David Corn points out that when it comes to making gains in the upcoming midterm elections, the GOP may be their own worst enemy. After all, the party is a mess, Michael Steele is a joke, they have no positive agenda, and scandals keep piling up. Not only that, but the Tea Partiers are going to continue to cause havoc and bring unwanted publicity to the conservative movement. But, Democrats cannot rely on a self-inflicted implosion. They need to diagnose the mood of the country accurately, and make smart moves to win the national debate.
It seems pretty obvious that there is a widespread perception out there that the government is doing too much and is too far in debt. And that perception is the biggest problem that the Democrats face. If the government takes more action to stimulate job creation, it will cost money and feed both negative narratives. Passing more sweeping legislation on immigration or climate will feed into the perception that the government has its tentacles everywhere. The more the people want the government to slow down, the more they’ll be impervious to the message that a Republican congress will just create gridlock and nothing will get done. But that’s the message the Democrats want to make.
Remember when Gingrich shut down the government and impeached a popular president for lying about his infidelity? Well, that was back when the Republican Party was somewhat reasonable. Look at them now [insert shot of foaming-mad tea party ralliers]. Do you think Obama will be more successful in turning the economy around with these loons nipping at his heels?
One way to combat this national mood is to time some very popular legislation for the fall that is crafted in such a way that it will guarantee a Republican filibuster. What we want is for the public to have the perception that the Republicans are standing in the way of needed reforms and that the last thing we need is to give them even more power to block legislation. To do this, the Democrats need a sacrificial lamb…something they don’t mind seeing go down to a filibuster. That’s the problem with using the most obvious bill…the financial services bill. Do we really want to fail to address the too-big-to-fail problem? This is especially hard to contemplate because, crafted more to the GOP’s liking, the financial sector reforms could become a major bipartisan victory of the type Obama has been seeking since he came into office. On the other hand, a bill that is to the GOP’s liking is not going to truly fix the problem. Decisions, decisions…
I hope smarter people than me are working on the legislative calendar.
There are indeed so many angles to this that it’s dizzying, but for better or worse the most direct route is still pocketbook issues and the perception among people across the political spectrum that the system is rigged against them. A combination of an improving economy with better employment numbers (fingers crossed) coupled with devious legislative efforts that force the Republicans to defend their Wall Street overlords is still, in my opinion, the way to go. It’s the most visceral approach with the widest reach. It’s also our biggest vulnerability if we’re perceived to be on the wrong side of the issue.
When I look at poll numbers on various issues I just shake my head in disbelief — how can so many people be seeing it in such a skewed way? Blame the democrats for the economy? Prefer Republicans in Congress rather than Democrats? What are they thinking?
I truly believe that the Dems don’t put good people on TV to counter the bluster from the right. The Dems are too nuanced. No sound bites (except Alan Grayson).
And how do you solve the intrinsic dilemma of not wanting more government but also wanting the government to do something about jobs? (And what can they do anyhow, except to hire people, which is pretty expensive and would be resisted terribly).
So I’m not so sure there is a strategery for the mid-terms except to field the best possible candidates, to make the argument as loudly as possible, and to get out the voters that elected Obama — which will be a mighty difficult task. They just won’t get that excited again until 2012.
I will predict again, however, that there will be a Supreme Court nomination this summer that’ll spill over into the Fall. It will serve as another political hot potato and may serve to excite the base, rile up the opposition, play some part in the calculus of all this.
A while back, Nate Silver did an examination of Obama’s poll numbers throughout 2009 and showed rather convincingly that he took his hardest hit during the Sotomayor hearings and never fully rebounded. I don’t know if that is because of her ‘wise latina’ remarks or it was just because she was so alien (South Bronx-raised Puerto Rican) to much of Middle America. Or, maybe, it would have happened even with a liberal male candidate. But, it’s a word of caution in thinking a SC fight this summer is going to be of assistance.
Here’s the link.
I think the best route is with financial regulation. If what I’ve been reading is true, the current proposed bills are weak anyway.
Craft a strong bill and let the GOP obstruct, and play it to the hilt. The dems are gonna get hammered on the bank bailouts anyway, and need a foil to that.
I don’t think the anger is from the gvt doing too much, but rather that the results have been too meager and too slow in coming. The admin is doing a good job at playing down economic expectations, but people(on both sides) are incredibly impatient. It took from 1929 to 1940 to get out of the depression, yet people somehow think this economy is going to be turned around in a year or two? I just don’t get that impatience, especially from the Liberal side. especially since the economy has been teetering for a very long time and artificially propped up with bubbles. Do they want to see those reinflated?
I think immigration reform would be a huge loser for Democrats in a time of 10% unemployment.
When the unemployment level drops, the anger will abate. That’s going to take a long time.
I don’t remember who was the first to remind everyone of the significant differences in the stakes involved with banking reform and healthcare reform, but I’m sure you read the piece, BooMan. To wit: there aren’t 30+ million Americans being held hostage in banking reform. So placing a higher priority on “doing something” rather than “doing it right” is not and should not exist in banking reform.
There is a very real danger of Dems and President Obama claiming Mission Accomplished on a worse-than-useless banking bill, and then watching as another financial meltdown occurs sometime later in the Obama Administration. That would be a killer, both on policy and politics. This outcome should be avoided at all costs.
So to answer your question: YES, we should be willing to postpone dealing with the Too Big to Fail problem in order to stave off a midterm election problem, and to solidify the Dem caucus around a much better solution (presumably in the next Congress).
Yes, this is a risky strategy, but show me an option here that has zero risk. Dems have to make a decision on how to A) survive the midterms, and B) substantively address the problems in banking. I don’t see passing a crappy bill as a way to achieve those goals. True, letting a “good” banking bill get filibustered to death may not achieve those goals either, but I think that strategy has better odds.
There are no guarantees here. It’s down to probabilities, IMO, and a choice has to be made regardless. I place a higher probability on a strategy of writing a good banking bill, making the debate over that bill extremely visible, and then pointing the spotlight at Republicans when they kill it.
The tried and true method for electoral success would be to begin a war against Iran and rally round the flag.
It wouldn’t surprise me.
Option 1: Pass an effective and strong financial reform bill (leverage limits, too big to fail resolution authority, consumer financial products agency). This would be mostly Democratic votes, and a few Republicans (at least in the Senate to overcome a filibuster).
Option 2: Pass an ineffective and weak financial reform bill on a bipartisan basis.
Option 3: Try and fail, due to Republican opposition, to pass a strong financial reform bill.
I don’t see that there’s much benefit, politically speaking, for Democrats to Option 2. It would discourage their base. The Republican base is already energized enough. Broderesque voters won’t be swayed by one bipartisan vote after 100+ Senate cloture votes.
There’s some benefit to Option 1 (message to voters: we’re on your side and we’re getting things done), and somewhat less benefit to Option 3 (we’re on your side, and the Republicans aren’t).
Final thought: Am I right in thinking that financial reform can be done in pieces (e.g., passing a bill creating a consumer financial products agency) unlike health care reform (which had interlocking pieces that required a unified bill)? If so, why not try to pass a strong comprehensive financial reform bill; and if that fails, pass several smaller bills?
you can probably pass many of the reforms separately, but you run into the problem with the Congressional calendar. We’re already going to find it too chock-full of stuff, especially with all the obstruction the Republicans will continue to engage in. And we need to set aside a bunch of days to get appointments filled. That battle needs to go down before the elections, too.
This option doesn’t seem politically feasible to me. An effective and strong financial reform bill by definition isn’t going to attract any Republican votes to overcome a filibuster, and it might lose a few ConservaDems. It seems to me the choice President Obama has always faced has been to either be effective or bipartisan, but NOT both. Financial reform is IMO no exception.
I’d be ecstatic to be wrong about this. So please, name the Republican(s) who would be willing to kill off a filibuster in order to help pass strong and popular Dem legislation, all in advance of the midterm elections. Go ahead, I’ll wait.
cfaller96, I agree that Option 1 isn’t very likely. I put it out there more as an exercise in strategic thinking. By having a plan for what happens if some Republicans decide that it’s in their self-interest to be seen as being on the side of the people v. the banks, Democrats could have a better outcome.
Some organizers (and politicians) think primarily in terms of “organizing against”. Depending on who you are, “against” can be the corporate bosses, corrupt City Hall, secular humanists, tea partiers…you get the idea. It’s the enemy, the opponent, the person or institution you define yourself in opposition to.
Republicans and conservatives have done a pretty effective job of “organizing against” Obama and the Democrats for the past nine months.
One weakness of the “organizing against” model is that you are dependent, to a certain extent, on your opponent’s reactions. So, for example, mass marches and civil disobedience worked in Birmingham largely because Bull Connor reacted with naked brutality. After Birmingham, some Southern law enforcement officers learned to treat civil rights leaders with courtesy and respect when arresting them—thereby avoiding the kind of defeat for the segregationist cause that Connor helped create by his actions.
“Organizing for” is Dr. King saying “I have a dream”. It’s Ronald Reagan campaigning on “morning in America”. It’s the goal, or issue, or vision you define for yourself, and then organize towards.
It can be harder to get your side “fired up, ready to go” when you don’t have a clear target you’re organizing against.
On the other hand, it places your opponents in a difficult position. Either they concede your point, in which case they now become your allies, and it’s just a matter of negotiating the terms of moving forward. Or they dig in their heels and risk losing the support of the middle—as Republicans did on health care reform.
Obama tends to operate out of an “organizing for” mentality—making it clear he’s working toward a worthy goal, and willing to work with anyone toward that goal. He certainly did that on health care, and is doing it on energy/climate change.
My own two cents is that if there’s any issue this year worth picking a fight with Republicans over, it’s financial reform. Put forward a strong bill, make them filibuster it, and then make them defend their actions in the fall campaign.
they should go for the most populist financial reform bill possible…force the GOP to explain why they’re against it…
this would also mean bitchslapping traitorous Democrats too.
… why did they time the provisions of the health care bill so that so many people get NO BENEFITS WHATSOEVER until … just maybe … the 2014 election – more likely 2016.
Every election during Obama’s potential 8-year presidency will have people like me, a former near-max donator and campaign worker, completely bitter and unmotivated. I’m not gonna vote for Sarah Palin or Mitt Romney but I’m sure as hell not gonna give the bastard democrats a penny or a minute of my time. Even if I wanted to I wouldn’t be able to with HIPAA premiums draining me dry.
I would provoke them to greater anger and watch them implode.