Democrats are Doomed... DOOMED!

The Democratic Party is in total free fall, they're about five minutes away from folding up shop or, as ABC News put it, "Democrats are Dropping Like Flies." The 2010 elections are going to be a huge route for Democrats and, once the smoke clears, President Obama is likely to resign in disgrace and his name will be erased from the history books.

That's only a slight exaggeration of the media's reaction to recent announcements that a couple of top Democrats won't seek reelection. It's a sign that the electorate is down on Democrats, we're told. That Byron Dorgan and Chris Dodd would retire, rather than lose reelection, reflects every election in every state and district. Democrats are clearly doomed. Doomed!

"You will certainly hear a lot of talk from Republicans that Democrats are beginning to face the reality of just how tough the current political landscape looks for them and they are running for the hills," ABC's David Chalian writes.

Yeah, you certainly will. But Republicans say a lot of things and anyone who's been paying attention knows that the things they say are about 97% BS.





For example, Dodd's retirement doesn't show that people are down on Democrats. It shows they're down on Chris Dodd. Now that Dodd is out of the race, Attorney General Richard Blumenthal -- a Democrat -- leads all opponents by at least 30 points. Dodd's departure actually makes it more likely that Democrats will hold onto that seat. If Dodd's retirement shows anything, it shows that Connecticut is down on Republicans. You really can't use Chris Dodd's situation to demonstrate how much people hate Democrats.

Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee chairman Robert Menendez argues that this isn't an occasion to put up the Democrats' tombstone. When it comes to retirements, Republicans are actually worse off.

Sam Stein, Huffington Post:

The New Jersey Democrat, speaking hours after Sens. Chris Dodd (D-Conn.) and Byron Dorgan (D-N.D.) announced that this year would be their last in elected office, pushed back hard on the idea that Democratic senators were dropping like flies.

"Absolutely not," Menendez insisted in an interview with the Huffington Post. "We recognize the history, that midterm elections of the president's party going back to the Civil War are a challenge for the president's party. Only three times in history since the Civil War has the president's party sustained their present status or enhanced it. So, the bottom line is we have history running against us."

"I can say that while everybody today is riveted on these two retirements, the fact is Republicans have six retirements and they have to run the table across the board just to stay even to where they're at," Menendez added. "And in five of those six states we have some great candidates in very competitive races. So I look at it and say you wouldn't be seeing people getting into races in the senate if in fact it was a bad environment."

Of course, Menendez is paid to make partisan arguments. But the facts back him up here -- when it comes to retirements, Republicans continue to have problems. At this point, it's probably not a good idea for the GOP to play the lowered expectations game, since they'll want to excite their voters, but that game is coming. Republicans will start downplaying their chances, but with close to a year until election day, there's no reason to start now. Their base really needs a boost after three straight electoral disasters, so shake those pom-poms. But Republican triumphalism doesn't mean there's any substance behind it.

"Republican retirements outnumber Democratic retirements in the House, in the Senate, and among governors," writes Steve Benen. "The preferred Republican/media meme of the day doesn't match up well against reality."

To exacerbate GOP problems are the teabaggers. Ideological purists, they've shown no loyalty to what should be their party of choice. "[Republicans] are having some really bloodletting primaries in virtually all of their states. Particularly in open-seats, they are having these huge primaries," Menendez argues. "Whether it is the tea party people or the birthers or others, the reality is that the extreme right wing of the Republican Party, they keep pushing their candidates further and further to the right... So, the bottom line is, they are going to be out of sync of where the mainstream electorate is in the midterm election." This has been a recent problem with the right of the right -- they're good at winning primaries, but not so good in general elections. Right wing purity may be appealing to Republican voters, but Republican voters aren't the mainstream. As a result, their state primaries tend to nominate losers.

So who's likely to win bigger in November? Probably the Republicans, despite all their handicaps. But will they be able to win big enough to make any difference? Probably not. I'm not big on making predictions, but it seems pretty clear to me that the biggest losers in 2010 will be conservative Democrats -- in which case, I'm willing to call it a wash.

-Wisco


Get updates via Twitter

The Right, Waterboarding, and Superstitious Thinking

If the reaction we've seen on the right to Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab's crotchbomb attempt shows us anything, it's that even failed terrorist attacks work -- at least, among the cowardly. We have to start waterboarding again, some tell us. Others say we should strip search all Muslims at airports. It won't take much to get some idiot to demand we start waterboarding all Muslims at airports, just to be sure. And, when that inevitably fails to keep terrorists at bay, we'll just start waterboarding everyone.

There's a certain amount of superstitious thinking when it comes to the right and the question of torture. For them, it has the talismanic power, like crosses to vampires, and waterboarding in and of itself is an anti-terror tactic -- regardless of the circumstances. In this case, they call for waterboarding Abdulmutallab, because it has the magic power of warding off other terrorists.

They scoured the media for some reason to torture the crotchbomber and finally settled on one sentence from a Washington Post story to make their case; "Abdulmutallab remains in a Detroit area prison and, after initial debriefings by the FBI, has restricted his cooperation since securing a defense attorney, according to federal officials."





Case in point; James Kirchik in the New York Daily News, who wrote a piece titled, "Why shouldn't we waterboard Abdulmutallab? The ticking time bomb scenario is here." This is the big echo-chamber item of the moment in the right wing blogosphere.

I can give you the abridged version here. Abdulmutallab said that there were more bombings on the way, he's "clammed up," got a lawyer, and isn't talking. Therefore, we have to waterboard him, because waterboarding is magic and stops terrorists.

First off, let's deal with the "more bombs on the way" claim. Abdulmutallab is a terrorist. Look at that word; what do you think it means? I think it means "someone who's trying to scare you." So, by all means, let's believe everything he says. Clearly, he's the most trustworthy person in the United States at this moment.

Second, why on earth would you assume he knew anything? Al Qaeda sets him up to die (and that's an assumption at this point), so of course they tell him everything, like Goldfinger revealing the big plot to James Bond, because it's super-important that a low-level pawn who's about to be permanently removed from the board knows the whole big story. Even if waterboarding worked the way pro-torture nutjobs seem to think it does and turns him into a truth machine, we'd be sure to find out Abdulmutallab doesn't know jack.

Third, the single sentence mined out of the WaPo article contradicts what everyone else is reporting.

Sam Stein, Huffington Post:

The Obama administration said on Tuesday that it has gained "useful and actionable intelligence" from the would-be Christmas airplane bomber even as conservative critics slam the president for putting Umar Farouk Abdul Mutallab through the criminal justice system.

[...]

"The subject, as you know, was taken from a plane in Detroit. FBI interrogators spent quite some time with him. I don't want to get into all the specifics. But... I would say he has provided, in those interrogations, useful intelligence," said Gibbs. Pressed on what information was provided, he replied: "I'm not going to get into all of what he said, but, again, I think that the interrogators believe he has provided them with useful intelligence."

So, the question would be, what would be be waterboarding him for, exactly? Are we going to start torturing cooperative suspects too now? Because that doesn't seem to make a whole lot of sense.

But, then again, I'm forgetting that waterboarding and terrorism is like crosses and vampires. It's all magic, so it doesn't have to make any logical sense -- which explains why Sarah Palin has also taken up this argument. It's not about logic, it's about scaring you.

Which, I'm pretty sure, qualifies as terrorism.

-Wisco


Get updates via Twitter

Both Parties Handicapped in 2010

Hey look, it's 2010. Election year. The good news for Republicans is that Democrats have spent the last half of 2009 blowing it. The good news for Democrats is that voters don't seem to have forgotten that Republicans suck. Still, the GOP is poised to be the big winner in November, provided nothing much changes between now and then -- which is an impossible expectation. How big might the Republicans win be? Despite the hullabaloo about a "big Republican year," most give them a very slim chance of retaking the House of Representatives and no chance of retaking the Senate, meaning that -- in all likelihood -- dems will retain control of both Houses. My own personal take is that Blue Dogs will be the biggest losers in the Democratic caucus, which actually means that very little will change. The Democrats are almost certain to lose that "filibuster-proof" majority, but since that's proved to be entirely theoretical anyway, it's hard to get too worked up about it. In both chambers, it's easy to envision the same sort of legislation breaking down to the same number of votes for and against. Unlike the party, I have no interest in electing Democrats merely to elect Democrats. If you aren't going to actually do anything positive with those seats, don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out. I won't miss Democrats who've voted with Republicans most of the time anyway.

Still, gloom and doom sells papers, so gloom and doom for Democrats in 2010 is what we get. The consequences of the wins or losses are superseded by horserace coverage in the best circumstances, let alone in cases like this, where the likely consequences are pretty minimal. It's "gloom and doom for Democrats" because any other take on the story is a yawn. If you're looking for good news here, Republican triumphalism is probably misplaced and will be followed quickly by disappointment. When the smoke clears, the Republican base will expect a lot their elected officials won't be able to deliver -- and the teabaggers, known neither for their patience nor their level-headedness, will tear them apart.

Still, it's not like Democrats don't have a strategy. It's a simple plan; remind voters that Republicans suck.

Thomas Edsall, Huffington Post:

So what should Democratic candidates do to survive 2010? A strong consensus has emerged among Democratic operatives, based on a strategy developed under the guidance of pollster Geoff Garin. Garin declined to be interviewed for this story, but other party strategists say the most crucial order of business in each contest is to prevent Republican challengers from turning the race into a referendum on the Democratic candidate, the Democratic Party, President Obama, or all three. Rather, they say, Democrats need to turn the public's attention to the failings of the Republican candidate and the national GOP.

Democratic pollster Celinda Lake says that as soon as her clients know who their opponents will be, her advice is "to get them [the Republican candidates] defined." Democratic candidates, Lake and others say, should pre-empt Republicans seeking to present a positive image to the public. Among the techniques to achieve this goal are floating negative stories in the press, taking full advantage of sympathetic bloggers to create a hostile portrait of the GOP opponent, and actively using "less visible" means of communication such as phone banks, direct mail, and canvassers.

Edsall says Democratic consultants have one bit of advice for Democrats this year; "Don't get on the defensive, don't allow [the Republican] to define you." Anyone who's paid attention the last couple of cycles will tell you that'd be a nice change of pace for Democrats, who always seem surprised to learn that their Republican opponents are shameless liars and conscienceless smear merchants. One consultant tells him the plan is not to pull punches. "[B]asically it comes down to one thing," his source tells him. "You've got to kick the shit out of somebody."

What Democrats seem to have trouble grasping is that Republicans go negative early because they know what their opponents don't -- it's a lot easier to get someone to vote against something than for something. And, with Republicans still seen as the greater of two evils, no Democrat should ever refer to his or her opponent without using the word "Republican." That's probably their greatest weakness.

Or maybe their second-greatest. Despite the "big Republican year" meme making its way around newsrooms, Republicans themselves seem less than sold on the idea.

Politico:

The National Republican Congressional Committee, the key cog in helping to finance GOP campaigns, has banked less than a third as much money as its Democratic counterpart and is ending the year with barely enough money to fully finance a single House race — no less the dozens that will be in play come 2010.

A big part of the problem, according to Republican strategists, is that GOP members themselves — the ones who stand the most to gain from large-scale House gains — haven’t chipped in accordingly, despite evidence of solid opportunities in at least 40 districts next year and with as many as 80 seats in play, according to the Cook Political Report’s estimates.

Democrats have $4 million from House members to spend on House races, while Republicans are saving their ammo for their own races and have only kicked in $2.1 million. "Republicans are already expressing concerns that they may not have enough resources to fully take advantage of the political climate," Politico reports, "which is shaping to be the most favorable for the GOP since the last time they took control of the House in 1994." And the GOP isn't doing any better in other fundraising efforts. In the last year, Democrats have outraised them by $18 million, with $15 million on hand. The Republican Congressional Committee has just $4.3 million, with $2 million in debt, "leaving it with just a pittance to fund the dozens of races it hopes to aggressively contest."

"Republicans have been through two cycles of psychological shell-shock. Their members’ first instinct is self-preservation, first and foremost," Republican consultant Phil Musser told Politico. "The fundraising environment for members in the minority isn’t what it is for members in the majority. It’s damn hard to raise the dough."

Of course, Politico overstates the GOP's problem somewhat by ignoring the fact that Republicans are soft money kings. They'll get a lot of help from outside groups in the form of attack ads. Pro-gun, anti-abortion, anti-gay, and pro-corporate groups will pump money into races, but this isn't the same as the Republican Party spending the money themselves. The result will be a strategy-by-committee where the special interest's left hand doesn't know -- and, in many cases, doesn't care -- what the Republican's right hand is doing.

Democrats are going to take a haircut this year -- and mostly because they deserve it -- but the stories about them facing a scalping are grossly overstating the case.

-Wisco


Get updates via Twitter