Just another reason (0.00 / 0)

to articulate a new paradigm, a new Democratic world view, rather than operating, as did Clinton and does Obama, out of the Reaganite world view.  So long as we play on their ideologic playing field, we plant the seeds of defeat.

Paul Rosenberg says this far more articulately with his posts on hegemony.

The best thing you do Chris is not you "balls and strikes" Congressional election analysis.  It is when you try to break down that hegemony, when you say things can be different, we can see the world differently and can MAKE the world differently.      

---

by: Tom Wells @ Mon Aug 03, 2009 at 15:50:26 PM UTC

Not really about strategy, at least in the short term (4.00 / 2)

I don't think it is really about strategy or image in this case, at least in the short term. It isn't really about policy either, except to the degree that policy affects people's lives.

Democratic support has slipped because the economy continues to weaken. No strategy, or framing, or suggested alternate path for the Democratic Party will change that in the short term.

If the economy gets better for most people, Democratic support will go up. If it gets worse for most people, it will go down.

It is about the economy, and nearly all of the policy to combat the struggling economy before the 2010--and even the 2012 elections--has already been implemented. The stimulus and the bailout have already been passed. The non-health care portions of the budget already have enough votes to pass. Many of the major provisions of the health care legislation won't take effect until 2013. With cap and trade, the timeline is even longer.

For the elections immeidately over the horizon, it is a lot of sitting and waiting right now. The strategy discussions, and even the current major policy debates, are longer term struggles at this point. I am on board with longer term struggles, but looking at the 2010 and 2012 playing field is still valuable and interesting.

---

by: Chris Bowers @ Mon Aug 03, 2009 at 16:02:34 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Certainly. Not at all (0.00 / 0)

meant as a criticism.  It was a compliment.  I am fine with your work regarding the 2010 and 2012 playing field.

Perhaps I poorly stated it, but it sincerely was meant as a compliment for your overall body of work.  

---

by: Tom Wells @ Mon Aug 03, 2009 at 16:20:03 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I don't think it is quite a simple as the pocket book Chris (4.00 / 1)

I think it is that there were lofty expectations for the Obama administration and people are feeling he is not living up to the billing.

Issue after issue he has either back-pedaled or softened his tone or outright avoided.

Health care is his chance to really make his mark. If we get some shitty bill with a watered down or possibly no public option we can kills the next two cycles goodbye.

---

by: Jon Niola @ Mon Aug 03, 2009 at 16:23:03 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Why are you using Rasmussen? (+8.7 to +8.0 w/o) (4.00 / 2)

It's not the election season, therefore his polling is still inaccurate.  You have to wait until a few months, or weeks, before the election for him to turn the switch on accuracy.

The Pollster.com graph without Rasmuseen is 45.4 voting Democrat and 37.4 voting Republican.

The gap is virtually unchanged from the data you presented above: Dem +8.7 to Dem +8.0.

I don't understand why no one has placed a R next to his organization.  As far as I'm concerned, we should just be calling his organization Raspublican.

---

by: russtc3 @ Mon Aug 03, 2009 at 16:39:39 PM UTC

Halleluiah!!! (0.00 / 0)

I looked at the numbers and immediately thought the same thing.  Outside of election season (months to weeks before an election) Ras is a push pollster.  Since few polling firms are currently doing the generic ballot, his numbers (+3 and +4 R over the past couple months - only pollster with an R advantage) are severely skewing the data.  I know Chris has proclaimed that he no longer picks and chooses the numbers he likes most - has said it burned him in '04 - I would still say that overtly partisan pollsters (especially prolific ones like Ras with new polls every week to skew the overall data) should be taken with a very large grain of salt (I'm talked a 2 ton grain here).  

p.s.  love the 'accuracy switch' comment.

---

by: HalLew @ Mon Aug 03, 2009 at 17:29:00 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

This Relates To My Post Yesterday (4.00 / 1)

Though not exactly the same thing, and only from a single source, the same sort of movement can be seen in DKos partisan approval polls I posted about yesterday--Republicans in fact continue losing approval, but Dems doing so as well.

While the economy is obviously the main driver here, two other factors need to be considered:

(1) Republicans are much more brand loyal, which includes a greater likelihood to vote, no matter what. (Last year was a refreshing break from that pattern, but it's no gimme that it will happen again.) This is why, for example, GOP approval can continue to plummet without hurting them on the generic ballot matchup.

(2) A demonstrable fighting spirit in the face of economic bad times can ameliorate such losses. Which is why I think it lets Dems off the hook to say, "Well, people are just reacting to the bad economy."

"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

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Mon Aug 03, 2009 at 18:00:06 PM UTC

Those are the libertarians (0.00 / 0)

who thought Obama might actually depart from Bush-era policies.

Is anybody home in the White House? Or are they just phoning it in?

---

by: Paul Goodman @ Tue Aug 04, 2009 at 00:16:56 AM UTC