Republicans pull nearly even on Congressional vote numbers

by: Ian Welsh

Thu Jul 30, 2009 at 06:05


Brilliant!

 A compilation of major polling resources shows that republicans have nearly closed the gap with democrats in a generic congressional vote. This is a poll where voters are asked, without naming any specific names, if they are likely to republicans or democrats in the upcoming 2010 midterm elections. Democrats now lead by only 1.5% after the gap had been well into double digits at the time President Obama took office.

The village consensus on this is going to be that if only Democrats had been more bipartisan that the numbers would be better.  Debunking such nonsense is a waste of my time and your brain cells.  There are two main reasons why these numbers are where they are:

Republicans understand opposition politics: when you're in the opposition, you don't smile bipartisanly, you gnaw at the ankles of the ruling party.  Nothing they do is right, everything they do is wrong.  You talk about how their policies are going to fail, so that if they do, you are the opposition (Democrats did not understand this when in opposition).

Continuation of ineffective Bush policies.  Not to put too fine a point on it, but in too many cases Obama and the new Congress are pursuing Bush lite policies.  

  • Escalate in Afghanistan
  • Spend more money on the military
  • Get out of Iraq around about the time Bush wanted to anyway
  • Continue the Bush/Paulson financial policies
  • A stimulus bill which was 40% tax cuts (granted, not tax cuts for the rich, but still tax cuts)

Americans voted for Democrats because they were sick of Bush and Bush era policies.  And here Congress is repeatedly voting for Bush era policies.  Congressional numbers are melting down faster than presidential ones because people know that Obama's their only hope. It may not be much of a hope, but if he can't fix things, they've got to wait most of 4 years for a chance at someone who does.

Proper governance liberal style works like this.  Pass effective bills even if it requires not being bipartisan.  When those effective bills create good effects (a good economy, everyone having good health care) reap the benefits of voters being happy with good jobs and not going bankrupt over health care.

Congress's stimulus bill was crap.  Congress's cap and trade bill is crap.  Every indication is that the health care bill is likely to be... crap.

Why would people be happy with this?

It's the economy stupid.  By choosing to bail out financial companies instead of the real economy Obama and Congress cast their die.  It has not lead to a recovery in the real economy, and by the time the next recession happens my prediction and that of many others is that jobs will still not have recovered to pre-recession levels.  This is not something unknown to the Obama administration, they are well aware of it.  Their hopes of winning the next election are based on two things: Republican disarray, and the financial sector continuing to give much more money to Democrats.  Neither is a sure thing. 

Good policy creates a country in which people are doing better than in the past.  People who feel they are doing better vote for the incumbent more than not.  Congress and Obama seem to have forgotten this basic electoral reality. The will reap as they have sowed.

Ian Welsh :: Republicans pull nearly even on Congressional vote numbers

Tags: (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
So if a landslide doesn't give them a clue, what will? n.t (4.00 / 1)


They're asking for another four years -- in a just world, they'd get 10 to 20. ~~ Dennis Kucinich  

Our comment plus an electoral slapping (4.00 / 1)
We all know these difficulties arise primarily from the Dem leadership groveling to Republican-lite Blue Dogs and Senate "moderates", especially during recruitment. Basically I think Maxine Waters got it right - 2006-8 gave us a great opportunity to expand our party in Congress but the leadership (especially Rahm Emmanuel) filled up those gains with people who would oppose effective governance.

If the current sequence of weak compromised bills with poor PR campaigns continues, we're going to have substantial losses in Congress in 2010 and especially in 2012 when that extremely Dem-heavy Senate cohort comes up for re-election. It's going to be the "moderates" responsible for the mess who take the biggest hit, and I think the power brokers in the party will finally come to understand that groveling to corporatism = losing political power. So when the next go-round for liberal governance comes I think the Dems will do it right. Sadly it looks like we will have to wait for that next go-round and that will be a painful wait.

Obama will, I think, get re-elected simply because the Republican party hasn't got any decent candidates to run against him. So in the end the Obama years may end up much like the Clinton years with a great opportunity at the start lost and a Dem president struggling with a conservative Congress for most of his term, with the result being a moderate government which will be a lot better than the alternative for all the disappointments and lost opportunities - but a lot worse than what we should have gotten. In this case the wound will be primarily self-inflicted, as opposed to driven by a shift in the electorate towards conservatism and a big retirement wave in 1994.

I'm inclining to the view that our best way to influence the process is to support left-wing 3rd party candidates against the more obnoxious "moderates". I'm all for primaries, but realistically it's hard to get traction against an incumbent and somehow we have to get to a situation where having a -D after a name doesn't allow a representative to work hard against the interests of the American people.


[ Parent ]
Don't fool yourself (0.00 / 0)

Obama will, I think, get re-elected simply because the Republican party hasn't got any decent candidates to run against him.

The recent forced retirement of Palin was likely a hit job by Bushie moles in DOJ clearing the way for Jeb in 2012.  He may well be figuring that by 2012 it was be dawning on people that 10+% unemployment is the new norm for this country, and they will be getting pissed about it.

If Obama screws up healthcare, I wouldn't rule out a challenge in the 2012 primaries, kinda like Kennedy in 1980 (but not Kennedy, obviously).

And there is always the possibility that Obama will be impeached or forced to resign as a result of a domestic surveillance scandal.  Lots of Bushie moles know where the skeleton's are lying.  Perhaps that is part of Jeb's playboook.


[ Parent ]
Some talented artist should come up with a cartoon (4.00 / 2)
to match this caption:

Hey Barack?

Yes, Harry?

Um, are we being milquetoasty enough for you?

Nah, dial it up a bit more. Broder's still not happy.

I'll get right on it!



"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" -- Alexander Hamilton

This was same thing that happened to Reagan. (0.00 / 0)


I'd look at the more immediate change (0.00 / 0)
People wanted a strong public option and currently believe they wont get it.

Almost none of those other things have a daily effect on most people's lives and I doubt it is something they worry about.

http://transgendermom.blogspot....


But can't we all go to one of those (0.00 / 0)
DailyKos polls that show us how the pathetic partisan Republicans will never win another election in the next 20 years?

Ha, ha (0.00 / 0)
Rand Paul, son of Ron Paul, is running for Senator. I can see a populist resurgence of the Republican Party, provided it's driven primarily from below, which means that it'll call BS on the Republican hypocrisy and incompetence of the Bush years. Crowd funding and internet organizing should make the success of more sincere Republican candidates possible, just like for the Democrats.

While I can also see the same thing happening with the progressive wing of the Democrats, I wonder if the progressives will call BS on the Democrats? At OpenLeft, sure, but there seem to be few leaders in the Democratic Party who will do so. Maxine Water recently spoke up, somewhat, about Rahm Emanuel. If she wanted to galvanize the progressive wing of the Democratic Party, though, she'll have be more like George Galloway*. Same with Dennis Kucinich, who comes close to saying the right things, but needs to get angrier and be willing to take a bite out of fellow Democrats, including Obama.

Oh where, oh where, has my outspoken pit bull gone?
Oh where, oh where, can he be?
With his bark so loud, and his bite bigger still
Oh where, oh where, can he be?

* Or, perhaps I should say, what I imagine him to be like. I saw his wonderful testimony in Congress, but whether he attacks hypocrites and sellouts in his own party in the UK, I don't really know.

435 Dem Primaries 2012
Coffee Party Usa
TheRealNews.Com


[ Parent ]
Little to worry about now (0.00 / 0)
Republicans caught Democrats in Congressional vote numbers in 2007 too...wor

Don't forget the arrogance toward (0.00 / 0)
the Ron Paul types.

I.e. libertarians who abandoned the GOP in droves setting the stage for Democratic control of Congress and the White House.

Why not partner with them on areas of concern? I.e. crushing the banksters?


Their numbers are pretty small (0.00 / 0)
Crushing the banksters is a sound policy move, but there's little benefit to partnering with a lunatic fringe to do it.

[ Parent ]
If Rand Paul, son of Ron, crushes his opposition in his Senate race (0.00 / 0)
will you still refer to the 'Paulians' as "lunatic fringe"? From Rand Paul's wikipedia page:

Paul is a critic of the Federal Reserve,[7] the Patriot Act,[28] the federal government's bailout of Wall Street, and the erosion of civil liberties. He is, like his father, a self-described traditional or "real" Republican, favoring significantly smaller government and balanced budgets, and opposing the Department of Education, the war in Iraq,[27] and the federal income tax.[29] He encourages legislators to pledge not to raise taxes,[20] and fought the failed plan to raise hotel taxes in Kentucky in 2000.[22][25]. On abortion, Paul has said that he would "introduce and support legislation to send Roe v. Wade back to the states," and he is also supportive of term limits for politicians.[31]

If we're in a full blown Depression in 2011, and Obama is completely discredited, due to having 'given away the store' to Wall Street, and Rand Paul's voting record matches the wikipedia page quote, above, I can even conceive of a President Rand Paul in 2012. I don't see how he could deliver in the short run on some of his beliefs, if he becomes President, such as ending income taxes. But if he even cut taxes, severely, along with spending, but wasn't stupid enough to cut safety net programs that would feed and shelter a population rife with unemployment, I could see such a 'lunatic fringe' come to displace the corporatist Republican cretins we have now.

If there is a populist resurgence in the Republican Party, but the Democratic Party doesn't follow suit, the Democratic brand could end up where the Republican brand is, right now, relatively speaking.

Personally, I welcome a strong resurgence of populism within both parties, as well as transpartisan alliances. Consider what sort of transpartisan passions will be aroused when, e.g., Codex Alimentarias goes "global" in December 2009. I haven't kept up with the issue, but if it's even half as bad as indicated here, Americans of all political persuasions are going to be hopping mad. In which case, last party out of the corporatist straight-jacket is rotten egg.

435 Dem Primaries 2012
Coffee Party Usa
TheRealNews.Com


[ Parent ]
You can isolate the lunatics by partnering with the legitimate libertarians (0.00 / 0)
or you can let the wound fester.

Up to you.


[ Parent ]
I Think David Sirota is Right (4.00 / 1)
Good policy creates a country in which people are doing better than in the past.  People who feel they are doing better vote for the incumbent more than not.  Congress and Obama seem to have forgotten this basic electoral reality. The will reap as they have sowed.

It's the old: "Are you better off today than you were four years ago?" The answer is going to be "no," because this country needs manufacturing, and there's no way Obama and Congress are going to put a punative export tax on overseas manufacturing.
As David says, they're counting only on Republican dissarray and corporate contributions. What a sad party the Democrats--"the party of the people"--have become. They could change if they wanted to, but they don't want to.


Dreamonempty (4.00 / 1)
explained this yesterday.  Most of this is related to the fact that the Democrats are coming to own the economy, and the economy is terrible.

As FDR showed (0.00 / 0)
One can own a shitty economy that you inherited from Republicans in a way that boosts your electoral chances.

But that requires assertively pushing policies that actually help people who are suffering, instead of focusing your efforts on boosting those who are not suffering.

Obama is going to continue paying a political price for his very first act as president - whipping the House Dems to support the bailout in October 2008 - until he abandons that policy in favor of more direct assistance to suffering households.


[ Parent ]
Failure of the elites (0.00 / 0)
I'm going to go out on a limb, and say that what we're seeing here is a systemic failure of the elites.  And by "elites," I specifically mean the graduates of our elite universities who pervade the media, Capitol Hill, WH, economics, foreign policy, banks, etc.

Why this systemic failure?  What I see among the professionals in media, economics and foreign policy is a herd mentality, an inability to question assumptions or challenge conventional wisdom.

Was it always like this?  Perhaps something happened between the Vietnam war, the oil shocks of the 70s, and Reagan's overturning of FDR's New Deal consensus that left them traumatized, frightened rabbits, afraid to speak out of turn.  Or perhaps it's just that in the last 30 years, life has been good for these elites.  Good salaries, BMW SUV, big house in Westchester, why rock the boat?

Of course a large part of it is an amazing arrogance, the ability to completely overlook colossal failures like Iraq and the Wall Street meltdown and continue life as usual.  I'm guessing that some of that arrogance is because most of these people are just not very bright (perhaps good technicians, like Geithner, but unable to rethink their working assumptions).  Perhaps there is a sense of noblesse oblige, that they are the scions of nouveau riche upper middle class parents who are born to be part of the ruling elite.  Something that was less true in years gone when many leading politicians really did come from nothing.

I'd exclude Presidents from this, since I consider them primarily as actors playing a part in a piece of theater financed by their backers.  Except the Bushes, who actually may be the epitome of what I am thinking of.  And FDR is the exception, the Patrician who by all accounts would have been a very different President where it not for the experience of his crippling polio.

I don't think the elites can continue to ignore their failures.  I believe Sirota has suggested that if change does not come from the Left, it will come from the Right.  And certainly if I was betting on the next agent of change, Ron Paul or someone like that could be the Real Deal.

God help us all.


America's elites (4.00 / 2)
are surely broken.  It's a general western disease, but at its most advanced in America.

[ Parent ]
Not everywhere (0.00 / 0)
Norway seems to work well.

[ Parent ]
banking on the birthers (0.00 / 0)
i think the Democrats are counting on the Republicans continuing to be too crazy for people to turn to them. we'll take the lying toady over the foaming rabid batshit loon. the problem with that is that 1) it doesn't always work and 2) when it fails we end up governed by batshit loons. who would never have come close to winning but for the incompetence of their opponents.

not everything worth doing is profitable. not everything profitable is worth doing.






Donate to Open Left




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

QUICK HITS
SEARCH

   

Advanced Search