GOP Still Falling, But Dragging Dems Down, Too

by: Paul Rosenberg

Sun Jun 28, 2009 at 08:00


Democrats are still quite popular in the Northeast and unpopular in the South, but they've lost significant ground in the West and Midwest since late February, four months ago, even though Republicans, who are far less popular, continue losing popularity as well.  If the GOP's intention is to disgust people with politics, in direct opposition with Obama's attempt to bring sweetness and light, the GOP seems to be succeeding--and Democrats in general are paying the price, both in party popularity, and in the popularity of congresional Democrats.  The figures derived from the latest week of DKos polling are below, figures for late February, and the differences between then and now will be found on the flip.

Congressional Dems are up by 20 in the Northeast, and down by almost double that in the South, while dead even in the West, and just above even in the Midwest.  In late February, they were up by 10 in the Midwest, 12 in the West, and up almost as much in the Northeast (22%) as they were down in the South (29%).  Their total non-South edge has eroded from 14 points to 8.  

Figures for party popularity, while more favorable, show a similar pattern of erosion.  While the GOP remains vastly more unpopular, these trends should be worrying to Democratic Party leaders, while reinforcing the view of critical supporters that the party is risking its newly-won position of dominance by failing to deliver, both in terms of legislation and message.

Paul Rosenberg :: GOP Still Falling, But Dragging Dems Down, Too
Democratic favorability in the Midwest and West has been cut roughly in half, from 28% and 31% respectively to 15% and 11%.  Democratic favorability in the Northeast has held almost steady, losing just 3 points, from 50% to 47%, while favorability in the South has plummeted, from -10 to -38.

As seen above, the picture in late February was one of total dominance outside the South, and near-parity within the South.  That pattern no longer exists.  Near parity in the South has vanished (a 4 point congressional favorability deficit is now 12, a 10-point party favorability deficit is now 35).  While Democratic dominance remains in the West and Midwest, it's no longer roughly evenly divided between liking for the Democratic Party and loathing for the GOP. Instead, both congressional and party favorability are heavily dominated by loathing for the GOP in both regions.  Only Democratic dominance in the Northeast remains unshaken, with virtually no change.

As can be seen most clearly in the figures above, both parties have lost ground in the West in Midwest, with the GOP losing more in the Midwest, and Democrats losing more in the West, both in congressional and party favorability.  In congressional favorability the figures are exact mirror images--the Dems lost 6% in the Midwest and 12% in the West, the GOP lost 12% in the Midwest and 6% in the West.  Both lost a total of 7 points in the non-South as a whole.  In terms of party favorability, the GOP lost more in the Midwest (a 9-point net) than the Dems lost in the West (a 4-point net), while also losing 10 points net in the Northeast, for a total non-South loss of 17 points compared to the Democrats 12.

If the Democrats were actually in political control--controlling the policy agenda and the message environment--these shifts would mean relatively little, given how deep a hole the GOP is in.  But the Democrats really need to accomplish something substantial, having only commanded a Democratic trifecta for 2 years since 1980, and given this need for substantial accomplishment, this erosion of party favorability ratings shows that task growing harder, not easier, in addition to the fact that it always grows harder to get things done as the first year wind down, and the mid-term election year begins.

Conclusion:  It's not just all in our heads hear at Open Left when we warn that the Democrats are not getting the job done.  That's how the public is starting to see things, too.


Tags: , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
has anyone noticed that wallstreet seems to be a real (4.00 / 1)
turnoff in all areas of the country but the northeast.  They conflict with other aspects of the dems agenda on healthcare and banking.

It is true the south has little in common with other parts of the country culturally, but their is also a disconnect between other parts of the country and the north east, in that northeasterners maybe culturally liberal, but are economically just as conservative, in other words classic dlcers.


Obama has been busy bailing out the failing northeast (0.00 / 0)
Its not that they are more economically conservative.  Its that they have all those big banks that failed.  

The west has a more entrepreneurial spirit so it is understandable why they would not like that.  And of course the public option is the big test.  People saw the stimulus passed fast and they are like "Why can't we ram through the public option in 10 days like we did with the bailout and the stimulus?"


http://transgendermom.blogspot....


[ Parent ]
You're Overstating A Couple of Things (0.00 / 0)
The Northeast generally is not dependent on those big banks significantly more than anyone else.  It's just that they're doing better economically overall.  Here's the county-level unemployment from last January, showing how they simply started off stronger, and so felt less desperate (the fewer high unemployment areas that are in the Northeast tend to be lower population, hence impacting the region less):

As for the "libertarian West," I did a diary debunking that in January 2008, using GSS data, and David picked up on it for a column he did.  

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3


[ Parent ]
What Proof Do You Have Of This? (4.00 / 2)
The Northeast states have some of the best state public welfare systems.  They also tend to think we're spending too little on most social programs to a greater degree than other regions.  I just re-ran the numbers on some General Social Survey variables just to double check. More people in the Northeast thought we were spending too little than any other region on the following:

NATENVIR -- The environmant
NATHEAL -- Health care
NATCITY -- Solving the problems of the big cities
NATRACE -- Improving the conditions of blacks
NATROAD -- Highways and bridges

The Northeast was second on:

NATSOC -- Social Security

beat out only by the South, which is more dependent on Social Security

And third on

NATEDUC -- Education

which is mostly state-supported, and the Northeast generally spends more schools already, so they're comparing to a higher standard of current spending.

OTOH, the Northeast was dead last on:

NATARMS -- The military, armaments and defense

So, the immediate evidence is that you're dead wrong.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3


[ Parent ]
I think they vote more populist when it comes to state politics (4.00 / 1)
but their elected national representatives are among the most problematic, and seem to embrace the Washington consensus view of health care, labor, and fiscal austerity.  Also the northeast has changed alot since those things were passed.  It had more manufacturing and wasn't so dependent on the Banking and Health Insurance, or the military industrial contractors.


[ Parent ]
But, The NEast Federal Policy Approach is more "DLCer" (4.00 / 2)
And this may reflect the tendency of NE States like NJ, Rhode Island, MA, CT, PA, etc. to elect culturally conservative ethnic democrats at the state and local level while at the same time "elevating" more educated, wealthy and wonkish democrats to national seats; Think Launtenberg, Schumer, Dodd, Clinton, Corzine, Bradley, Moniyhan (for the old schoolers among us), Adler, Holt, Lance (on the R side), etc.

[That's not to say that folks like Launtenberg are DLCers - he's actually pre-old school and more in line with the Howard Metezenbaum's and the great tradition of fire-breathing New Deal Business Democrats who aren't afraid of the R word (redistribtution).]

At the end of the day, Federal reps from the Northeast are more likely to support centralized policy solutions that benefit insitutions and systems like banks and federal regulatory/administrative agencies -- Cap & Trade being a prime example of this tendency.

And in a crisis situation that approach feels remote and seperate from your daily life.  


[ Parent ]
I don't know about the Northeast being so DLCish (4.00 / 3)
I'm from the Northeast and I tend to think of my region as being the most progressive region of the country (or at the very least giving the West Coast a run for its money). Just looking at Progressive Punch's rankings of members of Congress and you'll see that six of the top twenty are from just one, small Northeastern state (Massachusetts). Overall, eight of the top twenty are from the Northeast. Considering the Northeast sends 84 representatives to Congress (if you're counting Pennsylvania and Delaware as part of the Northeast, I can see why you might not), that means that 9.5% are ranked in the top twenty most progressive. That doesn't seem too bad to me.

[ Parent ]
You're Just Using FACTS! (4.00 / 1)
What's the matter?  Can't you jut pull stuff out of your ass like a real 'murican?

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
I sorry. I sorry. (4.00 / 2)
You're right, Paul. Lemme go see what Glenn Beck is saying and come back with some talking points.

[ Parent ]
What criteria did they use to rank them (4.00 / 1)
because neoliberal bank bailout supporters niki tsongis is in the top 20 as is Barney Frank.  This didn't even count senators.

[ Parent ]
It's not a question of progressive punch ratings (4.00 / 1)
I'm talking policy structures and used Cap & Trade as an example.  The majority of the environmental justice community opposes Cap & Trade and yet it's a signature part of Northeast environmentalism and current climate change intiatives.  It relys on an exchange and market mechanisms run out of either a centralized adminstrative agency or a trading firm.  It does nothing to put people to work building wind turbine equipment, retrofitting auto plants, manufacturing solar panels, etc.  

[ Parent ]
You can be quite progressive... (0.00 / 0)
while favoring centralized solutions that have little to no impact on ordinary people in crisis situations.  

[ Parent ]
You're Stretching "DLC" To The Point Of Having No Meaning Whatsoever (0.00 / 0)
I've written in opposition to cap & trade myself.

But it's simply not accurate to argue "It does nothing to put people to work building wind turbine equipment, retrofitting auto plants, manufacturing solar panels, etc."  If done properly--i.e. making polluters pay on the front end--it can create enormous incentives that will do a great deal to "put people to work building wind turbine equipment, retrofitting auto plants, manufacturing solar panels, etc."

The biggest problem with cap & trade for global warming (as opposed to toxic pollutants) is that you can't trust the implementation.  And the Northeast environmentalists have not at all supported a botched implementation.  In fact, it's the Midwest bluedog types who are much more responsible for that.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3


[ Parent ]
That's why I used quotes (0.00 / 0)
and we were using the terms DLCer and DLCish.  

The shared tendency of Northeastern liberals and progressives with DLC types is an emphasis on centralized and scale-based solutions that are typically concentrated in an urban center like D.C. or NYC - or to extend the analogy Cambridge/Boston/New Haven.  

It doesn't matter how hip, cool, liberal, or progressive you are in the implementation of these solutions.  At the end of the day $12 trillion flows into the banking system rather than into families pockets and savings accounts, plants still spew toxins and carbons in poor neighborhoods and communities of color continue to have high incidences of respiratory  diseases, good paying jobs disappear, and wages are cut again and again while people are told to sacrifice, that we're in an economic crisis.

And people see bankers, laywers, politicans, and hip, cool, liberal professional policy people benefiting while they struggle to pay the mortgage and put food on the table.

This thread started with your analysis of declining Democratic #s in the Midwest and West.  Well, part of the answer is that people aren't seeing any improvement in their lives, but they do see wealthy bankers in NYC and a new Camelot in D.C.  


[ Parent ]
No, You're Promoting Sloppy Thinking (0.00 / 0)
The DLC is actually a very small, very isolated entity, and never has represented much of anyone outside itself and those who fund it.

You are confusing it with a much more durable tradition in America, what I call "small p" progressivism, which is ideologically somewhat diverse, but places a high value on deliberative process.  Law professor Jack Balkin, of the famed Balkinization blog, wrote a 1995 law review article that I've diaried about several times in which he gives one of the clearest desriptions of this traditions, as well as the contrasting tradition of populism.

Both these traditions have inherent weaknesses, as well as diseased forms and coopted forms.  "DLC"ism as you put it, is a coopted form of progressivism, and it's just as unfair to conflate the two as it is to equate populism with Karl Rove putting W in Nascar rally to sell his bloody war.

This is not to say that I object to everything you're trying to say here.  It's just that overall carelessness with which you're throwing everything together overwhelms the details on which I'd be inclined to agree.  You have pointed to very significant problematic tendencies but they are only tendencies, and many in that tradition have strongly opposed those tendencies.

Indeed, some from that tradition have been amongst the very best in understanding those problems and crafting the tightest kinds of means to defeat them.  (Much as former FBI man Don Edwards, the old San Francisco Democrat, was one of the sharpest civil liberties advocates in the House for several decades.)

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3


[ Parent ]
Democrats - achievements and spin / what next? (0.00 / 0)
     What I conclude from this is that the Democrats need to do two more things in 2009: more achievements, and more positive spin.
    I want to first offer my impression of how best to spin the achievements of Democrats so far. Bush vetoed SCHIP twice; Obama passed an expansion of SCHIP on 2/4/09. Obama also offered a stimulus package to various state governments, and in a time of massive unemployment, these state stimulus packages kept firemen, policemen, and teachers on the job. The House just passed the Waxman-Markey bill, which will soon go to the Senate; critics on the left say that the House bill did not go far enough, but surely even less would have been done for the environment if the Republicans were in charge.
    I think well of the actions of Democrats listed above. I have mixed feelings about Iraq, Gitmo, and the bank bailouts. I read the business news, and the universal opinion on Wall Street is that if Obama had not bailed out the banks, we would be in the middle of another Great Depression. Those on the left that criticize the bank bailouts should keep in mind that while Obama loaned money to banks, he also capped the salaries of the foolish bank executives that caused the mess. These salary caps have been effective in getting those same executives to pay back the TARP money as fast as they can. It remains to be seen how fast Obama will get us out of Iraq, and how fast he will close Gitmo.
    The two big challenges ahead are universal healthcare and green energy. Most on the left, and most Americans overall, favor a single-payer plan like HR 676; this same approach is being fought tooth-and-nail by the health insurance industry. If Obama passes health care with a public option, it will be far from ideal, but it will also be the greatest improvement in American health care in several decades. Likewise, if the Waxman-Markey bill can also be passed by the Senate and signed into law by Obama, it will be a step in the right direction.
    So... what else do the Democrats need to achieve, and to spin, thoughout 2009, to get our poll numbers back up again?

1 Corinthians 13:1 (KJV) - "Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal."/ GOP = Greedy Old Privatizers or Greedy Old Privateers?

wallstreet is hardly a unbiased source (4.00 / 2)
they also universally despise universal healthcare, and think social security should be privatized.  I think the bailouts hurt the economy by throwing money to a bunch of failed banks with no accountability, and diverting it from the stimulus, and from relief that should have been given to ordinary Americans.

Spinning means creating false impressions of things, and we don't need anymore of it from any quarter!  We need results not spin.

The success of the democrats is of little concern if their programs are bad.

I want something better than both parties at present.  They simply aren't going to win on not being the republicans.  If they are just not the republicans they can expect many progressives to abandon them.


[ Parent ]
misunderstanding "spin" (0.00 / 0)
     You misunderstood one of my main points, when you said "Spinning means creating false impressions of things".
    Spin, propaganda, and bias are not the same as lies. People who deny that global warming is happening may point out that there are still a few glaciers left. Their conclusion (that there is no global warming) is false, but when they say that there are still a few glaciers left, they are stating a true fact. The essence of spin is to use real facts in a selective manner to support your case. Lawyers do such things all the time.
    I do not want Democrats or progressives to lie. And fortunately, we do not need to, because the facts support us. But Rosenberg started this article by pointing out that Democrats are becoming less popular, and I want to help us turn that trend around, before the 2010 congressional elections. So what do we need to do? We need to (1) improve our actual achievements, and (2) improve the public's PERCEPTION of our achievements. There is nothing wrong with us improving the public's perception of us, as long as we do not lie.

1 Corinthians 13:1 (KJV) - "Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal."/ GOP = Greedy Old Privatizers or Greedy Old Privateers?

[ Parent ]
By your definition of spin (4.00 / 1)
Should a watered-down Waxman-Markey bill be hailed to make it seem as a greater accomplishment than it actually is?  Does "too much" criticism from the left conflict with the goal of more positive spin?  And if progressives shouldn't lie, does that mean they should be silent if their impulse is to give "counter-productive" criticism?

Things You Don't Talk About in Polite Company: Religion, Politics, the Occasional Intersection of Both

[ Parent ]
strategic spin (0.00 / 0)
     You ask some good questions.
    When it comes to criticism of Democrats from the left, there are two approaches. One is the "make them do it" approach, in which we need to yell as loudly as possible at the Democrats, and call them all right-wing corporate sellouts. If we do this, then our loud insistence that they need to move to the left may help cancel out the noise from the right, which will call them all far-left Socialists.
    The other approach is that popularity is a form of power. So, the more approval we express for Obama and the Democrats, the more they will be able to achieve.
    The ideal spin may also depend upon time and context. Just prior to major votes, I want to call the Dems far-right sellouts and move them leftward, but just prior to elections I want to make them look as good as possible, so that they will win by the largest possible margin. (Popularity creates a landslide win, which then creates a big mandate, which then creates more popularity.)
    Finally, there is such a thing as just honestly speaking your mind. I posted a diary ("Obama is bad" - compared to whom?), which I keep referring to. It is true that Obama is only a moderate and not a true Progressive, but it is also true that he is far better than Bush Jr., Bush Sr., and Reagan, and in some ways Obama is better than Bill Clinton. So Obama is imperfect and is too far to the right... and he is also the best person in the White House for several decades.

1 Corinthians 13:1 (KJV) - "Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal."/ GOP = Greedy Old Privatizers or Greedy Old Privateers?

[ Parent ]
Give up on government (4.00 / 1)
Brilliant insight.

Now I finally understand the Republicans. They are out o make people give up on government, hence expect no reform.

The Republicans have al the power. They do not need to win elections, just keep people in despair about government.


The democrats don't need the republicans to pass (4.00 / 2)
reforms so making people give up is a bipartisan effort.

[ Parent ]
don't forget the Senate (0.00 / 0)
     We DO, unfortunately, need the consent of Republicans to get things passed in the Senate. And those Republicans include Lieberman, Specter, and other DINO's.

1 Corinthians 13:1 (KJV) - "Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal."/ GOP = Greedy Old Privatizers or Greedy Old Privateers?

[ Parent ]
The Republicans have as much power... (4.00 / 3)

 ...as the Democrats let them have.

 In other words, a lot.  

"We judge ourselves by our ideals; others by their actions. It is a great convenience." -- Howard Zinn


[ Parent ]
I just got back from a road trip to Minnesota from NYC (4.00 / 8)
And things are really really bad out there.  Credit cards and debit cards being rejected at the pump, lots of use of Western Union and Paycheck Advance, lots of for sale signs, vacant farmland being sold, plus lots of standing water in farm fields from Ohio through Wisconsin.

And I sensed a general flatness as well as a general tenseness in many of the cities and towns I stopped in and at the rest stops along the I-80 and the toll roads.

There's a significant disconnect between what's going on in D.C. and even in NYC and what people are experiencing in the Midwest.  

Technocratic liberalism and faux bipartisanship will not solve these problems.  Hence the decline the #s are showing in the Midwest (the same reasons probably apply to the West too).  


DLCism is killing the party -- and the country (4.00 / 5)

 The DLC crowd is primarily responsible for this. It's created a culture within the Democratic Party that rewards Republican appeasers, and punishes anybody who expresses pride and conviction in actual Democratic values.

 The grand vision statement of the DLC crowd is, "Vote for Democrats! We're just like the Republicans, but not as bad!"

 Now that's an inspirational message.

 And the effectiveness of that message is prominently in display in those poll numbers. The Obama buzz is wearing off -- in large part because Obama himself is governing like a DLCer -- and the Democrats are doing virtually nothing to fight off the public perception that there's no real difference between the two parties.

 I'm doing what I can -- I'm on my local Dem Central Committee, and I am very carefully scrutinizing local candidates to weed out potential future Liebermans and Baucuses and Daschles, while encouraging future Feingolds and Harkins. But it's a long, frustrating process -- and the Dems' foot-dragging on real change, combined with their weak, ineffective pushback on Republican messaging, makes selling the party MUCH more difficult.

 

"We judge ourselves by our ideals; others by their actions. It is a great convenience." -- Howard Zinn


If I didn't care about the country... (4.00 / 1)

 ...I would just say we should all just be quiet, lay low, and let the Democrats pursue their treasured "centrism" to their wallets' content, and then stand back when the voters destroy the Democrats in 2010 after these "centrist" policies fail to accomplish anything tangible.

 Because you know that the losses in 2010 will be blamed on the liberals of the party, despite the fact that the progressive wing has been in a coma all this time. We need to start pre-empting that NOW.

 But the costs of saying nothing and doing nothing are just too great for the nation.

   

"We judge ourselves by our ideals; others by their actions. It is a great convenience." -- Howard Zinn


I blame the progressives for being in a coma (0.00 / 0)
If they aren't willing to fight for what they believe in they don't really believe in it.

The people who just sit back and let the centrists win are centrists themselves.  

http://transgendermom.blogspot....


[ Parent ]
Can I play contrarian? It's Obama mostly, then Congress. (4.00 / 4)
Have the progressives been in a coma? Seems like they have fought back, over and over, on the health care issue, beating back the idea of a trigger, no public option, even co-ops. And I thought there were other issues where progressives in the House, primarily, have stood up and said, Hell No.

My take on all this is that Obama is largely responsible for this shift, specifically, his choice of Summers and Geithner on the economy (and the Wall Street friendly policies that have ensued, plus the newest round of bonuses as jobs are being lost still) as well as national security (the big news about indefinite detention, refusing to investigate torture). On the economy and national security, Obama has done little beyond what Bush and McCain would have done. Perhaps closing Guantanamo is the one big meaningful difference.

People outside DC are not stupid. They at least read headlines in their local paper and/or hear headlines on the radio. At best, they go online and read several media outlets. These polls reflect what Paul Krugman pointed out in his column the other day, that Obama has a nasty habit of outsmarting himself which maintains the status quo people want to get beyond. It also does not help that many Democrats in Congress should have a C next to their names, not a D. They work for corporations, not individual American citizens, especially corporations whose interests are at odds with individuals and whose behavior has caused (and made worse) our economic problems.


[ Parent ]
I blame both. (4.00 / 1)
Progressives do have a bad habit of not fighting for what they believe in.

Obama has been different in national security and healthcare. I think the problem is that too many people are ascribing positions that Obama never held. He always said he would intensify the fight in Afghanistan because he felt that Bush dropped the ball. He also said that he would attack Pakistan if there were any actionable intelligence. He's been advocating for public option.

As for the economy, I personally think that he should have included a WPA type of program in the stimulus.


[ Parent ]
This Is Really Unfair (4.00 / 1)
I'm the last person to say progressives couldn't have done better.  Chris is absolutely right about the strategy of a Progressive Block.  But you (a) put it like the blame should be equal between Obama and progressives, and (b) lump all progressives together.  Neither of these is justified.

What you say about what Obama said during the campaign is factually true.  But it's also true that what he said could easily have been taken as tough talk campaign rhetoric that would be downplayed once in office.  Instead, what he walked away from was the good stuff--like renegotiating NAFTA.

Thus, given that Obama repeatedly stressed the need to reach out via diplomacy, and given that everyone knows that bombing civilians undermines diplomacy, it's not really accurate to say that "many people are ascribing positions that Obama never held", unless you can point to folks who thought he was an out-and-out peacenik.

What happened was that people misread his emphasis--because he wanted them to.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3


[ Parent ]
This Is Spot On (4.00 / 2)
We always understood Obama's desire for continuity and consensus.  What surprised and disappointed us was the degree to which this has dominated and destoyed his massage of hope and change.

He could have kept a few Summers or Geithner types around in secondary positions, for example, if only he'd put some real change agents at the top.

Instead, it's more of the same than you could ever have imagined.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3


[ Parent ]
Another thought... (4.00 / 3)

 We keep hearing that the reason the blue dogs act and vote the way they do is because the "conservative" nature of their districts and states demands it.

 And the blue dogs have, in fact, shifted into full-obstructionist mode. They've watered down every left-of-center Obama proposal -- and a few right-of-center ones.

 But it's interesting how the decline in the Democrats' favorability ratings seems to be primarily coming from those very same conservative areas that the blue dogs hail from.

 Maybe the blue dogs need to re-evaluate why they were voted in to begin with. Apparently their constituents don't seem to be nearly as impressed with their obstructionism as David Brooks is.  

 

"We judge ourselves by our ideals; others by their actions. It is a great convenience." -- Howard Zinn


There's Nothing New In This (4.00 / 3)
People tend to be more conservative in self-identification primarily because of social issues.  But conservadems are even more consistently conservative on economic issues, where their constituents tend to be more populist.  So, basically, they are always voting against their base.  It's just a little more obvious now than usual.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
I actually predicted this (4.00 / 1)

 I make no claim to being any kind of political expert, but it looks like I hit it on this Kos diary. from a few months ago. (Yes, that's me.)

 Unfortunately. Wish I'd been wrong. But it's only gotten worse since.

 The blue dogs hurt no one but themselves -- and their constituents.  

"We judge ourselves by our ideals; others by their actions. It is a great convenience." -- Howard Zinn


[ Parent ]
Except it is a bunch of bullshit .. (4.00 / 1)
We keep hearing that the reason the blue dogs act and vote the way they do is because the "conservative" nature of their districts and states demands it.

Just look at the most infamous House Blue Dog .. Jim Cooper .. his district is actually more liberal than he is .. Cooper's district is the only one he carried in TN(besides TN-09 .. which is Steve Cohen's) .. I believe Obama got 53 or 54% of the vote in Cooper's district ... and look at Cohen's district .. the most liberal by far .. and yet they used to have corporate sellout Harold Ford, Jr. representing them


[ Parent ]
Banana republic (4.00 / 5)
The real tragedy here, as I see it, is that the servants of the status quo in the Democratic Party are setting up a situation in which we not only have no remedy for our very real ills, but we can't even have a real discussion about them. Persistent lies from the political class, coupled with increasing despair in the majority will eventually lead to a landscape crawling with snake-oil salesmen like Ron Paul, professional haters like Limbaugh, and just plain looniness.

What kind of looniness? Well, I live in AZ. Our Republican state legislature is in the process of passing laws which allow a) every adult who isn't a convicted felon to own a gun and carry it in public, b) if he elects to carry it, he can carry it concealed, without a permit or mandatory training, and c) he can carry it anywhere he wants -- bars, restaurants, churches, government offices, etc. They've also reduced support to schools in a state which already spends less per pupil than all but one other state, increased the sales tax, but not the income or property taxes, and all but eliminated legal abortions -- and that's just in this term.

In the meantime, people earning the median salary in my county can't afford to rent a two-bedroom apartment, let alone buy a house, not unless they spend more than 50% of their income to do it.

I don't know if anyone in Washington can see beyond the Potomac, or anyone in New York can see beyond the Hudson, but from my vantage point, everything west of Rhode Island is already Indian Country.


What He Said... (4.00 / 3)
We just moved from AZ to NY precisely because the state politics has gone from respectable Republican to flat out wacky Republican. Because of budget cuts, one of our kids' classes went from 18 kids to 35.

I wonder how many other Western states are in the same position? And I wonder how many of those states will have their problems correctly attributed to Republicans and their refusal to manage a government in a modern way, for example, by pushing tax parity by raising taxes on the wealthy first? Arizona's new budget, for example, reportedly replaces the progressive and fair state income tax with a flat tax, a huge gift to the wealthy and corporations in this economy.

The problems at the state level also would have been mitigated if Obama's stimulus plan had bailed out the states in this down time, for a year possibly two, instead of shoveling more money to Wall Street. Besides the nutty legislation, states are slashing budgets, services, and jobs which undercuts any federal stimulus. These results were predictable and are counter-productive.

Without leadership from Obama, at the least, I don't see how any of this ends well.


[ Parent ]
What needed to be said was just said by PR. (4.00 / 2)
What the "netroots" should be slapping into the thick skulls of the Executive Branch (remember dithering on Iran?) is the following:

1) Write the bills you think are best for America and send them to Congress for an Up-or-Down vote. The alternative method, sending the compromise, is failing because that is always the starting point of negotiations, and even if it passes it will fail as policy and the electorate will hang any blame on the party in power.

If the funk we are in continues after a series of Filibusters by the Recalcitrant Right, guess who the people are going to blame? The Republicans and the self-styled conservatives.

2) Why in hell would anybody who hated Bush because he was in bed with the MIC, the Banksters, & the slow-motion suicide of America like what Obama is doing?

The man campaigned on a clear theme: Change and Hope.

We've only had that in diplomacy and science. Everything else has been a continuation of "Compassionate Conservatism", and in some cases even more aggression than Bush, like Afghanistan and Pakistan.

(Obama is loathe to "meddle" in the affairs of Iran, but not Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Georgia, etc.)

Ive said it before and I'll say it again, the Ron Paul types are the key to the resurrection of the Right. If We keep them neutral or God Forbid, throw them a bone like ending the Fed and returning the money power to Congress, or ending the drug war, or rolling back the police state and empire. (is any one here opposed to these ends?)

3) Locking the Nixonians out of government is life and death. Human rights, peace, and the environment depend on it. Any single battle I am willing to lose, but not the war.


A caveat on interpretation of numbers (0.00 / 0)
This analysis assumes that there isn't a natural erosion of party favorability that occurs after a "honeymoon period" similar to that of the presidency following every election for the party in power. In 2007, for example, Gallup had the Congressional approval rating peaking in February and then trending downward for the rest of the term, but I haven't found any easy-to-find numbers for the individual parties.  It's a shame the numbers don't go back farther.

Arguably, the failure to test for an alternative hypothesis such as that is a fatal flaw of the conclusions, but then, this isn't exactly a scientifically rigorous analysis.  Still, I think it's worth cautioning people to avoid reading too much into the numbers and accepting Paul Rosenberg's (reasonable) conclusion uncritically just because it happens to fit neatly into a narrative.  Of course, that's just my own nitpick-y research-minded self.

One thing that I am having trouble explaining is that Congressional Democrats saw a huge bump in their numbers between February 19 and February 26.  Most of those gains were lost by the beginning of April and have remained in the same range since.  Congressional Democrats are actually seeing their numbers rising in the past few weeks, with the May 28 poll numbers being the low. I'm not really in the mood to dig through blog archives to see what people were talking about in February and March, but I'd love to hear suggestions for what caused the bump in February and in the past few weeks.


Things You Don't Talk About in Polite Company: Religion, Politics, the Occasional Intersection of Both


You're Missing the Whole Point Of My Regional Analysis (4.00 / 1)
Of course there's a tendency for "the honeymoon to wear off".  How strong a tendency, or what exactly that means is a whole other thing.

Obama remains fairly popular. The Democratic Party does not.  But the Dems are taking the hits for basically following his lead.  And they're doing so very unevenly.

As for 2007, the Dems came into office promising change. They failed to deliver.  No surprise that there numbers dived.

But this doesn't always happen.  In fact, people mostly don't think about or expect much of anything from Congress. Or any legislative body, actually.  Executives are always more prominent, more followed, and more subject to up-and-down swings.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3


[ Parent ]
Can Howard Dean save the Democrats from themselves? (4.00 / 7)
I have argued that progressive causes suffer from a lack of verbal pitbulls, who aren't going to show deference to President Obama, or the Democratic establishment. Unfortunately for both populist-progressive causes, as well as the Democratic Party, as a whole, the lack of being sharply challenged in the public arena, by enabling mediocrity, might lead to gridlock after the 2010 elections, as voters abandon the Democratic brand.

I've had trouble thinking of even one well known individual who could be America's George Galloway, but I think maybe we've found that person in Howard Dean, who recently said:


"We are here; we're not going away. We voted for change a few months ago. We expect change. And if we don't get it, there's going to be more change," said Dean.

Success on healthcare reform is a must for Democrats, Dean told The Hill. "I think it's going to be a catastrophic problem for the Democratic Party if they can't get this bill out."

Besides stepping the rhetoric up even more, Dean could help the Democratic brand by helping retire obstructionist Democrats. He could lead a national effort to go after Democratic Senators who won't at least support a strong public option. By go after them, I mean compile a "hit list" of Democratic Senators who he will help primary, if they don't get on board with with a strong public optioin. This will be a "NO FORGIVENESS" hit list - once you make that list, you don't get off.

The way that would help save the Democratic brand is by showing that "change you can believe in" is really possible, even though Obama has not proven to be the man for the job. Does anybody really think that, by 2010, most of the public is going to associate the Democratic brand with "change you can believe in"?. I sure don't, so even if by some miracle Obama is still thought of as a significant change agent, I will expect voters to register their dissapointment in the voting booths - if and when they show up - for Democrats as a whole.

OK, I'm not a wonky political science guy, so quite possibly I'm wrong about this helping the Democratic Party, in terms of how may D's are in Congress after 2010. But speaking for myself, I'm not concerned about the Democratic Party, per se, but only in what positive things they can do for this country and this world.

To that end, it wouldn't break my heart if, say, 10 Democratic Senators got primaried, but only 8 or 9 Democrats won the respective generals, resulting in a net loss of 1 or 2 seats in the Senate. Quite frankly, I couldn't care less - I want better people in Congress, and I don't care about what party affiliation such people have.

If Dean goes after intransigent Democrats, using health care as his signature issue, I believe that in a worse case scenario, he will energize the Democratic base, resulting in minor losses, at worst, and many pickups, at best. He will become persona non grata to many powerful Democrats, but that is a small price to pay for a doctor who, I believe, genuinely cares about health care, moreso than his own political career.

As a bonus, such a sea change in Congressional dynamics for this one, wildly popular issue, could help kick-start an effective progressive movement, changing the Congressional dynamics more long-term, as Paul Rosenberg blogged about earlier today.


435 Dem Primaries 2012
Coffee Party Usa
TheRealNews.Com


Dean Could/Should Start a Third Party? (2.00 / 2)
If I am not mistaken, Dean and his brother founded the organization Democracy for America five years ago after he took a real beating from Democratic Party operatives and DLC centrists like Rahm Emanuel during his presidential primary bid.

With DFA affiliates in all Congressional districts, it is definitely a contender to wrest control of the party from its center-right leaning elements by running competitive candidates in Democratic Party primaries and general elections.

I seem to remember reading that Dean himself raised the issue of whether the Democratic Party is reform-able, given the far too cozy relationship the party and its candidates have established with big business and financial interests.

If Obama wimps out and agrees to a health care reform bill without a public option, after authorizing a bailout of $12.8 trillion and accepting a feeble $787 billion stimulus, then the writing is on the wall that the Democratic Party needs to be replaced by a genuinely progressive party.

With 1/3 of the electorate opting out of either party, and both parties losing favor in key battlegrounds because they refuse to implement the will of the people, the time would be ripe for Dean to start a third party. Given the statistics about voter defections from both of the two major political parties, Dean's party would easily attract the votes needed to run winning candidates for Congress and eventually the presidency.  


[ Parent ]
Sure - eventually (4.00 / 2)
But one way to prove his mettle for such an effort in the future is by taking on the Democratic obstructionists in a no-comprise fashion, now. If he doesn't have the mettle to create a no-forgiveness hit list, e.g., why should we think that he will have the mettle to attempt creation of a viable, 3rd party? Which is easier to do?

If he goes the third party route, he would do well to embrace populist economic issues, with 2 or 3 signature issues. (E.g., repeal the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act).

435 Dem Primaries 2012
Coffee Party Usa
TheRealNews.Com


[ Parent ]
Unfortunately, Decks are Stacked (2.67 / 3)
I agree with your thinking and am pleased that you can think outside of the two-party box.

Dean has already proved himself on many fronts, especially by taking on the DLC establishment (starting with Rahm Emanuel) and winning his bid for chairmanship of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) — which is not exactly a plumb political job unless you really care about revitalizing our dysfunctional party system and the dysfunctional democracy it has created.

With the help of his supporters in the DNC, he beat down center-right DLC candidates and, once in office, developed and implemented the 50 state strategy, which many of us credit for the positive gains Democratic candidates made in the 2006 Congressional elections.

One thing for sure, he is not intimidated by the political establishment in Washington, D.C. His audacious support of the public option shows that he does not wimp out just because the fake Democrats and Obama decree that they have the power to shove any health care reform legislation they choose down the throats of their constituents, despite the stated preference of a majority of Americans for the single payer option.

The main reason for getting a third party started right away — in the event that the Democratic-controlled Congress passes legislation without a public option and shows that it will defy the popular will on such a vital issue — is that it requires a systematic, sustained effort to get it structured from an organizational and legal point of view, so that it can get candidates on the ballot in all 50 states.

The two major parties have stacked the decks in terms of manipulating the electoral laws to put in legal devices and mechanisms that favor themselves and put third parties at a disadvantage. These devices and mechanisms can be overcome but it will take time and perseverance.

What Dean brings to the table, besides his experience running a presidential primary campaign, is his follow-on experience at the DNC. Not only did he bring with him his supporters from his presidential bid, but he personally went to every state and sought out the best people so that he could provide them DNC resources for building the party.

With Democracy for American well positioned with affiliates in all Congressional districts, it would not be a stretch for him to get a third party in the works.

If he does, I predict that once U.S. voters have a viable third party option, a significant portion of the 39% of voters who self-identify as Independents or un-affiliated will speedily migrate to it.

Likewise, a significant portion of the huge numbers of voters who are dissatisfied with the Democratic Party will also speedily migrate towards Dean's third party, if he chooses to establish one.

Now that will be a lasting legacy!    



[ Parent ]
Hmmm (2.67 / 3)
I suppose that, to argue for the creation of a brand new third party, you need to look at the existing, leading third parties, and make a case for why a new one should be created, rather than just joining an existing party.

I frankly don't know enough about the subject to have anything useful to say on that score. However, just looking at things abstractly, I can surmise that you can argue that it's very unlikely that any third party will be 'correct', from a populist point of view, on all of their main issues. That means that you should be able to theoretically create a party based on popular positions on various issues, which has more appeal to disparate groups with different emphases. Such a party may seem to be a crazy-quilt combination, with little or no ideological common grounding.

But frankly, I don't see that as all that different from what we have now, it's just that plutocratic groups have inordinate influence. These plutocratic groups don't contribute any compelling ideology, they contribute money and propaganda to get their point of view enacted into law. Various slogans my be offered up to put an ideological veneer on things ("Free trade is good for us." "Drill here, drill now." Blah, blah, ad infinitum.), but if those hadn't worn thin long ago, why is the public so jaded wrt civic life?

So, speaking for myself, anyway, I don't need some sort of high minded principles. I have a few rules of thumb that I apply, such as "Is this the sort of thing that a decent society would do?", "Is this how we would treat members of our family?" and "Does this respect foreigners as much as Americans?"

A new third party pursuing an optimal strategy to power would, IMO, settle on some core issues, but no more than are absolutely necessary. I.e., they would not be a "big tent" party, in the sense of trying to accomodate all sorts of minority viewpoints. Rather, they would defer such positions to individuals who are running for office, and the makeup of their (hopeful) constituents. Some people at OpenLeft might find this offensive, but I am strictly looking at things from a strategic viewpoint, where the main goal is upsetting the plutocratic apple cart.

So, to sum up, I think you might be able to make a case for a new third party starting from now, but somebody has to do some serious analysis and polling to find out what basic issues such a new third party should embrace. In terms of your invention, it might be more useful to let regional voters determine what sorts of variations on non-core issues must be supported by their candidates. (In distinction with the core platform that all national candidates would support.)

In the case of Dean, if he were to pursue a third party alternative starting now, he would immediately lose a lot (most all, I would guess) of his potential for brow-beating intransigent Democratic Senators into supporting a strong public option. Hence, I hope if such a new third party gets started soon, it gets started without Dean.

Dean can always join after the Depression has made beggars out of all! :-)

Although he's not a great thinker, in terms of popularity, a guy you would probably want on board is Jesse Ventura.  

435 Dem Primaries 2012
Coffee Party Usa
TheRealNews.Com


[ Parent ]
A New Third Party (0.00 / 0)
would have to be run by voters, who alone call the shots and determine its platform.

What we want to avoid is creating additional political parties out of the same mold as the existing parties.


[ Parent ]
Dean = Newt? (4.00 / 1)
Reading your comment I suddenly had an image of Dean playing the outlier role Newt Gingrich does, at times, for the Republicans. Only Dean would do that role far better for the Democrats, not least because a strong majority of the public reject many of Newt's ideas while they embrace the ideas Dean and others push forward. Dean would make a great spokesperson. Any idea if Dean would play that role?

My gut tells me that this approach, using someone like Dean and others to pick off DINOs and Republicans (with or without a hit list) would work more quickly and with greater impact than starting a third party. For one, at the Congressional level, I thought polls show people tend to like their Representatives and Senators while grousing about the rest of the idiots in Congress. For another, this approach would directly or indirectly create a Progressive Block in Congress, a very useful goal.

I also worry a third party in 2010 would split the Dems and provide an opening for the Republicans to gain power on an "I told you so" platform, using Democratic disarray to prove that our ideas were bogus after all (or else we'd be on the same page). Just a thought/concern.


[ Parent ]
Progressives Will Only Succeed by Building a New Third Party (2.67 / 3)
The only conclusion I can draw from arguments presented above is that fighting for change within the current two party system is a losing proposition.

Together, the two major parties have put the American people into a political strait-jacket from which they cannot extricate themselves except by building a third party unlike any party that has ever existed, as I describe below.  

The out-of-control Democrats, Republicans and the White House are conjointly pushing the financial meltdown and the recession towards a deep, long-lasting depression by refusing to do what the American people have demanded.

A majority of them have opposed the bailout from the start because it maintains the current top-down financial system that eviscerates rather than bolsters the real economy.

A vibrant progressive third party that runs and elects genuinely progressive (versus fake progressive) candidates to Congress can start re-building the economy from the ground up, tax those who have unfairly profited from working people's labor, and apply anti-trust laws to break up the big banks. If the federal government is going to give taxpayers money to banks, a third party can make sure it goes to solvent banks who actually help small and medium sized businesses stay in business, expand and create more jobs.

All these statistics about how much the Democrats or Republicans are favored, and declines thereof, re-state the widely known fact that most voters hold both parties in contempt but have no way to get rid of them and replace them with parties that are responsive to popular will.

Polls and research studies show that U.S. voters have been steadily abandoning the nation's two major political parties for more than 20 years. 6% have abandoned the Democrats since Obama took office.

According to a recent Pew poll, the bloc of self-identifying Independents is larger than either the bloc of self-identifying Democrats or the bloc of self-identifying Republicans.

The Independent bloc represents 39% of the electorate, the Democratic bloc only 33%, and the Republican bloc represents only 22%.

If a third party were created, and it gave voters the powers that my invention, the The Interactive Voter Choice System would give them, it would easily attract a majority of the electorate because they, rather than special interests, could set the party's agenda and thereafter the country's agenda by running and electing representatives who would enact their agenda into law.

 


Which is easier to achieve - a new third party, or a voting bloc that cooperatively votes for D's and R's who serves their interests? (4.00 / 2)
I think the answer depends on how badly the US economy does. If we enter a prolonged depression, both Democrat and Republican brands may take such a hit that getting a third party into office becomes relatively easy. But lacking such a catastrophic scenario, isn't it just plain easier to take over the Democratic and Republic parties from below?

I have sketched out a transpartisan approach that could at least get us some core, populist results, here. If citizens won't cooperate to get themselves that much, why would they go the extra mile of a third party? (Again, absent impoverishment from D and R enabled banksterism?)

And if citizens do cooperate to place better D's and R's into a position of power, but the economy subsequently and catastrophically blows up a couple of years, later, there will already be a somewhat informal structure in place that could serve as a basis for making a transition to a more structured, official 3rd party.

435 Dem Primaries 2012
Coffee Party Usa
TheRealNews.Com


[ Parent ]
Independents aren't that independent (4.00 / 2)
I think you're overestimating independents.

1) Independents are independents more because they are disinterested than because they are disaffected.

2) Many independents are rather predictable party leaners.  They seem to like the independent label because they value the reputation that they are not beholden to either party in a Broder-like fashion.  It's American individualism run amok.

3) Most independents are between the two major parties on a left-right scale, so a centrist, populist third party that has the same appeal as Ross Perot would be the most successful formula for a third party.  I think the best method for creating a vibrantly progressive political party is to encourage the Blue Dogs to join with Arlen Specter and Joe Lieberman and Michael Bloomberg and the people who failed at the Unity 08 effort in an allegedly centrist party with an established power base.

Things You Don't Talk About in Polite Company: Religion, Politics, the Occasional Intersection of Both


[ Parent ]
It's Not in Your Head, It's Real (4.00 / 4)
"It's not just all in our heads hear[sic] at Open Left when we warn that the Democrats are not getting the job done.  That's how the public is starting to see things, too."

Of course it's not all in your head. The Democrats are not only not getting the job done, to some extent they appear to be carrying water for conservatives, acting like what used to be called Republicans, that is, friends of business and the wealthy while running a range from neglecting the poor and needy to active enmity in opposing them.

Not all Democrats, of course, but enough to make a troublesome minority/majority with the Republicans. The majority of the American people are not being represented period. They are badly in need of a third party.  







Donate to Open Left




blog advertising is good for you
blog advertising is good for you
USER MENU

SEARCH

   

Advanced Search