Curtis Gans Says the Dems Can Win in November

26 Comments

1. 

   JLG on February 25, 2014 at 9:59 am

   Without Iran-Contra, would the Democrats have retaken the Senate in 1986?

   The Iran-Contra story didn’t break until shortly after the 1986 election, so the answer is yes.

   • 

     BooMan on February 25, 2014 at 10:08 am

     Hmm.

     You’re correct.

     My memory failed me.  

     I updated to reflect your correction.  

     • 

       Tien Le on February 25, 2014 at 10:47 am

       Okay, so if Iran-Contra wasn’t the determining factor that year, then what was?

       • 

         BooMan on February 25, 2014 at 10:54 am

         Off the top of my head (remembering that my memory has failed here already once) the biggest factor was probably that the GOP gained a bunch of marginal seats in 1980 on the strength of Reagan’s dominating win, and those seats went down in a more equitable midterm election.

         This was obviously a different kind of cycle (between generals and midterms) than we are experiencing now.

2. 

   TarheelDem on February 25, 2014 at 10:25 am

   Thanks for hitting on one of the debilitating narratives that affects Democratic strategists and the resource decisions they make about midterm elections.  It is as insidious as the slavery to PVI.

   All of the conventional wisdom about both is based on limited data sets, even when the sample size is relatively valid.  But as you point out, for mid-term elections there is not a good sample.

   And no one adequately polls at the Congressional District and state levels.  Everything is estimated from national statistics.  That provides loose correlation but no understanding, leading to some fairly stock conventional wisdom that is not but appears to be backed up by statistics.  It is, in fact, a similar failing to that of the NSA in its analysis from metadata.

   Why it persists in political science, especially in the analysis of voting behavior reflects failure to fund adequate studies and investigator laziness.

   • 

     The Voice In The Wilderness on February 25, 2014 at 11:13 am

     PVI? Partisan Voter Index?

3. 

   euzoius on February 25, 2014 at 10:54 am

   There’s little use in politics for utter despair, so any reason to think the monstrous Repub party could somehow get its just deserts is encouraging.

   Having said that, one has to wonder about the relevance of pre-Citizens United elections as a guide to anything.  The disastrous 2010 midterms (the first Citizens United election) occurred in the wake of the (Repub-caused) Great Recession, after a new Dem majority and prez had actually passed traditional stimulus packages and a new health insurance reform law, regulating a hated and abusive industry.  One would have thought that these actions would BOLSTER the new Dem majority, not destroy it. The country shouldn’t have been “tired” of Obama or Pelosi, nor had the Dems engineered some actual Great Fiasco, ala Bushco.  

   Of course, we know what happened, the Dems were completely slaughtered, losing as badly as any party since the introduction of radio (or something). Why?

   The most logical answer is the new media environment, the oceans of plutocrat/CEO money for attack ads (which work extremely well in smaller districts) and the continuing power of the Rightwing Noise Machine, which literally pumps toxic lies into the electoral atmosphere 24/7 with no means (or even many attempts) to counter it.  The “marketplace of ideas” has failed utterly.  We now exist in a mass media marketplace of intellectual pollution and mental degradation. Bottomless cesspools of intentional lies and known falsehoods masquerading as fact and reality. An Augean stable of lies.

   This massive poisoning seems a new phenomenon to me, and renders past electoral behavior a dubious guide.  And of course, the “conservative” movement and its white male judges have not stopped there, they have continued to rig our hapless election system with possibly the greatest scheme of national gerrymandering in history, augmented with an organized, centrally controlled campaign of national vote supression, aided and abetted in all efforts by their 5 (male) majority on the Supreme Court, Roberts Repubs.

   To what extent is the Repubs’ rigging of the game known by the mass of voters?  What would be the effect if the electorate was actually aware what the democracy-hating “conservatives” are pulling?

   I think all this makes predicting midterm elections very difficult and seems to insulate them from the reality actually happening to the country. They have become their own Alice-in-Wonderland illusion, with their own surreal landscape–a perversion of “reality”.  So history–taken from the days when most voters got their news from Cronkite or Brinkley and their city newspaper–now seems a pretty unreliable guide.

    

   • 

     clearskies on February 25, 2014 at 11:29 am

     Repub money had something to do with the 2010 disaster. Mainly, though, I think it was that the economy was really shitty. I think that low info voters tend to blame the party in power for that.

   • 

     The Voice In The Wilderness on February 25, 2014 at 11:33 am

     It’s not just the media. Right wing medical personnel are also spreading fear and blaming Obamacare for their own greedy actions.

     One concrete example: A friend, a Democrat, took his wife to Northwest Community Hospital in the Chicago suburbs for some ordered X-rays. He, along with me, has Blue Cross FEHB. They refused to schedule the X-rays until he gave them a check for the estimated amount after insurance. They told him this change was due to “Obamacare”. I and my wife also had (some very expensive) tests made this year at Elmhurst Memorial Hospital and Cadence (formerly Central DuPage) Hospital. In each case they refused the co-pay which I knew was required, saying under their new billing practices there would be only one payment, after final insurance determination. So why does “Obamacare” require advanced payment from one Hospital and not from two others? To me, it says that some are fattening their bottom line and blaming it on Obamacare as a convenient excuse.  

     Now when the screws tighten on the general public and they have to make advance payments before hospital care and charges go up and their trusted provider blames it on Obamacare (the devil made me do it) then won’t they be more encouraged to vote for the candidate who promises to repeal Obamacare?

   • 

     wwwanderer on February 25, 2014 at 1:52 pm

     Another important factor was the deeply depressing loss of a public option and the way Obama (w/Emmanuel as COS) abused their base while chasing then-extinct “reasonable” Republican support.

     Letting BushCo off, letting the CEOs collect their extravagant bonuses, and the unaddressed mortgage crisis, deflated a lot of Democratic voters. But the coup de grace, IMO, was the Democrats’ failure to aggressively pursue a jobs program and letting the craven GOTP liars campaign on a “Jobs, jobs, jobs!” mantra. The 2010 midterms were the culmination of a year of political malpractice and neglect by the party leaders. IIRC, Tim Kaine and Bob Menendez both kept their jobs as DNC and DSCC chairs respectively after the avoidable debacle in the MA special Senate race.

     • 

       Erik Siegrist on February 25, 2014 at 2:02 pm

       Another important factor was the deeply depressing loss of a public option and the way Obama (w/Emmanuel as COS) abused their base while chasing then-extinct “reasonable” Republican support.

       How can you lose something you never had?

     • 

       Xantar on February 25, 2014 at 4:07 pm

       For the 5,683rd time, he wasn’t chasing Republican votes. He was chasing Blue Dog votes. And part of that is acting “bipartisan” so that the cowards will think they have cover.

       • 

         Davis X Machina on February 25, 2014 at 4:38 pm

         This is the Left, sir. When the legend becomes fact, print the legend.

4. 

   hawesg on February 25, 2014 at 11:22 am

   Democratic message people will have to walk a line between “ZOMG, the Republicans will retake the Senate!!11!!” and “Nothing to worry about here.”

   They need their voters motivated, but if they scare them too much you get despair.

   Which is why focusing on charismatic long shots like Wendy Davis is perilous.  If her poll numbers stay crappy that could actually influence winnable races in Georgia and Kentucky if Democrats start to feel the cycle is going against them.

   In 2010, the OFA team didn’t do enough GOTV in critical states.  I think they’ve learned their lesson this time.

   • 

     The Voice In The Wilderness on February 25, 2014 at 11:39 am

     OFA sat on their hands because Obama wasn’t running.

5. 

   Arthur Gilroy on February 25, 2014 at 11:25 am

   When we look forward to November, we don’t see a recession or a country deeply divided over a war that is going badly or a major scandal. The economy could be a lot better, but the stock market is at a near high. The president’s poll numbers could be stronger, but he isn’t in anything like the situation faced by Nixon, Reagan or Clinton.

   You don’t see a “recession?” You’re right. You see a major depression instead. Or at least you would see one if your eyes weren’t glued wide closed.Fuck the numbers. Go to the streets. Go to the working class bars and diners. Go to the middle class gatherings. Walk the streets of the permanently poor. C’mon. A widespread depression covers this country like a shroud. Like a disease-infected blanket.

   You don’t see a “country deeply divided over a war that is going badly?” No, I suppose you don’t. That’s because:

   #1-The mass media do not tell the whole story of our various ongoing “wars.” In fact, they cover almost none of them.

   From America’s Secret War in 134 Countries>TomDispatch.com

   The Special Ops Surge
   America’s Secret War in 134 Countries
   By Nick Turse

   They operate in the green glow of night vision in Southwest Asia and stalk through the jungles of South America.  They snatch men from their homes in the Maghreb and shoot it out with heavily armed militants in the Horn of Africa.  They feel the salty spray while skimming over the tops of waves from the turquoise Caribbean to the deep blue Pacific.  They conduct missions in the oppressive heat of Middle Eastern deserts and the deep freeze of Scandinavia.  All over the planet, the Obama administration is waging a secret war whose full extent has never been fully revealed — until now.

   Since September 11, 2001, U.S. Special Operations forces have grown in every conceivable way, from their numbers to their budget.  Most telling, however, has been the exponential rise in special ops deployments globally.  This presence — now, in nearly 70% of the world’s nations — provides new evidence of the size and scope of a secret war being waged from Latin America to the backlands of Afghanistan, from training missions with African allies to information operations launched in cyberspace.

   In the waning days of the Bush presidency, Special Operations forces were reportedly deployed in about 60 countries around the world.  By 2010, that number had swelled to 75, according to Karen DeYoung and Greg Jaffe of the Washington Post.  In 2011, Special Operations Command (SOCOM) spokesman Colonel Tim Nye told TomDispatch that the total would reach 120.  Today, that figure has risen higher still.

   In 2013, elite U.S. forces were deployed in 134 countries around the globe, according to Major Matthew Robert Bockholt of SOCOM Public Affairs.  This 123% increase during the Obama years demonstrates how, in addition to conventional wars and a CIA drone campaign, public diplomacy and extensive electronic spying, the U.S. has engaged in still another significant and growing form of overseas power projection.  Conducted largely in the shadows by America’s most elite troops, the vast majority of these missions take place far from prying eyes, media scrutiny, or any type of outside oversight, increasing the chances of unforeseen blowback and catastrophic consequences.        

   Growth Industry

   Formally established in 1987, Special Operations Command has grown steadily in the post-9/11 era.   SOCOM is reportedly on track to reach 72,000 personnel in 2014, up from 33,000 in 2001.  Funding for the command has also jumped exponentially as its baseline budget, $2.3 billion in 2001, hit $6.9 billion in 2013 ($10.4 billion, if you add in supplemental funding).  Personnel deployments abroad have skyrocketed, too, from 4,900 “man-years” in 2001 to 11,500 in 2013.

   A recent investigation by TomDispatch, using open source government documents and news releases as well as press reports, found evidence that U.S. Special Operations forces were deployed in or involved with the militaries of 106 nations around the world in 2012-2013.  For more than a month during the preparation of that article, however, SOCOM failed to provide accurate statistics on the total number of countries to which special operators — Green Berets and Rangers, Navy SEALs and Delta Force commandos, specialized helicopter crews, boat teams, and civil affairs personnel — were deployed.   “We don’t just keep it on hand,” SOCOM’s Bockholt explained in a telephone interview once the article had been filed.  “We have to go searching through stuff.  It takes a long time to do that.”  Hours later, just prior to publication, he provided an answer to a question I first asked in November of last year.  “SOF [Special Operations forces] were deployed to 134 countries” during fiscal year 2013, Bockholt explained in an email.

   Globalized Special Ops

   Last year, Special Operations Command chief Admiral William McRaven explained his vision for special ops globalization.  In a statement to the House Armed Services Committee, he said:

   “USSOCOM is enhancing its global network of SOF to support our interagency and international partners in order to gain expanded situational awareness of emerging threats and opportunities. The network enables small, persistent presence in critical locations, and facilitates engagement where necessary or appropriate…”

   While that “presence” may be small, the reach and influence of those Special Operations forces are another matter.  The 12% jump in national deployments — from 120 to 134 — during McRaven’s tenure reflects his desire to put boots on the ground just about everywhere on Earth.  SOCOM will not name the nations involved, citing host nation sensitivities and the safety of American personnel, but the deployments we do know about shed at least some light on the full range of missions being carried out by America’s secret military.

   —snip—

   Deployments in 134 countries, however, turn out not to be expansive enough for SOCOM. In November 2013, the command announced that it was seeking to identify industry partners who could, under SOCOM’s Trans Regional Web Initiative, potentially “develop new websites tailored to foreign audiences.”  These would join an existing global network of 10 propaganda websites, run by various combatant commands and made to look like legitimate news outlets, including CentralAsiaOnline.com, Sabahi which targets the Horn of Africa; an effort aimed at the Middle East known as Al-Shorfa.com; and another targeting Latin America called Infosurhoy.com.

   SOCOM’s push into cyberspace is mirrored by a concerted effort of the command to embed itself ever more deeply inside the Beltway.  “I have folks in every agency here in Washington, D.C. — from the CIA, to the FBI, to the National Security Agency, to the National Geospatial Agency, to the Defense Intelligence Agency,” SOCOM chief Admiral McRaven said during a panel discussion at Washington’s Wilson Center last year.  Speaking at the Ronald Reagan Library in November, he put the number of departments and agencies where SOCOM is now entrenched at 38.

   134 Chances for Blowback

   Although elected in 2008 by many who saw him as an antiwar candidate, President Obama has proved to be a decidedly hawkish commander-in-chief whose policies have already produced notable instances of what in CIA trade-speak has long been called blowback.  While the Obama administration oversaw a U.S. withdrawal from Iraq (negotiated by his predecessor), as well as a drawdown of U.S. forces in Afghanistan (after a major military surge in that country), the president has presided over a ramping up of the U.S. military presence in Africa, a reinvigoration of efforts in Latin America, and tough talk about a rebalancing or “pivot to Asia” (even if it has amounted to little as of yet).

   The White House has also overseen an exponential expansion of America’s drone war.  While President Bush launched 51 such strikes, President Obama has presided over 330, according to research by the London-based Bureau of Investigative Journalism.  Last year, alone, the U.S. also engaged in combat operations in Afghanistan, Libya, Pakistan, Somalia, and Yemen.  Recent revelations from National Security Agency whistleblower Edward Snowden have demonstrated the tremendous breadth and global reach of U.S. electronic surveillance during the Obama years.  And deep in the shadows, Special Operations forces are now annually deployed to more than double the number of nations as at the end of Bush’s tenure.

   In recent years, however, the unintended consequences of U.S. military operations have helped to sow outrage and discontent, setting whole regions aflame.  More than 10 years after America’s “mission accomplished” moment, seven years after its much vaunted surge, the Iraq that America helped make is in flames.  A country with no al-Qaeda presence before the U.S. invasion and a government opposed to America’s enemies in Tehran now has a central government aligned with Iran and two cities flying al-Qaeda flags.

   A more recent U.S. military intervention to aid the ouster of Libyan dictator Muammar Qaddafi helped send neighboring Mali, a U.S.-supported bulwark against regional terrorism, into a downward spiral, saw a coup there carried out by a U.S.-trained officer, ultimately led to a bloody terror attack on an Algerian gas plant, and helped to unleash nothing short of a terror diaspora in the region.

   And today South Sudan — a nation the U.S. shepherded into being, has supported economically and militarily (despite its reliance on child soldiers), and has used as a hush-hush base for Special Operations forces — is being torn apart by violence and sliding toward civil war.

   The Obama presidency has seen the U.S. military’s elite tactical forces increasingly used in an attempt to achieve strategic goals.  But with Special Operations missions kept under tight wraps, Americans have little understanding of where their troops are deployed, what exactly they are doing, or what the consequences might be down the road.  As retired Army Colonel Andrew Bacevich, professor of history and international relations at Boston University, has noted, the utilization of Special Operations forces during the Obama years has decreased military accountability, strengthened the “imperial presidency,” and set the stage for a war without end.  “In short,” he wrote at TomDispatch, “handing war to the special operators severs an already too tenuous link between war and politics; it becomes war for its own sake.”

   —snip—

   Without a clear picture of where the military’s covert forces are operating and what they are doing, Americans may not even recognize the consequences of and blowback from our expanding secret wars as they wash over the world.  But if history is any guide, they will be felt — from Southwest Asia to the Mahgreb, the Middle East to Central Africa, and, perhaps eventually, in the United States as well.

   —snip—

   Of course you “don’t see it.” It’s a secret!!!

   Duh.

   #2-The worst war…the one that Assange, Manning and Snowden started. the one that the media could not hide…is the one that is being waged domestically against the citizens of the United Staes. The Security State War. Only the covers are all off now. Everyone with an ounce of brains knows about it, and anyone with another ounce of sense doesn’t like it at all. Plus…it’s all on the DemRats. It’s federal, and the Dems are in power. You really think that DemRats are going to “do much better than expected in the midterm elections?” Yer dreamin’.

   A “a major scandal?” What do you think Obamacare is? It’s a scandal of incompetence on top of another scandal regarding the entire healthcare system, from soup to nuts. That’s a Dem rap, too. bet on it. They don’t call, it “Bushcare” or “Republicancare,” right? Get real.

   The economy could be a lot better, but the stock market is at a near high?

   Please.

   The numbers lie. Again…go out into the streets and look around, fer chrissake!!! Do you grocery shop? Prices are up about 40% over the last two years, overall. Is your salary up 40%? Who’s gonna get blamed? The ones in the White House are gonna get blamed, for good reasons or bad. Obama done fucked up and all his eloquent words don’t mean shit to people’s wallets. And the stock market? people all over the country consider Wall Street to be the num,ber one villain in the ongoing fall of America, and trust it and its numbers about as much as they do a three-card monte guy on the street corner. WTFU.

   And you’ve been mulling this over for several months!!!???

   Whaddayou, kiddin’ me or what???

   Where you been the last 6 years?

   Unbelievable.

   Sure most of the RatPubs are jerks. Bigger jerks than the DemRats? Maybe, but it’s the DemRats that are going to get blamed here.

   Watch.

   Just because you are less of a jerk than someone else doesn’t mean people are going to like you, let alone vote for you. That’s how alla the jerks got in office in the first place. Lookit Christie and his DemRat opposition to the governorship last time around,, Barbara Buono. She seems like a nice enough person, although I don’t really know much about her record. I mean…how nice does one have to be to be more likable than Christie? But in a strong Democratic state…he whipped her butt.

   You “[have] cause to be hopeful” about November!!!???

   What’s your middle name, Pollyanna?

   If wishes were horses, beggars would ride.

   We know that we have a challenge in getting out the vote?

   You’re damned right you do. People are so disgusted with both wings of this UniParty government that a total vote strike is sounding more and more attractive to me.

   Hmmm…

   What would happen if they threw an election and nobody came?

   I wonder.

   Whadda buncha maroons!!!

   

   Wake the fuck up.

   AG

   • 

     The Voice In The Wilderness on February 25, 2014 at 11:43 am

     You don’t see a “recession?” You’re right. You see a major depression instead. Or at least you would see one if your eyes weren’t glued wide closed.Fuck the numbers. Go to the streets. Go to the working class bars and diners. Go to the middle class gatherings. Walk the streets of the permanently poor. C’mon. A widespread depression covers this country like a shroud. Like a disease-infected blanket.

     Absolutely! And TPPA is going to make it worse. I don’t think I’m being an alrmist to say that that agreement will destroy the economy of the USA and democracy both, leaving us like Ireland of two centuries ago.

6. 

   Errol on February 25, 2014 at 12:14 pm

   depressing dem turnout and indep turnout[?] in 2010 imo would be a measure of “buyers remorse”. All the discussion of midterms is ignoring the impact of having elected the first Black president, something that will have tremendous consequences over time. I don’t think many, over time, will regret their vote, though a certain percentage now say they do. 2008 was amazing.
   in 2008 on election day I worked on gotv in Northern NH. I recall visiting an elderly white couple who told me they’d been looking forward for weeks to the moment they could cast their ballot for Obama. In fact I worked on door to door because my conversations with voters often brought me to tears and I needed time to recover between houses. we all went up to Dixville Notch for the vote count at midnight. when the tabulator wrote up on the board that Obama won Dixville Notch, everyone, including multitude of foreign journalist began screaming and cheering with excitement. btw I met several ppl who took leave from their jobs, took all their vacation time and savings to work for Obama for weeks even months before election day.That election was something and it was historic. some buyers remorse after is reasonable to assume, but it won’t last.

7. 

   The Voice In The Wilderness on February 25, 2014 at 12:22 pm

   I just received and e-mail from ActBlue that says Obama has put means testing for Medicare into his budget,raising the cost to the middle class.

   Tell me why I should even want to Democrats take the House? What do they have for me? What do they have for my unemployed grandsons? I’m very glad that know gays can marry, and women can still get an abortion (if they travel to a neighboring state in many cases), but that doesn’t put bread on my table or a paycheck in my grandsons’ pants, not to mention that one has student debt that approaches my mortgage and no degree to show for it.

   • 

     smith on February 25, 2014 at 1:22 pm

     Medicare is already means tested. If your income is above a certain amount (don’t recall the number, but well above median) you have to pay more for your monthly Part B premiums. Social Security is also means tested — if your income is above $80K (as I recall), a portion of your SS income is clawed back in taxes.

     • 

       The Voice In The Wilderness on February 25, 2014 at 8:06 pm

       That’s not means testing. Means testing means if you have a certain income or assets, you get NOTHING!

       • 

         smith on February 25, 2014 at 10:13 pm

         No, means testing  is simply adjusting what you pay according to how much you make. The Obama budget proposal that you’re alarmed about doesn’t cut anyone off, it just raises premiums and introduces new income bands. The lowest income at which the higher premiums would kick in is $85K for individuals and $175K for couples. There are other bands with higher premiums at higher incomes.  These are not poor people we are talking about. On the other hand, it is set up to capture more people into higher premium bands over time, so it would mean more seniors paying more of the costs of Medicare overall.

         • 

           The Voice In The Wilderness on February 26, 2014 at 9:43 am

           http://www.foreffectivegov.org/means-testing-would-undermine-medicare-program

           excerpt:

           “The problem is that with seniors already using 20 to 40 percent of their income on health care and you’re just going to pile on these additional costs, you know they’re going to have to be choosing and picking between what they can afford to buy and what they can’t,” explained Dan Adcock of the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare.

           In some cases, wealthier beneficiaries may decide that income-based premiums for medical care (Part B) and prescriptions (Part D) within Medicare outweigh the program’s benefits completely. Beneficiaries with the ability to rely on private insurance programs may drop parts of their Medicare coverage, and beneficiaries without alternative insurance options may forgo coverage, risking paying for physician visits and prescriptions without insurance. “

           Why screw the old, regardless of their income? Is there any proposal to cut executive pay? Stop stock buybacks? Increase corporate income tax? Medicare does need money so why not an extra 1% from employers? No, those guys contribute cash to campaigns. The sheeple only stupidly contribute their votes.

   • 

     Erik Siegrist on February 25, 2014 at 2:05 pm

     What do they have for me?

     Sanity isn’t enough?

     • 

       The Voice In The Wilderness on February 25, 2014 at 8:07 pm

       Can you eat sanity?

8. 

   ATinNM on February 26, 2014 at 7:28 pm

   National Voter Turnout (Eligible Voters):

   2010 – 41.7%
   2006 – 40.4%    
   2002 – 40.5%    
   1998 – 38.1%
   1994 – 41.1%
   1990 – 38.4%
   1986 – 38.1%
   1982 – 42.1%

   It’s not that Dems don’t vote.  Hardly anybody votes.  (Turnout is even worse in off-off years.  We came this ->|<- close to disaster last year in Virginia despite the pre-election day polling.)  Thus the enthusiasm factor plays big.  In 2010 the GOP voters were enthusiastic, in 2006 the Dem voters were.  

   GOTV operations have to have something – anything – to get people excited or determined to vote.  And guess what?  “I don’t suck as bad as the other guy/gal” doesn’t do it.