Skip to main content

By this point in the 2010 cycle, it is not a surprise to anyone that the forecasts for Democrats in this cycle are pretty dire. One quick tour around the websites for the leading election/horserace pundits tells you all you need to know about their perceptions of the current electoral landscape:

The End of Hope? -- Larry Sabato

Midterm Momentum is All GOP's -- Charlie Cook

28 House Seats Move Towards GOP -- Stu Rothenberg

Let's stipulate two things. One, all three of these gentlemen could well be correct. Our own Daily Kos Tracking Poll has data points that ought to give any Democrat indigestion, especially on voter intensity. Two, I am willing to give all three gentleman a pass on partisan motive. The fact that folks on both sides of the ideological fence have been quick to throw all three of these men under the "in the tank for the other side" bus tells me that they probably hit it down the fairway more often than not.

That said, the glum projections of all three prognosticators regarding the 2010 election cycle stands in stark contrast to the last two elections, including the last mid-term cycle.

Make no mistake--some of the tools used in forecasting elections in 2006 and 2008 painted a picture that was just as dire for the Republicans, if not more so, as 2010's trends appear to be for the Democrats.

Consider just two of those factors, often cited in the traditional media of signs of impending Democratic doom.

One is the relative popularity of the President. To be certain, our own tracking poll makes clear that President Obama's favorables took a sizeable hit after he took office. Not that this is unusual (the honeymoon inevitably ends), but the downward trend over the course of the year was real and substantial. That said, President Obama remains, even at the present trough in his approval numbers, more popular than President Bush was in January of 2006. Consider the stats: the most recent Pollster average job approval for the president is between 47-48%. Bear in mind, that includes Rasmussen, a pollster whose GOP House effect and prolific nature tends to skew the numbers a bit. Going back to 2006, there were (according to Polling Report) a total of sixteen polls measuring the job approval of President Bush. His average for the month of January? 42.3%. In 2008, of course, those numbers were even more pessimistic for the incumbent president.

Another instrument for election forecasting is the "generic ballot test" looking at voter intentions in the midterm elections. In the current election cycle, even with Rasmussen putting their thumb on the scale here (of the 43 generic ballot test polls in the 2009-2010 showing a Republican lead, all but nine of them were Rasmussen polls), Republicans have a lead of 2.9% in the Pollster average. In January of 2006, there were five generic ballot tests recorded by Polling Report. The average Democratic lead was 9.4%.

Nevertheless, the 2010 election cycle is being forecasted as being more one-sided than either the 2008 or 2006 election cycles, and these forecasts are coming at a much earlier point than ever before.

Consider, in 2008, the Cook Report had a relatively even split between Democratic and Republican vulnerabilities in the House of Representatives, with 21 GOP seats rated as "leaning" to the incumbent party, or worse. This compared to 14 Democratic seats in the same designation.

Eventually, of course, the one-sided nature of the election cycle was duly noted. By November of 2008, the gap at the Cook Report was considerably wider (51 GOP to just 12 Dems).

In 2010, that comparison is much, much more stark, despite it being still comparably early in the cycle: with 50 Democrats in similar designations, versus just ten for Republicans.

The other members of the pundit class are equally pessimistic: Larry Sabato forecasts Republicans gains of seven seats in the Senate, and 27 seats in the House. And Stuart Rothenberg lists 72 seats in the House as "in play". 58 of them are Democratic, while 14 are Republican.

The confidence of the pundit class in Republican ascendancy in 2010 has occasionally produced eye-popping prognostications. Just this past week, the news that Beau Biden was not seeking the Senate seat in Delaware led the Cook Report, for example, to rate the seat as "Safely Republican" in the hands of GOP candidate Mike Castle.

However, in 2008, the same distinction was never granted to the open Senate seat in Virginia, despite the fact that Democrat Mark Warner was blasting former GOP Governor Jim Gilmore by a two-to-one margin (which wound up being close to the final margin of victory).

So, there is at least some evidence that those that set the conventional wisdom on elections and campaigns are a lot quicker to call the tsunami in this election cycle than they were in either 2006 or 2008.

What is the harm in that?

There actually is some harm in that. There is no question that the early calls of a Republican wave (or a Democratic undertow, whichever you prefer) have had huge effects on both candidate recruitment and fundraising. While Democrats and Republicans have roughly similar numbers of open seats to defend, it is indisputable that the districts abandoned by the Democrats are tougher to defend than the ones, by and large, being abandoned by the GOP.

Not only that, news of GOP competitiveness are going to have a clear impact on fundraising efforts. Campaign donors are cautious bettors, and they like their money to pay off. Scott Brown's massive fundraising effort in Massachusetts tells us that Republican donors don't believe right now there is such a thing as a Republican longshot. Their confidence level, buoyed by such election forecasting, has not been this high in three cycles, or more.

Therefore, there is certainly the danger present that these kind of dour forecasts become somewhat of a self-fulfilling prophecy, where the conventional wisdom says that Democrats are in trouble. Then, the recruiting gets easier for the other side (although both the DCCC and DSCC deserve a lot of credit for creating a rough parity in recruiting for this cycle), and the money starts flowing on the other side. Next thing you know, when it comes time for votes to be cast, the Democrats could actually be in exactly the kind of trouble projected a year earlier.

Perhaps Democrats are victims of their own success in this regard. When Charlie Cook was writing about the 2006 election cycle in April of that year, he said the following:

"A hurricane does seem likely to hit the GOP this November,'' said Charlie Cook, an independent congressional handicapper who analyzed the field recently for National Journal magazine.

"But the ... structural barriers in the House and Senate are protecting the Republican majorities like seawalls and would likely withstand the surge from a category 1, 2, or 3 storm," Cook wrote in reference to the natural advantages of incumbency such as name recognition, ability to raise money and favorably drawn districts.

The ability of Democrats to penetrate those "seawalls" in 2006, and then to do so once again in 2008, have eroded the once-common conventional wisdom that most Congressional races are foregone conclusions, and shifts are only possible in a very limited playing field. There was a time when election forecasters scoffed at the notion that more than 20-40 seats could be in play in any given cycle.

They are believers now. Unfortunately for Democrats, however, they are believers that it will be Republicans that put the races into play.

Originally posted to Daily Kos on Sun Jan 31, 2010 at 10:07 AM PST.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  What happens to all of this (11+ / 0-)

    if the Dems pass some populist bills this year?

    There is a reason that there has only been a Dem in the Oval Office for 13 of the past 41 years. And it ain't Obama.

    by kitebro on Sun Jan 31, 2010 at 10:13:56 AM PST

    •  To pass bills (6+ / 0-)

      they will either have to get one Republican to vote with them or use reconcilliation.

      If there is a sensible jobs bill and Republicans vote against that..... well, I see that as political suicide for Republicans.

      •  Well they are already (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        missliberties, SteelerGrrl

        complaining about it...in the NYT the republicans were saying the small business tax credit the President is proposing won't work. They said a sprinkling of a few poll-tested proposals won't provide enough help to get small business hiring. They blamed healthcare cost but continue to be against having the government provide it to relieve small businesses.

        Even Karen Hughes was saying Obama cut down GWB. She said GWB put in tax cuts to stimulate the recession they inherited. So, is she saying tax cuts don't work? She just proved it. They can change the message and the media helps.

        How much pain have cost us the evils which have never happened. Thomas Jefferson

        by coffejoe on Sun Jan 31, 2010 at 10:31:44 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Why would Karen Hughes (0+ / 0-)

          say GWB? It just reminds folks that he is responsible for this mess.

          Obama is telling the truth. The fact of the matter is that GWB cut his own self down. I don't think any democrat should be afraid to point that out.

          After all, the other side is still blaming Jimmy Carter.

        •  Bush's tax cuts are still in place (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          El Tomaso

          If tax cuts are the solution, how come the economy took a nose dive? In fact, Obama passed the largest tax cut in history in the stim. bill.

      •  Yes. (4+ / 0-)

        Trying to pass legislation might have a positive impact for Dems. But only if someone points out what the GOP are doing. I get the feeling that that is what Obama will be doing this year. All year.

        There is a reason that there has only been a Dem in the Oval Office for 13 of the past 41 years. And it ain't Obama.

        by kitebro on Sun Jan 31, 2010 at 10:31:49 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  well - depends on your assumptions (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        irmaly, erush1345

        have you seen the polling the a majority does not believe the jobs approach Obama talked about in SOTU. At this point - trying to blame the Repugs for failure to get something done is probably going to be seen simply as whining.

        •  Whining? (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          kitebro, missliberties, zizi, erush1345

          Well if the american people don't agree with obama jobs approach WHAT IS THE ALTERNATIVE?? I get so agrevated when folks say something won't work but don't offer another solution. TIme to start calling them out on it.
          We don't have the supermajority anymore. To get any legislative bills passed, the republicans are going to have to come up with some concrete plans to get bills passed and democrats are going to have to accept that we are not going to get 100% of what we want in every single bill. We need to start demanding from both house/senate in both parties that the american people want ACTION not stall tactics and obstructionist on legislation that they once supported in the past but b/c obama supported they now oppose it.  We the democrats are going to have to compromise on some things in order to move legislations. The danger for republicans is that if the openness and transparency that obama showed friday continues and he and the rest of these democrats start pointing out examples of dilberate obstructionist for political points, the independents will start to realize that maybe the democrats aren't the total problem. It's time to start opening up the meetings between caucas, let c-span in everything. Let the people see with their own eyes whats' going on.

          •  And with the GOP being more in power, (0+ / 0-)

            those tea parties will take on a whole new meaning. It will be interesting to see how that plays out.

            There is a reason that there has only been a Dem in the Oval Office for 13 of the past 41 years. And it ain't Obama.

            by kitebro on Sun Jan 31, 2010 at 11:12:19 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  I disagree. (0+ / 0-)

          It is easy to see that Republicans voted no even after they inserted amendments into both health care and the recovery package.

           It is just clearly obvious that 'No" is a strategy for their re-election campaign, not for the people who are suffering in this country.

      •  Could be suicide... (0+ / 0-)

        If the bill is small enough to be comprehensible and free of "Nebraska gimmes".

        Voting against jobs when jobs are what we need is a bad plan.

        Free speech? Yeah, I've heard of that. Have you?

        by dinotrac on Sun Jan 31, 2010 at 11:33:01 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Bills aren't the key: results are. (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      DTG in STL, Egalitare, erush1345

      If the economy gets better and people start going back to work, it won't matter if no bills get passed at all.

      Dumb luck with good results is fine by most voters.

      By the same token, great bills while people continue to lose jobs are unlikely to sway many voters -- especially if they are complex compromised monstrosities that take too long to pass.

      It really is the economy, stupid.

      Free speech? Yeah, I've heard of that. Have you?

      by dinotrac on Sun Jan 31, 2010 at 11:31:41 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  You mean if pigs fly? n/t (0+ / 0-)
  •  it's a long way to election day (12+ / 0-)

    If the job market improves by summer and if health care is passed then everything changes. Those are two big ifs, but there's no evidence that the GOP has any answers beyond more tax cuts for the rich. This is not 1994 and I don't think Americans are ready to buy warmed-over tax cut "solutions" from Repubs.

  •  I don't really buy the doom for democrats (11+ / 0-)

    scenario. Though I admit that Democrats need to get smart fast.

    There is exactly one adult in the room, right now and that is President Obama.

    Who is going to vote for Republicans that aren't willing to vote for jobs and economic recovery.

    With so much media garbage and  noise out there, that misrepresent the issues and what is going on, the 'problems' that are being solved aren't real. They are media fabrications.

    Until folks are willing to be honest about what the real problems are that our country faces, there is no way that they can be solved.

    The Republicans are trapped by their own "I hope he fails' rhetoric.

    Democrats will be trapped only by their own cowardice.

  •  pollsters thrive on controversy, making people (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    oceanview, Egalitare

    pay more attention to - yep - polls!

    And they are close to reality sometimes, and at others, not so much.

    The only value in this to me is that it should shake up the dem's and force them into populist assault mode, quickly pushing through the most progressive measures possible, or blaming repub's for blocking them.

    I wonder, too, what those polls look like after the successful week the prez just had.

    October is the time for real prognosticating, IMHO. The foreplay season is silly in terms of real forecasts, except insofar as it can rattle conventional thinking.

    Fear is the mind-killer - Frank Herbert, Dune

    by p gorden lippy on Sun Jan 31, 2010 at 10:20:55 AM PST

  •  The most amazing part of all of this (15+ / 0-)

    is that the Republican brand is still complete shit.  Generic polls still demonstrate that the voting public trusts Republicans less than Democrats.  And their stonewalling of everything cannot be helping matters.  That's the good news for Democrats, who weren't dealing with a similar negative brand identity when they made their huge gains in 2006 & 2008.

    Ultimately, a well run campaign will be able to overcome some of the advantages that Republicans seem to have in 2010.  The biggest of which is voter intensity.  Their base is much more energized than ours right now, but Obama can help change that if we see more of what he did on Friday.  A few legislative wins could also turn the tide around.

  •  MA going GOP is a dead canary in the coal mine (9+ / 0-)

    A dead canary in a coal mine signalled an immediate evacuation. MA going GOP. That's not a poll. That's freaking amazing no matter how they spin it.

    Over 40 Dems in the House will not pass the Senate version of HCR. So Obama goes to the GOP Retreat and calls them obstructionists (they are, but it's a phony excuse in terms of HCR rigt now) and it works (for the moment).

    That's giving them media cover for a news cycle, but it won't keep voters from stoning the Dems. One can hope the polls are wrong. We can try to dismiss them because the mid-terms are months away.

    But anyone who thinks there isn't big trouble in the air is in complete denial.

    Some posts will attract a strong response from those unfamiliar with robust dialogue

    by Eposter on Sun Jan 31, 2010 at 10:24:56 AM PST

    •  Agree. There is big trouble ahead. (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      714day, Paul Goodman, nutbutter

      It seems to me we need to focus on passing some decent legislation, blaming the Republicans for wanting to return to the samo samo that got us into this mess, and running hard against Republican incumbents. It's an anti-incumbent year--we are missing the boat by not taking theirs on.

      "Whenever a fellow tells me he's bipartisan, I know he's going to vote against me."-- Harry S. Truman

      by irmaly on Sun Jan 31, 2010 at 10:36:06 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  All you state is true, (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      erush1345

      but acting on it requires humility.

      That is something that is in short supply in our ruling class, even here.

      America: our highest paid profession is thief.

      by Paul Goodman on Sun Jan 31, 2010 at 10:49:30 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  The MSM would (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    dotalbon, SteelerGrrl

    love nothing better then for Republicans to take control again. They keep telling us we need the opposite party in Congress from the WH. Why? Then we don't get anything done. I maybe bias but under a Republican President it works better because some  Democrats have a high minded appeal to reason and reform. Reagan and Nixon both had a Democratic Congress. I can't imagine what would have happened under Reagan otherwise. That might be where the Media is coming from...but in 2010 there is too much at stake to let rats back in control.

    How much pain have cost us the evils which have never happened. Thomas Jefferson

    by coffejoe on Sun Jan 31, 2010 at 10:25:17 AM PST

    •  Funny, they didn't talk about splitting power (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      missliberties, SteelerGrrl

      during the Bush years.

      Even if they get their wish and the Congress goes GOP, it's still unbalanced since SCOTUS is now in the hands of right-wing Republican zealots.  

      I can't understand why people are frightened of new ideas. I'm frightened of the old ones. (John Cage)

      by dotalbon on Sun Jan 31, 2010 at 11:09:37 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  We will lose seats (9+ / 0-)

    Some here dont understand that but it doesnt matter if we had passed HCR, the economy were back on track etc we would still lose seats.

    This is the "reaction election". The first offyear post-presidential election and we will experience backlash. Luckily for us that backlash will be a good thing for the party. The people who are going to lose their elections are many of the faux-democrats who got us into this situation: the DLCers and "centrists".

    Now if the president and democrats actually follow Obamas SOTU lead, stand up and fight for the Workers.. we could alleviate any real damage and set ourselves up for Huge gains in the next presidential election. But that is all about the party. It all comes down to whether Obama and the dem leadership decide to listen to Rahm and Lieberman or Sanders and Dean.

    This fight is the twin of the Supply side vs worker battle we fought for a century (and lost). One side argues to follow a path that has failed repeatedly.. but attracts $$$. The other side argues to follow the path that always puts the left in power, fight for the worker and what is right.

  •  Does anyone remember March 2009 (7+ / 0-)

    and everyone was talking about "The Vanishing Republican" Well, that turned out to be premature and I beleive this talk is equally so.
    I am curious what will happen after the Obama GOP encounter. Also, we don't know what is going to happen in April and May with the jobs report.
    And Nobody is talking about the 2010 census and how that will effect races
    Example Congressmen Bono (widow of Sonny Bono) represents a districts that is almost 60% Hispanic and Black. Dont tell me she represents that district. There are other congressional districts in Texas and California with the same scenario.
    I am not saying everything is good but its not even February.

    a long habit of not thinking a thing WRONG, gives it a superficial appearance of being RIGHT, and raises at first a formidable outcry in defense of custom.

    by Jamesleo on Sun Jan 31, 2010 at 10:28:07 AM PST

  •  I believe the prognostications for an uptick (5+ / 0-)

    in Republican midterm seats.  I still don't believe that it reflects a move by the society at large to "conservatism." People distrust government more than at any time since the Nixon years...it appears that government cozies up to the interests of Big Insurance, Big Banks, Big Pharma, etc. and leaves Joe Blow in the unemployment line and/or on the verge of homelessness.  The votes to come are vengeful and short sighted, but I think that's how it's going to go, too.

  •  two options (5+ / 0-)

    the republicants have two options only to winning in the 2010 cycle: they can either grow their votes, and they are doing all they can to pander to the tea partiers and independent ron paul/ross perot voters; or they can depress the votes for democrats, which they, enabled by the msm and frankly many of us progressive bloggers and commentors are also doing.

    first, in both massachucetts and virginia, the democratic candidate was weak, ineffectual, tried being republican-lite and/or just didn't take the election as seriously as their opposition. in new jersey, we had the wrong candidate that only played into the "goldman sachs, corrupt" storyline.

    we must work harder, and GOTV. if, and if only, we can retain the senate, we have a chance of changing the rules at the beginning of the session to change the 60 vote super-majority parliamentary rule.

    in the house, let's face it, nancy pelosi is the only politician (and sadly i must sad this goes for our president) who has gotten anything done and stuck to progressive ideals.

    GOTV GOTV GOTV GOTV

  •  Frsankly, I've never found the three (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    tmo, wishingwell

    mentioned "pollsters" to be that reliable. My experience is that they may be going in the right direction, but are generally off by a fairly large factor. And I don't hold either Sabato or Cook in even close to high regard. .....and I worked in the field years ago.

    Mid-terms should show a loss for the majority party and/or party of the president. That ain't rocket science. However, a lot of what that gaggle is basing their projections on is frequently from polling people who do not have a track record of voting regularly.

    So, I remain reasonably optimistic, but with some nagging doubts. Obama's stage performance of late is more than mildly encouraging, He has the abiltiy and opportunity to mobilize our base. And that's crucial. Hell, I'll get mobilized out of fear,if nothing else.

  •  Could mean a more cohesive caucus. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    SteelerGrrl

    Since most of the Democrats likely to lose are the ones who suck, a slim majority may be a blessing in disguise.

  •  All races can/must be in play at all times (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Paul Goodman, JC from IA

    There actually is some harm in that. There is no question that the early calls of a Republican wave (or a Democratic undertow, whichever you prefer) have had huge effects on both candidate recruitment and fundraising. While Democrats and Republicans have roughly similar numbers of open seats to defend, it is indisputable that the districts abandoned by the Democrats are tougher to defend than the ones, by and large, being abandoned by the GOP.

    While electoral calculus requires analysis at district level, that frame gets messy at the state level as we saw in MA. Coakley was a loser from the start and post-primary defection on the Democratic Party side may have been a greater factor even if there's no disclosure of that evidence (undertow effect could also resemble a Bradley effect especially as it requires a different sense of the period of analysis - "defeat is a orphan"). "Small" scale wave analysis as implied here also requires concurrent long-wave analysis to see and incorporate the larger historical (see Annales School) picture. For example, bagger-jackassery of the "You lie" or fascist Candid Camera types has been around since before the Dick Tuck pranking of Nixon or the "secret witnesses" of Joe McCarthy. to frame "abandonment" is to ignore the need to carry the fight to greater detail; something of which Coakley was clearly ignorant, whether her knowledge of baseball mattered or not.

    "...calling for a 5" deck gun is not parody. Not by a long shot." (gnaborretni)

    by annieli on Sun Jan 31, 2010 at 10:41:20 AM PST

  •  More Corporate $$$ (0+ / 0-)

    The Supreme Court's decision in Citizen's United is going to make this election tougher.  

    http://www.supremecourtus.gov/...

    Justice Kennedy writing for the majority:

    "The censorship we now confront is vast in its reach. The Government has “muffle[d] the voices that best represent the most significant segments of the economy.” McCon- nell, supra, at 257–258 (opinion of SCALIA, J.)."

    Boo hoo. Don't we feel bad for all those monied special interests who currently are subject to at least some minimal restraints in flooding Washington with money to promote their special interests? What we really need and what the Constitution requires, the right-wing appointees on the Supreme Court instruct us, is to lift nearly all remaining restraints that prevent special interest corporate money from flooding our airwaves. The Constitution must allow expanding corporate influence over our politicians in Washington. That will really fix the sorry state of our political system and bring us in line with the Constitution. This right-wing view reflects a just a sliver of the right-wing fantasy fun house that accounts for our present state after 8 years of Republican rule.

    Back to reality, the Constitution begins with its basic premise, "We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." It does not say, we, the corporations. Nor is the focus on securing the blessings of liberty for CIGNA or other companies. The focus is on we, the people and our freedom, and that of our offspring.

    Corporations are not people. We have not granted companies the right to vote for this reason - we have decided that corporations are not granted the same power over our political system as citizens. Corporations do not live or breathe. They are restricted, one-dimensional organizational structures formed for a narrow purpose and with one fiduciary obligation - to obtain profit. That is a good thing. Capitalism works. Corporations are good at being corporations - institutions that robotically and single mindedly pursue profit for their shareholders. When I own shares in a corporation, I want its focus to be on profit. Subsidiary goals like charity or promoting the public good are and should be secondary, with an emphasis on improving corporate reputation/franchise to increase sales.

    Corporations should not be allowed unrestricted participation in our political system because of their single minded pursuit of profit and their own special interests, coupled with the greater resources that most companies have than individual voters. This is why, up until now, their influence over our political system had at least some minimal restraints.

    Justice Kennedy, taking the glory of writing for the majority as he very often does as a kickback for being the swing vote, has directly reversed longstanding precedent. This is the judicial activism that the right wing rails against, except when it serves their purposes of course. A large part of Kennedy's justification for his decision is that the balances that protect free speech are hard to implement in practice, as balances often are. Kennedy's solution is to throw out balance in favor of allowing a corporate spending free for all.

    The Republican appointed Justice Stevens said it right and well in his dissent:
    "JUSTICE STEVENS, with whom JUSTICE GINSBURG, JUSTICE BREYER, and JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR join, concurring in part and dissenting in part.
    The real issue in this case concerns how, not if, the appellant may finance its electioneering. Citizens United is a wealthy nonprofit corporation that runs a political action committee (PAC) with millions of dollars in assets. Under the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA), it could have used those assets to televise and promote Hillary: The Movie wherever and whenever it wanted to. It also could have spent unrestricted sums to broadcast Hillary at any time other than the 30 days before the last primary election. Neither Citizens United’s nor any other corporation’s speech has been “banned,” ante, at 1. All that the parties dispute is whether Citizens United had a right to use the funds in its general treasury to pay for broadcasts during the 30-day period. The notion that the First Amendment dictates an affirmative answer to that question is, in my judgment, profoundly misguided. Even more misguided is the notion that the Court must rewrite the law relating to campaign expenditures by for- profit corporations and unions to decide this case.
    The basic premise underlying the Court’s ruling is its iteration, and constant reiteration, of the proposition that the First Amendment bars regulatory distinctions based on a speaker’s identity, including its “identity” as a corpo  ration. While that glittering generality has rhetorical appeal, it is not a correct statement of the law. Nor does it tell us when a corporation may engage in electioneering that some of its shareholders oppose. It does not even resolve the specific question whether Citizens United may be required to finance some of its messages with the money in its PAC. The conceit that corporations must be treated identically to natural persons in the political sphere is not only inaccurate but also inadequate to justify the Court’s disposition of this case.
    In the context of election to public office, the distinction between corporate and human speakers is significant. Although they make enormous contributions to our soci  ety, corporations are not actually members of it. They cannot vote or run for office. Because they may be man  aged and controlled by nonresidents, their interests may conflict in fundamental respects with the interests of eligible voters. The financial resources, legal structure, and instrumental orientation of corporations raise legiti  mate concerns about their role in the electoral process. Our lawmakers have a compelling constitutional basis, if not also a democratic duty, to take measures designed to guard against the potentially deleterious effects of corpo  rate spending in local and national races.
    The majority’s approach to corporate electioneering marks a dramatic break from our past."

    And who do we have to thank for this decision? A discredited right-wing extremist, of course. David Bossie, long discredited, through Citizens United, his astroturf roots "non-profit" organization backed by corporate donors, was trying to push out his Hillary attack movie right at the key point in the election cycle.

    "Citizens United

    In his capacity as director of Citizens United , Bossie has been sharply criticized by both Democrats and Republicans. James Carville said of him, "he made collective fools out of about 80 percent of the national press corps." President George H.W. Bush urged citizens not to support his campaigns, saying, "We will do whatever we can to stop any filthy campaign tactics" in a newsletter to 85,000 Republican contributors. Bush also filed a complaint with the Federal Elections Commission regarding one TV advertisement Bossie produced with Floyd Brown. [8]"

    http://en.wikipedia.org/...

  •  I expect about the average push-back against (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    SteelerGrrl

    the party in power in an off-year election.

    That can change, of course, but the Dems need to unify behind a common theme in order to improve their fortunes, IMO.  With anarchy in the left-most extremes, I don't expect that to happen.

  •  3 things that the Democrats must do (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    askew, waytac, Egalitare, SteelerGrrl
    1.  Pass a comprehensive health care reform bill.

    Failure to do this means that Democrats will just stay home in 2010.

    1.  Pass a jobs bill.
    1.  Run better campaigns.

    Obama 1/10: "We don't quit. I don't quit."

    by Drdemocrat on Sun Jan 31, 2010 at 10:51:31 AM PST

  •  "Why do they hate us?" (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    dotalbon

    I can hear the 2010 post-mortems now.

    America: our highest paid profession is thief.

    by Paul Goodman on Sun Jan 31, 2010 at 10:53:06 AM PST

  •  Regression to the mean (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    wishingwell, dotalbon, JC from IA

    The biggest reason the pollsters and stats people predict a GOP gain is because of regression to the mean and an assumption that the country is basically evenly split between GOP and Dems.

    It's not true.

    "It is a serious thing to live in a society of possible gods and goddesses." - CS Lewis, Weight of Glory

    by Benintn on Sun Jan 31, 2010 at 10:53:56 AM PST

    •  No, but the enthusiasim level (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      CMYK, erush1345

      tilts very GOP at the moment.  If that continues through November it will seriously impact any numerical Democratic edge.

      I can't understand why people are frightened of new ideas. I'm frightened of the old ones. (John Cage)

      by dotalbon on Sun Jan 31, 2010 at 11:11:03 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  It's pretty evenly split in my district (WA-03), (0+ / 0-)

      which is large and includes the liberal state capital as well as conservative rural areas. Rep. Brian Baird's seat is very much up for grabs this year. Could go either way.

      So sometimes it's true, although I agree it's overstated for the country as a whole:

      an assumption that the country is basically evenly split between GOP and Dems.

      Télécoms Sans Frontiéres is providing humanitarian infrastructure aid to Haiti.

      by CMYK on Sun Jan 31, 2010 at 11:53:45 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Memories (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    dotalbon

    It worries me that the polls state that its going to be hard for the incumbent Dems.
    Are the American people so very dumb that they would forget the last 8 years of a Republican controled WH. would any one look back and say, "hey lets give them another chance and see if they can do better this time. Is anyone so ignorant to think " i hate the government so much that ill keep voting for the other guys.
    Are Dems so disorganized that they would not come out knowing that a Rep in office would create the same atmospher that cause these problems in the first place.
    Did everyone forget that St Ronnies trikle down was shit and urine?

    I fear for my country. when so many idiots get to vote.

    due to current economic conditions, the light at the end of the tunnel will be turned off until futher notice.

    by rageagnstmach on Sun Jan 31, 2010 at 11:10:29 AM PST

    •  Those are all rhetorical questions (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Ottoe, rageagnstmach

      Yes, people forget stuff in about ten minutes.  

      Yes, people with no memory and no understanding of the difference between politics and governing vote stupid, and usually anti-incumbent.

      It takes a 9/11 to get people to damp down their natural aggravation at whoever's in power and follow one lead for eight years.    

      I can't understand why people are frightened of new ideas. I'm frightened of the old ones. (John Cage)

      by dotalbon on Sun Jan 31, 2010 at 11:13:15 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  The Democrats have to remind (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    dotalbon, rageagnstmach

    the voters the huge mess the Republicans created when they were in power. Plus the Democrats must show the Republicans have historically a much worse record of job creation than the Democrats. And the Republicans have no healthcare plan that is worth anything. If the Democrats improve the Senate healthcare bill they have a chance to lessen the damage of the next elections.

  •  Massive Media Propaganda anti-DEMS (0+ / 0-)

    The real, extensive and both subtle and overt propaganda against all Democrats, including the President, is the staple of our news organizations, at the behest of Wall Street (the NYT), The Chamber of Commerce (all the media), the Saudis (who must fear climate change regulations will kill their oil prices; they own much of News Corp. and Fox News).

    Why do the blogs let them get by with such nonsense? How often did we hear from day one that Obama had a 'failed presidency' that he was new "Jimmy Carter' (who created the Dept of Energy, recall) and was struggling to get his message out. Struggling why? Because it was strangled by the media.

  •  Hit it down the fairway? (0+ / 0-)

    You sound like Chris Mathews, "the extremists on both sides".  This country and the Democratic party have been dragged so far to the right that the fairway you mention is on a totally different golf course hundreds of miles to the west of the one we are on. .  

    They're asking for another four years -- in a just world, they'd get 10 to 20. ~~ Dennis Kucinich

    by dkmich on Sun Jan 31, 2010 at 11:33:34 AM PST

  •  Message Matters (0+ / 0-)

    Yes, MSM has abandoned its refrain from 2006, when well into summer they denied Democratic potential based on sclerotic notions like "there aren't enough competitive House seats to give the Dems the majority."  How quickly they learn a lesson when the Reps want it learned.

    In this election, we need what we have always lacked, but not bothered to create.  We need a simple narrative as to how the story of the US at its best has been the American people using the government to improve their lives, while Republicans have denigrated all efforts to do that, preferring to place government and its resources at the hands of big business.  With that, we can explain why middle class wages have stagnated since Reagan, why healthcare is a bigger and bigger problem for more and more people, and why wealth is collecting at the top.

    With this narrative and a brand liked to it, we can connect our most important initiatives to each other and to the country's biggest needs.

    The White House and COngressional leaders need to construct a narrative like this now.  Republicans have one (US works best when government gets out of the way and lets the American people do for themselves).  Repetition has made their message so strong that it stands them in good stead even now, in the minority, with discredited programs and politicians.

  •  Charlie Cook responds (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Dave B, erush1345

    I just wanted to raise a number of points.  

    First, the DailyKos/Research 2000 poll for some inexplicable reason asks favorable/unfavorable, not job approval. A favorable/unfavorable rating is a personal assessment, not a job approval.  There is a large disparity between the President, who does tend to get higher favorable ratings than job approvals.  but it is the  job approvals that are more relevant in midterm elections (and re-elections).

    Second, on the generic ballot test, putting aside that the question measures popular vote for the House and that it has a traditional Democratic skew of about three points, when high interest/high intensity voters (ie likely midterm election voters) are tested, the Republican advantage in this election goes up enormously, by eight and 15 points in the January NBC/WSJ polls.  Even in DK/R2000 polls, the intensity gap between self-identified Democrats and Republicans is astonishing and the voters that put Obama in the White House are unlikely to show up on November 2.

    Third, nationialized midterm elections, like 1994 and 2006 tend to snowball.  As Steve pointed out, in April 2006 I did write about a hurricane heading toward the Republican party but there were barriers that seemed likely to keep Democrats from winning majorities.  But Steve did not quote my columns from the first week of August of 2006 on that clearly indicated that it was strong enough and I did write that it was more likely than not that Democrats would take over the House and have a 50-50 chance of taking the Senate.  

    Now that the Democratic Party's favorable/unfavorable ratings are not much better than the GOP's, the fact that the Republican brand was damaged is no longer much of a buffer for Democrats.

    We have seen this current storm build, or to switch metaphors, snowball.  Could it reverse. sure. is it likely. No.

     

    •  Is there any good analysis of this? (0+ / 0-)

      Even in DK/R2000 polls, the intensity gap between self-identified Democrats and Republicans is astonishing and the voters that put Obama in the White House are unlikely to show up on November 2.

      I keep reading things like, voters are against healthcare reform, or as the White House keeps putting it Heath Insurance Reform.

      The question I have is, who is against it, and why.

      Has anyone broken down HCR into it's components and polled them with the public, then broken that down into party affiliation?

      I am unenthusiastic about the next election.  I've been stuffing envelopes, going door to door, attending rallies, and donating money since I was a kid in Detroit working elections with my fathers firefighter's union.  After what I've seen the last year, specifically since the middle of last summer, I'm ready to wash my hands of the whole bunch.

      When the power of love overcomes the love of power, the world will know peace. Jimi Hendrix

      by Dave B on Sun Jan 31, 2010 at 11:54:18 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I don't believe people are against HCR... (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Blutodog, Dave B

        ...I believe a lot of people are against what the current HCR legislation has been watered down to.

        When it was clear that the public option was dead but the mandate would remain, a LOT of progressives jumped off the bandwagon.

        The question we should be asking isn't so much whether or not people are against the current HCR bill, but WHY they are against the current HCR bill.  I think you'll find that it isn't entirely the narrative that the corporate media keeps throwing at us - that people don't want a "government takeover" of healthcare.  Rather, a lot of people oppose the current HCR bill because they don't believe it goes nearly far enough, and they feel it doesn't really do much to reign in the worst offenses of the health insurance industry.

        •  That's exactly what I was driving at (0+ / 0-)

          We keep hearing that the people are against HCR, or that they are against the bill.  But no one is telling us why, and specifically why certain voters or particular party identification are against it.

          When the power of love overcomes the love of power, the world will know peace. Jimi Hendrix

          by Dave B on Sun Jan 31, 2010 at 12:06:33 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Personally, I think people are weary of... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          erush1345

          ...the PROCESS. The decisions that were ultimately made could have been concluded MONTHS AGO. If the President is to blame for anything, it is assuming that the electorate would have the patience to watch paint dry.

          "Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will." -- Frederick Douglass

          by Egalitare on Sun Jan 31, 2010 at 12:07:26 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  The MSM narrative (0+ / 0-)

          The MSM narrative doesn't allow for such a nuanced view. I watched Tweety the other day beating on Dr. Dean basically not allowing Dr. Dean to make just that pt. Tweety wanted Dean to accept the Corp. narrative that people don't want a Gov't take over and thats why they're rejecting it, not the truth which is many of us are pissed that the HCR has become a Big Corp. give away. You'll never hear that line coming out of any of the Corp. shills in the media.

          "It's better to die on your feet then live on your knees" E. Zapata

          by Blutodog on Sun Jan 31, 2010 at 01:26:34 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  I should have added (0+ / 0-)

        That my lack of enthusiasm is rooted in the apparent incompetence of Democrats on HCR in the Senate.  Sure I was for a public option, but I could have swallowed access to a national exchange instead.  When the senate voted down Dorgan's proposal to reimport prescription drugs, well that was the final nail.  After all the criticism of the prescription drug bill that Republicans pushed through, specifically the inability of the government to negotiate prices, the Democrats exposed themselves as hypocrites.

        When the power of love overcomes the love of power, the world will know peace. Jimi Hendrix

        by Dave B on Sun Jan 31, 2010 at 12:03:56 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Thanks for Responding, Charlie.... (0+ / 0-)

      Glad to read it.

      Let me respond to a few points:

      1. I didn't cite our tracking poll on Obama favorability (I only cited it on voter intensity). On the approval, I cited Pollster's average on job approval and then compared it to the '06 numbers on Bush job approval from Polling Report (I don't think Pollster did averages back then, IIRC). Therefore, it was an apples-to-apples comparison.
      1. Even presuming a Dem skew of three points on generic tests, it would still mean that 2006 and 2010 numbers would be pretty close to analogous (take three points off the Dem lead in 06, and add three points to the GOP lead in 10, and both come out around a six point edge for the party out of power).

      Furthermore, the point of the piece was not necessarily that dire projections for 2010 are wrong, as I noted explicitly right off of the bat. My point was that those who do this professionally (yourself and others) are sounding the alarm much earlier in this cycle than the two previous Democratic wave cycles. And, as I said, in the conclusion, I think the success for Democrats in those two cycles of expanding the playing field might speak to part of the reason why the electoral prediction folks were so quick to call it this time. Plausible?

      "You share your young with the wolves of the nation...
      Theres nothing left til you pray for salvation"
      Black Rebel Motorcycle Club "American X"

      by Steve Singiser on Sun Jan 31, 2010 at 12:16:04 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I'll ask you too (0+ / 0-)

        Do you think we will ever see a good analysis of the public's dissatisfaction with the HCR bill?

        I would love to see the components of the bill broken out and polled.

        When the power of love overcomes the love of power, the world will know peace. Jimi Hendrix

        by Dave B on Sun Jan 31, 2010 at 12:22:35 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I Have Seen A Couple of Things.... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Dave B

          One thing I have noticed is that the common refrain "Only thirty-something percent approve of this reform, so everyone thinks the Dems are going too far" is flawed.

          There is a pretty good chunk of those who oppose HCR who do so because they don't think it goes far enough. Between those who approve of HCR, and those who think it doesn't go far enough, you get pretty close to parity with the pure opposition.

          "You share your young with the wolves of the nation...
          Theres nothing left til you pray for salvation"
          Black Rebel Motorcycle Club "American X"

          by Steve Singiser on Sun Jan 31, 2010 at 12:37:07 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Thanks (0+ / 0-)

            But I also wonder about the pure opposition.  If components were broken out, I also wonder how they would respond.  Polling could ask, do you support or oppose the current proposals to reform healthcare.  Then these folks could be asked to respond on specific components of HCR. We would know more about what folks are thinking that oppose because they don't think it goes far enough, but it would also tell us if the pure opposition does so because or real or perceived notions about what HCR really does.

            When the power of love overcomes the love of power, the world will know peace. Jimi Hendrix

            by Dave B on Sun Jan 31, 2010 at 12:51:16 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

      •  Cook again (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Steve Singiser, erush1345

        My response to why the alarm bells are going off earlier than in 2006 or 1994 for that matter is that the situation is worse, earlier.  Democrats were not this far down this early in 1994 and Republicans weren't in 2006.  The trajectory of this election is very similar to those, but the timing is different.  

        This majority, the seats over about 200, were built under optimal conditions with very strong Democratic margins on the generic.  It is the swing that is most important, the difference between where it was when these majorities were built and where it is today, among likely 2010 voters.

        It is very hard to see what circumstances change the trajectory of this election.  Unemployment is not likely to drop to nine percent (still a horrific level) or less, even if the surge in Afghanistan works, it is unlikely to work before November 2.

        Passing a health care reform act won't likely help, voters say they don't like it and don't want it enacted.  Even if it eventually turns out to be fabulous, that assessment isn't likely to happen until it kicks in, long after November 2.

        While there is always a chance that things change, the likely triggers are not clear at all, more likely to get worse.

        •  It's a cop out (0+ / 0-)

          To tell me that voters don't like HCR and don't want it enacted, without telling me why they don't like it.

          I've been discussing HCR with lots of friends lately.  They are telling me that they don't want the government taking over healthcare.  When I ask them to explain that statement, they are clearly under the impression that the government is planning to get directly in the business of healthcare, which is not what any bills under discussion actually facilitate, and no one has been able to offer me any examples of how that will happen under these bills.  It's a response to disingenuous messaging that the Republicans are drilling into peoples heads.

          When the power of love overcomes the love of power, the world will know peace. Jimi Hendrix

          by Dave B on Sun Jan 31, 2010 at 01:02:36 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  disingenuous messaging? (0+ / 0-)

            Not really?

            Camel's nose under the tent, in the form of HR676, which is what a lot of progressives wanted, on the way to a UK style National Health Service. The fact that they didn't get what they want is now somehow used as an argument that right wing fears are unfounded.

            Good laugh on this one.

  •  people are desparate for action (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Dave B, erush1345

    We gave the Democrats a chance to do something with a large majority and a president. Regardless, it appears that they couldn't get anything done. It's really our own fault. The leadership didn't have the foresight to see that an unheeded call to action would cause people to lose faith.

  •  WA-03: Dem candidate forum for Baird's seat (0+ / 0-)

    Five Democratic candidates met a few days ago for the first public forum since U.S. Rep. Brian Baird announced he would retire from the U.S. House. They presented statements and took questions from the audience.

    Cheryl Crist, of Olympia, has run for Congress twice before as a peace candidate. She was a truther (9/11 conspiracy theory) as recently as autumn 2009, although to be fair I'm not sure that's still the case.

    Denny Heck, a businessman who founded the televised state public-affairs network TVW, was House majority leader in the 1980s and chief of staff to ex-governor Booth Gardner.

    Craig Pridemore, D-Vancouver, is vice chairperson of the Senate Environment, Water and Energy Committee.

    Maria Rodriguez-Salazar is a Hispanic activist from Vancouver, WA.

    Deb Wallace, D-Vancouver, is a state representative and chair of the House Higher Education Committee.

    .  .  .  .
    About the political landscape of this district (from Dec. 28, 2009):

    The numbers, released this month by the Secretary of State’s Office, are further evidence that the district can be fickle about its politics – and why political pundits say next year’s battle to replace outgoing Congressman Brian Baird will be a donnybrook that could become the most expensive campaign in state history.

    “The 3rd District is definitely a swing district and definitely in play,” said Dwight Pelz, the chairman of the Washington State Democratic Party. “I think this is going to be one of the most closely watched congressional races in the country – on both sides.”

    Democrats have controlled the congressional seat all but four years in the past half-century, and Baird likely would have coasted to victory if he hadn’t decided against seeking a seventh two-year term.

    Repubs anticipate money pouring in for the showdown this year.

    Télécoms Sans Frontiéres is providing humanitarian infrastructure aid to Haiti.

    by CMYK on Sun Jan 31, 2010 at 11:48:07 AM PST

  •  Repost of my predictions. (0+ / 0-)

    Put it down!  Kos is a big site--it'll be recorded and ready in the future.  Senate:

    59D, 1 Bernie, 1 Liar.

    House:

    D+2 (some volatility though).

    --

    Anybody want to put the numbers down now?

  •  End the Republican free ride (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Proleft

    They've already gotten a free ride on this stupid idea that the stimulus hasn't done anything. None of them voted for it!  If it hadn't gone into effect, a lot more people would be out of work.  They have had to bear no responsibility for the fact that they have done nothing more constructive for the last year than sit around pouting and making faces during addresses to Congressional joint sessions.

    Let's start having ads on TV from people whose jobs have been saved. I'll pay for those ads!

    How about from thankful auto workers?  If it was up to the GOP, we would no longer have a GM to step in when it's finally revealed what we've known for a long time - that Toyotas have  been declining in quality for years.

    And my favorite issues - this should be made a national past time:  Every time one of these idiots derides the Obama "freeze" as not being nearly enough,  every time they sputter on about "free spending Democrats", ask them "well, fine, what are you going to cut"?   Every time they ask for an across the board tax cut, ask "isn't that what produced these deficits in the first place?, I thought you were for fiscal responsibility?"

    We know what they want:

    * They want to give more tax cuts to the wealthy and large corporations, saying this will create jobs. If this will create jobs, WHY DIDN"T IT DURING THE DECADE FROM HELL?

    * They want "real, meaningful cuts".  We have gotten to the point that the only things they could cut that would get deficits back to near zero quickly are Medicare, Social Security and Medicaid.  SO, WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO CUT?  Their feet must be held to the fire, no squirming away with answers that amount to "we'll tell you that after you elect us".  It is guaranteed that their cuts will either be from the entitlements, or from programs that will result in large job losses. Or they won't cut anything except taxes, furthering the flood of red ink.

    *It seems like everything they want to do are either things that got us into this mess in the first place, or in spending cuts that will cause a lot of pain without curing the fundamental problems caused by an inequitable tax structure, and not paying for the things we want from government.  We've had higher taxes before, in the 90's, and nobody was complaining. Far from it, business was booming, people thought we were going in the right direction - until the Lewinsky stuff anyway, which incredibly people somehow thought affected their own personal lives.

    Make no mistake, it will require mainly positive action by the Democrats to produce a course correction to help them in the upcoming election - by finding a way to end gov't. by supermajority and passing meaningful bills to increase employment and on health care reform. But at the same time, it's important to make Republicans extremely uncomfortable.  Not as an exercise in partisanship, but simply by making them define exactly what they want to do. No 30 page pamphlets full of fluff and wishful thinking.  Real. Specific. Answers.

    The final thing is to go against the Republican narrative that won in Mass. about "restoring checks and balances". The counter for that is that voting in Republicans will bring a return to gridlock.  Now this will be an easier sell, if the Dems in these last months can break out of their present improbable gridlock, that must be self-imposed, considering the large majorities they now hold. What will adding to GOP gridlocking power accomplish?  If we had had a divided gov't after the 2008 elections, we would now be in Great Depression II. We would be down to one automobile maker in the US, and thousands more auto workers, their suppliers, and many others, due to a ripple effect, would be out of jobs. Add to that teachers, firefighters, police, and construction workers. The GOP will also reverse the gains in medical reform that the Dems will somehow manage to pass before the election, so we will go back to kicking people off insurance with pre-existing conditions, with conditions that exceed a yearly cap, and who are on their parents' insurance. We will tell the people that would be receiving assistance with health care in 2013 that it will never happen now.

    You get the drift of what I'm saying.  Hold the GOP accountable for what they are saying. Paint the picture of what things will look like if we are foolish enough to put them back in. Counter their campaign ploys such as "restoring checks and balances".

    "The only thing we have to fear - is fear itself." - Franklin Delano Roosevelt

    by orrg1 on Sun Jan 31, 2010 at 12:01:23 PM PST

  •  Democrats will be wiped out. (0+ / 0-)

    Unless they forget about bipartisanship. They have nothing to lose by that since Repuke voters already hate Democrats and are already fired up and ready to go.

    Democrats are in power so they have to deliver some things to get Democratic voters fired up and ready to go. I don't see that happening.

    •  I think Democrats will be OK.. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      somewhere in ohio, vankestral

      .. if Democrats regain control of the Democrat party.

      We're gonna have the normal, mid-term revolt.. but it will be worse, because Old-school Dems want to take the party back from the progressives. Much like conservative Republicans need to fend off Neo-cons.

      The BIG, moderate, independent vote is what will make it a slaughter in Nov. These massive, multi-thousand page bills.. hundreds of pages added hours before floor votes.. pushing an ultra-left agenda.. was too much, too fast. And as the double-up effect of unemployment and lower tax-reciepts crash headlong into the insane spending.. the debt/deficit reality will sink in.

      •  What "ultra-left agenda"? What "insane spending"? (0+ / 0-)

        You are speaking trollish.

        •  Well, you seem to see troll in evetyone who (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          somewhere in ohio, erush1345

          disagrees with you. So add me, please, to that list then. I will say that all my extended family voted almost exclusively for Democratic candidates a yrear ago (beginning with Obama), but almost nobody intends to do it in November. And it's not because the Democrats "need to be more progressive", but rather vice versa: we are mainly centrists who prefer realistic compromise solutuons, which have chance to be enacted. to wishful thinking, "pies in the skies" and so on. When liberals will understand that they don't have vores (and will NOT in near future) and thus need to find compromise with moderates (who, BTW, were as big part of Obama's coalition in 2008 as "progressives") and sometimes - even with moderate conservatives - well, then politics may revert to "politics as usual", but at least it will be a realustic polics, not wishful thinking on part of overheated brains of overzealous ultra-left "activists"

  •  Democrats need (0+ / 0-)

    A Democratic Luntz, and they especially need a machine comparable to what the Republicans have to push the message.

    We have George Lakof, but I'm not sure he's quite as good as his counterpart.  

    When the power of love overcomes the love of power, the world will know peace. Jimi Hendrix

    by Dave B on Sun Jan 31, 2010 at 12:10:37 PM PST

  •  Polling Democratic indigestion (0+ / 0-)

    I'm a longtime Democratic voter fed up with the Democratic Party.  On gay rights and the rights of women to control their reproduction, there is some significant difference between the two groups.

    However, both the Democrats and Republicans are in a position where fundamentals of the rule of law have been tossed aside in the name of Empire and the Police State war on terror.

    If the rule of law is restrictive to both Republicans and Democrats why should voters support either party?  

  •  2010 is going to be ugly (0+ / 0-)

    If I were the heads of the DSCC and DCCC I would figure out which seats and incumbents are salavagable, which ones are probably hopeless, and fight to save who can be saved.

  •  Well, i generally agree with "pundits" (0+ / 0-)

    By my present count - Democrats will lose 5-6 seats in Senate and 25-30 in House (and that's - at least). Of course, if economy will get much better soon - the results may be better, but the economy has it's own inertia and rarely improves so quickly. Otherwise i see 5-6 reasons to expect a bad year for Democrats in 2010 - from general bad economy, to split in Obama's coalition between "progressives" and "moderates" (especially - generally anti- tax and somewhat fiscal conservative "suburban moderates") as well as between Democrats and Independents. who heavily endorsed Democratic candidates in 2006 and 2008, heavy distrust of present Democratic policy on part of Independents and "Reagan Democrats" (look how they voted in Massachusetts), much greater motivation at polls on  part of Republcans and Republican-leaning independents, the absence of Bush (people now blame Obama and Democratic-dominated Congress for problems and sufferings they endure, Bush is already the past in many people;s minds) as well as the simple fact that Democrats bit a much bigger piece of cake in 2006 and 2008 then they could swallow - under no normal circumstances they must win such seats as AL-2, MD_1, VA-5, ID-1, MS-1 and many other...

    So pundits do what they must - see dire present situation for Democrats in November and project it on the future. Whether that will hold then - well, we will see..

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site