The Democrats’ Authentic Political Minefield
Attention Democrats: These may be heady times for you but be forewarned: as you tip-toe through the long-sought political tulips there are also political minefields lurking out there, a Los Angeles Times report notes:
An exhaustive national survey of American attitudes released last week sent the same message as the Democratic sweep in the 2006 midterm elections: a shift among independents is providing the party its best opportunity since Bill Clinton’s inauguration in 1993 to establish a durable electoral advantage over the GOP.It’s another question whether Democrats can seize that opportunity better than they did in 1993, when missteps by Clinton and the party’s congressional majority set up a GOP landslide just one year later. And, in fact, two other trends in contemporary public opinion spotlight dangers lurking for the Democrats again today.
The piece is by one of the Los Angeles Times’ best reporters, Ronald Brownstein, who is now the paper’s national affairs columnist. He’s about as solid and thoughtful a political journalist as you can find anywhere.
What’s one of the prime causes for the Democrat’s recent good fortunes, which began when the votes were counted in 2006? A factor we have noted all along: WATCH the independent voters:
Democrats romped in 2006 mostly because independent voters broke decisively for them in both the House and Senate races, after splitting about evenly between the parties in 2004 and 2002. That shift in turn was driven by a collapse in support among independents for President Bush and the Iraq War. Bush’s approval rating among independents in Gallup polls hasn’t reached 40% since August 2005.The most important finding in the study published last week by the nonpartisan Pew Research Center was that the rift between independents and Republican voters now extends far beyond assessments of Bush and Iraq. On most key issues Pew measured, independents expressed views much closer to Democratic voters than to Republicans.
But now, Brownstein, writes, two pitfalls face the Democrats:
The first is that approval ratings for Congress are declining again, less than three months after the Democrats took control. The new majority faces a genuine conundrum. After six years of Republican dereliction, tough oversight of the Bush Administration is not only justified but imperative. And Bush’s refusal to negotiate with the Democrats on issues from strategy in Iraq to testimony on the U.S. attorneys controversy leaves them with little choice but to confront him in headline-grabbing collisions, like the congressional efforts to impose a time limit on the war.
But as McInturff notes, these repeated skirmishes are exposing the Democratic majority to a dangerous dynamic. Conflicts are proliferating while the initiatives they promised voters last year, such as a higher minimum wage, are stalled. If they can’t revive that agenda, even amid the fireworks with Bush on other fronts, congressional Democrats are asking for trouble. Relentless argument and sparse achievement isn’t an ideal formula for success.
Early soundings about the 2008 presidential general election also ought to raise Democratic concerns. (This is the point in the column where I point out that my wife, or as I call her around the house, my little disclaimer, works in John McCain’s Senate office.)
Despite the collapse in Bush’s support, and the emerging Democratic issue advantages, the leading Republican contenders usually run step for step with—and often lead—the top Democrats in surveys testing 2008 support. It’s early of course, but even so those numbers suggest Democrats face substantial work to tie the 2008 Republicans to voter disillusionment with Bush, and to resolve doubts about their own potential nominees. It’s not too early to predict that nothing may matter more next year than whether the Republican nominee can establish independence from Bush or Democrats succeed in portraying the GOP ticket as the extension of a leadership that has lost the country’s confidence.
Brownstein also notes (as we have since we started this website) that Bush and his political maven Karl Rove have tried to use a polarization strategy to spark a huge conservative election turnout.
That strategy now seems to be out of sorts. But is it OUT?
That strategy is looking steadily less viable amid the mounting evidence it has estranged independents from the GOP. But the continuing signs of hesitation about the Democratic Congress and the party’s 2008 contenders show that Democrats are still searching for a winning formula of their own.
And, indeed, no one (unless their name is Rush or Sean) can now say the Democrats don’t have any ideas to offer. On a year or two ago the Democrats seemed to be mostly the anti-Bush. Now, increasingly, they are dumping a bunch of ideas on the table.
But, as Brownstein suggests, there’s a sense that they don’t really have a cohesive formula yet.
Even so, it’s still one year to 2008 and even if the Democrats fail to find a formula they are being aided by the increasing scandals, negatives stories and growing credibility gap that comes to mind when you mention the phrase “Bush administration” — a phrase that seems to stir up fear and loathing among some.
But enough about what many REPUBLICANS think…
opinions powered by SendLove.to
10 Responses to “The Democrats’ Authentic Political Minefield”
I found the original article odd because the collapse of the Republicans in much more significant in the House and Senate yet the article end up discussing the presidential election.
The Republicans have no chance of winning majorities in the House or Senate but, instead, will continue to lose seats. The same goes for state houses.
I also found it odd that the article never mentioned raced. One of the great successes of the Democrats is to increase turnout of blacks and hispanics, two groups that vote overwhelmingly for them. If you wonder why Gen-y votes democratic, it is more likely because it is the least white generation ever instead of some massive switch in voting patterns within groups.
One of the things not mentioned is that we will not get the independents if our nominee is Hillary. She is so polarizing and with such high negatives she drives away the indies and we won’t get any crossovers. This sets us up for another loss that could have and should have been apparent.
We need to stop being cautious and chosing the establishment candidate who even makes us feel like not voting or if we do, hold our nose, The candidate that no one can get excited about.
We have to stop that and chose one who we are excited about and can get behind and someone who can bring in the indies and crossovers.
Right now, we are setting ourselves up for another loss that should not have been.
The first is that approval ratings for Congress are declining again, less than three months after the Democrats took control.
Can quite simply be understood in the ever increasing awareness of voters that the congress does nothing and has embarked on a massive witch hunt. Despite what many believe, the ordinary citizen of America does not care for witch hunts and does not care to punish the GOP for its transgressions.
It simply wants work to be accomplished and it views these witch hunts as Political Infighting which does not in one single way help welfare moms, poor workers, healthcare or any of the dozens of “fixes” the ordinary Joe wants to see in his lifetime.
I know many of you cannot fathom that. But I do essentially believe that to be the basic truth that guides most people. Politics is not a religion for them. It is not a way of life, nor is it an obsession in which they scour the websites and magazines and newspapers and read books to find any and every source to support their conclusion that one side or the other is “evil” and as quickly as humanly possible must be smote.
However the Democrats have taken office and are doing the exact same thing they bemoaned the GOP of doing. Nothing. Already their house of cards is beginning to vibrate in the face of the powerful winds of change.
The voters are much smarter then you give them credit for. They understand that for every Bill Clinton, Richard Nixon or George Bush you “gotcha” there is a thousand nay a million waiting to take their place because you cannot defeat an ideal, a belief, a way of life.
The winds of change is blowing over the land and the voters are demanding tolerance and unification. The more the political parties realize this the more polarized they are becoming because they “do not want to change.” They do not want to confront their own beliefs as in error or in need of a major reworking. The winds of change are blowing and the voters are speaking. If the democrats refuse to change their “Old tired ways” they too will be voted out until someday the politicians finally “get it”
The voters do not want Democratic Ideals. They want change. They want something new because its obvious to them that the old ways have not worked. For either Party.
As for Congress, I think much of the frustration is actually coming from Democrats who feel the new Congress has not done enough to stop the war. This is why the House and Senate bills setting a withdrawal date are so important: they show some ability to deliver – at least legislatively – on the most important issue of our time. Had they failed, Democratic voters would have despaired and given up.
As for the bread-and-butter issues like minimum wage, I would be surprised if the Dems don’t get them fully passed. If not, they have a perfect campaign issue for the Presidential race in 2008.
Re: the Presidential race, the Republicans have the odd problem that their superstars are either hated or distrusted in the party. I suspect that Giuliani’s bubble is starting to burst – look at how much Fred Thompson took away from him in two weeks. And now the Bernard Kerik revelations will hurt him even more. I bet that by July, Rudy is reduced again to about 15% support among the GOP faithful. Fred Thompson may be a flash in the pan himself. A Q-Poll showed him getting crushed in the general by Hillary. I wouldn’t be surprised if Republicans commit suicide by nominating Gingrich.
On the Dem side, things got a bit more interesting with the Edwards cancer issue. Obama and Hillary have hurt each other a bit, but I suspect that to continue throughout the campaign. The fundamental issue there is that Hillary is at her ceiling and Obama is not. Obama is the most transformational figure in the entire race. As long as Democratic establishment types keep drifting toward Obama, he may end up with the nomination. If he gets the nomination, he wins the general. His negatives are very low with a lot of unknowns. Hillary has no unknowns. And Obama will co-opt many moderate Republican voters looking for a change. Hillary will do the opposite.
HawkishDove Says:
I’m not disagreeing as to whether or not the general feels this way, certainly it’s a common enough GOP talking point. But I find it very convenient that a criticism contains its own response.
After three whole months in office the slim Democratic majorities in congress have failed to solve the problems of endemic poverty, the healthcare crisis, and established world peace?
Jeez.
Instead they’re bogged down in “witch hunts”.
But perhaps we detect the beclawed hand of Karl Rove. By creating an administrative bureaucracy rife with incompetents, and engineering Republican congressional majorities that, for 6 years, turned a blind eye to that incompetence, he’s been setting the Democrats up to fail.
The wiley bastard.
Meanwhile, I agree with Elrod. Over the next several months I fully expect any number of bills addressing bread and butter issues to reach the president’s desk.
Also, as Joe points out, Democrats, rather than having no ideas to offer, now have too many. I agree, but would point out that once Democrats pick a presidential nominee that diffusion of ideas should become much more focused.
In that sense the front-loading of the nomination elections could work to Democrats’ advantage, giving the nominee ample opportunity to put together a cohesive policy package and then sell it to the country.
Can you see the Democrat mushroom clouds forming over your city? If not you had better study the similarity between the Iran hostage demands and the Democrats. They both want the same thing. Get out of Iraq. The demorats want us out to get political power at “any” cost. Iran wants us out out to invade Iraq. Gee … can anyone guess why? Are mushroom clouds entering your pee brain yet? No? Ok, Better dig a DEEP bunker buster, one big enough for you and about 100 mexicans.
Conservatives are lukewarm toward Rudy or Romney which is depicted by the
surge to Thompson. Duncan Hunter might be the benefit of the same surge if he can find his way to the forefront.
Hillary is a turnoff and Obama sounds good, but has been careful not to provide substance on paticular issues.
hopefullt, the cream will come to the top
Its simple. Close down the witch hunts, roll up your sleeves and go to work.
Bill Clintons Popularity actually went up when he was impeached. Is that what the Democrats want?
Of course ratings for Congress have declined; Congress has not stopped the war in Iraq yet. The war is the third rail to moderate voters — you support it and it will kill your career.
Most voters realize that the war in Iraq is based on a stack of lies, and it is the embodiement of what has upset moderate voters for decades: throwing money at a problem that has no solution.
Pundits have not gotten this yet.
Speaking a lifelong unaffiliated voter who “broke for” the Democrats in 2004 and again (possibly for the last time) in 2006, I could care less about the initiaves they promised last year. Who believes that stuff? Only partisans, the “you gotta believers.”
Clearly there has never been an election that was more clearly a mandate on anything than the 2006 election. No one “broke for” the Democrats in 2006 because of all those meaningless promises they made. Many of us unaffiliateds did not miss the fact that most Democrats weren’t exactly campaigning their hearts out on the war…they don’t want to stop it much more than Bush does. Fine, then we’ll all vote third party next time around and see how the Big Two like that.
The only “dangerous dynamic” the Dems face is this kind of drivel, designed to unnerve them when they are finallly showing a wee bit of…well, something perceivably less than gutlessness. As far as I’m concerned, the only reason they aren’t doing well in the polls is because their efforts to stop this insane and immoral occupation of another country have been about as lame as they thought they could get away with and still feel safe walking the streets at night. But if this war is still going strong come November 2008, both the Democrats and the Republicans are going to find voting booths to be very dangerous places indeed.
As a dedicated anti-partisan, the only upside I can see to this unspeakable tragedy is that the upshot of it may be that the party system finally crashes and burn of its own stupidity and corruptness. Can’t happen soon enough, IMO.