probably could have <_<

Lowkey said...


BA-ZING! LOL, now we're having fun! Prepare yourself for a smug libtard retort!

Arkansas is ahead of the curve! A couple months from now Obama will be drowning in his own shit and the Dems along with them!

Stating that Arkansas is ahead of the curve on anything other than Wal-Marts per resident disproves your own point.


StarStorm said...

You know, I'm looking at the Anonymous dude and thinking of two chess players.

White: Checkmate!
Black: Uh, no. You're not even threatening my king in any way.
White: Checkmate! I win!
Black: No. You don't have anything NEAR my king. In fact, I've captured most everything you have!
White: Checkmate! I win! LOLOLOLOLOL

Seriously, declaring victory? Doesn't mean you've won. It means you think you have.

Related Posts with Thumbnails