Weirdest political cycle ever?

by: Mike Lux

Wed Sep 01, 2010 at 13:30


This has been a pretty weird political cycle, and I'm starting to wonder whether it is the strangest ever. There have certainly been cycles that have been more dramatic- such as the 1968 cycle of assassinations and a powerful incumbent being taken out by a quirky intellectual troubadour- but in terms of pure weirdness, this could be the tops. And I'm not even talking about Sarah Palin or Glenn Beck.

The weirdness I am referring to is this odd sense I have that both parties are trying so hard to lose. Obama started out the cycle by appointing one of the main architects of the incredibly unpopular Bush bailout plans- Tim Geithner- to be his chief economic policymaker and spokesman, and followed that by re-appointing Bush's Fed chief Ben Bernanke. Now that we're into campaign season, the message group closest to the Democratic establishment (Third Way) is solemnly advising us to avoid being too populist in a year when anger at the banks and other corporate CEOs is as high as it has been since the 1930s, and the aforementioned Geithner writes columns bragging about economy recovery when the official unemployment rates remains stalled at close to 10%, and the true unemployment rate is several points higher. While all this goes on policy-wise, the White House political strategy in a year when their base is disheartened seems mainly to be to make their base even more upset.

In the meantime, the Republican Party- faced with an incredible opportunity- nominates one candidate after another that are beyond-the-pale extremists. Senators with lifetime scores of 95% from the American Conservative Union and protégés of Mitch McConnell and James Watt are not conservative enough for the Republicans: they nominate people who want to repeal civil rights laws, phase out Social Security and Medicare (or declare them unconstitutional), abolish the minimum wage, and secede from the union. On top of that, with the critically important Hispanic community disheartened by no progress on immigration reform and the weak economy, Republicans have seized on a way to help Democrats turn them out in huge numbers with a big Democratic vote by supporting a fundamental blow to their civil rights in Arizona, a powerful symbol that has the Hispanic voting bloc nationwide suddenly more energized.

As a result of all this silliness, both parties' approval ratings are in the toilet. This is a pretty unusual dynamic. In 1994, Republicans' popularity was going up as Dems were going down, and in both 2006 and 2008, Dems' numbers were going up while Bush and Republicans' numbers in general were tanking. Today, two months out from the big election, voters are ticked off at both parties, and that's before the fall attack ad season.

What's a Democratic candidate to do in this weird and awful political environment?

Each race is different, but here's my advice going into the last couple of months:

1.      Get out every last Democratic base voter you can. There's a tendency when you get in trouble in a campaign and have trouble moving voters to throw more and more money into TV. And of course, a lot of consultants who make their money off TV ads will feed that tendency: hey, if 1,000 points a week worth of ads isn't moving voters, maybe 1,500 will; if 1,500 isn't doing it, maybe if we throw 2,000 at them it will do the trick. But in a year like this, it is going to be very hard to move swing voters in a bad mood. Yes, you have to stay on TV to stay competitive, but every spare dime you have should go into bringing extra base voters to the polling places. Based on everything I am seeing in the polls and focus groups, convincing African-Americans, Latinos, unmarried women and youth who like Democrats to come vote will be challenging, but easier than switching the votes of angry white working-class swing voters.

2.      Show independence from Obama, but not in a way that undermines the Democratic brand and turns off base voters. The instinct for a lot of candidates will be to show they are independent from Obama by denouncing the health care bill or the climate change bill or other core aspects of the Democratic Party's identity, but it's a dangerous game because it weakens the party and depresses the base vote in a year when the last thing you want to do is either of those. A better strategy in terms of showing your independence is to be more populist than Obama: go after Tim Geithner, like Tom Perriello just did; talk about how the health insurance bill wasn't tough enough on drug or insurance companies; talk about how the financial reform bill's problem was that it didn't break up the banks. Working-class swing voters and base Democrats will both respond to these ways of showing you aren't in Obama's pocket.

3.      Show your anger at the special interests, but also have a substitute plan for improving things. MoveOn's polling showed that 89% of voters said it was very important that a candidate for Congress commits to reducing the influence of lobbyists, and 62% said they were more likely to support a candidate that commits to limiting the influence of large corporations in how the government runs. Those are incredibly high numbers, and the anger people show in focus groups at the big banks and insurance companies and oil companies show that those feelings are close to the surface. But angry populism alone won't get it done, because people want to know what your plan is for creating jobs and rebuilding the economy. A plan to take government back from corporate special interests, combined with a plan to invest in manufacturing jobs and small business entrepreneurialism, is critical to surviving politically this year.

4.      Be specific in going after waste in government. Voters are convinced there is a lot of waste in government, and in fact there is. Democratic candidates should not reflexively defend all government spending, or talk about waste generically because that feeds the Republican attack machine. Show voters you understand that there is waste in government, and that you are going to do something about it: take on the no-bid and sloppy contracting, big agribusiness subsidies, oil company subsidies, tax breaks for creating jobs overseas, and other forms of abuse and waste that costs hundreds of billions of dollars a year. When government isn't working right, Democrats don't need to automatically defend it: our goal isn't bigger government; it is a government on the side of the American people.

In spite of the Republican extremists being nominated, this is going to be an incredibly tough year to be a Democrat on the ballot. We are going to lose a lot of seats in both houses of Congress and downballot as well. But if Democrats turn out their base voters, take on the big banks and insurers and oil companies, and show they are focused on fighting for the middle class, they can hold their losses to a minimum.

Mike Lux :: Weirdest political cycle ever?

Tags: , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
a couple other suggestions (0.00 / 0)
Mike, I would also suggest picking a fight with Wall Street (over Elizabeth Warren and/or the cat food commission).  I still don't understand why Speaker Pelosi doesn't just gather up a few of her House and other allies and announce her own jobs program, targeted towards young people (CCC?) and women.  And, of course, nationalize the Social Security cuts issue (if we can get the Dems to just say no)...

Men (4.00 / 1)
Actually, it is young*, non-college educated men that are being hit hardest by this recession.  "Female jobs" are doing relatively well compared to construction and male dominated manual labor jobs.

[* also the older, over 50, less educated men are being hit very hard.]


[ Parent ]
Weird but Understandable (4.00 / 2)
People blame both parties, but for different reasons.
They blame the Democrats for not getting us out of this mess.
They blame the Republicans for getting us into it in the first place.

I have some additions to your list.

Don't blame Bush blame the Republicans at least for economics. It was the failure of the basic economic philosophy not the implementation of it.

Challenge the premise by posing the question. Why didn't it work? You cut taxes and the jobs didn't follow. Clinton raised taxes on upper incomes and millions of jobs were created and the deficit turned to surplus. You argue that Wall street needs its pay and bonuses to attract the best talent and tell us teachers make too much.

Highlight the Democratic diversity. Democrats don't automatically fall in line. While that makes progress slower and incomplete it does the same for failure. Its safe to vote for Democrats because even when they are wrong there is time to fix it, unlike the lock step over the cliff Republicans.    


Spending (4.00 / 1)
How about defense spending?  That, above all, needs to be cut.

Defense spending == inefficient foreign aid (0.00 / 0)
The only agreement about budget cutting is everyone wants to cut foreign aid.  (They'd like it to be only 5% of the budget; currently it is about 1%...  ah, anyways...)  

If defense spending can be shown to be particularly inefficient foreign aid, trivially obvious in the case of our wars but partially true elsewhere, it might be easier to sell.


[ Parent ]
it is a big problem .. (4.00 / 3)
Now that we're into campaign season, the message group closest to the Democratic establishment (Third Way) is solemnly advising us to avoid being too populist in a year when anger at the banks and other corporate CEOs is as high as it has been since the 1930s, and the aforementioned Geithner writes columns bragging about economy recovery when the official unemployment rates remains stalled at close to 10%, and the true unemployment rate is several points higher.

The problem is that the center-right, which is what the DLC is, has the money ... which is why we won't be as successfuk as the TeaParty .. and it's also why the Democrats will continue to suffer the fate that people are predicting .. we have to find a way to dump the current "Democratic Establishment"


Damn it!! ... (0.00 / 0)
I wish there was a way to edit a post

[ Parent ]
I think Lux is well aware of Third Way messaging (4.00 / 1)
[cough]

[ Parent ]
Your #s 3 & 4 are critical (0.00 / 0)
Having a plan for the future is as important for Democrats as it is for Republicans.  We already know the Republicans of the 2010s haven't got anything new that the Republicans of the 1990s had.  Unfortunately for Democrats, it doesn't appear that they have much in the way of viable solutions either.  Do elected Dems want solid progress or will they continue to be satisfied with being less Republican than Republicans?

Specificity about those plans is as critical as stating them in the first place.  Drop the wishy-washy b.s. and target one arena of waste, for instance.  You have a laundry list; it can't be that hard for Dems to pick one and hammer on it.  As usual, Dems' messaging is way behind the Cons'.

News like this is going to make it awfully hard to turn out the Dem base.  The Bayh-Dems are at it again.


Bush tax cuts (4.00 / 2)
Am I missing something?  If Congress does nothing, the tax rates for everyone, including the rich, will go back to pre-2001 levels.  If anything, it's the Bayhs and Nelsons of the Senate who'll have to scrounge up 60 votes to protect their precious millionaires from that dreaded three point tax increase.

That position makes sense, said Brian Vargus, a professor of political science at Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis, because Indiana is "an overwhelmingly Republican state ... and there is never support for taxes or public goods."

Never support for taxes or public goods, huh?  Okay, cool - let's relieve all Indianans of Social Security, Medicare, unemployment benefits and infrastructure funding, effective immediately.  And no military either - if someone invades Gary, those rugged individualists are on their own.


[ Parent ]
Democrats unlikely to repeal tax cuts for the rich (0.00 / 0)
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/201...

Why would a major party whose most important base is Corporate America and its millionaire adherents even think of letting their tax cuts lapse. Oh we will hear gnashing of teeth and outraged rhetoric but when the dust settles I think the "Party of the People" will remember which people really count.

And what will our insider's say then. Possibly the DLC and the center-right are again "winning the argument with progressive bloggers". ("Obama developed new messaging that was more convincing than the likes used by myself... or anyone else on the left who was making contrary arguments" Chris Bowers describing his argument with Obama and ultimately understanding Obama's superior political messaging...one of the world class stupidest commentaries I have read here or elsewhere.
http://openleft.com/diary/1806...


[ Parent ]
Yeah, that McClatchy article you posted was the one I was responding to (0.00 / 0)
If the Bush tax cuts will expire automatically, there is no need to pass legislation to raise taxes on the rich.

There does need to be legislation to extend tax cuts for the non-rich, and I suppose Nelson et al. could theoretically threaten to filibuster that bill unless it includes tax cuts for the rich as well.  But would that threat be taken seriously?  Nelson et al. stopping a tax cut bill because they adamantly... support more tax cuts...?

Not to mention that it'd be political suicide.  Many of these pro-rich Democrats are worried about the supposed electoral damage from raising taxes on the rich.  Logically speaking, stopping tax cuts for the non-rich because it doesn't include the rich doesn't help them at all.  And there's no way they could explain their way out of that one to the voting public ("I used a Senate procedure that only 26 percent of you understand to stop a bill that would keep tax cuts for the non-rich from expiring due to an arcane Senate procedure that allows us to override that aforementioned Senate procedure that only 26 percent of you understand because that bill didn't also keep the tax cuts for the rich from expiring due to the aforementioned arcane Senate procedure that allows us to override that aforementioned Senate procedure that only 26 percent of you understand... so yeah, I'm on your side, folks!").

As for Chris's post, I think you're being a little unfair.  Chris's main point was right: that Obama and his machine had taken over most of the progressive left, outside of a few pockets of resistance (of which I count myself proudly as a member) in places like OpenLeft and FDL.  Where I think he was wrong was his corollary that Obama's loyalty was actually well-deserved through a thoughtfully convincing message and platform, rather than simply a mindless devotion to a cool young hip black Democrat who speaks in platitudes and has will.i.am making remixes of his bomb-ass speeches.


[ Parent ]
because I respect your opinion (really) in your many comments (0.00 / 0)
I went back and reread the Bowers' post for the umpteenth time to see if I missed something. Perhaps I had. If I now understand the post better both Bowers and Obama were engaged in a debate. Bowers, in his self-description, tearing into Obama's execrable appointments...Obama following his center-right policies. Then Bower's says: "after about five weeks of high-exposure public argumentation on this front, polls began coming out showing that an almost absurd number (90%!) of self-identified Democrats approved of President Obama's transition.  And it wasn't just abstract numbers: even my Kucinich-supporting, sister-in-law-to-be sounded kind of peeved when she told me "you're not giving Obama a chance," or something to that effect"  So they had a fair debate. Bowers here on Open Left. Obama in his abode at the White House and Obama convinced more people than Bowers. I am shocked. Very surprised. (No, not really). I agree with you he does not say after that, that we should necessarily tone down our demands and our voice. That part i admit I took too casually...yet the tenor was to just go along with the Obama for himself at least. Others also caught this tone (Giordano, for example), and I think it came at a time when we needed most to be fighting Obama tooth and nail. Of course it is easier now since Obama has compiled such an unbelievable resume of crap, but some of our job is to be ahead of these occurrences. Thanks anyway. I did get something out of reviewing the Bowers' post.

[ Parent ]
Thanks, and you're welcome (0.00 / 0)
I do think it's important to be aware of our strengths and deficiencies as well as those of our enemies ("enemies" in this case being President Obama and his apparatus).  I think it was important for Chris to point out the painful truth that the Obama Empire dwarfed our little Rebel Alliance of progressivism.  At the same time, I think it was ludicrous to say with any degree of certainty that Obama "won" the argument through a fair and rational contest of ideas.  And Chris could not have picked a worse example than the transitional appointments.  Of course no one is going to disapprove of Obama before he had even taken office - I certainly wasn't, at that point, because it's not reasonable to criticize a President before he's even had a chance to do anything.

I think if you go back and look now, the progressive disapproval of Obama will be a little higher, but still not as high as it should be.  And that's not entirely because Obama's "convinced" them or whatever, but because people are ignorant, or apathetic, or complacent, or mindlessly devoted to the idea of Obama (i.e. a young black President - fuck it could be Kobe Bryant in there and they'd feel just the same), or peer-pressured.


[ Parent ]
one small observation (4.00 / 1)
concerning what I perceive as the unilateral disarming by the so-called progressive bloggers. It has had other effects also that concern me. In 2004, with Bush's reelection, Bush said he had political power indeed a mandate that came from the election and explicitly tried to privatize social security. Josh Marshall at Talking Points Memo webt into full campaign mode admirably organizing and fomenting opposition. Please contrast that episode then with the passive response at TPM and from Marshall now that it is Obama who is organizing the attack on social security. The response of self-styled bloggers to Obama's deceit and corruption has been nothing less than shameful.

[ Parent ]
I know; it's awful (0.00 / 0)
One of the biggest dangers in politics is letting something you hate slide because it's a Democrat who's proposing it.  I've been seeing A LOT of that since Obama took office and it's sickening.

[ Parent ]
Oh yeah, I can't believe I missed this gem the first time (emphasis mine) (0.00 / 0)
"The general rule of thumb is that you do not raise taxes or cut spending during an economic downturn. That would be counterproductive," Conrad said.

Really, Senator Conrad?  Let me print this quote out and pin it on to your spending-cutting ass.


[ Parent ]
The next phase isn't going to start until people start thinking about 'progressives' and 'non-progressives' (4.00 / 4)
even though partisan analysis is useful as a platform, it can't be the substance of things - for many of the reasons that you identify.  As a result, I think the call for distance and alternative solutions needs to go even further than you're saying in terms of self-understanding.  Progressives need to be progressives first before they are democrats in order for either progressives or democrats to be useful.

Shorter list (4.00 / 2)
I think your four items fall under one umbrella heading that I wish Democrats would just figure out, and I believe they would rally their base, see people flock to support them, and generally put the Republicans on the defensive:

1. Stop apologizing, backtracking and running from for core Democratic principals and instead embrace and run on them loudly, proudly and often.

IMO, not doing this is what has emboldened the GOP, depressed Dem voter enthusiasm, and cast the Dem party as weak.

If teaching is so easy, then by all means get your degree, pass your certification test(s), get your license, and see if you can last longer than the five years in the classroom 50% of those who enter the profession never make it to.


Nobody is going to believe anything they say, anyway. (4.00 / 2)
As I keep saying, what's their slogan?  "This time we really mean it."   They're going down, and DLC Obama and his blue dogs did it.  

[ Parent ]
Weirdness (0.00 / 0)
Lots of elections seem weirder than this one to me.  This one, for an election that promises a lot of changes, seems awfully blah.  If I had to compare it to any election in my memory it would be 1976.  The country was desperate for change.  Both sides were gaffe prone.  Really gaffe prone.  Lust in my heart.  Poland not dominated by the Soviets.  The Nixon pardon.  Rockefeller forced clumsily off the ticket.  Ford to City "Drop Dead."  Carter's hemming and hawing about abortion.

Weirder?  How 'bout 1948,1912,1896, and 1860.  How bout 1894.  Maybe 1958.  Lot of change there. The problem is that these are mostly Presidential years.  

Anytime that the incumbent President runs on a major party ticket and finishes a bad third has to be weird (1912).  That one also featured an assassination attempt where Teddy Roosevelt kept talking and talking after he was hit by a bullet for about an hour.  That's weird.  

As for 1896, Bryan was running essentially on two tickets with separate VP candidates.  Weird.  He ran as opposition to his own party's incumbent.  Weird.  The Gold Democrats (essentially allied to Cleveland) ran in a few states.  Weird.  Bryan was 36 years old.  Weird.  The Republicans, who won, lost ground from their monumental 125 seat House gains of 1894.  Weird.  The public seemed to blame both the Democrat Cleveland and the Republican Congress.

I could make a case, after the fact, for 1972.  Nixon was busily stealing an election that was a blow out.  The Democratic nomination became vicious and personal, at least in Chicago where it came down to the Daleys and the anti-Daleys.  The Daleys won the nomination battle easily but lost the war at the convention but won the tie-breaker by maintaining control of the state party.  McGovern gave the most eloquent acceptance speech of any 20th century Democrat but is better remembered for snapping "kiss my ass" to a reporter.  The Democratic veep had been treated with electroshock therapy.  Then he was gone. Wallace was shot during the primaries.  Watergate. That included dirty tricks like the Canuck letter as well as the break-in.

I remember 1972.  Personally.  All the ones before 1960 my memories are from books.


Agree with #4 (4.00 / 2)
Except for this part

When government isn't working right, Democrats don't need to automatically defend it: our goal isn't bigger government; it is a government on the side of the American people.

No, our goal is a government that actively works on the side of the American people.  Conservatives want a government "on the side of the American people" too (obviously!); they just honestly believe that government is "on the side of the American people" when it does nothing... and who are we to tell them that they don't actually believe in the beliefs they hold?

As I told you on the other thread, the role of government and how active it should be in promoting the people's interests is very much the dividing fault line between liberals and conservatives.  Any attempt at reductions to banalities like "liberals love the American people and conservatives hate them!" needlessly insults conservatives, dumbs down our political discourse and completely misses the vital ideological distinctions between the two sides.


Show your anger at the special interests (4.00 / 3)
What's their slogan?   "And this time, we really mean it"?

They blew it.  Obama took a huge Democratic electoral victory and turned it into a huge political fail in less than 20 months.   Since bipartisanship is more important to them than their voters,  they can go get their votes from the Republicans and Wall Street.


#2 recommendation was exactly what Martha Coakley did not do (4.00 / 2)
~she KNEW that the failure to include the public option in the heakth care bill was a mistake with voters, that the attack on women's reproductive rights was wrong, that the announcement that middle class( read union) health care benefits will be taxed was the nail in her coffin  in addition to her horrible campaign tactics.

But could she say anything?

Not if she wanted campaign cash from big money Dem donors controlled by Rahm......he made her travel to DC for a fundraiser and Scott Brown's videographers were there turning her appearance into a campaign commercial.

She needed to exert her 'independence' and she couldn't or wouldn't which equalled defeat.

That's my take on it after speaking to voters( MA resident)


Yeah, we've kinda reached the point where "Republican" means "crazy"… (4.00 / 1)
...but unfortunately, "Democrat" no longer means anything. So far, this is the truest (and most illuminating) failure of the Obama presidency. He talked Democratic principles on the campaign trail, but has governed pretty much in opposition to them, just like Bill Clinton did. I've been saying that the GOP was rolling the dice to get to the midterms ever since Obama was elected. What I didn't realize is that the corporate Dems are doing precisely the same thing.  

"This ain't for the underground. This here is for the sun." -Saul Williams

USER MENU

Open Left Campaigns

SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

QUICK HITS
STATE BLOGS
Powered by: SoapBlox