How Big Do We Want To Win?
Will 2008 be "too good" of a year for the Democrats? This blog's frequent commenter Mr. Phips constantly raises this question, and it's worth some speculation. My thoughts relate only to Congressional margins though. To suggest that the White House should fall into Republican hands for another four years is in any way productive to progressive policy goals is insanity, but when contemplating that 2010 is the last election before Congressional district reapportionment, setting the framework for an overwhelming Republican year would be a recipe for assuring Republican Congressional majorities for the decade ahead.
But there are two schools of thought here. It's assumed, and probably correctly, that if the Democrats win big in 2008, they'll have ownership of a no-win financial situation and the public will quickly turn on them, potentially recreating an electoral climate in 2010 as bad or worse as that of 1994. I agree that that's the most likely outcome...but that wasn't the case back in the 1930s when FDR led the nation through the Great Depression and carried his Democratic foot soldiers in Congress along for the ride. Whether that will prove to be a fitting comparison to the contemporary situation is impossible to tell, but I wouldn't rule out the idea that the public will view Democrats as the adults making serious efforts to solve the fiscal crisis as Republicans wave around their bibles and continue to lapse into breathless rants about irrelevancies like "killing the death tax"
Frankly, the Republican Party is rapidly losing its claim on representing civilized society. When sane people of any ideological leaning see the neanderthal behavior coming out of these John McCain and Sarah Palin rallies, they'll be unable to associate themselves with that kind of dimwittery. And we all know that if Obama wins, the wingnuts are gonna go absolutely nuts with their paranoid conspirary theories and racist bile. When these people become the face of what's left of the Republican Party, to the extent that they aren't its face already, will your average center-right engineer, doctor, or other educated professionals have any use for these people? Unless the Republican party gets a serious infusion of intellectual energy, it seems doomed to be the party of Southern Rapture-baiters who believe in their heart of hearts that Obama is a sleeper agent for al-Qaeda planning to use our own nuclear weapons on us as soon as he gets the access codes. And that could happen no matter how bad Democrats suck.
But for the sake of argument, let's say the GOP gets its act together and organizes an impressive national campaign in the 2010 midterms. Would it be better for Dems to win more or fewer seats this year? I'm actually inclined to say more. If voters head to the polls in 2010 with a vendetta against Democratic incumbents, they'll vote heavily Republican whether the Democrats have 230 House seats or 260, or whether they have 53 Senate seats or 60. If that's the case, wouldn't it be better to have larger majorities in the first place to cushion the blow of 2010? With a strong enough Democratic surge in 2008, they could lose 40 seats in 2010 and still hang onto their majority. And with 58-60 Senate seats, there's zero chance of the GOP winning the Senate back in 2010.
It's a tough call. I'd ultimately like to see a scenario where the existing opposition party and it's increasingly radical and destructive views withers away completely, and in its place the Democratic party splinters between its progressive wing and its fiscally conservative "Blue Dog" wing. We need two strong parties with some opposing policy viewpoints to have a successful democracy, but the moonbattery of the modern Republican Party makes them scarcely an option. For that reason, I'm leaning towards hoping for huge Democratic victories this year that help to crowd out Republicans and isolate the party as a cauldron of fringe lunatics....with the hope that the center of gravity in American politics would eventually pit Democratic liberals like Nancy Pelosi and John Conyers up against Democratic conservatives like Ben Nelson and Heath Shuler, essentially creating elections where sane people actually have a legitimate choice between rational candidates. This scenario can only happen if the existing Republican party is marginalized....and there is no time like the present to drive a stake through the heart of the beast that has haunted us since November 4, 1980, when Ronald Reagan redefined the Republican Party to its current unacceptable state.
As promised, I'll have some detailed horse race predictions tomorrow (Presidential race) and Sunday (Congressional races). These will be my final calls.
But there are two schools of thought here. It's assumed, and probably correctly, that if the Democrats win big in 2008, they'll have ownership of a no-win financial situation and the public will quickly turn on them, potentially recreating an electoral climate in 2010 as bad or worse as that of 1994. I agree that that's the most likely outcome...but that wasn't the case back in the 1930s when FDR led the nation through the Great Depression and carried his Democratic foot soldiers in Congress along for the ride. Whether that will prove to be a fitting comparison to the contemporary situation is impossible to tell, but I wouldn't rule out the idea that the public will view Democrats as the adults making serious efforts to solve the fiscal crisis as Republicans wave around their bibles and continue to lapse into breathless rants about irrelevancies like "killing the death tax"
Frankly, the Republican Party is rapidly losing its claim on representing civilized society. When sane people of any ideological leaning see the neanderthal behavior coming out of these John McCain and Sarah Palin rallies, they'll be unable to associate themselves with that kind of dimwittery. And we all know that if Obama wins, the wingnuts are gonna go absolutely nuts with their paranoid conspirary theories and racist bile. When these people become the face of what's left of the Republican Party, to the extent that they aren't its face already, will your average center-right engineer, doctor, or other educated professionals have any use for these people? Unless the Republican party gets a serious infusion of intellectual energy, it seems doomed to be the party of Southern Rapture-baiters who believe in their heart of hearts that Obama is a sleeper agent for al-Qaeda planning to use our own nuclear weapons on us as soon as he gets the access codes. And that could happen no matter how bad Democrats suck.
But for the sake of argument, let's say the GOP gets its act together and organizes an impressive national campaign in the 2010 midterms. Would it be better for Dems to win more or fewer seats this year? I'm actually inclined to say more. If voters head to the polls in 2010 with a vendetta against Democratic incumbents, they'll vote heavily Republican whether the Democrats have 230 House seats or 260, or whether they have 53 Senate seats or 60. If that's the case, wouldn't it be better to have larger majorities in the first place to cushion the blow of 2010? With a strong enough Democratic surge in 2008, they could lose 40 seats in 2010 and still hang onto their majority. And with 58-60 Senate seats, there's zero chance of the GOP winning the Senate back in 2010.
It's a tough call. I'd ultimately like to see a scenario where the existing opposition party and it's increasingly radical and destructive views withers away completely, and in its place the Democratic party splinters between its progressive wing and its fiscally conservative "Blue Dog" wing. We need two strong parties with some opposing policy viewpoints to have a successful democracy, but the moonbattery of the modern Republican Party makes them scarcely an option. For that reason, I'm leaning towards hoping for huge Democratic victories this year that help to crowd out Republicans and isolate the party as a cauldron of fringe lunatics....with the hope that the center of gravity in American politics would eventually pit Democratic liberals like Nancy Pelosi and John Conyers up against Democratic conservatives like Ben Nelson and Heath Shuler, essentially creating elections where sane people actually have a legitimate choice between rational candidates. This scenario can only happen if the existing Republican party is marginalized....and there is no time like the present to drive a stake through the heart of the beast that has haunted us since November 4, 1980, when Ronald Reagan redefined the Republican Party to its current unacceptable state.
As promised, I'll have some detailed horse race predictions tomorrow (Presidential race) and Sunday (Congressional races). These will be my final calls.
posted by Mark at 9:51 PM
6 Comments:
Another reason I am glad I left the Republican Party to become a Dem-leaning Indy: the California Republican Party apparently forgot that this isn't junior high school anymore.
http://www.sacbee.com/812/story/1314854.html
Oh. And I am also working on updating my predictions for the races this year. I too am predicting blowouts, with Obama well over 300 electoral votes, the Dems gaining 7 Senate seats (New Mexico, Virginia, New Hampshire, Colorado, North Carolina, Oregon, and Alaska) and about 20 House seats, and also gaining one governorship in Missouri.
Mark, you could be right about this election ended up being like a 1932 scenario where Democrats get an overwhelming mandate in Congress(which I now think is likely) and they are able to pass big economic stimulus bills to spur the economy and healthcare plan that helps get us out of the economic crisis.
The reason why Democrats faired so poorly in 1993 and 1994 and got spanked in the 1994 elections was because Clinton came into office with only 43% of the popular vote and NO coatails. People forget that Republicans actually GAINED seats in both Houses of Congress in 1992. And because of this, Clinton could get nothing through Congress. Not to mention he also managed to piss off working class voters royally by embracing a liberal social agenda and NAFTA.
Obama is likely to come in with a mandate. He will have at least 59 Democratic senators and at least 255 Democrats in the House that will pretty much make sure Republicans cant filibuster stimulus or healthcare bills this time. If Obama can focus on nothing but economics in his first two years and have at least one big stimulus package passed, the economy will likely start to recover in 2010 and the midterm could be pretty much a status quo year where voters see the Democrats as the party that helped pull the country out of the economic crisis, much like the 1934 and 1962 midterm elections.
Sara, Ive got my predictions too. I have Democrats picking up 32 seats in the House, eight in the Senate(everything you have plus Franken in MN) and one governorship. I have Obama getting 317 electoral votes.
Looking forward to seeing how your predictions compare to mine. Mine should be here in a matter of a couple of hours.
hillary will win in 2012!
Post a Comment
<< Home