Liberal Hype: Democrats

Showing posts with label Democrats. Show all posts

"All Politics is Local" or How the Republicans Won the Midterms

One of the best-known political sayings, especially for Congressional campaigns, is the oft-quoted "all politics is local"- meaning that running on an individual candidate basis and on each incumbent's personal record is always more effective than running as a group of candidates with a national party platform. Well, here's the biggest lesson Democrats can learn from Tuesday night: all politics is not local. The Democrats ran very, very local campaigns- every ad, every speech was about the race-specific candidates and the local issues. But if there can ever be an all-or-none winner in politics, the Democrats lost this year. The Republicans, on the other hand, commanded a 'wave' election; their nationally-minded campaigns energized voters and turned independents against Democrats they had supported just two years earlier.
The Republican strategy was hardly surprising. For months- ever since a several page document on Republican talking points was leaked to Politico- it has been understood how the Republicans would run for the midterms. Essentially, each Republican candidate this year ran a miniature piece of a national campaign against Barack Obama, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, and the National Democratic Party. They effectively set the national vocabulary (Obamacare), the national agenda, and demonized the Democratic leadership, most notably Nancy Pelosi.
And for the Republicans, it worked. If this had been a presidential election, Obama would have been defeated rather swiftly. For some reason, the Democrats seemed to have forgotten how to win an election cycle, a skill they had mastered only two years ago, and this new inability to participate in politics in mirrored in Democratic actions in Congress. For a group of people who run on platforms where the individual issues are incredibly popular and have passed reforms of all types- health care, banking regulation, credit, pay equality, student loan- the Democrats are completely unable to sell their platform. If the Democrats cannot sell their agenda, they will be hard-pressed to find Republicans who want to compromise with them. If Democrats cannot sell their agenda, they had best look forward to another election just like this one- or worse.
So, Democrats, learn to partake in real politics. It may not always be the most graceful way to pass your far-reaching plans, but with a new Republican majority in the house, it may be the only way to do so.

0 com

Popular Populists

Democratic ads heading into the midterms have taken an odd, if not unexpected turn. Liberals and left-leaning moderates have feverishly distanced themselves from the majority party's impressive political accomplishments this year and set themselves up to be angry, populist-style advocates for disenchanted voters, especially Republican ones. Some don't even note being a Democrat (Rep. Glenn Nye's, D-VA, rather conservative seeming video is below). The assumption, at least in Washington, is that the anti-incumbent, and, to a lesser extent, the anti-Democrat, sentiment in the country this voting cycle is so strong that detaching oneself from the many policy goals which were completed last year is the only way to survive the midterms.
To the contrary: many voters' biggest issue with the last Congress is what they consider its inability to bring progress to the nation. A representative who absolves him or herself of responsibility for what is, in actuality, an impressive repertoire of accomplishments, does not help their chances of re-election. If anything, they hurt them. Voters want to see something being done to fix the problems in America. Oftentimes, any action is better than no action
"Its about the conservative movement hating the Republican establishment," Rachel Maddow said of the supposed anti-incumbent attitude. She noted that there was no real comparison in the Democratic party. If this is true- and there are many examples of it being so (Delaware, for instance), then the fear among Democrats shouldn't be that they appear to be, well, Democrats. It should be that they appear to have wasted away the last year.
And they haven't. The Democratic congress accomplished a lot this year, and, for all of the legislations' faults, several of the decades-long Democratic goals were met. Truthfully, if the Democrats cannot learn to focus on their progress and the great things passed this year, they will lose the House, because voters- especially the much sought-after moderates- don't really care if you're a Democrat or a Republican. They care if you're getting things done.

Rep. Glenn Nye (D- VA): Path

0 com

How to Win in 2012

Democrats have had a hard year. It's probable that Democrats will have a hard midterm election and a tough 2012 presidential race. Already, at this year's CPAC, Republican challengers have begun to emerge. In the CPAC straw poll, Ron Paul, Mitt Romney, Sarah Palin, and Tim Pawlenty all got sizable portions of the vote. Even though the CPAC vote was split, if the Republican Party is able to put up a unified front behind a strong candidate in 2012, the Democratic Party will have a very difficult time winning the election, even with an incumbent.
So the key to Democratic victory becomes isolating the Republican Party into two lesser groups: the 'traditional' fiscal Republicans who are likely to support someone like Romney, and the more polarized, 'tea party' Republicans. However, splitting Republican votes in the primary will only go so far- the Republicans are very skilled at party unification. The DNC must work to split conservative votes in the general, with the introduction of a third party candidate.

Similarly to this year's election in the 23rd district of New York, in order to ensure Democratic victory, the 'tea party', or a similar third party radical conservative group, needs to nominate their own candidate in the general election. New York's 23rd district is a case study in when this works for Democrats. A district which had been a Republican stronghold for years quickly flipped Democrat when the tea party candidate was a challenger in the general. If the same effect is replicated in 2012, the Democrats will easily win the presidency.
The DNC needs to take steps to ensure the nomination of a third party candidate. Some portion of Democratic campaign funds ought to be passed directly onto the tea party. It is imperative that the second challenger is a strong one, able to garner enough votes to significantly impact the Republican candidate.

0 com

Why We Need More Anthony Weiners in the Democratic Party

Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-NY) is one of the most passionate and over-the-top orators in Congress. Wednesday in the House, Weiner fervently declared that "every single Republican [he] had ever met in [his] life is a wholly owned subsidiary of the insurance industry." Although many may disagree with Rep. Weiner's statements, they certainly have an impact.
One of the Democrat's most fundamental issues is their inability to convey their views and opinions to voters. Often, Democrats are completely unable to get the American public to be aware of the issues important to the Democratic party and are just as unable to explain to their constituants what Republicans are doing wrong. Expressing party opinion is something Republicans excel at, as they know how to make noise about any issue and how to garner public attention.
In many cases, Democrats keep emotion out of their rhetoric and, therefore, make their message unreachable by American voters. The Democratic members of Congress need to allow their speeches to become more emotional if they want their platform to stay relevant to the American public.
If more Democrats begin to speak as Weiner or his colleague Barney Frank, who compared an angry constituant to a dining room table last year, do, they will have a greater change of staying competitive in the national debate with Republicans. It may not be the nicest or cleanest way to get your point across, but in this political climate, where cutting through all the other noise is paramount, it could be the most effective.

0 com

And The Winner Is...

Yesterday, following a long and poorly run campaign to recapture Ted Kennedy's old Senate seat, the Democratic Caucus lost their sixty seat super-majority. This super-majority was the Democratic key to health care reform, and potentially the only way to pass their extraordinarily ambitious agenda.
So what are the Democrat's options? The party could pass bills using the controversial method of budget reconciliation, but many Democrats don't wish to be seen as 'cheating the system' They could lower the ambitions of their agenda, but the Democratic base would react pugnaciously.
The Democrats are stuck between real reform and numbers, their agenda and an increasingly angry base. Only time will tell how the new Senate handles itself, but it's going to be a difficult ride either way. Without a filibuster-proof majority, health care reform's future seems incredibly bleak.

0 com

Joe Lieberman's Health Care

All members of Congress who are planning to vote for the newly Lieberman-affected health care are essentially putting the attractiveness of passing a bill over cost-effective and productive content. This bill currently has no viable option as an alternative to private health care insurance, it does not extend Medicare to those over 55, and it does not seriously limit the powers of insurance companies, rather, it imposes weak regulation upon them and forces all Americans to purchase over-expensive private insurance.

The simple math of it is that the Democrats need sixty votes to pass health care reform in the Senate- their entire caucus. Joe Lieberman, Ben Nelson, and Kent Conrad are some of the few final senators needed to support the bill. Nelson and Conrad seemed willing to vote for the trigger public option and the extended Medicare bill, but Lieberman said he would vote with the Republicans against cloture. Because of Lieberman, the bill was watered down to its current, completely unproductive form.

If Lieberman proves unwilling to support the old bill- the one with extended Medicare and a public option, then he needs to be removed as chairman of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee.