Presidential elections are sufficiently high-profile that the electorate goes into the voting booth with a pretty good understanding of what they are voting for. I don’t think the same thing can be said about midterms. It’s often depressing to see the kinds of things that move the polls (and, by implication, the preferences of millions of people) in presidential elections (e.g. Willie Horton, windsurfing) but at least people are exposed to the issues. The midterms seem to be decided less by winning the argument than by riling up the base and getting out the vote. Yet, it is still important to win the argument, as that makes your job easier.
It’s scary to say, but I’ve been thinking along the same lines as Peter Beinart. The Republicans are making a Faustian bargain with their base. They may win the midterms because they riled up their voters in a paranoid froth. But, it will only be possible because of lack of voter engagement on the issues. In 2012, the Republicans are bound to nominate someone who espouses views far outside of our experience. And they will be crushed.
We tend to think in terms of red and blue, but don’t forget that Ronald Reagan won Massachusetts in 1984. When you win an argument big enough, there are no red or blue states. If I had told you in 1960 that in 1964 the Republican candidate would win in Arizona and the Deep South and no other states, you would have thought me a lunatic. But that’s what can happen when one party nominates someone completely out of the mainstream and the general public acknowledges that fact.
The recent DADT strategy is at least intriguing to me, as it brings out the vulnerability of the new england repubs in an environment of religio-corporate reaction that doesn’t play so well up here. And the issue chosen is a perfect one to attack the new englanders with. Scott Brown might have a problem with this issue as well.
Knowing very little about senate procedure and strategy, I’m very intrigued by the choice of the defense authorization bill as the vehicle of this wedge issue. Dare I hope this signals a coming impatience in congress with funding our Asian adventures?
While I expect you are correct, we have never before lived in an America where one of the two major political parties is nearly completely in thrall to an overtly political “news” operation that relentlessly pushes clear propaganda that has no basis in objective fact, supported by a seemingly endless array of enablers from talk radio to the internets and unkl eddie emails that are willingly propagated by the so-called serious media.
These are uncharted waters.
But that’s what can happen when one party nominates someone completely out of the mainstream and the general public acknowledges that fact.
Is Bernie Sanders out of the mainstream? Yet he’d win a lot more states then Goldwater did. Granted he’s too old, sadly, to run any time in the future, but I think you get my point.
Offtopic, but I told you so about Warren:
http://seminal.firedoglake.com/diary/72664
Although I am glad to see Furman on the shortlist. That’s sure to piss off progressives because of his defense of Wal Mart (even though he served under Joe Stiglitz, advocates for single payer, and defends Social Security).
that’s the stupidest, most petulant thing I’ve read in a while.
Ain’t it? The FDL crowd is almost as predictable as the GOP.
And again, even though this is the first time I’ve actually gone to FDL in months (I am anit-Jame Hamsher) they’ve got a good point.
Now I’m not going to cry betrayal, TBH looking at things honestly I don’t think Obama has betrayed much of anything. He’s been immeasurably worse than I thought he’d be but for the most part not lied which indicates how vague he actually was in the campaign. But so what? All presidential campaigns are like that–policies don’t even matter a lot because Congress has a say too, unfortunately.
But it goes back again and again: there’s no reason to ever take Obama at his word. Just wait for actions.
Criticism? Not really. Just a wait-and-see neutral attitude.
These conversations are so stupid. Elizabeth Warren is setting up the CFPA. Tom Geithner has a different job to do.
As for your assumption that a CEO is a bad idea for an economic adviser, that’s a pretty typical, and boring, prejudice of the far left. Anyone who has risen to the top is suspect. Has it ever occurred to you that the number one job in front of the president is to get CEOs and business owners to start hiring lots of people? If his economic team is skewed toward the intellectuals, maybe he needs a CEO in there as part of the conversation.
I’m progressive, so I am going to take the worker’s side on most issues. But actually being a representative or a president requires that you deal with all sides of employment. You want a new factory in your district? You have to talk to the CEO’s. If you succeed, maybe you land a 1,000 jobs in your community.
Let’s not be lazy. Progressive policy has consequences. Didn’t you link to a story about employers dropping family coverage in response to the 26-year old provision? See how that works? Not every effort the help people goes forward in a straight line. People need jobs, and part of creating those jobs is creating confidence that profits are coming to those who create them.
Kneejerk assumptions that it’s a bad idea for a president to get any economic advice from successful businesspeople are just not that interesting.
Re: Warren, we’ll just have to see. It wouldn’t surprise me if he just offered this to get her to shut up and his administration will quickly move to marginalize her. I understand however that this worry is based purely on the past history of Obama not any facts of the current situation. While I sympathize with the FDL concerns, I am going to wait and see what actually happens. You’ll note I’ve shut up about her a lot since the announcement was made. There’s really nothing much to say except wait and see.
As for the CEO remember, the only information we have says the CEO is being chosen specifically to appease the (false) claims that Obama is anti-buisiness. Since we both know he’s not anti-business the most likely choice is going to be someone who is far to the right on these issues. And yet, what advice have the overwhelming majority of business people given? Republican pablum and none other.
And again, that’s why I said we need to take a wait-and-see neutral approach. I think this is going to turn out badly based on his past choices, but because of our limited information the only reasonable approach is wait-and-see and sound notes of caution.
It’s funny. I was confident that he would pick Warren and said so. Why was I able to predict this? Because she sees the world the same way he does. They’re a perfect match.
But the people obsessing over Geithner and Summers couldn’t see it because they’ve blinded themselves to who Obama actually is.
Obama is still the community organizer, just with the responsibility to hold together a center-left majority in a down economy facing a unified opposition with their own television station and radio stations.
Because she sees the world the same way he does. They’re a perfect match.
She’s a neo-liberal, too? I don’t think so.
I don’t think you even know what you mean by ‘neo-liberal.’
You will recall we had a little debate about the meaning of neo-liberal a short time ago. I suspected the same thing that you do – that many people who throw that word around don’t really know what it means – sort of like when republicans call President Obama a socialist.
Let’s get away from the pigeon-holing and name calling. President Obama is just a man (a good man, imho) who is trying to govern a pretty dysfunctional country right now.
One more thing, and sorry I just can’t resist: Wasn’t one of the lefty arguments during the insurance saga that insurers would just game the system so anything without some sort of public option was in trouble from day one?
About Warren: The less you see of her for the next couple of weeks, the better for she is working on putting together the CFPB instead of doing PR duty. I trust her bureaucratic infighting skills to see that we get what we were promised. Not even Rahm can do it better.
About the Director, NEC: Naming a CEO would depend on the CEO. FDR did very well naming a CEO as Secretary of the Treasury, mainly because he had Main Street experience. The qualifications I would set is that he/she has to be from outside of a financial center, be a loyal Democrat, have a record of success, and understand the difference between what a business needs and what a national economy needs. And I would expect the skills to lead an honest process that balances the views of Obama’s economic advisers, including Elizabeth Warren – and occasionally call Christine Romer to get her view. Warren is a bankruptcy lawyer, not an economist. As such she can be a great advocate for working folk. But she will have her hands full running the process to create the CFPB.
On the Health Care Reform Act: A lot of lefties share the illusion that no one heard their arguments. Or no one took their arguments seriously. In fact a lot of folks in Congress did take them seriously and tried to make it happen, which some lefties dismiss as just Kabuki. No, it was real legislative conflict and the bill came out half-a-loaf. Even Bernie Sanders thought a half-a-loaf that contained substantial funds for community health centers was better than no loaf at all. Most of the folks in Congress understood that the insurers would just game the system without a public option. Some in Congress thought that corrupt; others thought it a good thing. The corrupts bottled it up in the Senate, but did not succeed in reducing the power of HHS to pursue those insurers.
With the bill passed, we progressives can take another bite of the apple on healthcare precisely because of the behavior of insurers. It needs to be more of an issue this year than all of the baloney that the GOP is peddling. But it’s up to interest groups, not the Democratic Party to put on the pressure. Some signs saying “Health Care — Finish the Job” or some similar sentiment at the 10-2 march would be very helpful and contrast well with Obama/Hitler and Obama/Socialist signs the Tea Party has been waving.
It’s time to look to the future and start regaining ground.
Sorry but this is ludicrous. How’s that working out for the economy? Isn’t that the refrain we heard then? I bought it then but I know better now.
It is not ludicrous. People who get screwed over by insurance companies want the government to do something about it. The issue will not go away. And doing something about it will not be as heavy a lift as getting this bill through was. You are amending existing legislation; folks won’t get lost in the many details if you are changing only a few things. The “2000-page bill” rhetoric that the GOP used to scare people limited what was in the bill, aside from the sold-out Democrats who didn’t listen to their constituents. A one- or two-page bill is easier to understand and to sell.
“Isn’t that the refrain we heard then?” is one of the most pathetic ideas in politics. It expresses a longing to head for the showers instead of continuing to push for results.
Nobody sold you anything that you should know better about unless you buy the crap that the Tea Party is selling about Obama being a Manchurian candidate, just the lefty version in which he is cast as a closet corporatist instead of a socialist.
There is work to be done in the next six weeks. And unless you liked the period from 2000-2008 because of its progressive unity, the future with GOP majorities will not be pleasant. The future with Democratic majorities expanded will be better to the extent that the progressives who are running against Republicans get elected in numbers to make up for the Blue Dogs who are going to be defeated.
It’s about the math. It always was about the math. The legislative math and the campaign math. If you don’t deliver the votes, you are in the minority, which always sucks.
Where is there evidence that Obama is anything OTHER than a Neoliberal? He was immersed in the Chicago school, has a ton of neoliberal advisers, and his first impulse is to go to the market on issue after issue he wants to pass laws to entice the market to do things. His own adviser admitted that his harshest comments on free trade were a lie. That’s not a big deal to me, it would be surprising if he meant them.
The future with Democratic majorities are also quite unpleasant you know. It’s been the worst time of my entire life since 2008. And when you say you’ll replace blue dogs with progressives you are flat out lying. It’s impossible because you need to beat the Dem establishment first and it’s been proven over and over again we simply can’t do it.
As a liberal, I get disappointed and frustrated with the Administration but I just do not understand this constant need of some corners of the progressive world to always become victims, no matter the issue or scenario. It is like they have a self reflexive reaction to paint Obama’s motive as evil and then find evidence to support their pre-conceived notion that he and his staff are out to screw his supporters.
I honestly have no clue who should replace Summers and I will refrain from complaining until whoever he picks can be fairly judged on actions they have done.
Meanwhile, the right wing media wulitizer is about to take MSM on a ride with some Obama quote in another Woodward fiction piece.
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2010/09/the_morning_plum_95.html
I guess we can still spend energy chatting about how Elizabeth Warren is getting the shaft.
There is a kind of vulgar leftist paradigm of being passionately in favor of whatever laundry list of issues happens to be on the agenda of the day — some of them important and worthwhile, others maybe not so much, it doesn’t matter — the symbolism may be more important than the substance. The important thing is that they are all goals that have not yet come to pass; achievement of these goals is defined as Progress and hence if they are Progressives they must support them. The other part of it is that whatever does exist and is NOT defined as Progressive, or not particularly, can only be viewed as an object of destructive critical analysis, and thus becomes an object of passionate contempt. This is a deep-seated habit of thought, reflexively applied to everything, and very difficult to change because they don’t know how to use their minds in any other way. Actually, the makes it sound like actual thought. In truth it’s mostly a her dinstinct not very different from the right.
During the campaign, Obama was a Progressive. I mean, come on — the first black president! Raised by a single mom of very modest means! and so on. (Of course, the PUMAS didn’t see it that way. Although he was running against one of the most powerful women in the country, she was a woman, automatically making her more “progressive” than he was.) But one thing they could all agree on: The day Obama was inaugurated he became a kingpin of the corrupt establishment, sellout, collaborator with the military-industrial complex, corporatit crony, betrayer of his base, and so on.
That’s because he was inaugurated. Reflexive mistrust of government, and those who take part in it, is not restricted to the teabaggers. Nor is the eternal dream of a politics-without-politicians, found cheek-by-jowl with lionizing of FDR, or Truman, or LBJ.
Entirely too many Democrats believe that being in power by itself, or holding office by itself, is corrupting, to the extent that they reflexively mistrust — reflexively, not upon mature consideration of the evidence — whatever Democrat might be in power or holding office. You can see this all over DemocraticUnderground.com.
That they’ve been confirmed in this view by long experience with Republicans, and not a few Democrats, who when in power, or in office, do in fact turn out to be corrupt, is an explanation. It’s not a blanket affirmative defense.
The next march on Washington should be the Million Hamlet March.
I salivate less at Obama’s potential margin of victory, than at the Congressional majorities it would sweep in. That’s what would make the 1964 comparison truly worthwhile.
I don’t know if this is an inflection point, but it sure is interesting:
Rep. Dan Lungren (R) 46
Ami Bera (D) 38
There are still six weeks before election day. I think that folks are beginning to wake up to the fact that this is an anti-incumbent election and that some incumbents are in more trouble than others. And it doesn’t split down party lines.
And the Democratic media blitz has not started in earnest yet — although Lisa Murkowski is already wasting her money trying to play the role of “none of the above”.
OT myself:
Major health insurers to stop offering new child-only policies
And the state and federal regulators are on the case.