Skip to main content

View Diary: Are The Dour Democratic Projections About 2010 Justified? (334 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Isn't the 2010 election (7+ / 0-)

    not even on most non-Kossian people's radars?

    An event in summer 2010 is more likely to determine our prospects for holding onto seats than what is happening in August 2009.

    "If you can't afford a boat, and are standing tiptoe in the water, the rising tide goes up your nose." -- Barney Frank

    by JanF on Sun Aug 23, 2009 at 10:02:57 AM PDT

    •  At this time 4 years ago (10+ / 0-)

      Some of us were looking for a possible Dem takeover of the House.  It was just before the election when most of the pundits saw it coming, and Karl Rove never did.

      The thing foir the Dem leadership to consider is that the progressives are all in safe districts.  It is the people who are in swing districts who are vulnerable, and they are more likely to be hurt by a decline in enthusiasm and a feeling of betrayal if health care does not get done.  In the end they are more likely to fold if the progressives hold firm.

      The problem for the GOP, though, is that it is deeply unpopular outside the South.  Those higher ratings in the South skew their national numbers, but those are mostly safe seats.  The Dems have picked off most of the swing seats--only a few remain.  But it is hard to see the "Party of No" winning many swing seats, unless there is real anger at the Dems, or something unexpected happens, like a real worsening of the economy (double dip recession as bad as the first dip).  The economy, I think, is what could derail the Dems, plus a failure to pass health care.

      It is really early, but the GOP has not had much recruiting success, indicating they aren't nearly as sanguine as their bloviating suggests, and their leadership is really weak and unattractive.  

      The current majority is really the Dems to lose.  I don't see it increasing, though.

      Democracy needs accountability. Investigate and prosecute the Torture Thirteen.

      by Mimikatz on Sun Aug 23, 2009 at 10:22:57 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  "decline in enthusiasm" (7+ / 0-)

        I see that as something that might actually be a cause of concern at this point in the election cycle.

        If you disappoint people and their enthusiasm declines, you will find it harder to get them excited in summer 2010 when you need their help.

        Enthusiasm is something that needs to stay at a more or less constant level like blood sugar.

        "If you can't afford a boat, and are standing tiptoe in the water, the rising tide goes up your nose." -- Barney Frank

        by JanF on Sun Aug 23, 2009 at 10:31:26 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Unfortunately (4+ / 0-)

          "needing their help" is either something Rahm and his ilk don't grasp, or else they assume they'll always have it b/c the base has nowhere else to go.

          Disdain for ordinary people who believe in things is a serious condition for a politician--especially a Democrat, given that the Democratic party will always have less big donors than their counterparts.

          "This is our time. We must be relentless. Even if (or when) Obama seems like he doesn't have our back...we know what we believe in." philipmerrill

          by SouthernLiberalinMD on Sun Aug 23, 2009 at 11:06:18 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I totally agree (0+ / 0-)

            I said it a couple of weeks ago, and I'll say it again.  The campaign to paint all those people attending those town halls as some kind of a vast organized right-wing conspiracy was a monumental error in judgement.  

            When you looked out at those crowds, and saw that the majority were middle-aged and senior people, it was a ludicrous argument.  All it served was to insult those people, as well as the millions watching at home, and make them intransigent.  After that, there was no way they were ever going to be won over, regardless of how wonderful the product.

            The basic maxim of marketing is: "Never insult someone whom you're trying to sell something to."

            It was only rivalled by that brain-dead "fishy email" idea.  UGH! Whover came up with that one really should be fired. ....Yeah that's a good way to win over wavering people especially seniors.  Come up with what was easily characterized as a George Orwellian 1984 list....  Then after that explain to them that trust you that cuts to medicare won't negatively affect them.  Good call, good call.

            •  How did the WH insult them? (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Matt Z

              I didn't hear any of that coming from the President or members of the administration. I heard it mostly from Dem strategists in the media and public option supporters in the House.

              And I agree with them for the most part - I think the most vocal were a part of organized wingnut groups sponsored by the usual suspects.

              However, you raise a good point with "Never insult someone whom you're trying to sell something to."

              Now, should that apply to the blue dogs and conservative / moderate Dems? Judging from the majority of responses here, my guess would be no.

              But we need to persuade enough of them in the Senate to vote for the public option to get it passed. What should the tactics be? Threats, blackmail, "you're a stupid corporate DLC whore!!!!", etc.?

              Or should the WH try to show that they are on their side and understand their concerns before putting the full press on for support?

          •  Yes, but big difference between (3+ / 0-)

            "no where else to go" and "pumped up and ready to go door to door".

            That is what they are risking.

            "no where else to go" will get you that person's vote but "pumped up and ready to go door to door" will get you another dozen or so votes (hundred or so?).

            Obama did not get votes by sending out an email to everyone to vote for him. He got them by energizing his organization to go get others to vote for him as well.

            "If you can't afford a boat, and are standing tiptoe in the water, the rising tide goes up your nose." -- Barney Frank

            by JanF on Sun Aug 23, 2009 at 11:51:25 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  Yeah, as some colleagues and I were (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        JanF, kaolin, De Rat Bastert

        discussing a few weeks ago, ironically, it's the damned Blue Dogs and conservaDems who are likely to suffer most from their own frakking obstructionism.

        "This is our time. We must be relentless. Even if (or when) Obama seems like he doesn't have our back...we know what we believe in." philipmerrill

        by SouthernLiberalinMD on Sun Aug 23, 2009 at 11:04:39 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Actually, (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      JanF, CParis

      the playing field for congressional elections is largely set a year out.  Since a vast majority of incumbents win reelection in even the worst of times, the real question is who is retiring, and who will be running for the open seats.  And, for the few vulnerable incumbents, do they have a credible challenger?  

      But you're right in the broader sense that it's way too early to know how the playing field will shape up.

      I hated Lou Dobbs before it was cool.

      by cardinal on Sun Aug 23, 2009 at 10:35:51 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site