It’s disturbing that no matter how irresponsibly the Republicans behave, we can’t make more than two of their Senate seats vulnerable in the next election. It’s borderline insane that we are playing defense in the Senate under these circumstances.
About The Author
BooMan
Martin Longman a contributing editor at the Washington Monthly. He is also the founder of Booman Tribune and Progress Pond. He has a degree in philosophy from Western Michigan University.
28 Comments
Recent Posts
- Day 14: Louisiana Senator Approvingly Compares Trump to Stalin
- Day 13: Elon Musk Flexes His Muscles
- Day 12: While Elon Musk Takes Over, We Podcast With Driftglass and Blue Gal
- Day 11: Harm of Fascist Regime’s Foreign Aid Freeze Comes Into View
- Day 10: The Fascist Regime Blames a Plane Crash on Nonwhite People
Disturbing is putting it mildly. Apparently lots of folks say one thing and then do the opposite when it comes to electing their Congressman and Senators. How they really feel about race and fear and greed may have a lot to do with it.
Hey, now: part of Republicans behaving irresponsibly is their recent habit of nominating freaks and nut cases for Senate seats.
I predict they’ll be playing defense on more than two seats come November.
Okay, then name the seat they currently have that they’ll struggle to keep.
Ask me again after the primaries.
Exactly. I’m not sure how to quantify the effect, but the Republicans threw away two Senate seats in each of the last two elections, so there has to be a way to work that into the calculation. If they’d learned from those mistakes it would be one thing, but instead they seemed to have decided the problem is that they haven’t been open enough in their racism.
I wouldn’t be surprised if, by 2016, the GOP is divided in half between the Rand Paul/Ted Cruz Libertarians and the Chris Christie/Jeb Bush “Establishment” Republicans.
The fractures could really happen as early as 2014.
These are the same clowns who pissed away Dick Lugar’s seat last time around.
Also, I assume you’re including McConnell’s seat among the ones where they’ll have to play defense. How the hell did that happen, anyway?
Sometimes it feels like we’re the only ones watching the clown show and everyone else is swilling beer and watching stupid reality stuff on the boob tube.
That’s exactly what’s going on.
in fact that describes my entire congressional district.
Dude, that describes “at large.”
If we were the only ones watching the clown show, Akin would be a senator.
And Mourdock, and O’Donnell, and Angle, and… it’s a pretty long list.
I suspect that that’s judging them by our strategy. Our strategy is to get more Democrats in office, so many in fact that eventually we’ll have enough to pass, enact, and fund strong progressive legislation, make strong progressive nominations, etc. I’m not sure we know exactly how many officeholders we need to do that, or how good they need to be, but we do know we need more and better.
The Republicans have a different strategy. They don’t care about governing. They care about obstructing. They need a minority caucus that is united by their fear of the base, by their certain knowledge that the base will fire them if they don’t tow the line.
Our virtuous loop is basically: enact good legislation, which builds support, which elects more Democrats, who enact good legislation.
Their vicious cycle is basically: sabotage all helpful legislation, which alienates the populace, which empowers the extreme right, to sabotage all helpful legislation.
We are not playing the same game.
The flip side of this is that what we perceive to be irresponsible behavior is perceived by those who are inclined to vote Republican as standing firm against the opposition. Imagine our glee if 8-10 years ago Democrats had shown this level of discipline and resolve against Bush’s initiatives and nominees. Of course our side wasn’t willing to tank the nation’s economy and credit rating to win a political battle, but that’s also why we get rolled – if you’re not willing to do what your opponent is willing to do then you will often lose to your opponent.
the difference is the policies we are promoting aren’t transparently self destructive to our own base.
I think that’s the part that’s hanging a lot of us up. It’s one thing to stand for principles, it’s another shoot yourself squarely in the foot and ask for more.
Perhaps “we” should change the definition of “opponent”. E Pluribus Unum
When two people/sides/coalitions compete for the same thing (i.e. political power) then they are ipso facto opponents, no matter how we try to smooth the definitions.
I think this is the big question from which so many others follow.
I also think that it’s an observation that cuts close to the line between people who think that the system, fundamentally, works, and that the system is fundamentally broken.
Diehard Republicans will hold their noses and vote R no matter what the candidate does. And sadly, those who do see and hear what some of their representatives are doing actually agree with and support them, in decisions about gay marriage and abortion, for example. And Obama’s medical plan is a big lightning rod, too.
And there are the ordinary uninformed voters who don’t have a clue and just vote for the party, oblivious to the candidates’ antics or positions.
Frustrating ain’t the word.
Because 45% of the most advanced nation in the history of the world still thinks shooting brown people because they wear a hoodie is just okey-dokey with them.
Your friends and neighbors in the national community are the problem.
Fortunately, the number of diehard Republicans is dwindling, and being replaced with an increased number of moderates and independents that are socially progressive but fiscally conservative. As the Overton Window moves further to the right, they are alienating the middle and leaving the vulnerable for pick-up by the Dems or a 3rd Party Candidate (Moderate Republican or Independent).
The biggest downfall of the GOP is that they use fear for everything…which is fine if no one stands up to you. The Dems are slowly getting better at challenging the fear mongerers by making them put-up or shut-up.
Republicans railed against Gay Marriage as being the end of Civilization. Yet, people now realize that as more same-sex couples get married, that life continues as without change. Same thing for Gays in the Military.
We are starting to see more-and-more Americans realize that austerity is not the solution for the economy, despite the R’s repeatedly telling us that it is.
The next fear mongering domino to fall will be Obamacare. Upon implementation, people will realize they can actually afford Health Insurance…and then the GOP will look utterly foolish for voting 40+ times trying to repeal it.
I’ve said it before, I’ll say it again: the GOP miscalculated with Obamacare. Instead of opposing it, they should have tried to take credit for it.
Responsible v. irresponsible isn’t a winning frame or lens through which to view what appears to be a conundrum. Those GOP Senators express responsibility that’s in tune with the majority of their electorates. They accent “personal responsibility” over collective social and economic responsibility. For at least one hour a week on Sunday, they are reinforced in their beliefs that they are blessed by their god and earned their good fortune, a fortune that would have been larger if not for governments taking from them and distributing goodies to the undeserving and shiftless.
It may be tough for rank-and-file Democrats to acknowledge that their GOP counterparts run away more quickly from their elected representatives that are exposed as behaving badly according to their sexual values than Democrats do when their reps violate their values. (Vitter is a notable exception.)
It took the combined irresponsibility of both political parties to get us where we are today: income and wealth inequality growing, infrastructure crumbling, economy dependent on the national security state, underfunded public education, bankster trashing the US economy and rewarded with a bailout, and a seventeen fold increase in the national debt in thirty years.
you’re hanging the national debt on “both parties”? Really?
Take a closer look at the numbers, dear. Clinton and Obama had very little to do with the national debt in the last 30 years.
Is it only Presidents that figure into the US National Debt or does Congress play a role in taxation and spending with shortfalls of the former over the latter being added to the national debt?
By the numbers:
Reagan: beginning (9/30/81) $998 billion; ending $2.86 trillion.
GHWB: beg $2.86 trillion; ending $4.41 trillion
Clinton: $4.41 trillion; ending $5.81 trillion
GWB: $5.81 trillion; ending $11.91 trillion
Obama: $11.91 trillion; as of 9/30/12: $16.10 trillion
Now factor in which party controlled the Senate and House during those years.
97th: House DEM; Senate GOP
98th: House DEM; Senate GOP
99th: House DEM; Senate GOP
100th: House DEM; Senate GOP
101st: House DEM; Senate DEM
102nd: House DEM; Senate DEM
103rd: House DEM; Senate DEM
104th: House GOP; Senate GOP
105th: House GOP; Senate GOP
106th: House GOP; Senate GOP
107th: House GOP; Senate 50/50
108th: House GOP; Senate GOP
109th: House GOP; Senate GOP
110th: House DEM; Senate DEM
111th: House DEM; Senate DEM
112th: House GOP; Senate DEM
113th: House GOP; Senate DEM
How did Reagan racked up so much debt with a DEM House?
Did Democrats (101st and 102nd) reign in GHWB?
How about the 110th (last two years of GWB budgets)?
It’s not even the absolute dollar amount and growth in the US National Debt over this time period that should trouble us but what was done with the money. Could have had a sustainable, low CO2 emissions 21st energy/transportation/educational/health care systems with enough left over to provide decent housing and food to all. Instead, we got wars and a new gilded age.
Prevent Defense loses Games
Just ask Don Donoher, who coached the UofDayton Flyers…he lost more tournaments by falling into prevent D when his team got ahead…..whatta waste
No, it’s just math. Democrats are playing defense because they control more seats.
2008 was a great year for Democrats. Republicans lost 8 of the 21 seats they were defending that year, holding only core places like Texas, Idaho and Oklahoma, along with most of the Confederate states. Democrats lost none. It’s unlikely that states Republicans held in a their worst year will fall in 2014.
But this is a problem you want to have, it means you’ve been winning the swing states more often than not.
2016 is going to be awesome.