It seems strange to talk about this just months after Barack Obama could seem to turn out 50,000 for a rally at the drop of a hat. But there are some worrying signs for Democrats that may be impacting the debate on health care and other issues. Take what Tom Jensen of Public Policy Polling found in Virginia, for example:
Last week I was skeptical of SurveyUSA's poll showing an electorate that voted for John McCain 52-43...but we actually found it at a 52-41 McCain advantage.Suppose that we take some liberties with Jensen's data and apply them not just to Virginia but to the rest of the country. Right now, the partisan ID split among adults in the country is about 34 percent Democrat, 24 percent Republican, and 36 percent independent (plus an additional 6 percent "other"). But suppose that, in accordance with PPP's Virginia poll, 42 percent of Democrats are highly engaged at the moment -- 42 percent of 34 percent is 14 percent. Now suppose that 60 percent of Republicans are highly engaged -- 60 percent of 24 percent is also 14 percent, the same total that we got for the Democrats.
What does that mean? Let's say that 2 million people vote this fall, a slight uptick from 2005. Using the data from the poll that would mean 1,040,000 McCain voters and 820,000 Obama voters.
Now let's compare that to last fall. McCain received 1,725,005 votes. If 1,040,000 of those turn out this year that's equal to 60% of his voters. Obama received 1,959,532 votes. If 820,000 of those turn out this fall that's equal to 42% of his voters.
All right, so that's a little imprecise by the standards of what we usually do around here. But for all sorts of tangible and intangible reasons -- probably none more profound than that Republicans have been losing every election for the past few years and nothing warms the spirit like revenge -- I suspect that something like this approximates the state of play in the country right now: the depth of Republican support is starting to rival the breadth of Democratic support. Sometimes, American politics resembles a screaming contest, and Republicans -- though fewer in number -- are screaming a little louder right now.
I certainly do think, by the way, that the semi-organized efforts to disrupt things like health-care town halls have some chance of backfiring. Americans are actually a relatively civil people, and all it might take is one idiot taking things too far for the "movement" to lose a news cycle or six. The whole point of these efforts, moreover, is to make a molehill of opposition look like a mounain.
Fake mountains (mass movemnts) don't generally beat real ones. But the Democrats don't have a mass movement right now. They have an electorate that's maybe 60 percent unaware of the threat that things like health care are under in Washington, 20 percent aware but burned out or ambivalent, and 10 percent both aware and engaged but busy fighting with one another. That doesn't leave very many Democrats left to stand up and shout back.
The Democratic Party's fundamentals, to paraprase John McCain, remain strong -- whereas these ebbs and flows of enthusiasm can be rather transient. But sometimes the short run matters, and on health care reform at least, this is one of those times. Unfortunately for Democrats, I don't think there are any easy answers. It's almost certainly not as simple as flipping a switch, or mobilizing OFA, and re-activating the enthusiasm we witnessed during the campaign. Which is not to say that Democrats shouldn't try. But their leadership ought to be prepared for the eventuality that they will lose the shouting match -- and will still need to find a way to win the war.

64 comments
First? I think that the refusal of the GOP and their most fiery backers to engage in a dialogue about what to do (instead of what not to do) is absurd. While I agree the current short term is important (more important than the usual 24 hour news cycle blather), these people's eternal focus on the near term is completely blinding to what our nation will be like 20 or even 10 years from now if we continue down the current path.
Which is not to say that Democrats shouldn't try.
Well, my enthusiasm is drained. After donating hundreds of dollars to Obama, he betrayed every important campaign promise he made, throwing the Constitution under the bus, hiring lobbyists to run his departments, perpetuating and expanding the imperial presidency, and caving in to moneyed interests after his citizen-funded campaign.
I am demoralized and really don't give a crap anymore; Obama is just another corporate puppet, putting Wall Street ahead of Main Street and politicians above the law altogether.
I am about 80% certain that whatever this health care bill contains, win or lose, it will favor the money men more than us. Republicans are even worse. Apparently, it simply isn't possible to get an actual liberal constitutionalist elected president.
Tony, a person such as yourself should never give to a presidential candidate then as they will all fail these arbitrary tests you've talked about. I also donated and campaigned for Obama, and am happy with what I have seen thus far (which seems to be something other than what you're seeing).
In both his record, his promises, and his demeanor, Obama has been fairly moderate throughout the campaign and Presidency.. perhaps all those unhinged Republicans screaming 'socialist!' may have shaded that view for some.
If you wanted to vote for Kucinich, you should have voted for Kucinich.
The first real test of his Presidency will be when the healthcare bill shows up on his desk without a strong public option, and he announces a veto.
Or he signs it, and hides like Hoover.
There's one problem with the enthusiasm argument. I accept that conservative voters may have higher enthusiasm. In fact, the numbers may even be more skewed than you think.
Conservatives have many reasons to be frustrated with the leadership in Washington. Now, before a flame war starts about who governs better, just take my statement at face value. There's little in D.C. at the moment for a conservative to be happy about.
The problem for the Republicans is this: while the conservatives have plenty of reasons to vote against the Democrats, the Republicans have yet to give reasons for the conservative to vote for them.
You don't win elections by trying to get people to vote against your opponent (see John Kerry, 2004 and John McCain, 2008 for recent examples). You win elections by getting people to vote for you.
Until the Republicans can convince conservatives they deserve our vote, the Democrats have little to fear.
I think that people are becoming disengaged simply because no one is putting out any hard information on health care, etc. Obama is experiencing the same leadership problem that plagued W, which is turning over too much of the detail work to subordinates. This seems particularly true in the Congress, with Harry Reid giving an impersonation of someone who's "Reitred In Position" and Nancy "talks a good game" Pelosi apparently running and controlling the Democratic Party agenda. The Party Leader, i.e., the President, appears to be fairly disengaged once a draft bill of some sort hits a committee...or three.
For someone who claims to be an analysis person you really don't get it Nate. Its not rocket science. Obamas health care plan has more people against it than in favor of it.
For all of those liberala/progressives upset at Obama you do realize how insane you sound right. If policy was moved to the left at all nothing would get passed. You should be thankful Obama has enough commonsense to realize this. Pretty soon you guys will start primarying blue dogs just like the consevatives primaried and attacked moderate Republicans. We all know how that turned out. Common sense doesn't flow very well with partisans though and history alays repeats itself.
@Chris of Rights
I agree with what you are saying, that the activity of the GOP and their future electoral prospects remain grim but that is not what is at stake right now. Currently GOP activists benefit because their leaders are not currently facing an election and are thus not having to appeal to the middle. Instead, we see they are acting in the short term thinking of "winning" on health care (which only means defeating Obama, because they can't pass their version of reform even if they had one) rather than broadening their base. They aren't appealing to moderates, just getting them to be confused and divided enough to not support the reform measures. The OFA and Obama, if/when they prevail, will have actually won over future VOTES in elections to come rather than won 4 weeks of news cycles 2 years prior.
As for the Bush vs Obama methods of getting legislation, they are totally different. Obama does not rely on his subordinates to construct policy, he knows it all through studying it himself. However, instead of using Bush's tactic of demanding and lashing at the Senate he set broad frameworks for them to construct legislation within. I don't know how well this is working for him currently, and I would hope that he does not wait for Baucus' committee to finish their draft before coming out with concrete benchmarks of what HIS health care plan is (and I guarantee he has one).
nova-middle-man said
'For someone who claims to be an analysis person you really don't get it Nate. Its not rocket science. Obamas health care plan has more people against it than in favor of it.
For all of those liberala/progressives upset at Obama you do realize how insane you sound right. If policy was moved to the left at all nothing would get passed. You should be thankful Obama has enough commonsense to realize this. Pretty soon you guys will start primarying blue dogs just like the consevatives primaried and attacked moderate Republicans. We all know how that turned out. Common sense doesn't flow very well with partisans though and history alays repeats itself.'
----------------------------
Nova, whilst you make some sense, I think that I think a lot of liberal nerviness about the healthcare debate (is there really one bill out there?) is that they are not convinced that a public option will come out of the process. Personally I am quite bullish about that. Its what people want, and Democrats in Congress recognise that, and also recognise its importance. I think even some independent voters are nervous about whether or not a public option will get into the final mix. I don't think all that many people are really concerned that an overly radical bill will come out of the process. I've certainly not seen any evidence of that opinion. (Note to conservative posters, 70% of voters being happy with there coverage is not the same thing as 70% of people being against a public option, for a start how many of that 70% are on medicare?)
Can you find me any moderate Republican who lost there seat following a primary challenge? That part sounded a bit made up to me?? I think in open seats its probably fair to suggest that conservatism was an advantage in primaries, but as for sitting Republicans, I can't think of one who was unseated through a primary challenge?? And I certainly can't think of too many moderates who stood up to George W Bush. In fact you could argue that the one significant voice who perhaps put pressure on Bush, ended up as the Presidential nominee of his party. Mayor Giuliani and Governor Romney were certainly not rewarded for being loyalists from a moderate point of view.
I think that Obama will get a decent bill through the process at the end of the day, I am confident it will have a public option which will ensure all Americans have access to healthcare coverage. And at the end of the day a significant number of Republicans will be on record as having voted against what will be a popular government measure.
Let me let you in on a little secret. The unfortunately quite insane homeless guy down the street yells a lot louder than I do, doesn't make his opinions any less crazy, or valid. The main problem we have right now is most polling is following an arcaic method that is now underestimating the mobility of the younger class of people, so we get these polls that 5 or 10 years back had small margins of error based on sample data, but are now claiming the same margin with a different demographic. Seriously, what person under 30 uses a landline, or answers any call from a number they don't know? I don't know a single one, so the people that do it are most likely rural in nature, skewing figures.
I'll be honest... it's progressives like Tony C. who bitch and whine and refuse to recognize the way our freaking system works (which is slowly, with compromise, and lots of inertia) who turn me off from being engaged. It's like half these people think its reasonable to argue that "hey! I voted for Obama, and, after 7 months, the U.S. isn't exactly like Canada, so EPIC FAIL!!!" Well, guess what? This is NOT Canada. We have a hugely polarized electorate, with an awful lot of conservative, risk averse people, highly entrenched in their ways and fearful of the future, and unless you are out there, constantly, engaging these people, making the case for health care, repealing DADT, whatever, don't expect things to change. And sure as hell don't blame Obama, who is definitely doing what he can, within all reason. This whining crap is so enervating...
Being president isn't the same as running for president. The campaign is always more exciting than the actual job. And for those of us watching and waiting, yes, the resluts seem slow and leave us less enthusiastic. It's a lot easier to scream against something than to work towards it.
I would say we are watching and aware, but not screaming, while the Republicans are screaming because it is all they know how to do. If asked, we will call and write, but most of us aren't in the mood to have to scream for what everyone in this country other than the crazy people and corporate interests so obviously want to happen.
MarkyMark here are a couple examples
MI-07 Joe Schwarz defeated by Tim Walberg in power lost to Democrat Mark Schauer the next election.
MD-01 Wayne Gilchrest defeated by R Andy Harris lost to D Frank Kratovil
Its much more common that candidates are weakened by having to spend money and energy. The most concrete example of that is Rhode Island and Lincoln Chafee who got beat up in the primary and lost to Democrat Sheldon Whitehouse.
In my state of Virginia the balance of the state senate switched from Republicans to Democrats because an incumbent was ousted in a primary and then lost in the general.
I think most people support a public option in theory. The devil in the details is avoiding a public mandate, how to pay for it/keep costs los, how to keep services high, and maximize the people who can qualify for the plan.
I'm not sure why you're even comparing parties at this point. Most polls show the country evenly divided on support of obama's health care reform, real close to 50/50. Polls also show republican support in the 20's, so clearly republicans can simply not solely represent the majority opinion. If you want to look at which side is more energized, Rasmussen's index would probably be a good indicator. I think you just did a post about it the other day. I think currently it's somewhere around -10 showing those "strongly" opposing obama's policies have larger numbers than those in support, hence louder voices.
I'm a liberal democrat. I want my party to be more liberal. If I were polled on healthcare today, I would say I am against the current plans in congress. Why? Not because I am "against socialized medicine" or think the US has the "best healthcare system sytem in the world".
BRB.
Sorry, had to take a break to go laugh at that last trope. Sometimes the giggles just come over me and... well, anyway...
I'm against the current congressional plans because they don't go far enough. I want Canadian Medicare. It works better and is cheaper than what we have here.
If the overall Democratic agenda on issues like healthcare, the environment, education, gay rights, etc. either goes down to defeat or gets compromised into irrelevence, it isn't the Dems in liberal districts who'll pay the price. Boston, San Francisco and south Texas won't send a GOPer to congress whatever happens. The ones in danger from an enthusiasm gap are Dems in swing districts who absolutely need their entire base to turn out.
The current composition of the House is 201 Democrats, 52 blue dogs, 178 Republicans and 2 vacant seats. It takes 217 votes to pass legislation. I expect that the worst losses to be sustained by the Democratic party in the 2010 cycle will be in Blue Dog seats. So, it is in my agenda's best interest to see the party experience a slight downtick in most areas. I also expect that if blue dogs kill meaningful healthcare reform, many of them will face primary challengers from the left and moderates. Maybe a small handful of these challengers may even get very lucky and win the general.
Maybe the 112th congress becoming 205 Democrats, 28 Blue Dogs and 200 Republicans, is the only way for the Blue Dogs to finally get housebroken.
Or, maybe the Blue Dogs will toe the party line and actually get re-elected.
@nova
I think you're miscalculating how open the American public was to severe government reform this past election. Many Democrats and Independents and Republicans who voted for President Obama were hoping to see big, sweeping overhaul. Yes we have consumer protection in place and yes we have a climate bill and yes we are slowly pulling out of Iraq but I think the biggest expectation of all was that our Government would not be bullied by lobbyists and corporations. Citizens are very disappointed to see that continue.
@s:
My problem is not that I want the USA like Canada, you miss the point. Read Greenwald, for christ's sake. My problem is the RADICAL changes Obama is perpetuating against the constitutional rights you and I used to have.
Right now, thanks to Bush and then an Obama supported push for the same, you or I, American citizens, can be arrested and detained indefinitely, tortured, and killed, and nobody will be brought to justice for that.
The government can monitor your phone calls without a warrant, with impunity. The CIA can kill prisoners and nothing will happen to them.
Corporate interests commit fraud, theft, and abuse of taxpayer moneys to the tune of BILLIONS of dollars and get away scot free.
I could give a crap either way about the progressive legislative agenda; my problem is not with health care, or global warming, or cap and trade, or even infrastructure: All of that is a matter of politics and slow progress. My problem is that the rights we are supposed to have, that are supposed to be guaranteed to us by the Constitution, and the rule of law we depend upon, are now crippled to the point of non-recognition.
The ruling class breaks laws with impunity; the wealthy class has rigged the game so it is impossible for them to lose, and the costs of this corruption at the top are borne exclusively by the poor and middle class.
Obama promised to clean this up and hold both the ruling class and the wealthy class accountable; and once he got into power he broke those promised and aided and abetted their crimes.
THAT is what I am upset about, and no amount of goodies or handouts will mollify me. Hold criminals accountable, that is all I ask. It is the prime purpose of the government to enforce fair treatment of the rich and powerful, and they are willfully failing at that, under the pretense of "protecting" us.
Last night Charlie Rose interviewed the renegade Democratic senator (ND) Kent Conrad who, for all his threats and cautions to his own party, might as well have been a Republican. He, among others, are trying to engineer a “co-op plan” as part of a Senate bill which will do away with the public option. It’s an attempt to create a non-profit insurance entity so fragmentary and localized that it will provide no alternative to the insurance industry whatever. The idea is to fashion something so fragile and unworkable that the insurers can crush it some morning before breakfast.
Conrad also issued dire warnings to the Democrats about trying to push healthcare reform through the Senate by means of the budget reconciliation process. Mind you, Conrad is a Democrat threatening members of his own party. He even wagged his finger, like a crotchety old schoolmarm.
With “Democrats” like Conrad, who needs Republicans?
I say what Howard Dean says—get the House bill, then ram it through the Senate using reconciliation. You will never get a single Republican to vote for any bill that contains even a hint of threat to the status quo. They all talk a good game, wanting compromise, expressing concern. They have no interest in compromise. They want to defeat any meaningful reform.
This would be a good time to remember the words of Abraham Lincoln, who, after his election but before the inauguration, was urged to say something publicly to placate those men in the South who were truly worried about the direction the country was taking. He said bluntly, “There are no such men. It is the trick by which the South breaks down every Northern man. If I yielded to their entreaties I would go to Washington without the support of the men who elected me. I would be as powerless as a block of buckeye wood.”
dgoshilla
I totally agree with you
I think Obama won based on one word Change
Change from the past eight years of Bush and incompatent cronyisim.
Some of his best lines I think were we are going to reform Washington. Its time to put away the politics of the past and look towards the future.
Would you agree that this support does not mean actual support for liberal/progressive causes. In fact from the day Obama came into office his personal aprroval has always been higher than his political approval.
Also its not suprising to me that liberals/progerssives have so much vertoil for the blue dogs.
I wonder what Obama thinks about them. Campaign Obama I think would actually supports what they are doing (as long as the legislation isn't killed) President Obama I wonder. I think maybe thats why he isn't as engaged. I think he likes talking high level stuff and doesn't like getting bogged down with the legislative process. Part of me thinks why he moved so fast is that he honestly didn't really like being a legislator. I think I read somewhere how frustrated he was with the whole legislative process.
nova_muddle_man…
What’s “vertoil”? Does it come from the Middle East? I’ll bet those lousy commie Democrats are trying to import that stuff, huh.
Keith Olbermann, fresh from vacation, did a special comment on the health care topic last night. Man, he ripped the Republicans AND the blue dog Dems a really big, shiny, new a**hole last night. Not only did he acuse them of being in the pocket of Big Pharma but he provided the numbers on the campaign contributions as well (wouldn't be surprised if Prof Silver had something to do with that).
He also pointed out; as Nate has in this post, the effect of these straw man fake movements disrupting the town hall dialogues. I was worried about them at first but I think Nate may be right. They just sound, well, desperate and shrill.
Moyers had an interesting piece too. An interview with a former health care exec gone off the reservation. But more interestingly, he had a memo that detailed the negative language that needed to be used in order to kill the health insurance reform movement. He followed this by clips of several of the Republican naysayers in the pulpit parroting this very language. The insurance industry is going to a great deal of trouble to smash reform into a puddle on the senate floor.
At this point, I'm not sure what to do. Should I get actively involved, join the fray and fight back this ignorance against the reform. I kinda wish the Democratic reformers would ratchet the rhetoric up a bit; get a spine; grow a pair.
Or should I just sit back and let the Republicans implode like the birthers? I get the concept of bipartisan but this either needs to be done right or not at all. All the fuzzy speeches from the health care industry notwithstanding, I find their intentions to be hollow. The complaint that a public option would eventually lead to the downfall of the health insurance industry leaves me wondering "so?". After being reamed personally a couple of times (one in particular where a claim was refused after assurances from the rep that I was covered really left me bitter. I didn't have the money to pay the bill and it wrecked my credit) I find I have little sympathy for an industry whose primary motivation is to their shareholders and the rest of us suckers can just crawl off and die if we don't have the money. When an industry pays people to look for loopholes to get out of their commitments and spends $13 million ($11.7 million from one company alone) of our benefit money fighting health care: you know, cry me a river.
The problem with some the American public, and some on this site, is that they have no patience. By the end of President Obama's first year things are going to be looking FAR DIFFERENT than they do now, simply because all the changes that are in the works take time to come about. Think of a supertanker: You don't just stop one on a dime, or turn on a dime either.
And the directions this country has been travelling have been SO DIFFERENT than the ones the new Administration is steering us in that they make steering a supertanker a mere flyspeck in comparison.
OF COURSE the GOPers have a bit of a headwind right now. That's pretty easy to do when the change is so small as to be nearly invisible.
But just like the GOPers got out in front of themselves when it came to the stock market (remember when they jumped all over the numbers in Feb and March, and blamed it on President Obama - in spite of the fact he'd only been in office a month or so?), they are getting out in front of themselves on health care and the economy right now.
Mark my words.
Nova, I think one or two examples are fine, but I think in effect may be as much evidence of the party becoming a moreregional party, dominated by Southern Conservatives. Personally I think that healthcare reform is one thing a lot of voters genuinely were happy to think about in the last election. I think that Olberman had it about right last night.
"I am demoralized and really don't give a crap anymore; Obama is just another corporate puppet, putting Wall Street ahead of Main Street and politicians above the law altogether."
Whoa there Tony. Change don't happen overnite. Stay out of the Freep and Drudge sites for awhile.
Nate: In order to answer your question about how many times Obama's name appears on Deed's website, you can do a targeted google search as such:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&hs=c3O&q=obama+site%3Awww.deedsforvirginia.com&aq=f&oq=&aqi=
Basically, you type your search terms, and add the qualifier site:
so, Obama site:http://www.deedsforvirginia.com
returns 76 results.
I'd be interested to know if it's possible to measure the reasons for the Obama voter drop-off in enthusiasm. I think the "he won" theory is a bit over simplified.
All the Obama volunteers that I know started to get disillusioned over his inability (or lack of sustained effort on) "changing the way politics is done" stuff, which could largely have been done outside of Congress.
It's not the policy details, but the general sense that Washington is more or less the same place it was which turns "the masses" off (unless they are directly threatened). That's purely anecdotal, but it would be interesting if it could be measured.
Same deal here as on Kos.. a mutually supportive, generally progressive community mindset gives rise to the fallacy that such a mindset is the American norm. Sorry friends, but the progressive mindset and its social-utopic, heavy-handed interventionist expectations of government is simply not the prevailing mindset in this country. The United States has been and remains a center-right nation, with one predominant ideological tenet, held dear and which no manner of progressive passion will ever shake: liberty. To be clear, this includes liberty from the tyrannies of both the governing and elite classes. It's what the founders fought for, it's what they drafted our constitution to protect and it is what has undergirded the rise of the greatest prosperity ever to exist on earth. Most Americans understand these truths and it is precisely the threats to liberty posed by grand expansionist government that has President Barack Obama and friends, a la James Earl Carter, on their way permanently down the approval ladder.
Americans, on balance, don't want or expect government to be their savior. This is generally understood by the right (although its most recent governing class lost its way) and by much of the Blue Dog coalition, which is why health reform including a strong public option and cap and trade, at least those envisioned by many in this community, comrade Keith at MSNBC, Markos and the rest of the progressive establishment, will ultimately fail (either by outright defeat in Washington or through a watering-down of legislation to the point that it accomplishes the same purpose). There are, thankfully for me, enough rational minds in Washington who understand these realities to keep a radically progressive agenda from truly taking hold.
Barack Obama was elected by an 80-20 split of independents and moderates (the 10 percent in the middle who decide every national election), rightfully sick and tired of Republican malfeasance and its betrayals of the tenets of liberty. Since taking office our 44th President has embarked on nothing less than a seven-month progressive crusade, only just now being fully recognized by the 'middle-ten' for the liberty-confiscating mal-governance that it is. Stay tuned - Mr. Obama's numbers, his legitimacy as a national and world leader and their corresponding coattails - coattails that he absolutely must have to hold any sway on the global stage or get his domestic agenda enacted - are shrinking so fast that he may be lucky to even be competitive in 2012.
Nate posted:
"Fake mountains (mass movemnts) don't generally beat real ones."
I'm sorry but how are conservative/Right grassroots movements (tea parties, FreedomWorks, etc.) any less authentic and legitimate than liberal/Left grassroots movements (MoveOn, Code Pink, OFA, etc.)?
Ah, it must be because conservatives send out memos and emails to their supporters as opposed to liberals who don't.
Sure Nate, sure.
Prick…
Don’t you guys ever do anything but predict “failure”?
Your rattlings never contain anything concrete, just one dire prediction after another, all based on your fervent hopes that the mess we are in will get worse. Most people, the honest Americans among us, hope things will get better, and are willing to work toward that goal.
You know, your mother should have told you that wishing for something doesn’t mean it will come true.
Maybe you should explain what the poll cited in the beginning was all about instead of delving into it. I had no idea it was about the Virginia gubernatorial until I actually read the link.
profnickd…
The difference is that what the right promotes as “grassroots”, such as the “tea parties”, were nothing more than fakery brewed up in the bowels of Fox News. Despite all the hornblowing Fox did over the “tea parties” none drew more than a scattering of people. Kinda reminiscent of the old “spontaneous demonstrations of affection” in the old Communist Bloc.
If it was such an honest, grassroots movement that reflected something deep and wide in the American heartland, where is it now? Fox stopped pushing it, and it went Poof! just like that.
I remember when the Iraq invasion broke out. I was pissed. Why couldn't anyone see this folly for what it was? My neighbor told me some people were going to get together down at the courthouse the next day so we made up a little sign and decided to go down there. No e-mails; no concerted effort to rally by some group. Nobody called me from an PAC. No news network encouraged me to stand up for justice. We just wanted to have a voice. Apparently so did a few thousand of my fellow citizens. It was the biggest protest rally in the history of Eugene, Oregon. I swelled with pride and gladness to know I wasn't the only one who knew this was an unjust and stupid war.
I got home that night and watched the news. I'm sure you remember that, as it turned out, several millions of people all over the world collectively had the same feeling.
That, my dear profnickd, is the difference between a real movement and your Fox news created fakery.
PS. While it did not stop the War, it was the harbinger for a triumph in which we now reside.
You cannot stop a moral imperative with a fake movement and by bamboozling your constituency.
@Rick:
You are full of it (non-sensical blather, that is). Face the facts, buddy: 75% of Americans, in poll after poll after poll, want the US Government to provide a public insurance option. That is not "center-right", and clearly Americans DO on balance want and expect the government to be their "savior." They want and expect the government to stop the exploitation of their citizens.
You are so blinded by your foolish ideology you have stepped out of reality into some conservative fantasy land; in any case you don't know what you are talking about; if anything this is a center-LEFT country.
nova_middle_man said...
In fact from the day Obama came into office his personal approval has always been higher than his political approval.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This is true for all presidents, so yes Virginia one has a keen grasp of the obvious!
Re: enthusiasm, maybe the South will be a tad more motivated for Reps, because hey, the Civil War is still being fought down there and they really, really don't like Obama being president. But the Reps can have the South which is of little consequence in the large picture of national politics.
My perspective, if the yahoos, rednecks, racists weren't motivated enough to vote in 2008 against a bi-racial Dem, then an election w/out him on the ballot, they really won't care as their core group, older white guys, especially in the South continues to diminish.
2010 and more so, 2012 will be Obama's test of his ability to get out the vote ie enthusiasm and register more new young voters.
2012 is looking better and better as many military experts say Afghanistan, an 100% Rep war, will still be ongoing 3 to 5 years from now ie no incumbent president has lost and election in American history, plus the same advantages Obama had over the Reps in 2008, only more so as the Rep base further shrinks and continues to go off the deep end ie not a serious party to voters who decide elections: the independents.
The Rep party is beginning to look more and more like the Dem party of the late 60s early 70s. No cohesion, no rational message, no leadership, they aren't for anything, only against and now they have a 24/7 cable news channel which advertises its negativity ad nauseam!
Addition by subtraction won't work for the party of No !!! as their extreme fringe continues to take over the party. Limbaugh, Hannity, Beck etc. are not a winning proposition as 2008 proved.
Yes, many progressives aren't happy w/Obama, Utopia being such a high standard, but he's doing just fine imo. Real health care reform is his big hurdle and once completed, his only concern will be the economy.
Enthusiasm to me is the right wing media preaching to the choir ie the ever dwindling extreme conservative fringe.
Obama has already passed the biggest hurdle of his life, being elected president in a country that has a 400 year history of racial oppression as the party of Lincoln continues to implode.
Reagan's movement had the youth vote, just like Obama. Likability just like Obama. And the Dems underestimated Reagan just like the Reps have underestimated Obama.
Buchanan said yesterday Reps will pick up (30) seats in 2010 and I just smiled knowing how the Mark Foley scandal impacted the 2006 mid-terms one week before the election.
So many pundits, so little time.
Obama has mastered political science. Yes, an African-American has led the Dems to the promised land, who knew lol as the opposition continues to be pissed and nonsensical.
For a liberal independent this is as good as it gets! :)
carry on
no incumbent war time president has lost an election in American history ...
carry on
Rick said...
Barack Obama was elected by an 80-20 split of independents and moderates (the 10 percent in the middle who decide every national election)
Rick?
But the GOOPer pollster of choice (fundie, wingnut, Scottie Ratmussen) says that the partisan index is now (as of August 1) 29.9% Independent/Other. (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/mood_of_america/partisan_trends)
That 29.9% is triple (more or less) the 10% figure you gave.
But as I expected, more smack talk from a GOOPer who doesn't know what he/she/it is talking about, and doesn't know how to do their own research, just parroting the talking points they receive (as if it's Holy Manna) from Lush, O'LIElly, Manthrax, Malkin, Wiener, Palin, etc., etc.
Mike in Maryland
My Blogger ID is http://www.blogger.com/profile/0284889341225109596
@Pragmatus..
It's a hard thing to watch your heroes fall - sorry for not being gentler. There is, by the way, a difference between pessimism and realism, or didn't your mother teach you that?
And don't be absurd - of course I hope things get better. I simply have no hope whatsoever, based on the recorded history of failure (to deliver great and sustainable prosperity) of every form of collectivist governance ever tried, in the policies of this Administration. The only thing that I can rationally hope for at this point is for the country to get to the endpoint of our little Hope and Change experiment as quickly as possible. Only when we get some leaders in place who understand and respect markets, incentives and unintended consequences will the nation have a chance to find its footing again. And that knowledge simply doesn't exist within the party currently in charge of Washington.
P-Rick…
The current administration has been in office for 6 ½ months. Don’t you think you’re jumping the gun a little in proclaiming that it has failed?
You’re engaging in wishful thinking, about the only tool the GOOP has in its box any more.
Been to any tea parties lately?
@Pragmatus
6½ months has been more than long enough to get to know what this administration is made of. $787 billion of my grandchildren's money thrown at Dem special interest groups under the Keynesian charade of 'stimulus', a budgeted national debt incursion 4 times that ever contemplated by W, nationalizations of banks, global insurers and automakers, economy-oblitterating environmental and healthcare overhauls.. Call it socialism, big government liberalism - call it whatever you want but history is clear: collectivist governance has NEVER produced sustainable prosperity and there is NOTHING different or somehow enlightened about this go-round to suggest that it will be any different this time.
Sorry, no tea parties for me; just a careful and rational examination of decisions being made, positions being taken and the historic precedents experienced by this nation and others which clearly and obviously define the Obama administration's economic and social agendas as broken and failed before their first bureaucratic inefficiency is ever realized.
Have another glass of Kool Aid. In fact, I'd keep a pitcher handy. You're going to need every drop.
As per usual, Rick is making claims of fact he has pulled out of his ass. C'mon Rick, give us your exhaustive list of every "collectivist government" that has ever existed, since a complete knowledge of such is a prerequisite to your emphatic claim of "NEVER".
Ah, then tell us what is meant by "sustainable prosperity", since just about every government on the planet has failed, and there is hardly a government in existence that hasn't undergone radical changes in form in the last 300 years (but 5000 years of governance before that). Thus NO government has ever produced "sustainable prosperity," right?
Oh wait, we DO have the example of communist China, which is kicking our ass up and down the world street in terms of prosperity, production, growth and education in advanced fields such as mathematics and engineering. Uh oh. Isn't that a collectivist government?
Rick likes to make proclamations he can't back up.
Enthusiasm for what?
Look at the folks you're sampling when you dip your polling sieve into the waters of VA, or at least the Republican side of the local waters. Over half of those people are birthers.
I'm from NOVA, canvass for the party all of the time, and you can be sure we take the grim recent poll results very seriously. But I'm just not seeing either the birther or the McConnell enthusiasm in real Republicans around here that you would think from these polls is raging out of control.
Polling has a low participation rate, even lower than I get canvassing. Even if enthusiasm for answering pollsters and actually going to the polls become close enough in their selection biases near election day, so that there is no differential bias in later polling, I suspect that right now, pre-Labor Day, the enthusiasm gap, and the high numbers we see for McConnell and birtherism, are all three just indicators that the diehards on the other side who see their party crashing and burning are just disproportionally enthusiastic about talking to pollsters.
Nate:
I certainly do think, by the way, that the semi-organized efforts to disrupt things like health-care town halls have some chance of backfiring. Americans are actually a relatively civil people, and all it might take is one idiot taking things too far for the "movement" to lose a news cycle or six. The whole point of these efforts, moreover, is to make a molehill of opposition look like a mounain.
Conservatives generally do not demonstrate and there is no such thing as professional conservative demonstrators ala ACORN and similar loony leftists.
The Tea Party movement is something radically new. Nearly a half million folks showed up at Tea Party demonstrations on Tax Day and a couple hundred thousand more on Independence Day.
I attended and blogged about the Colorado Springs Tea Party on Tax Day. There were between 4,000 and 5,000 middle class folks who brought their kids and their homemade signs. The Tea Party was organized over the internet, not by the local GOP or some nefarious corporate sponsor. The speakers were locals.
Feel free to consider this a mole hill. These folks are the 40% plurality of likely voters who strongly disapprove of Obama in Rasmussen's polling.
The primary discussion among the Tea Partiers from the outset was how to influence Congress and stop the Obama agenda. The Tea Party attendance at Dem congressional town halls has been planned for months.
The purpose is not to make media sound bites because the Tea Party movement knows that the Dem media will largely ignore these events. Rather, the purpose is to put their representatives on notice that there will be consequences on election day for claiming to be fiscal conservatives on the campaign trail and then voting for the hardest left agenda since the Great Society.
This is 1994 on steroids. The major question is whether the GOP can get its act together and give the conservatives a reason to vote for them rather than the more than ample reason they currently have to punish their current Blue Dog Dem representatives.
@Bart
Seriously... Colorado Springs? 4000-5000 people? and that area is as red as it gets?
You really should spend a day in Portland OR, we get 4000 people out in the streets because some asshat driver runs over a bicyclist.
Bring your passport.. it probably will seem like a foreign country.
The Dems soon might not have to worry that much about the 'enthusiasm gap' on a national scale.
New Gallup poll:
Political Party Affiliation: 30 States Blue, 4 Red in '09 So Far
Gallop came to that conclusion after analyzing party identification. Actually, it's more like 5 red states (if you consider a 5 point difference in party ID to be the break point):
Utah - +23 R ID advantage
Wyoming - +21 R ID advantage
Idaho - +13 R ID advantage
Alaska - +11 R ID advantage
Alabama - +6 R ID advantage
The toss-up states?
Mississippi - +1 R ID advantage
North Dakota - Equal party identification
Nebraska - Equal party identification
Kansas - +2 D ID advantage
Arizona - +2 D ID advantage
Texas - +2 D ID advantage
South Carolina - +2 D ID advantage
Montana - +2 D ID advantage
Party ID does not necessarily translate into a vote for or against a candidate, but it is a good indicator.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/122003/Political-Party-Affiliation-States-Blue-Red-Far.aspx
And TROLLs, don't cry too much in your beers. Too much crying into the beer would tend to water it down.
Mike in Maryland
My Blogger ID is http://www.blogger.com/profile/0284889341225109596
thetruenarcissists
Bi-Partisan Health Care Reform is No Reform at All.
http://thetruenarcissists.com/
Fresh from the presses is a supposed compromise on health care reform. The Washington Post op-ed from Senators Wyden and Bennett offers us these gems:
1. “…everyone — not just those who currently get insurance through their employer — would get a generous standard deduction that they would use to buy insurance — and keep the excess if they buy a less expensive policy.”
A “generous” tax rebate? I find these tax rebate notions slightly ridiculous. If it was that imperative that we have the money to purchase insurance then why do we have to first hand it over to the government. The reason is thus:
2. “The Republicans agreed to require all individuals to have coverage and to provide subsidies where necessary to ensure that everyone can afford it.”
The government can dictate when to give you this deduction by penalizing those who “choose” not to be insured. Also, the tax collection to redistribute this money must accompany some kind of tax increase or lead to further deficit spending. Also, this seems to echo the notion of your tax dollars going directly to the insurance companies with you getting the remainder of your “generous” deduction.
3. “Our plan would give the consumer the same leverage in the health-care marketplace by creating state-run insurance exchanges through which they can select plans, including their existing employer-sponsored plan.”
I am not sure how I.E.’s lower prices (see Massachusetts), but the notion that we provide a “generous” allotment for a health care plan seems to direct more dollars to state based markets. Further, the increase in demand for plans should send the prices of plans up. Still, this seems like government sponsored price setting. For example, the insurance companies know that a certain percentage of people are buckling to the mandated insurance provision and can predict how much a group will be paid. Thus, the directors of distribution on the state level set prices by simply allotting money; the individual exerts no leverage, the bureaucracy that levels the tax deduction does.
Further, this compromise does not solve the notion of higher costs due to the illegal immigrants effect on the hospital system. If the basis for this plan is to be specifically state run from a federal dispensary then states with higher illegal populations will continue to suffer with localized budget drains.
In effect, this bill appears the first on the bi-partisan butcher block, choked with handouts to the insurance companies with no notion of regulating the rising cost of health care. Further, by denying the government to act as an honest broker in negotiating prices across the board the money we provide them carries no incentives when delivered to the insurance companies. The reason is because insurance companies know that they are getting your money.
All I can see is that we would have government subsidized status quo health care.
http://thetruenarcissists.com/
@Bart DePalma:
Rather, the purpose is to put their representatives on notice that there will be consequences on election day [...]
Except, of course, there won't be any such consequences. Because no Tea bag is going to actually VOTE for anybody EXCEPT another conservative that promises them the same tired crap about "I'm the real deal," and no incumbent is going to actually lose their primary to a Tea bag populist because if they DO, they will be crushed in the general election by the 60-70% Democrats and Independents and even thinking Republicans scared to the polls by the very fact that the Tea bag candidate has a chance of getting into office.
So blather all you want, the Tea bag demonstrations are pathetic B.S. promoted by Fox, and Fox has given up on you because your lack of turnout embarrassed their talking heads (like Kristol) in front of the other national media channels; like MSNBC and Comedy Central. (Oh that's right, you don't watch those leftie shows, you are trapped in the echo chamber, so perhaps you didn't know that most people were laughing at you and Fox's transparently engineered "demonstrations" which were provably organized by paid lobbyists -- Actual documents were aired by Olbermann, Maddow, and the most trusted newsman in America -- Jon Stewart.)
So it will be business as usual, the Tea bag dupes of corporate America will waddle back to their trailers and wait for their next chance to be "on the tee vee" waving a sign advertising their double-digit IQs.
Mike in Maryland said...
The Dems soon might not have to worry that much about the 'enthusiasm gap' on a national scale.
New Gallup poll: Political Party Affiliation: 30 States Blue, 4 Red in '09 So Far...Party ID does not necessarily translate into a vote for or against a candidate, but it is a good indicator.
Gallup polled adults rather that registered voters or, more importantly, the only folks who count on election day - likely voters. Furthermore, partisan ID polling does not measure enthusiasm.
Because they are the only folks who continuously and accurately poll likely voters, Rasmussen is the only polling outfit worth paying attention to until the other pollsters start measuring likely voters again.
If you want to cling to the myth that Rasmussen leans to the GOP when they have accurately predicted the past two election cycles for the Dems, be my guest. However, ignorance will not be bliss for you Dems.
Among likely voters, Nate is correct to note that those opposed to Obama are far more fired up than those who support him. However, what Nate misses is that likely GOP voters shifted against Obama back in March. Obama only entered dangerous electoral territory when the independents and some democrat likely voters joined the GOP against Obama in July, pushing him below 50% approval level.
More importantly for 2010, the GOP has been fairly consistently leading the congressional generic polling among likely voters for the first time in years on Rasmussen.
@Bart:
If you actually READ Nate Silver's site, you would know that Rasmussen does NOT accurately poll likely voters, and that Rasmussen has a distinct house effect of leaning Republican. They are, in fact, one of the most unreliable pollsters to look at that claims to be independent.
You can't get away with lies in the information age, Bart! Research is too easy and there are too many of us out here. I know that is crippling the Republican politicians, their stock in trade is completely false assertion said with complete confidence. Unfortunately for them (and all politicians) in the age of cell-phone recording and complex internet searches, the lifespan of lies is measured in minutes instead of days.
You will have to step up your lying game if you want to compete in this arena.
Tony C:
If you can find a more accurate national election pollster than Rasmussen since 2004, you are welcome to offer their data.
Rasmussen pegged the past two presidential elections and, much to my Elephant discomfort, accurately tracked the shift in partisan self identification from GOP to Indi and Dem during that period of time.
Last year, I questioned Rasmussen's apparent Dem bias before the election. I was wrong and Rasmussen was dead on accurate. I am not making the same mistake again.
@Tony C.
Hmmm, you mean like when Nate had THIS to say about Rasmussen?
"Track Record: Rasmussen rates as a strong pollster overall and did particularly well in 2004, though less well in this year's primaries.
House Effect/Lean: Frequently reputed to have a Republican lean, Rasmussen's overall house effect between its state and national polls has in fact been very minor -- less than one full point. However, it has been somewhat more pronounced in their national tracker than in their state-level results.
Features/Strengths: Largest sample size of any of the tracking polls. Between that and the fact that they weight by party ID, they have tended to have the most stable results. To the extent that any pollster should weight by party ID, I think Rasmussen is going about it the right way, setting targets based on a six-week rolling average of all interviews conducted."
read it yourself here.
There's more here
"Rasmussen's polls have a slight, Republican-leaning house effect... but it's not really anything worth getting worked up about."
And don't forget to compare that to the house effect of all the other major polls often cited here. Generally 2 to 3 times the lean, in the DEM direction. Ouch.
Please, ditch the partisan blinders. Rasmussen certainly has a Republican "spin" in their content and they use a strict party weighting which may not be appropriate in some contexts, but they are a very accurate and reliable pollster by any measure.
Nate -
Why do you use the partyID number for ALL ADULTS to predict an election outcome?
That is Busch League analysis with rose colored glasses, sorry.
You need to use partyID of Likely Voters. Right now Rasmussen has it at 36-33 for Dems.
Even in the 2008 election exits it was 39-32 and Dems were energized.
You are better than this.
If the 60-42 split holds against a 33-36 party ID. Then here is what you get...
20% Committed R's
14% Committed D's
13% Marginal R's
22% Marginal D's
Right now independents are leaning 60% to the R's in the Generic Ballot, which is 43-38 for R's.
Right now, the data is pointing to a Democrat wipeout in 2010. The magnitude of which would equal or surpass 1994.
In 1994, R's only got 52% of the 2 party vote. Redistricting will lean red again.
The data is pointing to a near GOP takeover of the house with these numbers.
Reality, Nate.
Regarding polls, especially meaningless polls a year a half away from the 2010 elections. Again, actual candidates have to run against each other and campaign. As Tip O'Neill said, all politics is local and the power of incumbency is very, very high, especially when one has the money advantage in the internet age.
The Dems, especially at the presidential level have mastered the internet to the nth degree, the Reps, not so much ie part of the Dems advantage now is young voters. Obama's ground game had rove shaking his head!
That wise sage Mike Tyson ;) aptly said, "Everyone has a plan until they get hit." Mondale, Dukakis, Gore and Kerry were clueless/naive when it came to campaigning and had a lot less $.
The Dems have perfected the playbook of atwater/rove, stay on message, never let an attack go w/out a response, have the better ground game. Have a big tent, not like Reps who have lost minorities and the youth vote for several generations.
Finally, just as I was replying to all the disingenuously smug conservatives last year who said Obama had no chance w/see you Nov. 4th, 2008. ie how could they be sooo smug especially after getting wiped out in 2006 ?!? Anyways I will say to all the disingenuously smug fools at 538 and elsewhere today ... See you Nov. 2010, 2012.
The Dems will have the incumbency advantage, the $ advantage, btw, how much money have the Reps wasted on Coleman, the birthers, the teabaggers, and all that health care industry $ being used to defeat healthcare which is going to have no effect.
The trends are all in the Dems favor politically, plus because the Rep party is so depressed and discombobulated, their best candidates are deciding not to run because hey, who wants to be part of a permanent minority.
Yea, see y'all on Nov 2010 and 2012 when out of a group of palin, huckabee, romney, ensign lol, sanford lol, macaca allen lol, frist lol, santorum lol, tancredo lol, etc. Reps have to choose their new leader ~ not to mention the other sorry ass core conservatives bachmann, blackburn, schmidt, cantor, boehner, vitter, craig, perry, sessions, inhofe, coburn, etc.
hmm, so much leadership ?!?, so little time lol
yea, actual candidates have to run against actual Dem incumbents, not generic polls 1 1/2 years out ie everyone has a plan until they get hit!
take care, blessings
and Nov. 2010 is sooo far away, but I should be here to report and evaluate ;)
@shiloh:
Right on, brudda. Come the election, Republican idiots must stand up to scrutiny, and if anything, your examples show they have more moral turpitude and obstructionist stance to answer for than the Dems do. They are in a box with very high walls, right now.
No leaders and with no message with a hope of getting independents or hispanics or the educated or city dwellers in general. The information age is killing their ability to lie with impunity to anyone except the 25% of ideological nutcases (religion and guns and right-to-lifers and the tea party ignorant).
The willful ignorance, shallowness and lack of empathy of the Bush administration, combined with the Internet to put it on display with all its ramifications detailed (see Katrina), has broken the back of the Republican party. Now we watch it in its death throes, and I see no way for it to recover.
They cannot throw overboard the religious right, the anti-abortionists, the gun lobby, the lobbyists in general, the anti-science creationists, they can't even openly repudiate the birthers, or the radical free market crowd. The Republican party has become the repository and home of the ignorant and insane, the fringe right.
If they survive, it will have to be an entirely new party under the same name.
Tony C, Shiloh-
It is true that campaign 2010 is a year away, but your rose-colored assessment is a bit naive given the CURRENT data.
The GOP has not lead on the generic ballot in quite a long time. You might have to go back to the 2002 election cycle to find any sustained lead.
They are now +5 in Rasmussen and +1 in the NPR poll.
You can complain all you like about Rasmussen, but the same poll had the GOP -7 in January.
With Gallup polling 40% of adults as conservative and 49% who say Obama is "too liberal" you seem a little too confident.
Your incessant references to Bush illustrate my point. Bush is gone, he cannot help you in 2010.
As for the internet, that is purely an Obama phenomenon. The DNC continually underperforms the RNC in fundraising.
As for grassroots activism, you are feeling the wrath of the right's ability to organize.
Don't underestimate it.
Oh, Obama is not on the ballot in 2010 either.
Midterm elections are driven by partisan passion. The GOP has the edge at the moment.
I have seen almost no viral videos in favor if health care reform. I see 3 every day against it.
There is a serious backlash going on.
MidPointMan
I forgot to mention that Obama will not be on the ballot in 2010, the Reps (1) advantage in 2010, but I have mentioned that obvious fact 2/3 times previously at 538.
Re: fund raising ~ Democrats Top Republicans in Total Fundraising for 1st Quarter and how much Rep fund raising money is being wasted on health care, whereas individual Dem incumbent candidates are doing very well.
Trying to think if Dems were as obsessed as you are when they were in the minority ie constantly posting re: polls, money, trends.
And of course now the reason the Rep fringe ie racists, rednecks, yahoos etc. are totally riled and discombobulated is because America elected an African-American president ie their racism, fanaticism, sour grape, poor loser meme is on display in all their totally staged, grassroots my ass!!! demonstrations for rational independents to see 24/7.
"The whole world is watching!"
24/7 negativity, yea, that's the ticket! to sway the opinion of swing voters ...
take care, blessings
MidPointMan said...
Your incessant references to Bush illustrate my point. Bush is gone
Yep, he's been gone for 6.5 MONTHS.
So does that mean all the TROLLs will STOP making references to President James Earl Carter (whose term ended 28.5 YEARS ago); or President William Jefferson Clinton (whose term ended 8.5 YEARS ago)?
Remember, YOU are the one who stated that since little shrub is no longer President, he's not a factor any more. If that's the case, then (using TROLL logic [if that is not oxymoronc!], Presidents Carter and Clinton don't matter any more either? And therefore, we should expect that absolutely NO reference can be made about them?
Let's see how long this lasts. My bet is less than a day.
Mike in Maryland
My Blogger ID is http://www.blogger.com/profile/0284889341225109596
@MidPointMan:
I don't think I am "underestimating" it, I think I have correctly estimated it: The right failed to organize successfully to defeat McCain in the primary, they failed to get Huckabee (their hero) anywhere, they failed to get Palin (their bigger hero) anywhere, they are just plain ineffective. That is the whole point.
They certainly don't cause me pain (other than the empathetic pain of seeing poor deluded bastards conned into shilling for corporations against their own best interests), yelling louder doesn't translate into more votes.
It hardly makes a difference if Obama (or a Congressman or Senator) is "too liberal," when their opponents are racist, sexist, homophobic bigots awash in hypocrisy. "Too liberal" may still be the lesser of two evils, and all elections are about choosing the lesser of two evils.
Personally I think the whole deficit scream, tax scream, all that will make no difference for Republicans. Obama isn't stupid, he simply will not raise taxes on the middle class, and frankly only a tiny percentage of the middle class will give a crap if he soaks the rich. Seriously. Lobbyists might care, but voters won't. We (the USA) used to have a 92% marginal tax rate and the middle class didn't complain then.
It comes down to the economy and the pocketbook, if the Dems don't make it worse, they win, and it is hard to see how they can make it worse when they can print money, pass spending bills, and are focused on making it better no matter who ends up with ill-gotten gains. I am no fan of the bailouts and TARP and such, but they are having the desired effect, and THAT is why Republicans hate them.
So let's see what happens in 2010.
How the Republicans will Help the Democrats in 2010 and 2012
I will even go so far as to say all this shrill taxation doom talk by the Tea Party, Republicans, and right wing pundits is going to backfire on Republicans.
When voting day rolls around in fifteen months and the 75% of non-right wingers see that their taxes have not, in fact, been raised, and the country is not, in fact, in a depression, and we have not, in fact, suffered hyper-inflation, and (in fifteen months) that the recession is over and people are going back to work, and health care insurance is easier to get, then they will see that the Republicans were lying fear mongers, as usual. Or if you want to be a charitable independent, did not know what they were talking about and were blinded by their ideology. Either way, when the facts speak for themselves, I think Democrats will look preferable.
It very frequently seems that the most vocal Democrats aren't shouting at the Republicans, they're shouting at the Democrats. What's remarkable about this is that the number of Democrats that disapprove of Obama is small, and the number of *liberal* Democrats that disapprove of Obama is even smaller. In fact, there are still more conservative Republicans that approve of Obama (12%), than liberal Democrats who don't (9%, some of which were "no opinion". ( http://www.gallup.com/poll/121199/Obama-Weekly-Job-Approval-Demographic-Groups.aspx). You'd never know it from the blogosphere, or any form of political commentary.
One problem this has created is with the health care bill. Blue-dog Democrats may *deserve* the venom that's been aimed at them, but the president's plan is rapidly losing the support of moderate voters. It would be easier to win the support of voters in the middle if this was simply a battle between the right and the left, rather than a fight between the left and the center. (of course that's partly the fault of centrists in Congress, but the left shouldn't play along)
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店經紀,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店工作,
專業酒店經紀,
合法酒店經紀,
酒店暑假打工,
酒店寒假打工,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店工作,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店經紀,
專業酒店經紀,
合法酒店經紀,
酒店暑假打工,
酒店寒假打工,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店工作,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
菲
梵,
整形外科|童裝批發|春藥|徵信|清境民宿|機票|隔熱紙|玻尿酸|電波拉皮|美白針|脈衝光|花蓮民宿|徵信社|室內裝潢|指甲彩繪|清潔公司
Post a Comment