Great Post... (4.00 / 5)

...We have a mandate, but we don't have Carte Blanche. We should use the mandate wisely and quickly.

---

by: Iron Curtain @ Wed Dec 03, 2008 at 14:52:29 PM CST

We will... (0.00 / 0)

...they are already getting legislation ready to get through congress and signed quickly...

REID: Voting against us was never part of our arrangement!
SPECTER: I am altering the deal! Pray I don't alter it any further!
REID: This deal keeps getting worse all the time!

---

by: lord_mike @ Wed Dec 03, 2008 at 15:10:13 PM CST

[ Parent ]

The wording of the poll... (4.00 / 1)

...means that it doesn't mean exactly what everyone thinks it means.

Look at it this way. The Dems have 58 Senate seats and an 80-vote majority in the House. The average Joe on the street is not going to be convinced that Republicans can block Obama's agenda even if they wanted to. Yes, we know that Republicans are much more unified that Democrats and may be able to hold a filibuster on occassion, but the average Joe and Jane wouldn't buy that excuse. They'd say "You have 58 votes and can't get it done, what's wrong with you?" And actually, they'd be right. The Republicans ran wild with 55 votes from 2004-2006.

So even someone who agrees with Obama's agenda wouldn't be all that worried about Republican obstructionism, because it seems like such an unlikely proposition. The guy on the street would think that Democrats passing bad legislation (bailout, cough, bailout) is much more likely and worrisome than the negligable chances of a filibuster.

---

by: existenz @ Wed Dec 03, 2008 at 19:12:07 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Wow (4.00 / 1)

It really is a small internet, eh?

How ya doing, IC?

---

by: Kal @ Wed Dec 03, 2008 at 15:13:52 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Kalbelgarion? Is that you? (4.00 / 1)

I remember you! How's DC?

---

by: Iron Curtain @ Wed Dec 03, 2008 at 15:23:30 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Yep, it's me (4.00 / 1)

I'm enjoying it. I have a job with an affordable housing non-profit. I get to keep an eye on legislation moving through Congress and the Obama transition, among other things. It's great.

You still in NYC? (Go Giants!)

---

by: Kal @ Wed Dec 03, 2008 at 15:40:34 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Yes... (4.00 / 1)

I'm looking to get a job with the Living Tongues Institute. I graduated from NYU with a major in Linguistics and a minor in Comp. Sci. Things are looking up for me personally!

---

by: Iron Curtain @ Wed Dec 03, 2008 at 15:46:40 PM CST

[ Parent ]

And if things go well for USA the next four years... (4.00 / 2)

the GOP is screwed.  

John McCain won't insure children

---

by: magster @ Wed Dec 03, 2008 at 15:04:30 PM CST

Disagree (4.00 / 2)

And Chuck Todd disagrees with you as well...

1992 and 2008 are like apples and oranges.  Clinton didn't win a majority, there was the perot "reofrm" movement, and the democratic congress had been tainted by scandal and longevity.  Rush Limbaugh was new and fresh activist movement, and Republicans still had a good name.  Redistricting favored Republicans and many Dixiecrats had not made the switch, yet...

Clinton also did not start out with a 75% approval rating by Gallup.

People are rooting for Obama... the crisis is deep and complicated... they are going to give him some slack, certainly more than two years...  Chuck Todd is adamant about it, and I am, too... I've never seen so much goodwill towards an incoming president...  

And yes, the memories of Bush will fade, but the republican party's brand name won't recover as quickly, especially if you've got people like Palin as their spokesperson...  The U.S. congress had been solidly republican for 12 years... We have been in charge the last two... if we weren't getting a grace period, how did we manage to gain so many seats with a sub 20% congressional approval rating?

The tide is with us, not against us like it was in 1992...  it's not going to wash out in two years...  We had a minority president back then... when republicans co-opted perot's message and visions of Reagan, they were able to win big in 1994 and beyond...

Now, if Obama messes up his first two years as badly as Clinton did, then maybe we have a problem, but I find that unlikely...

REID: Voting against us was never part of our arrangement!
SPECTER: I am altering the deal! Pray I don't alter it any further!
REID: This deal keeps getting worse all the time!

---

by: lord_mike @ Wed Dec 03, 2008 at 15:09:25 PM CST

Agree that the hot seat is now (4.00 / 3)

But I think that is largely because of the dire straits the country (and world) are in, in general, Chris.

I don't know that the special election in Georgia has any more meaning, though, than acknowledging that was an uphill and losing battle from the get go. The part of the south that is hard core right (and white) is far more easily mobilized in these circumstances than anything the Dems could have put together. Frankly, Obama coming within 5 points on election night and Chambliss being forced to a run-off was damn near a miracle, and the result of a lot of hard work. The let-down following that and the natural strength Repubs still have in Georgia (outside of Atlanta) made that race last night damn near impossible.

I don't know that it is easily linked to the hot seat the Dems are working with otherwise, though. Or that there is necessarily a repeatable map to follow for the Repubs from that particular special election.

---

by: membengal @ Wed Dec 03, 2008 at 15:13:07 PM CST

I don't read the poll questions the same way as you... (0.00 / 0)

...it just supports the idea that people want a few checks and balances in government to make sure that laws are well thought out in advance.  This is a natural tendency of the American electorate and explains some of our downticket problems this year.

These questions imply nothing about "getting bills fast that work quick", in fact they imply almost the opposite... that people don't want bills pushed too fast or take effect too quickly...


REID: Voting against us was never part of our arrangement!
SPECTER: I am altering the deal! Pray I don't alter it any further!
REID: This deal keeps getting worse all the time!

---

by: lord_mike @ Wed Dec 03, 2008 at 15:15:36 PM CST

Seriously (4.00 / 1)

I certainly don't want Congress to push through Obama-backed programs that are "bad", as the question says. If Obama proposed a baby-eating program, I'd want Congress to stop it right away.  

---

by: Kal @ Wed Dec 03, 2008 at 15:22:36 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Me Too... (4.00 / 1)

though it makes you think what kind of lobbyists would want a baby-eating bill passed...

---

by: Iron Curtain @ Wed Dec 03, 2008 at 15:30:08 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Yes, but (4.00 / 1)

Just as that "bad programs" option was kind of biased against Obama, the "politics and catering" option was biased for Obama...

I'd tend to look at that question mostly as a question about what kind of spin is going to be more effective-- i.e., even if Obama's programs were good Republicans will attack them as being bad programs that the Democrats are rubberstamping, even if Obama's programs are bad the Democratics will attack the people who oppose them for playing politics and catering to the special interests. What I'd take away from Chris's point here is that the Democrats' preordained spin at the moment is inherently weaker than the Republicans', and if the Democrats try to get by on spin they'll lose; and therefore the Democrats really are going to pass good programs and make sure they're good in a way which is visible to the public by 2010, so that they don't have to get by on spin.

---

by: mcc @ Wed Dec 03, 2008 at 15:38:41 PM CST

[ Parent ]

hell no (4.00 / 2)

babies is good eatin

---

by: Jason C. @ Wed Dec 03, 2008 at 16:32:23 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Anything you say, Fat Bastard...(j/k) (0.00 / 0)

---

by: Iron Curtain @ Wed Dec 03, 2008 at 17:11:03 PM CST

[ Parent ]

This all seems kind of obvious (4.00 / 1)

Unless the GOP successfully filibusters every major piece of legislation, the Democratic Party will have nobody to blame but themselves if they don't enact their agenda, and if they do enact their agenda, they'll have nobody to blame if it's not successful.

I don't have a firm grasp on how likely the GOP is to filibuster, or how frequently. (Now would be a GREAT time to flip a Republican senator.) If they are constantly filibustering, though, it will be easier to paint them as obstructionists.

2010 isn't that far away, so it might be unrealistic to expect Obama and the Dems to turn the country around in less than two years (Jan.2009-Nov.2010). Still there will have to be some noticeable improvement, or Dems will probably be punished in the mid-term elections.

By 2012 there will be no excuses. If Obama can't plausibly campaign for reelection on the basis that things are better than they were four years ago, he's probably toast, depending on who the GOP nominates.

---

by: Jason C. @ Wed Dec 03, 2008 at 15:18:21 PM CST

"Unless" (4.00 / 4)

Unless the GOP successfully filibusters every major piece of legislation, the Democratic Party will have nobody to blame but themselves if they don't enact their agenda, and if they do

And I'd add a little addendum to that... if the GOP does successfully filibuster every major piece of legislation, I'd be inclined to blame the Democratic Party for that, too, because if they can't find ways to overcome a filibuster while holding 57 Senate seats then what the heck are they doing up there?

---

by: mcc @ Wed Dec 03, 2008 at 15:26:01 PM CST

[ Parent ]

"A decent shot in a statewide election in Georgia" (0.00 / 0)

Bowers claims Jin Martin never had "a decent shot in a statewide election in Georgia," but he doesn't bother to explain why the incumbent Republican Senator couldn't win a majority in the general election, and Martin forced a run-off.

Bowers also doesn't explain why Martin was only 3 points behind in the polls on November 24.

It looks like "a decent shot" to me, and probably to anybody else who isn't committed to making excuses for Obama refusing to campaign for Martin.

Why did Obama blow off Georgia?

Maybe a bunch of Obama's true believers think Lester Maddox is still governor of Georgia, but Jim Martin forced a run-off, he was only 3 points behind in the polls November 24, and if Obama had taken 3 or 4 days to get out the vote, Martin had more than "a decent shot" to win.

What was Obama doing that was so important that he couldn't spare 3 or 4 days to fight for a filibuster-proof majority  in the Senate?

For the last two years, while Democrats had majorities in Congress, all they did was whine about how they didn't have enough votes to squelch a filibuster or override a veto, and when they finally get "a decent shot at it," Obama just blows it off!

Yeah, Obama paid for some mailings, but the RNC flooded TV with $2 million in ads attacking Martin.

What was Obama saving the rest of his $600 million money mountain to do?

Why didn't he spend a big chunk of it in Georgia?

We're not all stupid crackers down here, voting for the closest thing to Jefferson Davis in every election, but Matt and Chris seem to be living in 1960, when a progressive candidate really didn't have a chance in Georgia.

But in 1960 a black candidate also didn't have "a decent shot" at the Presidency, and a lot of other things have also changed in Georgia since the days of Jim Crow.  

---

by: Jacob Freeze @ Wed Dec 03, 2008 at 15:27:23 PM CST

The reason Chambliss did not get 50% (4.00 / 1)

Was the Libertarian on the ballot. If GA did not have a system that was originally put into place to keep blacks out of office, there would not have been a runoff to begin with.

---

by: RandySF @ Wed Dec 03, 2008 at 15:32:19 PM CST

[ Parent ]

The Libertarian got 3% (2.67 / 3)

Martin was strong in the polls through November 24, and he kept asking Obama to come down and help get out the vote.

Turn-out is everything in run-offs, and if Obama had told his enthusiastic African-American base down here to get out and give him the 60 vote majority in the Senate that he needs for real "change," Martin had an excellent chance to win.

But when it became obvious that Obama was giving up Georgia without a fight, Martin's campaign was dead in the water, and Matt admitted yesterday that he didn't even bother to raise money for Martin, since Obama had written off the run-off.

Why?

This was a close general election, and the winner of the run-off was going to be whoever got out the vote.

This is Obama's specialty, getting out the vote, but it looks like he only uses his special talents to promote himself, and the rest of us don't really matter.

At least, that's how it looks to a lot of us progressives in Georgia, and there are a heck of a lot more of us than Matt and Chris seem to think.

But we couldn't beat $2 million in negative ads by the RNC, and a general lack of enthusiasm in the base after it became obvious that Obama was giving up the 60-seat Senate majority without a fight.

---

by: Jacob Freeze @ Wed Dec 03, 2008 at 15:50:04 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I won't make excuses for Obama. (4.00 / 1)

I could explain that he was busy or not greedy or anything like that, but...

...no, you're right. Obama has no excuse. He didn't exactly win Georgia, but he has a high approval rating and I'm disappointed he didn't let his "shine" add to another democratic seat.  

---

by: Iron Curtain @ Wed Dec 03, 2008 at 15:33:51 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Please (4.00 / 1)

Your thesis is that Obama would have made up a 14-point discrepancy. Right.

---

by: Jason C. @ Wed Dec 03, 2008 at 16:33:53 PM CST

[ Parent ]

This guy was a long-time troll over at MyDD (0.00 / 0)

Just so you know.

---

by: NR @ Wed Dec 03, 2008 at 17:23:05 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Ah (0.00 / 0)

thank you.

---

by: Jason C. @ Wed Dec 03, 2008 at 23:35:11 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Jason C... Read the link! (0.00 / 0)

November 24 Martin was 3 points behind in the polls! There's a link to the Politico poll in my previous comment.

Martin's campaign fell apart at just about that point, when it was obvious Obama wasn't going to make a couple of quick flights down to Atlanta to help get out the vote, and the RNC was blanketing TV with a huge ad campaign, so a lot of Democrats stayed home.

That's why I emphasized getting out the vote, which Obama could do better than any other Democrat in recent history.

It wasn't 14 points November 24... It was 3 points, and a lot of people in Georgia, both Republicans and Democrats, thought Obama could make it extremely close.

Even November 30, it still looked close:

Polls show Martin trailing by three to five points, a gap that might be overcome in a run-off election, where voter turnout is the decisive factor. Many here say that if Obama came to Georgia to rally the African-American base, it would put Martin over the top. But Obama has shown little inclination to campaign. After the November election, the early talk was of how Georgia would serve as a post-victory test of Obama's "brand" - a chance to see whether his formidable campaign machine could rev up one more time and deliver a death blow to the GOP. But Obama's office has played no day-to-day role in assisting the candidate.

But in the event, Democratic turnout was pathetic, and most people down here in Georgia think that a big part of the reason was Obama giving up on the run-off without a fight.

---

by: Jacob Freeze @ Wed Dec 03, 2008 at 17:36:42 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Yes and No (4.00 / 2)

First, I would argue that 1992 and 2008 might be different in that 1992 was the beginning of the culture wars that we've hopefully gotten past for a while. Remember, 1994 was not so much about the economy as guns, gays in the military and the first Baby Boomer president in history. I'm not knocking baby boomers, but I think we'd be well advised to get past that generation so we don't have to go thorught it again. The Republicans tried to drag us back, but it's tough against someone born in 1961. Hopefully, we're entering a "Get It Done" era. That is why people are looking to Obama, and us, to fix the economy, get us out Iraq, clean up the planet and restore our standing in the world. And that is why I don't have any taste for ideoloigcal purity tests. If the end result attains the progressive gola of universal health care, I don't care if we take a pragmatic approach to getting it done. I don't think the American people do, either.

---

by: RandySF @ Wed Dec 03, 2008 at 15:30:09 PM CST

Riiiiiight... (4.00 / 2)

Democratic losses in the election of '94 were the result of having the first baby boomer president. Sure they were. Those losses had nothing at all to do with the House Banking Scandal or the Congressional Post Office Scandal or the indictment of the Democratic Chair of the House Ways & Means Committee, all while the Democratic Speaker was politely looking the other way. No, Congressional Democratic corruption had no role whatsoever.

It's too bad that the lessons of 1994 have been so easily shrugged off, especially given the price our country paid from '94 to '06. Some might think that there's a cautionary tale to be told, particularly after seeing the Republicans brought down by similar levels of greed and corruption 12 years later. Good to know it was just the boomers.

---

by: babaloo @ Wed Dec 03, 2008 at 18:26:28 PM CST

[ Parent ]

it's all about the filibuster (4.00 / 1)

Democrats have to either find ways to peel off Specter/Snowe/Gregg on a semi-regular basis or they have to ensure the country understands it is the Republicans obstructing the Change Obama promised.

Some have been laughing over the wingnut Club For Growth primary challenge looming over Specter.  Not me, since that will force him to burnish his Republican credentials and vote to filibuster.  

Martinez' decision to retire is either good or bad - he may be more willing to buck his party now that he has nothing to lose, or he may not give a shit that his state voted for Obama and filibuster away.  It depends where he really personally stands on these things.

The real threat is not that voters turn against Democrats, but that a lot of people who voted for "hope" and "change" get cynical and stay home.  Republicans love winning by default.  

But it's not 1992 and the chances of the GOP taking congress in 2010 are next to nil.

---

by: Daniel De Groot @ Wed Dec 03, 2008 at 15:40:36 PM CST

Specter seems particularly vulnerable (0.00 / 0)

being up for reelection in two years in a state that went double digits for Obama.  

---

by: Jason C. @ Wed Dec 03, 2008 at 16:34:43 PM CST

[ Parent ]

As smart people have also written, (4.00 / 6)

(maybe it was Marc Ambinder?), realignments aren't made by elections -- they are made by governance. People have won big elections before, but if they failed to deliver, the country turned against them. If they delivered in a big way, then it became a realignment.

In this case, I think, for Obama to achieve a realignment, he needs to (a) fix the economy, (b) fix healthcare -- both in a real, non-nominal way, so that they actually work well afterwards and people's lives are significantly improved. Fixing energy/environment and foreign policy/national security are also extremely and no less important, for the fate of the country and the world, but I don't think they have the same sort of immediate electoral impact.

---

by: illissius @ Wed Dec 03, 2008 at 15:58:40 PM CST

Oh good Lord, Chris. (4.00 / 3)

The reason Nate's thesis is so disturbing is that a new Democracy Corps poll shows he is probably correct.

Halloween is over; you can take off the Grim Reaper outfit.

Not that Obama's going to have an easy time of it, but you are predicting a "disturbing" turn of events based on a special statewide election in Georgia (which is so fucking far right that they thought Chambliss would be a good senator in the first place) and one poll. One. Poll.

We all know we have work to do, and we all know the GOP will have an opportunity to rebuild itself in the role of the minority party. Beyond that, this post is the sort of whinging that caused people to lose respect for Democrats in the first place--nail-biting so premature and so overwrought that one wonders why we should be entrusted with power.

---

by: epenthesis @ Wed Dec 03, 2008 at 16:52:14 PM CST

We need to govern well and not drag our feet (0.00 / 0)

of course we all need to look in the rear view mirror.  2010 will be a tough hoe for us here in Michigan. I walked precincts in 1994, Clinton was villified for two years straight.  Time called him the incredible shrinking President.  The GOP will absolutely be obstructionist.  Whatever goes wrong will be Obama's fault, whatever goes right will be because of actions Bush and Paulson did during thier last days in office.

None the less, we Democrats must govern well.  It will probably take a super human effort to turn the needle positive but we have to enact long term fixes on health care, energy, climate change, etc.  I'm confident that if we are methodical and thoughtful, the outlook will turn positive in 2010.  Short term band-aids to limp through 2010 will be counter productive.  We must continue to build up the progressive network that wasn't available in 1994 to push back against conservative populism.  Liberal populism is the way forward.  A strong progressive media network is one of the necessary legs of that stool.  

---

by: gaspare @ Thu Dec 04, 2008 at 07:41:28 AM CST