Historically, when there is a governor’s race and a senator’s race on the ballot in a non-presidential year, it is the governor’s race that gets the most votes. We tend to focus on federal offices because they impact all of us, while gubernatorial races only impact the people of that particular state. But it’s more likely that governors’ races will provide coattails to Senate candidates than the other way around. The Republicans are banking on this theory being true in places like Ohio and Michigan.
Yet, the phenomenon could spell trouble for Republicans in states like New Hampshire and New York, where very strong Democratic gubernatorial candidates could doom GOP hopes in down-ticket races. In any case, you can help Democratic candidates for federal office by helping out in the governors’ races. Whether it is here in Pennsylvania, or out in California, we can save some federal seats if we can get our governors over the top.
Someone is making sense.
Right conclusion.
But some of the outrage along the way smacks of denial. For example, Obama did cut deals with health care stakeholders and partially outflanked them; but he had to do what the stakeholders did not–stick to the agreement.
And it is not all self-generated. There is a lot of outrage that comes from taking DC gossip sheets as true, even granting Politico an authority it does not have (except reportedly among some Democratic Congressional staff).
My sense is that the problem has become anti-intellectualism only because of the “to kill a dragon you have to become a dragon” mentality. There is a serious frustration, especially among Democrats my age, with 42 years of losing. And losing because of exactly the fact that you were intellectual in a society that turned against education in the 1960s. So the mantra became, “Don’t take a knife to a gunfight.” And that passes for analysis of politics.
What those who want to become dragons miss is that the modern conservative movement is what it is today because it looked at what Soviet Communists were doing during the Cold War and decided that you had to become a dragon to kill a dragon. The label Bushevik accurately captures what happened in the last decade. And by extension, what you see going on now is the Cultural Revolution, and right-wing propagandists are competing viciously to be the author of the equivalent of the Little Red Book.
The danger of anti-intellectualism on the left (or from those who love to toss around the term “poutrage”) is to separate us from the people we are trying to persuade. And those are the voters, not the current occupants of the White House staff or Congressional staffs. It separates us from the voters in two ways. (1) The idea that a revolution is top-down. This is what is going ultimately to kill Dick Armey’s Tea Party Express astroturf operation, by the way. (2) The idea that ordinary people, especially people not from your part of the country or your social class, are stupid. Stupidity knows no economic, social, or intellectual boundaries.
In half a century, we have gone from an uncritical trust of people and institutions to an uncritical distrust of people and institutions. What bothers me about articles like this one is that it seeks to restore that uncritical trust of people and institutions instead of critical thinking about what is driving these divisions. There is an ad hominem edge to these pie fights that refuses to recognize that folks can be helpful some days and off the wall on other days. There is on both sides over-concern with narrative (although I would argue that the power to set the narrative is what is the most important thing about the 2010 midterms). And an exaggerated view of the impact that blogs have in the greater society.
To return an intellectual edge, no institution or individual action should be beyond criticism. But none should be the subject of knee-jerk criticism either. People, institutions, events are more complex that we are willing to admit.
To come back to the quote, what we must start having a conversation about are the tactics for dealing with the political environment we have. How, given the fact that Republicans own the media, do you run a campaign that does not subsidize your political opponents in that campaign? How do you restore consideration of real issues in a campaign? How do you translate policy choices and discussions into terms that most people understand both the logic of what is at stake and the clear choices? How do you cope in a democracy with the distractions that divert people’s attention from real choices and consequences? How do you restore civil liberties in a state governed by fear? How do you act so as to build people politics as a counterweight to money politics? How do you work the checks and balances in the American system of government for the public good? All these are tactical issues.
making sense only to people who already agree with him.
deaniac’s rant is the traditional love song of the centrist Democrat. “Everyone to my left is a fucking naderite moran! So get in line and vote like I tell you, or it’ll be your fault when we lose!”
Your usual message has been to keep the focus on how unacceptable the opposition is, which IMO makes a lot more sense.
People who want a candidate they can honestly support, and aren’t happy with “we suck a little less than the other guy” as a platform, are still reachable with the message of how much more the Republicans suck. Why do so many Democrats think they’re reachable with insults?
I’m not familiar with that writer’s larger body of work or reputation. He linked to me, so I found his article. It seemed eminently sane and quite accurate. So, I linked back to it. I didn’t that piece as dismissive of anyone to his left. I saw it as dismissive of a certain kind of advocacy that relies on setting narratives that are inaccurate and unbalanced.
Deaniac makes no sense. He’s one of the loudest “Clap louder!!” people on TGOS. I’ll ask you what I asked Deaniac(and for what he has had no answer). What proof do you have that Hamsher is a PUMA? Just because she criticizes Obama? Why would a PUMA have posted the Harriet Christian rant?
In South Carolina, actively getting turnout for the Democratic candidate against a Tea Party candidate (who has lost the endorsement of the SC Chamber of Commerce) can help defeat Joe “You Lie” Wilson, save John Spratt’s seat, and capture the open seat formerly held by Gresham Barrett. That would be a net of two pickups in the House.
In Florida, the effort to put Alex Sink in the governor’s mansion could benefit Kendrick Meek in a three-way race and protect seats like Alan Grayson’s.
In Texas, it can work in reverse. Getting strong turnout for Democratic Congressional candidates could elect Bill White governor and up the number of Democrats in the legislature.
In Maryland, increasing turnout for O’Malley on the Eastern Shore could make a difference in Frank Kratovil’s fortunes.
Given that both Quinn and Giannoulias are in tight races, increasing turnout could help both of them.
Building turnout for Strickland in Ohio could put Fisher in the Senate and Coussoule in the House, among other races.
High turnout for Virg Bernero in Michigan could save a few of the seats that are in jeopardy.
We can not only save some seats, we can pick up some seats.
The Governor’s races may be even more important than any Federal office this cycle because of the coming redistricting. Currently Nate Silver’s model shows 30 Rs and 20 Ds after the election…I really hope we can do better than that.
Particularly if we can pull off winning the Governor’s races in FL and CA, it’d be huge for election cycles down the road. FL seems like a real possibility, but CA seems tougher – which makes no sense to be at all. After 2 consecutive GOP disasters in the Governor’s Mansion in that state…it boggles my mind that the public would still be willing to put someone with an “R” next to their name into that position.
>>But it’s more likely that governors’ races will provide coattails to Senate candidates than the other way around.
Not here in CA. I hadn’t looked at it this way before, but I think this explains Jerry Brown’s non-campaign; he’s counting on Boxer’s coattails.
I suspect that Brown figures that he has name recognition and Whitman doesn’t. So he is going to let her spend as much of her money first before he takes to the media. That saves him a little cash.
Meanwhile both he and Boxer and other Democrats are putting together the GOTV operation.
Barring his recent dumb statements so far, I think Brown has been making some classic political plays pretty well. EMeg can easily outspend him 100:1, and in a state as physically big and media-expensive as California, that matters. On the other hand, Brown doesn’t have to worry about name recognition like a newbie/more local candidate would (with the caveat that many/most Californians under 30 only vaguely, if it all know who Brown is). His best move was to lie low for all those months before and after the non-primary, and let the Whitman flood of a gazillion dollars wash over him, and then crash back on her. Which it has to some extent, as many polls have shown that Californians resent Whitman’s attempt to buy the governorship outright.
To some extent, Brown has also played up his old political reputation of being kind of a loonie. In power games, that kind of reputation can be an asset if it causes your opponents to underestimate you. And in plenty of places in California, being a little nutty is a virtue.
The notion of Brown as a throwback is interesting too. It’s an “anti-incumbent” year, but even though Brown has been around forever and was Governor before, he doesn’t seem to have the incumbent stench hanging around him. At the same time, California’s government has been f’ed up for so many years that older Californians might look to his candidacy with nostalgia for when CA was still at it’s “Golden State” peak. He might even hearken back to the days of his father, Pat Brown (the last of California’s truly great governors), although really only for the oldest voters. Finally, I believe Brown as Governor had a reputation as something of a tightwad in terms of public spending, at least for a 1970’s California liberal, which could help him in the more conservative areas outside the cities.
So far, Brown has shown to me that he still has a lot of the right moves. There’s a reason he’s won so many political offices in such a fiercely competitive state. We’ll see if he can bring it home. I’m not too worried about Barbara, she’s a great campaigner and friends in the know tell me she has a really good team working for her.
He did not live at the mansion; he used a sensible car. Not a whole lot lavish about his tenure. He got the nuts and flakes label by being almost ascetic. And maybe for expecting those political operatives who worked for him to be just as ascetic.
Yeah. I think his spiritual interests – Jesuit Catholicism, then zen meditation – also contributed to that “nuts and flakes” (great term) rep. Nothing particularly out of the ordinary, especially in parts of California, but perhaps a bit weirdo for a mainstream politician.