11.05.2009

The Big 2010 Question

Just attended a morning-long presentation by the team over at the Cook Political Report--namesake Charlie Cook, affiliated pollster Tom Riehle, gubernatorial/Senate specialist Jennifer Duffy, and House specialist David Wasserman. I have lots of details, plenty of stats and trends and other goodies to share and unpack for you, and will do so in a series of posts in the coming days.

But as I walked back from the Watergate to my Logan Circle neighborhood, I became increasingly convinced that the big question for both parties--and particularly the Democrats--is one I raised this morning on MSNBC's Dylan Ratigan show: How replicable is Barack Obama's precedent-setting presidential coalition in an off-year election?


It's easy to just say, well, it's not replicable. Of course it isn't exactly replicable. The so-called "Obama surge" voters clearly will not turn out at the same rates, and thus not constitute the same proportion of the electorate a year from now that they did a year ago. So the question really is, To what degree, along some continuum between the 2008 presidential electorate and the ones from the 2009 elections this week, will 2010 look like one or other other? And looking backward may provide poor guidance: Because there's never been an electorate assembled like the one Obama did in 2008, we've also never had a post-Obama midterm cycle.

Yes, issues and the economic-political environment and the resources that candidates and parties--money, quality of candidates, messaging, field and contacting operations--will all be contributing factors next November. I will come back in a future posts to talk about which of these factors might buffer the expected Democratic losses, and which might exacerbate them.

But all of these factors are ultimately mediated to some, significant degree by the electorate and its composition. That said, I want to start this series of posts with a very simple question that is, more or less, directed at the Obama White House political operation, and can be rather simply stated: One year out, what are you planning to do in order to safeguard your newly-acquired congressional, gubernatorial and even state legislative majorities?

This question in turn begets a variety of sub- and even sub-sub-questions, for which the following is hardly an exhaustive list:
  • On agenda-setting, do you need to constrict the national policy conversation to fewer agenda items, presumably those more finely attuned to the national economic situation, and how can you do that? Even David Frum admits that rising health care costs the past decade consumed potential income gains...but how many Americans truly understand this and, even for those who do, how long are they willing to wait for their incomes to rise again as a result of savings on premiums? Relatedly, for those without an earned income right now, what messages and themes are you planning to deploy if unemployment a year from now is not significantly below 10 percent?

  • On candidates--and this question also lands squarely in the laps of DSCC chair Bob Menendez, DCCC chair Chris Van Hollen and DGA chair Brian Schweitzer--are you thinking about where the president will be a co-campaigning, coattail asset and where he will be a drag? Which races will you attempt to localize and which will you attempt to nationalize? Given rising frustration with incumbents, do you need a different strategy for incumbent, challenger and open-seat Democrats? Speaking of potentially open seats, how do you make sure that worried Democratic incumbents do not retire this cycle?

  • On contacting and turnout, for downballot Democrats, how much are you going to make available the types of voter and fundraising lists, as well as volunteer tools and tactics generated between late 2007 and Election Day 2008 to elect Obama? Indeed, which sorts of resources are even transferable, which not, and how do you utilize the ones that are? Are you at all worried that the technology chasm you created between the parties in 2008 will narrow or even disappear by 2010, and if so, how worried and what will you do about that?

  • On messaging, what will it take to mobilize the "Obama surge" voters? Do they need to have the 2010 midterms contextualized as a safeguard of their votes cast for the president in 2008? How much of their turnout and support is a function of Obama-mania, or whatever you want to call the specific attachment to the president as a political identity/commodity, and how much of it represents a medium- to longer-term established political identity and partisan attachment? Are you surveying these people about their post-election attitudes and concerns? In order not to trigger an older and/or white voter backlash, might you need to use dog-whistle signaling to the younger and more multi-racial "surge" voters to get them to turn out in 2010, and if so, how will you do that?
I realize it's far easier to pose questions than to answer them. But these questions need to be asked, and the Obama political team--which I suspect is thinking about them this week if they weren't already--had better start generating some answers.

97 comments

Ben said...

I don't believe it will be a function of messaging. Personally, as a person who voted enthusiastically in the presidential election, I'd be enthusiastic about results, not messaging. I believe I am representative of a group of young, high-information, highly skeptical voters who tended to get behind Obama.

Currently, I'm disappointed about Guantanamo, civil liberties, special interest influence, executive consolidation of power, and our dysfunctional senate. Health insurance reform has been frustrating and distracting. Fundamental, systemic reform to prevent the excesses of previous administrations has been lacking. It's hard to get enthusiastic about a party that hasn't taken actions to change those things.

Act, and I'll be optimistic and enthusiastic and encourage others to vote. Keep up in the same vein, and well, meh.

Sacto Joe said...

Ben is indeed representative of the youth vote. I was young once myself, as were we all. And as time passes you start to appreciate better the incredible hurdles laid out in front of ANY change in the progressive direction.

The Right Wing Propaganda Machine doesn't get the kind of recognition it should in this affair. They are incredibly good at their job. For example, if you go on Huffington Post right now, you'll see many postings attacking both the AARP and the AMA.

Why? Because one of the oldest tricks in the book is "divide and conquer". And they know that the young can be turned off by hammering away at the lack of "liberalness" in the Obama administration.

Sad, really. Yet so very predictable.

Bart DePalma said...
This post has been removed by the author.
shiloh said...

Sacto Joe said...

The Right Wing Propaganda Machine doesn't get the kind of recognition it should in this affair. They are incredibly good at their job. For example, if you go on Huffington Post right now, you'll see many postings attacking both the AARP and the AMA.
~~~~~~~~~~


No HP is just fair and balanced having been the first to report Obama's bitter, clinging to guns and religion comment last year, whereas fixednoise doesn't report any truthful negative info on conservatives.

The difference between reporting the news and spin.

As the White House said, fixed is not a news organization, just an opinion service.

Bart DePalma said...

There were two factors in the 2008 - the market crash and Obama's cult of personality - that respectively can not and most likely will not occur again in 2010.

On the conservative side of the ledger, McCain/Palin seized a moderate post election lead until the market tanked and McCain rushed back to help enact TARP, throwing away the conservative vote he gained by nominating Palin. Obama led by his final margin of victory for the next six weeks.

In 2010, there will not be a second market crash and another set of GOP candidates brain dead enough to vote for another trillion dollar bailout bill to depress conservative voting. Indeed, the conservatives are more fired up than at any point since 1980 and 1994.

On the liberal side of the ledger, the Obama campaign very successfully created a big time cult of personality around The One in 2008 that had nothing to do with ideology or policy. Young and African American voters who do not usually vote and could care less about actual governance went to the polls to vote for The One because he was cool and black, respectively.

In 2009, Obama's favorability numbers have collapsed at historically high rates for a President in his first year. The youth and African Americans who volunteered for his campaign in 2008 are nowhere to be seen at the town halls or orchestrated Dem health care rallies. Only a handful of SEIU and ACORN astroturf.

Over the past month, Obama campaigned extensively for Corzine in friendly blue NJ and the much ballyhooed Obama youth and African American voters stayed home in droves. They were literally nowhere to be seen. Obama has no discernible coat tails anymore.

2010 will be not fought in NJ. Instead, 2010 will be fought in the 80 traditionally red districts who voted Bush in 04 and/or McCain in 08 and also elected Blue Dog Dems campaigning as center right candidates in 06 and 08. The conservatives who went AWOL during the last two election cycles are back with a vengeance and it is now the Obama youth and African American voters who are AWOL. Obama did not win many of these districts in 2008 when the wind was at his back. There is very little prospect that he will swing them Dem in 2010 into the stiff headwinds of a conservative rebellion and two years of high unemployment.

Unless the GOP royally screws the pooch, Obama preemptively declares the end of big government or the economy miraculously creates the 3.5 million new jobs Obama promised, 2010 appears to be 1994 all over again.

Peter said...

I've really been disappointed by what's happened over the past year, because I always knew that the Obama coalition would have to back up the 2008 election with more phone calls, more letters, more street action, more everything to counter the never-ending stream of lies that would inevitably pour from the right.

And what happened? They didn't step up.

The loonies have owned the narrative pretty much since August, with a few weeks of respite in September. They owned November 3rd, especially in Virginia, and at the end of the day, it doesn't matter what the polls say, whether Obama is popular or not, because the economy can be demonstrably improving and health care reform can fast approaching, but as long as extremists are able to hijack the media narrative, everything good that Obama might bring about will be endangered.

shiloh said...

BDP, really, don't you get tired of spinning ever. Nov. 2008 is a longgg ways away ...

and Corzine had no chance against Christie (6) mos. ago ~ Christie and Obama made it close as the Dem NJ assembly lost only (1) seat!

Keep hope alive and keep on spinning.

btw, how much tar and feathers will you be buying for your teabagger event in CO next year or will it all be provided to you by billionaire Rep sponsors.

just wonderin'

take care

shiloh said...

Nov. 2009 ~ carry on ...

shiloh said...

Nov. 2010 :)

Dopper said...

@ Bart DePalma is a perfect example of why all these so called pundits who want bipartisan deals are on crack. Nate spent several post showing that convention create bounces (hell even Dukakis was ahead after his) yet teabaggers keep repeating this "McCain was ahead because of Sarah Pallin", McCain was ahead in the electoral college (meaning ahead in state polls) for exactly 4 days last year when he took a 2% lead in Colorado. The large bump he got in the Evangelical/Mormon belt was meaning less winning Oklahoma by 10% extra didn't help, even if his large margin there drove up his national numbers. McCain was never in the driver seat. The financial crisis did help Obama win a few states, but it mostly allows pundits an easy "out" to explain why they were so wrong.

It's funny for a party that gets all wet over Reagan to say Obama was a cult of personality. I mean ask a conservative if they love Palin they all say yeah. Ask them what she's an expert on they just stare blankly at you (Obama for example is an expert on constitutional law).

Speaking of St. Reagan how'd he do in the 1982 elections? Obama is much more popular than he (or Clinton were at this point) yet Reagan wen on to be a considered a great president. When healthcare passes all this talk about the base being disappointed will vanish. Think this has been in the Democrat's platform for 50 years. Imagine if abortion which has only been in the GOP platform for 30 was outlawed, think conservatives would turn out? Remember how Democrats winning in Virginia in 2001, Sen. Jeffords (R-VT) switching parties, and a special election lead to big Democratic gains in 2002? Me either 'cause it didn't happen. Don't forget Democratic voters were all angry and ready to turn out after 2000 and Florida.

I wish we had a few more conservatives who came here with honest analysis and not spin. I respect the 3-4 who come here who do. But this nonsense is just a waste of time. The GOP will make gains in 2010 because:

1) It's an off year, and the party out of power tends to do better.

2) The country isn't as Democratic as the legislator is 60 Dem Sen + 60%.

3) Off year electorate tend to be older and whiter.

But factor worker against the GOP are.

1) Only 18 of the 54 (soon to be 55 after NY-23) Blue Dogs are in the South. Remember that. Most of the easy pick ups are already gone. Obama as a MidWesterner is still over performing popularity wise for a Democrat there. Running against him doesn't work as well in the midwest, plus labor loves Universal care and they are the muscle for Midwest Blue Dogs. In 1994 most of the GOP pickups were in the SouthEast (KT to Florida) most of those outside of that region have returned to the Democrats as they were aided by gerrymandering. In 2006-2008 most Democratic pickups were in the NorthEast (Maryland - New England). Big time swings in congress are usually precipitated by regional swings. I don't see a region that is going to swing hard for the GOP that's full of Democrats.

2) In 1994 there was a huge wave of Democratic retirements. a) The Congressional Postal Scandal b) That was the last year Congressmen could retire and keep their campaign coffers for personal use.
Incumbency is a powerful thing, how long did South Carolina have a Democratic Senator because he was an incumbent, anyone think a Dem could get elected today.



Let's look at trends, facts, and be rational, if I want spin I can go to other sites.

shiloh said...

Yes, Dukakis was ahead by (17) after the '88 Dem convention and then, and then ...

the campaign began when actual candidates have to run against each other and do interviews:

Economy is "Fundamentally Strong" ~ I'll find ya some, and bring 'em to ya

and Dukakis lost by (7) after Ailes/Atwater scorched earth campaign tactics went into overdrive, plus Dukakis was a god awful candidate.

BDP, one does understand presidential politics ie always think Big Picture, money, money, money, the economy, the previous (8) years and when selecting a v-p, do no harm!

You Bet'cha!

Dopper said...

Not to labor the point but (off the top of my head) in 2006-2008 Dems picked up.

2 in NH
3 In CT
6 in NY (now 7)
2 In NJ
5 In Penn
2 In Maryland

In 1994 The GOP won

3 KT
1 WV
3 VA
2 NC
2 GA
2 TN
1 SC
4 FL

In 1994 The GOP won a bunch of seats in the MidWest (plus Western PA) just as in 2006-2008 the Dems returned the favor. But the Midwest is "purple" and Obama has a homefield advantage there. I don't see a huge ideological swing in any polling there, can some one point to any?

After 2010 as I have said several time the GOP better PRAY that some how Jerry Brwon doesn't win in California. Because there are all sorts of maps floating about that can turn CA into a 42-46 Dem advantage (up from 34). These maps don't violate voter rights act, and are compact. The Cailfornia Dems will do this because they want to eliminate a bunch of the GOP reps at the state level who use the 2/3 budget rule to make there life miserable. Also since there are tern limits they want to create seats they can run for congress in.

Texas OTOH will gain 4 seats, but 2 will be majority Latino. Houston's 1.5 million Latino don't have any majority districts, the voting rights act, and the Obama justice will insure this. The Texas GOP pretty much maxed out in the mid decade redistricting, there just isn't enough rural population growth to get more than two more GOP reps. Maybe they can get Chet Edwards finally but that's only a gain of one. Expect the Democrats post 2010 redistricting to be every bit as effective and effective as the GOP's post 2000.

Too many people only look at which states are gaining seats, and not who state houses will look, in regards to existing seats.

Bart DePalma said...

Dopper:

It is true that the minority party usually picks up 10-20 seats in the first off year election of a new administration and the GOP lost 27 in 1982 in the depths of worse recession than we are suffering through now. That is the base level of probable Dem losses for 2010.

The discussion here is or ought to be how many more losses the Dems could suffer above and beyond historical losses.

It is not spin that there are currently 80+ Dems in traditionally red districts which went for Bush in 04 and/or McCain in 08.

It is not spin to observe that these Dems ran center right campaigns to get elected, but are now part of the hardest left government since LBJ and Nixon. (Yes, Nixon had one of the hardest left domestic policies of that radical era. Go read about it before you say something ignorant).

It is not spin to observe that conservative enthusiasm is the highest it has been in years.

It is not spin to observe that this conservative rebellion put Corzine out of work in NJ and is 5-10 points stronger in Blue Dog districts. See the McDonnell's 3:2 to 2:1 victory margins in the three Blue Dog districts whose Congress critters narrowly won in 2008.

It is not spin to observe that every single Obama domestic policy - buying Chrysler and GM for the UAW, increasing baseline spending by 20%, wasting another $800 billion in the Pork Bill, Obamacare and Cap & Tax are polling around 40% or less in the Blue Dog districts across the country (not just in the South) among likely voters. This insanity may sell in whatever Blue Megalopolis you reside (except maybe Jersey), but it is very unpopular in the heartland.

There are no countervailing trends to the political left in these contested districts. None.

Right now the probable range of Dem losses in 2010 are between the base of the 27 losses the GOP suffered in 1982 and the over 50 seats the GOP took in 1994 when the Dems overreached the last time.

Poor Nate is conflicted. He is a liberal who genuinely believes in Obama's hard left policies and thinks they ought to be popular. However, he is also a commendably objective political analyst who will admit in his more honest moments the political blood bath the Dems are facing in 2010. Nate just does not want to make the obvious connection that the Dems political woes are being caused by the policies which he supports.

Mule Rider said...

Let's look at trends, facts, and be rational, if I want spin I can go to other sites.

It's not universal, but usually when I see a liberal making a comment like this one on this site, they're not really wanting honest or objective dialogue.

They're really more interested in engaging in Level IV sophistry and hunkering down in a maddeningly idiotic war of talking points and uncommon wisdom to prove they are on the "intellectual high road."

No thanks.

Mule Rider said...

On a similar note, when I come across someone in here thumping his her chest and using the banner "Reality Has a Liberal Bias," I know it's best to just move on and find a grown-up to talk to...

Mule Rider said...

should be his/her

Jacob said...

Of course Bart's 80 districts include many of the Skelton/Taylor/Boyd variety...Dems who have been there forever and aren't in a hell of a lot of danger.

Really, once stimulus spending goes into effect, HCR is passed and over, and employment goes up, blue dog district voters won't give a damn about these "hard left" (translation: moderate incrementalist in the real world) policies being considered in Washington.

Once again, it's the economy, stupid, and it's how you sell it. Teabaggers were never going to vote Democratic. If these congresscritters can convince voters that we're actually recovering in fall '10, the losses will be minor. If things get worse, the losses could be catastrophic for Democrats (and by extension, for the future prospects of economic recovery).

Pat said...

Lots of bashing of Bart's statement, which unlike normal, this time does make a fair amount of sense.

1. McCain largely DID lose due to the convenient (for Obama) economic collapse during the election. Might Obama have won without it? Maybe..but it would've been a LOT closer.

2. Obama's "Cult of Personality" did win a lot more votes, and new voters coming out, because he was "hip and cool". Whether you want to compare it to Reagan or not is irrelevent. Obama's not on the ballot in 2010...and those voters who voted specifically BECAUSE of him may not come back out.

3. The Out Party should win a fair number of seats. More points in the GOP favor, generally occurs in 2010.

4. An older, whiter electorate does favor the GOP.

5. Don't discount some recent Dem gains swinging back to the GOP...Even in the Northeast and Midwest.

6. Looking ahead to 2012, and the Census redistricting...
Using 2008 Census Estimates vs the 2000 Census, the US has posted a roughly 8% gain in population
Of that the "Democratic" Northeast has gained merely 2% in population while the "Republican" South has gained over 11%... Texas is up over 16%, while Cali is at the normal 8%.

Expect 2012 to look bad for the Democrats, based on this alone. That includes the Presidential election...

shiloh said...

Bart DePalma said...

Poor Nate is conflicted.
~~~~~~~~~~


BDB, having previously shown his political analytical prowess by picking/hoping Hoffman would decisively win NY-23 ...

is now doing psychoanalysis, too funny, re: the creator of 538, whose undisputed political analytical prowess predicted the 2008 presidential election spot on!

BDP, stick to disingenuous political spinning, anything else is wayyy above your pay grade.

Persuter said...

However, he is also a commendably objective political analyst who will admit in his more honest moments the political blood bath the Dems are facing in 2010. Nate just does not want to make the obvious connection that the Dems political woes are being caused by the policies which he supports.

Mmm. I can't speak for Nate, but I'm pretty sure the Republicans are going to gain seats in 2010.

But I would suggest it is because nearly EVERY president loses seats in the first midterm. When you hear the words "A guy from party P was elected President in year Y", "P will lose seats in Y+2" is an incredibly safe bet.

Republicans start with the EXPECTATION that they will win seats in 2010.

filistro said...

Jeez, Ben...

Thus far in his 9-month presidency Obama has:

- expanded the Children's Health Insurance program
- lifted restrictions on stem-cell research
- passed the economic stimulus package
- saved the banking system
- guided two of the big three auto makers through bankruptcy, saving many thousands of jobs
- submitted and guided legislation in Congress on climate control and health care

... and you're upset because in his spare time he hasn't also done something about Guantanamo, civil liberties, special interest influence, executive consolidation of power ... our dysfunctional senate... and.. fundamental, systemic reform to prevent the excesses of previous administrations...

This is why I can't stand Ed Schultz. No wonder people accuse Dems of having a messianic complex when it comes to Obama. You all act like the guy really CAN walk on water, but he's not doing it just to spite you.

Jacob said...

@Pat

The geographic shifts you mentioned are indeed troubling for 2012, though not enormously so. Though the states gaining seats (mostly) have Republican legislatures that will add Republican seats, the states losing seats (again, mostly) have Democratic legislatures that will clip out current Republican seats.

And while the geographic shifts add numbers to red states, the demographic shifts caused by that growth is turning those states more purple.

Additionally, worst case scenario, redistricting adds 10 net seats to the red states from the blue states, whatever those may be in 2012. Those 10 EVs may make the difference in a close election, but remember that Obama won by 95 EVs (in fact, only 4 elections have been close enough for 10 EVs to make a difference in Presidential history), so it is not terribly likely.


Anyway, the financial collapse may have sealed it for Obama and given him his margin, but that's not why he won. Nor was it just a cult of personality, although that certainly helped.

Obama led from May-September, was down in the EC arguably from the Palin pick to Lipstick on a Pig (and that's a generous time frame for McCain), and then led from thereon out.

2010 is a long way away. I wouldn't be shocked if Republicans gained 40 seats and I would be shocked if they only gained 3 or 4.



BTW what's all this BS about Obama not delivering on tax cuts. Stimulus rebates anyone?

Oops I mean "the sinister socialist porkulus from which no good can possibly come"

Come to think of it by trashing the stimulus, Republicans are opposing tax cuts! Why don't we hear that more often?

Jacob said...

*WOULDN"T be shocked if they only gained 3 or 4.

mcc said...

I think if nothing else, yesterday gives us one very simple unambiguous lesson:

- Don't run crappy candidates and expect them to win just because they have a (D) after their name.

norman_swingvoter said...

How replicable is Barack Obama's precedent-setting presidential coalition in an off-year election?

In Virginia with Deeds, a candidate running away from Obama, not very. I showed up to vote for Deeds. However, he often sounded more like a republican than an Obama supporter. I had to look twice when Deeds started talking about opting out of the health insurance plan just like the republican did.

What we need to do is STOP worrying about statistics and start getting something done. Obama has about 1 year. If we can get the wars under control and get meaningful health insurance legislation passed, the elections will take care of themselves if good candidates run. The real pundits all say the economy has bottomed so things should be on the way up by this time next year.

C.H. Truth said...

The elephant in the room that nobody seems to want to acknowledge is that Obama simply isn't as popular today as he was thirteen months ago.

Quite possibly he won't be as popular next fall as he is today.

Of course standing right next to the elephant is the other one.

When you poll "Likely Voters" about things like Health Care Reform, Cap and Trade, the economic stimulus bill... you will find that these mid-term voters are simply not very keen on the agenda.

Pat said...

What's scary for the Democrats is looking at the Cook Partisan Voting Index.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cook_PVI

Where there are 69!!! "Republican" districts that have Democratic Congressmen.

By Comparison, there's only 8 Democratic districts that have GOP Congressmen.

Pragmatus said...

Bart De P said…

“spin-spin-spin-spin-spin-spin-spin-spin-spin-spin-spin-spin”

Here you go with your predictions again. Since your “conservative wave” turned out to be something that happened in your toilet bowl at home, I think people would be smart to take your predictions with a grain of salt.

Does your wife ever say to you “Do you ever shut up?”

Did you give money to the Tea Party folks today? You know it’s not enough to just try to spin things on political blogs, where everybody’s mind is already made up. You’ve got to cough up the cash to get your point across.

Pragmatus said...

C H “Truth”…

You left out one other elephant—the GOP one, viewed favorably by 20% of the voting public.

If the voters are tired of the Democrats, they are sick, disgusted and repelled by the Republicans.

shma said...

What's scary for the Democrats is looking at the Cook Partisan Voting Index.
Where there are 69!!! "Republican" districts that have Democratic Congressmen.


I'm curious how many of those 69 went for McCain and how many are still R+X due to the contribution 2004 gives to the PVI.

Dwight said...

mcc said...
I think if nothing else, yesterday gives us one very simple unambiguous lesson:

- Don't run crappy candidates and expect them to win just because they have a (D) after their name.


That goes for the GOP [factions], too. I don't know if anyone here caught any of Hoffman's interviews but his communication skills are BRUTAL. That was likely no small part of why he failed so badly, and likely didn't help him with the local GOP leadership, either trying to get the GOP nomination initially.

Pat said...

shma,

A few different things to take into account with your question.

1. Flipping through the numbers, 35 of them have PVIs of greater than R+5. (AKA, 35 House Congressional Districts) In general, McCain carried these.

2. Assuming you "Wiped out" the Bush 2004 numbers, the PVI would shift, as its based on the national average. Hence a district could be won by Obama and STILL have a PVI of +2 or +3, as Obama won 53% to 46%. So, if the district voted 49-48 Obama, it'd have a PVI of R+3 or so.... Since it's based off the national average.

3. It may be...incorrect...to assume that 2008 is a better model for the 2010 election, rather than 2004, despite it being more recent. I'd guess the electorate will look more like 2004 than 2008, especially without an Obama on the ticket to drag out young folk and black folk.

Pat said...

Dwight,

In my opinion, the primary loser in the NY-23 election was the NY State GOP, who simply did a horrible job. Dede was a horrible candidate for this district, liberal enough that quite possibly OWENS was more conservative than her. If there had actually been a primary, Dede would never have gotten through.

Hoffman...wasn't a lot better. But his views were more in line with the GOP base, and he did pick up near 45% of the electorate without the (R) after his name.

One wonders how many voters just blindly voted for the (R) candidate...even if she'd withdrawn. If you added up Dede's and Hoffman's votes, they would've beat Owens. Or if the GOP had spent more time and effort on him, and that $900,000 in campaign money....

It'll be interesting to see if Owens can hold onto the seat in 2010. And what votes he needs to make to keep himself "Conservative" enough for the area

Pragmatus said...

Hoffman’s loss…

I think the biggest factor is that things happened with such stunning rapidity right before the election—arch conservatives got involved (Palin & crew endorsing Hoffman) and support for Scozzafava collapsed, then two days before the election she came out for the Democrat rather than the Conservative. All in all too much information for the electorate to process so quickly. The pollsters however still produced piles of manure that all turned out to be wrong. The teabaggers got all excited, including Walker here who predicted a double-digit Hoffman win, and how he was already basking in the warm sunshine of a new arch-conservative day dawning across America.

Memo to Walker: Come in already. You look silly out there in your swimming trunks.

Jacob said...

But many of the R+ PVI districts held by Democrats are not '06/'08 pickups--at least 30 of the Dems in seats with an R+ PVI have been there since 2004 or earlier (in a few cases since before the last GOP wave in '94) and probably won't go down easily, or are well financed enough/do enough for the district that mounting serious opposition would prove difficult.

And of the 55 Dems who picked up GOP seats in '06/'08, at least 15 are in D+ districts, where Obama's margin was generally quite large (i.e. not just young and black voters).

If the Republicans have a really good year, they might knock off 60% of freshman/sophmore Dems in GOP seats, a handful of more senior Dems in GOP seats, maybe a 3rd of newcomers in Dem leaning seats, and a get lucky with a few veteran Dems in what should be safe seats.

That would put them in the high 30s minus a handful of Dem pickups; and that would be a REALLY good year for the GOP. That's still a few seats short of a majority.


It's not uncommon for the opposition party to have a good cycle after a wave for the other party. But remember, not in well over a century has a wave year for one party been followed by a wave for the other party (the last one I can think of offhand is 1892/1894).

So massive GOP gains of taking-back-the-House proportions seem pretty unlikely.

shma said...

Pat said...
Assuming you "Wiped out" the Bush 2004 numbers, the PVI would shift, as its based on the national average.

If you wiped out 2004 and concentrated on 2008 only, the new 'PVI' would just be D+(o-53) or R+(m-46), whichever is more positive, where o is the percentage Obama got in that district and m is the percentage McCain got.

It may be...incorrect...to assume that 2008 is a better model for the 2010 election, rather than 2004, despite it being more recent.

I agree (I really was just curious when I asked my question, I didn't mean to imply you could read anything into the answer). Actually I think we should be looking more at off year elections for incumbent races rather than PVI or other calculations made from results in Presidential years. For open races in swing districts, of course, public sentiment in late 2010 will be the biggest indicator of results.

Dwight said...

@Pat

It it my understanding that it wasn't the state GOP executive that did the selecting. Her selection was done by the district level executives. I don't know how those individuals are chosen but, given the general culture in the US where even dog catchers can be an elected position, I'd expect they were elected in a primary. So it wasn't a direct primary but she was a represented pick of the local GOP.

Yes, for those GOP in other parts of the country that have a decidedly different ['social' issues] agenda and opinions that isn't a particularly convenient thing to face up to. But it is what it is. She was likely the most appropriate GOP candidate for NY-23. *shrug* To expect otherwise is to effectively pull the GOP out of NY altogether in regards to the federal House. Then you can welcome yourself to Rumpville, population you.

Pragmatus said...

Predictions based on PVI…

If anyone in 2007 were to predict the 2008 outcomes based on historic PVI numbers they would all have come to completely wrong conclusions.

I would say the same is true of the 2010 elections.

You can’t “pattern match” to predict elections. I know it’s big sport in the MSM (and amongst the Bart De Palmas of the world) but in my opinion it is little better than guessing.

shrinkers said...

If I may....

A week is a lifetime in U.S. politics.

Projecting the 2010 vote a year from now is fun, but you'll have to redo everything when the very next poll comes in :)

We've seen historical patterns disrupted so often in just the last 18 months, you'd think people would have learned by now that exercise is little more than mental masturbation.

The projection is simple. If the Dems pass whealth care reform, and if the economy is better a year from now, the Dems will pick up seats in both houses, Otherwise, they'll lose seats.

If something unexpected happens (and what are the odds of that?) all bets are off.

That's my prediction.

Brian said...

My outlandish prediction is that in 2010 third parties will fail.

@Dwight

"She was likely the most appropriate GOP candidate for NY-23."

One of the main benefits of democracy is the appearance of legitimacy it imparts. If she had been chosen by the people directly, there might not have been a revolt.

DCM in FL said...

a good post over @ Political Wire noted:

'The GOP's Special Election Losing Streak'

Politico notes that "lost amid the Republican euphoria surrounding Tuesday's elections is this inconvenient fact: The GOP just got its clock cleaned, again, in another high-stakes House special election."

"It shouldn't have come as a surprise, since Republicans have lost 20 of the past 29 House special elections, dating back to January 2003. And in perhaps the most worrisome aspect of the trend, the GOP lost its fifth consecutive competitive special election in Republican-friendly territory."


hhhmmm...that seems to have been overlooked

shrinkers said...

@DCM

What you're not seeing is the intense wave of conservativism that is sweeping the nation. The Republicans lost these special elections because those candidates were all RINOs. None of them were true conservatives. Didn't you see Michelle Bachmann teabagging today?

DCM in FL said...

SHRINKERS

now the image of Bachman teabagging just made me throw up a little in my mouth - blech !!!

on that note, did you see the news articles about the CONs latest social attack on the liberal media elites ???

"Sesame Street"'s jab at Fox News sparks backlash

at: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/20091105/pl_ynews/ynews_pl968

Next week will mark “Sesame Street”'s 40th year on the air, and while many are celebrating the iconic PBS show that's become what the New York Times recently labeled "messianic," some conservatives are crying foul over the re-airing of a sketch that jabs fun at the right-leaning Fox News network.

In the clip of the sketch that originally aired two years ago without controversy, Oscar the Grouch is playing a reporter for the "Grouch News Network," also known as "GNN," which certainly sounds familiar. After Oscar conducts an interview in which he shares hugs and kisses with his royal interview subjects, an irate viewer calls him to complain that his coverage of the news wasn't quite grouchy enough, saying "From now on, I am watching Pox News," adding, "Now there’s a trashy news show!"
==================================
and the hysterical reactions from the teabagging crowd is pricelss [much like proudly pulling their kids out of school rather than let them be 'indoctrinated' by BHO]

GO BACHMAN, GO PALIN !!!

shrinkers said...

Wow. Sesame Street? Really?

Okay, so I was like 13 when the program first appeared (yes, I'm that old). I guess I was too young then to realize how much it warped my mind.

But conservatives never liked PBS much. Socialist TV, you know. It just ain't right that kids learn something other than to be consumers.

Pragmatus said...

Here’s the Oscar the Grouch/GNN/Pox News link…

Jacob said...

Wow.

Attacking Oscar the Grouch for not being enough of an asshole. That's pretty low.

The again you know the show attacked families in other ways. I mean Bert and Ernie were clearly gay and that blue guy seemed to be advocating some sort of cookie-based welfare state.

But when I was a kid Sesame Street had already been an institution for almost a generation. And it seems to still be the definitive education-oriented preschool-centered entertainment. No one I knew didn't have fond memories of it from early childhood.

I don't know of anyone under 40 (or who has had children or grandchildren ain the past 40 years) who wouldn't recoil in disgust at the idea of attacking Sesame Street.

Pragmatus said...

Ahem.

When Sesame was in its earliest heyday I was in college, and I as soon as I got home in the afternoon I would switch it on. I have to say the animation and graphics (plus the number-counting songs—surely I’m not the only one who remembers The Ladybug Picnic, or this?); all were first-rate art.

DCM in FL said...

well the rightists have attacked the Teletubbies [damm homos] & the Muppets too as bad influences...

[but didn't Palin wanna put lipstick on Ms Piggy ??? lol]

then they hypocritically claim they want guvmint outta OUR lives...

really they mean out of their lives but in ours

on another note, I posted the following lengthy commentary at the previous post - but meant it for here:
--------------------------------------
Interesting developments here in Central FL - a 'swing' area.

Just in the last few days, all of the TV shows 24/7 are being FLOODED with scare ads funded by BIG INSURANCE intentionally scaring seniors & other low-infos about the horrors of the Health Care Reform proposal [lose your Medicare, lose your insurance, lose your JOB fer crissakes, etc.]

They end with a plea to call Suzanne Kosmas & tell her to VOTE NO...

now Kosmas is my new DEM Rep FL-24 who we worked hard to get elected to replace the corrupt GOP Feeney - and she won by a comfortable margin but in a R+3 swingy sorta district [I mean, Feeney won here for years]

I emailed & called her offices myself today. The staff is on edge because apparently they are being bombarded by the scared people [the ad works] - BUT I do hope she will vote YES [their response is "she is still weighing thew issues" & I do understand why]

BUT Kosmas won easily 57-41, and the GOP tried to recruit Lou Holtz to run against her in 2010 - but he has declined

The interesting thing is that in the same TV media markets here [Orlando & Daytona Beach], the TV ads never mention new DEM Rep Alan Grayson in the adjacent FL-8 district.

WHY ??? Grayson barely beat GOP's Keller in 2008 52-48 [very close], and Grayson SHOULD have a huge target on his back...

this is the guy who has become a lib darling for his over-the-top push-backs on GOP health care ["they just want you to die quickly"]

so why no mention of Grayson in the same ads ???

could it be that Grayson has shown he will FIGHT BACK publicly ???

Kosmas is trying to publicly play the conservative Blue-Dog strategy to fend off challengers...

but she stands to lose me & her real base of support unless she does it right - and in the meantime, she has in effect invited this enormous media blitz directed at her personally care of Insurance & the GOP

stand and FIGHT, DEMs - it is a winning strategy [see Deeds '09]

just sayin'

shiloh said...

Re: a day is an eternity in politics ~ how sad/ironic bachmann/boehner/cantor et al had their I hate America and the U.S. Constitution and I'm still very, very upset an African/American family is living in the White House klan, astro turf, teabagger rally upstaged by the tragedy at Fort Hood. :(

So at the same time bachmann and her other klan members were burning Obama in effigy, so to speak, and outwardly showing their bigotry/racism, sour grapes, pathetic meme re: losing the 2008 election soldiers were dying in TX.

Again, why do republicans/conservatives/teabaggers hate America!

yea, soldiers dying in TX stole the thunder from bat shit crazy bachmann and her merry men hate rally in Washington.

btw, when do these politicians actually do the job they were elected to do.

hmm, trying to remember during the Vietnam war protest if one of the MSM TV networks sponsored and endorsed hate rallies like fixednews opinion service is doing nowadays and if it was totally funded ie staged by one of the (2) political parties like both teabagger rallies have been so far ie financed totally by wealthy conservative sponsors as they bus in sheep from outside Washington free of charge.

All of which is totally legal mind you, but let's call these faux, astro turf rallies for what they are. Artificially staged dog and pony shows by wingers who still haven't reconciled Obama living in the White House.

p.s. where was all this conservative teabagger anger/hatred when American soldiers and Iraqi civilians were dying in Iraq from 2003 to 2009?

All lies and jests, still a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest ...

Webmaster said...

Yeah we're all disgusted we voted for this Nazi in loafers now that we know who he's really working for, the elitists bankers!

George Soros is dirty Nazi money and that's who fueled this campaign. I am ashamed I fell for it.

Now they want to control who lives or dies with this unconstitutional health care thing.. horrid!

Webmaster said...

AMA and AARP does not make this constitutional.

Only about 17% of doctors belong to AMA and many quit. Almost 100,000 people quit AARP.

75% of the public are against this Hitlerian power grab... these people are out of control. Next it's energy, and the internet.

This is the utopian Soros idea of a managed society... we need a revolution to overthrow these white sheeted progressives with their complete lives theories and CERs hidden in the stimulus bill.. NOW.

I say send the military into the white house and simply ARREST THEM. Lord knows they have just cause.

shiloh said...

Webmaster said...

I say send the military into the white house and simply ARREST THEM. Lord knows they have just cause.
~~~~~~~~~~


As it happens, that's exactly what bachmann, boehner, cantor, BDP etc. were calling for yesterday as bat shit crazy bachmann will be leading the teabag revolution to overthrow Obama and the Dems.

And being very well armed like BDP and that doctor at Fort Hood yesterday, should overthrow America's current govt. w/out much trouble. So you are in luck re: your sour grapes and being a very, very sore loser.

teabaggers unite and rise up! against a freely, fairly elected American president. It's your solemn duty to purge this nation of this terrible blight against humanity ...

as you yahoo, conservative wingers paid no attention to the incompetence, corruption, constitutional violations, invasion of privacy, politicalization of the U.S. justice dept., bogus Iraq war, etc. etc. under cheney/bush!

Mike said...

Bart DePalma said...
There were two factors in the 2008 - the market crash and Obama's cult of personality - that respectively can not and most likely will not occur again in 2010.
___________

If I may, I'd go a step further. Given that he'll have almost 4 years of being the President behind him, something that can actually be measured, I'm not sure he'll get his coalition out again in 2012, let alone 2010.

So far he's been a failure. The right hates him because of his socialist agenda, the left hates him because he's not socialist enough. The middle hates him because, basically, he's another empty politician with lots of promises he can't fulfill.

Yes, you can shout that he's only been in office less than a year, but there are a lot of campaign promises he could have easily filled but has chosen not to.

I don't want this to be a debate on his successes; my point is that if he's widely accepted in 2012 as being a failure in 2012 (and this isn't the 1930's; if the economy is still stumbling in 2012, no amount of "we inherited this mess" is going to get him any votes), then he wont bring out his base.

Given that 2010 is two years earlier and there is little chance he'll have anything of significant success* to brag about in that election cycle, I'd put his odds at getting his coalition even close to 2008 as "next to zero." And the article is right; if the Democrats can't figure out a way to address that between now and next November, they're in real danger of being swept away.

(* Even if Healthcare passes, 2010 will be a nightmare for Demcorats when their constituents realize their taxes have gone up already to pay for something that basically doesn't kick in until 2013.)

Lehman said...

It is far too early to tell much about 2010. One main change (from a comment made upthread) is that, I hope the time of people voting one party or one issue is waning. Running bad candidates with the hope that partisan anger will deliver victory based on the R or D after a name was exposed as a failing strategy for both parties this year.

The more you guys dismiss valid critique of the present congressional and executive leaders with derisive nicknames and blanket charges of racism, you will be in danger of squandering the massive goodwill and momentum that was hard won. While hope and change were the buzzwords of your victory, failure to understand the demands and limitations of both the American peoples respective needs and fears (and patience), may be your undoing.

Mike said...

DCM in FL said...
so why no mention of Grayson in the same ads ???
____________

Because they're business people, and he's voting (obviously) for Obamacare and it'd be a waste of money.

Same reason that there's virtually no ads in my district since our representative is a die-hard socialist.

shiloh said...

Lehman said...

The more you guys dismiss valid critique of the present congressional and executive leaders with derisive nicknames
~~~~~~~~~~


Actually, before the election Obama was called: Osama Obama, The Devil Incarnate, The Anti-Christ, Satan, Communist, Marxist, Islamo-Fascist, Socialist community organizer, wealth distributer, Arab, Muslim born in Kenya who wakes up every morning hating America.

And it worked well for Reps last Nov.

And of course it continues to this day w/the teabaggers, birthers, deathers, 10thers, secessionists ie Bachmann, Boehner, Cantor, Sessions, Perry, Sanford, Ensign, Vitters, Blackburn, Joe Wilson, palin, Gingrich, Jindal, Pawlenty, Steele, etc. many of whom came out in support of Hoffman. Yes, the main core of the current Rep party having been totally hijacked by the Limbaugh/Beck extreme fringe.

This is the current political reality for the party of No! Stop Obama and the Dems by any means necessary ie faux astro turf distractions, the teabaggers et al.

As I have said previously, when the Reps happen to stumble back into power, the response will be the same as liberals have a longgg history of political dissent, Reps not so much as all their outrage has to be organized, nothing grassroots about the teabaggers, totally financed by Rep billionaire sponsors.

Bottom line, as always, America gets what it deserves! and Ailes, Atwater, Rove started scorched earth campaigns, but the Dems have caught up quite nicely, eh.

Unfortunately the take no prisoners approach from both sides is not conducive to getting things done in Washington as Reps now hate the Dems having total control and are for all intents and purposes 100% obstructionists.

And their favorability ratings reflect this as they are subterranean.

Again the current Rep meme: We suck! as the previous (8) years indicate and have no new ideas on problem solving, but the other guys are much, much worse!

Ben said...

filistro, it's fine and dandy that Obama has done the things he's done. But the reason I was particularly worried by the Bush Administration wasn't a crisis brought on by their lack of action on health care reform, it was the crisis brought on by their interpretation of executive powers, civil liberties, and defense.

I didn't vote Obama for cheaper insurance or better coverage for everyone (though that will be a good, worthy thing), I voted because I think the US is facing a crisis of governance. The rule of law is a fragile thing, and what I think there needs to be action on.

Obama had to respond to the economic crisis. His response was to give piles of money to banks with few strings attached, and to take all his advice from people who were instrumental in creating the crisis in the first place. No systemic change - just re-inflating bubbles that can still pop.

I'm not disappointed by what Obama has done. I'm disappointed to learn that the Democratic Party does not seem to share my concerns.

So that makes me a less enthusiastic voter, and continues my resolve to vote issues, not parties.

The Democrats can put whatever messaging they want on it. I'm less likely to be an enthusiastic voter because I've seen the kind of choices they make.

Yep. Life involves compromise. The nature of those compromises by necessity reduce enthusiasm among ideologically motivated, passionate voters.

Yes, I am upset because Obama has not "in his spare time" done something about Guantanamo, civil liberties, special interest influence, executive consolidation of power ... our dysfunctional senate... and.. fundamental, systemic reform to prevent the excesses of previous administrations...

In my opinion, these issues are of critical importance for the continued survival of our system of governance, and should be priorities, not relegated to his spare time.

filistro said...

And today, apropos from the incomparable Charles Krauthammer:

The Obama coattails of 2008 are gone. The expansion of the electorate, the excitement of the young, came in uniquely propitious Democratic circumstances and amid unparalleled enthusiasm for electing the first African-American president.

November ’08 was one-shot, one-time, never to be replicated. Nor was November ’09 a realignment. It was a return to the norm — and definitive confirmation that 2008 was one of the great flukes in American political history.


Why do people make these sweeping, grandiose, ridiculous statements? Does Charles not realize we all have Google, and one day this bit of pontification may well come back to bite him?

I guess they just don't care. Nobody wants to be measured, thoughtful and sensible anymore. They just want to shout as loud as they can and hope that in the absence of light, the public will be swayed by heat.

And... they could just be right. Sigh.

filistro said...

Ben, you make me feel so sad. I suspect you are in your 20's, and represent a large part of Obama's base.

If his active base is really, truly so foolishly impatient... and so deeply uninformed about the actual complexities of introducing, shepherding and passing major, controversial legislation... then perhaps Obama really won't have enough support to accomplish his agenda.

filistro said...

Entirely unrelated to anything, but I feel cranky this morning and need to vent... I just saw a headline that screamed the Fort Hood shooter was "mortified" about his upcoming deployment to Iraq.

So... has the meaning of "mortified" just magically totally changed while I wasn't looking? Why do people DO this? It drives me NUTS.

Okay, I won't post anything more... at least until I've had some coffee and cheered up. :-(

Bart DePalma said...

DCM in FL said...

The interesting thing is that in the same TV media markets here [Orlando & Daytona Beach], the TV ads never mention new DEM Rep Alan Grayson in the adjacent FL-8 district. WHY ??? Grayson barely beat GOP's Keller in 2008 52-48 [very close], and Grayson SHOULD have a huge target on his back...this is the guy who has become a lib darling for his over-the-top push-backs on GOP health care ["they just want you to die quickly"] so why no mention of Grayson in the same ads ??? could it be that Grayson has shown he will FIGHT BACK publicly ???

You are confusing the insurance ads with election ads.

The insurance industry is running ads with the intent of swaying legislators to vote against the bill, not voters to vote against the legislator. Grayson has demonstrated himself to be committed to government takeover of health insurance, so the insurers are not wasting money attempting to sway his vote.

However, be assured that Grayson will be among the top tier of Dems targeted by campaign ads next summer and fall featuring his own statements supporting Obamacare and attacking his own GOP constituents.. Your Congress critter is hoping to avoid that fate by not saying anything.

Dwight said...

filistro said...

Entirely unrelated to anything, but I feel cranky this morning and need to vent... I just saw a headline that screamed the Fort Hood shooter was "mortified" about his upcoming deployment to Iraq.

So... has the meaning of "mortified" just magically totally changed while I wasn't looking? Why do people DO this? It drives me NUTS.


If he felt personal shame that he would become one of the "occupying crusaders" or some such thing, it would be a fairly appropriate usage of the word.

Enjoy your coffee. :)

Ben said...

filistro, I'm sorry to make you sad - that's not my intent, and I'm actually in my early 30s, not 20s. So, I probably have a little more patience for and appreciation of the process than younger people might. And I haven't lost my enthusiasm and idealism as older people might.

I did mean to express why my enthusiasm is not as high now as it was during the presidential campaign.

Perhaps my reasoning gives suggestions to Democratic candidates or decision makers about how to act or what to say to regain some of my enthusiasm.

Compare Obama's early speeches on things like Habeas Corpus (http://obamaspeeches.com/091-Floor-Statement-on-the-Habeas-Corpus-Amendment-Obama-Speech.htm ) with the current status of detainees and secret military prisons. In fact, look at any of his early speeches on obamaspeeches.com - he care(s? d?) about issues that I care about, and spoke with enthusiasm and urgency, and took the correct side (well, except for marriage equality, but I can accept he has a different opinion than I do as long as he isn't legislating a restriction of who can marry).

His entire campaign was about an urgent need for change, a drastic move from the status quo.

He has been crippled by his party, especially in the Senate. He has been working the system masterfully, but some of my priorities seem to have been forgotten, and his administration has taken positions that I disagree with in legal proceedings (state secrets) and policy decisions (same sex marriage). By focusing on health care reform, he's kept the un-American status quo on the legal limbo of detention of "enemy combatants".

I understand the need to prioritize. But what has happened to the issues I care about, that the Obama administration has not been able to focus on?

I bet the enthusiasm can be regained by throwing some small legislative bones, and having some honest discussion about what the larger vision is.

Remind passionate young people where we're going - but have some progress to show for it, or we think it's all hot air.

shrinkers said...

Read in the morning's paper - estimates for the teabagger protest in Washington yesterday - instead of the hoped-for 10,000 may 20,000 maybe a zillion people, there were about 1000.

Yeah, the nation is screaming for maintaining the status quo.

filistro said...

I thought of that, Dwight... and it's a valid point.. but I'm pretty sure the thought processes of the headline writer were not nearly as subtle as yours.

Come to think of it I've seen similar usages of "mortified" in that past couple of years... as in CNN interviews where people say, "I was just mortified when I saw that tornado heading straight toward my trailer home..."

Somehow the word's meaning has morphed into "horrified," and the new meaning has now obviously gone mainstream.

Ah well. I guess language is a living, breathing, malleable thing... just like the Constitution.

Right, BDP? :-)

shrinkers said...

Ben,

You are correct, Obama promised to bring back the rule of law. One of the things this means is that he can't just turn back the clock by divine fiat. There are things Bush did which violated not only the law, but the Constitution. The only real way to repair these things is through Congressional action. He can't merely issue an Imperial Proclamation the way Bush did - not if he wants to act within the law, the way Bush didn't.

Take habeus corpus. It was repealed as part of the "Patriot Act" (which should be re-named the "War On America Act"). Because it is now federal law, it must be repealed by an act of Congress. They've been kind of busy lately.

I recognize that your priorities may be such that there are things you wish would have been handled in a particular order (Do this first, then that, then the other...) and the sequence in which they are being handled may not be the sequence you would have handled them if you were President. But geez guy, you need to realize a) your sequence isn't necessarily the same as everyone's - it's a might big country, b) Obama's been in the White House only a few months and Bush had nearly a decade to f*ck things up, c) in addition to a bunch of spineless Dems we've got the Party of No! that uses every single underhanded dirty immoral trick they can pull to slow things down.

The fact that so goddam much has already been done is amazing. The pace of change really is incredible, I have never seen so much major legislation move through Congress in such a short time. After a decade of us being buried under increasingly deep piles of shit, give the guy a couple more weeks, huh?

cbcactuary said...

Lemme guess shrinkers...New York Times?

shrinkers said...

filistro
Come to think of it I've seen similar usages of "mortified" in that past couple of years... as in CNN interviews where people say, "I was just mortified when I saw that tornado heading straight toward my trailer home..."

Maybe part of the problem is that "terrified" has gotten co-opted, since "terror" ain't what it used to be. Perhaps (this is just an idea off the top of my fuzzy head) "terror" and hence "terrified" should now only be applied to attacks from furriners.

Maybe deep in the recesses of people's minds is the realization that "mortified" is from "mort" meaning "death", so when they say "mortified" they mean something like "scared I waz gonna die".

filistro said...

Ben, your view of politics sounds to me a lot like a marriage in some 60's sitcom.

The poor young guy is out busting his butt, battling the idiots, the economy, the household budget and the vagaries of fortune, slogging off to work every day to fulfill his newfound responsibilities... and the new wife is complaining, "You never say sweet things to me anymore! And I was hoping for diamond studs for my birthday, and you bought me a TOASTER!!!! Wahhhh!"

And instead of being his helpmate and support, she becomes just another of his problems.

Patience, kids. Patience. If your generation dumps this nice young guy because hes' not giving you quite enough of what you want, your next boyfriend could turn out to be a whole lot worse.

shrinkers said...

@cbcactuary
Lemme guess shrinkers...New York Times?

Nope.

Credible estimates range from about 1000 to about 5000. Hannity says 20,000. Extreme wingnutters are claiming 100,000. Honestly, I think there were forty trillion.

filistro said...

shrinkers: Maybe deep in the recesses of people's minds is the realization that "mortified" is from "mort" meaning "death", so when they say "mortified" they mean something like "scared I waz gonna die".

Hey, that's really interesting. And as a lover of language, I'd be THRILLED if it were true. But alas... I think it's more likely that Brittney Spears started misusing the word because it sounded kind of cool and big-wordy, and everybody else just followed along.

On the bright side, one more cup of this great coffee and I'll be just fine.

Ben said...

I'm apparently not communicating clearly. Shrinkers and Filistro, you are correct, and I appreciate your point that there are compromises needed, and the ship of state turns slowly.

Telling people that does not equal building enthusiasm, though.

The original question in the post that I was responding to was - what must the Democrats do to keep the enthusiasm of new Obama voters.

Telling them (us?) to have patience doesn't engender enthusiasm.

Your approach, srinkers, of pointing out things like "The fact that so goddam much has already been done is amazing. The pace of change really is incredible, I have never seen so much major legislation move through Congress in such a short time."

may be the seed of an approach that would help enthusiasm, that I'm arguing for - show the results, show the road map. Don't make excuses and ask for patience, show the good, progressive, lawful things that have been accomplished.

Make arguments about how structures and oversight is being enacted to prevent excesses of the past.

Hell, coopt the teabaggers by showing how the legal system is being strengthened, and appeal to core American values of equality before the law and equal opportunity.

There are good things to be enthusiastic about. The results need to be delivered and emphasized to maintain that enthusiasm.

You don't have to convince me - I'm here and participating in this discussion. You have to convince a lot of people who are even less patient, and more frustrated, and get them engaged by showing progress.

shrinkers said...

I think I get what you're getting at, Ben.

Yeah, the Dems have never been all that great at PR. They tend to think that people pay attention, and are smart enough to figure this stuff out. The Repubs are much better at messaging - or, you could say, their propaganda machine is far more effective.

Me, being a partisan, I'm convinced the reason for this discrepancy is that the Dems are interesting in governing (which means that is where they spend their effort, instead of paying much attention to advertising), and they honestly respect Americans, which means they don't try to spoon feed their viewpoint. The Repubs, on the other hand, are interested in seizing and maintaining power - they don't want to govern, they want to rule - which means they spend little time on the actual work of government, and lots of effort figuring out how to convince people to vote against their actual best interests - i.e., indoctrination and brainwashing.

Which means real progress is frequently wither ignored or misrepresented. So your point is swell taken.

shrinkers said...

Gods, I need coffee. The text-to-typo ratio is way high this morning.

Ben said...

I guess I'm a like the Democrats in my typing - I assume the reader is smart enough to figure out what I mean. :)

Don't sweat it shrinkers - I got your message, and agree.

Perhaps I've gone 180 from my initial post - it may just be a messaging issue after all.

But damn, in my impatience I'd like to boot Lieberman and the filibuster, too. :)

Pragmatus said...

Mortified…

While it is possible that the berserk soldier at Ft. Hood really was mortified at the thought of returning to Iraq the word hardly fits here, since there must have been some motive other than mortification.

One does not gun down 4 dozen people out of mortification.

barryroach said...

Tom Shaller "2008 not replicable" vs. Charles Krautheimer 2008 was "one-shot, one-time never to be replicated"
Krautheimer’s Washington Post column appeared in Santa Rosa’s The Press Democrat this Friday morning, November 6th. In it he cites a poll supporting his thesis, namely:
“Just last month Gallup found that conservatives outnumber liberals by 2 t0 1 (40% to 20%) and even outnumber moderates (at 36%).”
Any thoughts on this poll?

Jacob said...

If 2008 is "not replicable"--an unprovable assertion in itself--how about 2006, when Democrats:

Picked up 30 House seats

Picked up 6 Senate seats

Picked up 6 Governorships

Flipped 11 Legislative chambers to the GOP's 1

As I recall, Obama wasn't on the ballot then

In fact, that's in many ways even more impressive than 2008, when outside of the Presidential election, Democrats:

Flipped 21 House seats to the GOP's 5

Picked up 8 Senate seats

Picked up 1 Governorship

Flipped 6 Legislative chambers to the GOP's 3

Dopper said...

SO SAD

1st I don't live in a "liberal Oasis" my state had gone Bush, Clinton, Clinton, Bush, Kerry, Obama. My congressional district has gone Bush, Bush, Clinton, Bush, Bush, Obama. My county has gone, Bush,Bush, Clinton, Clinton, Bush, Obama. My city has a GOP mayor, and a majority Democratic City Council.

2nd Every Blue Dog won't lose. Because Obama is at 40% in a district doesn't equal a loss for a congressperson. Hell Gene Taylor won big in Mississippi even though Obama only got 14% of the White vote in MS. Also Democrats are going to pick up a few seat Rep. Cao in LA, most likely DE-AL ect.
I think it's funny that my prediction of 3-5 GOP Senate pick up and 18-25 in the house makes me a liberal hope monger. But this just shows you what I mean by a lack of analysis on the right on this site. (Once again with apologies to those who do, I respect you). On the Daily Kos contest to predict the election, I got every state correct except I had Obama winning MO (this contest was a good bit before the election BTW).

Lastly as far as the economy costing Obama the election go back and show me state level polling on Pollster.com showing a GOP electoral college victory before the economic collapse. It doesn't exist and sorry these are historical records. I remember how the press called Penn "too close to call" when Obama had a 8% lead, yet called MO a Red state when McCain had a 4% lead during the fall. There was a lot of gamesmanship in calling states "swing" or "red" or "blue" to make the election a more compelling story. So let me be clear I'm talking about leads in the polls, not whether a state was "called" a swing state by some "pundit". I repeat McCain only had an electoral college lead over Obama for 4 days after the convention. Also the GOP convention was the 1st time Obama took a lead over McCain in Florida. Look at the poll numbers for Jews, and Hispanics for McCain after Sarah was nominated. Sarah cost McCain Florida.

The economic collapse (actually the gas shortages) won Obama NC (this despite lower than expected black turn out, see Chuck Todds "How Obama won" 5 of Black voters was DOWN from 2004), it also gave him an easier victory in Ohio then expected. Indiana it helped, but look that state has been moving purple see all the house Dem pickups there.

I said he would still have won because. Iowa + NV + NM ( he won then by 9%, 13%, 15%) + Colorado and the Kerry states equal a victory. Until the GOP solves it Latin problem NV and NM are lost causes, while Colorado is in one of it Blue phases (Dem Gov, 2 Dem Sen [one of the a Latino], Majority Dem House, a state house, and Sen lead by Black Democrats). McCain was just a bad fit for Iowa. So that was the lead.

Obama was ahead in VA all summer, so that was an added bonus. In fact McCain didn't have a good path to victory, because he couldn't carry all the Bush states, that's why he tried a win Penn ( before that a win Mich and Penn) strategy. Obama on the other hand felt confident about carrying every Kerry+ Gore state except MI for a little bit (this also was partly due to former Detroit Mayor Kilpatrics fault).

Finally Democrats made huge gain in 2006 BEFORE the collapse. I stand by my statement that the economic collapse didn't cost McCain the election.

Dopper said...

Should read: My county has gone, Bush, Bush, Clinton, Bush, Bush, Obama.

shrinkers said...

@Dopper
Finally Democrats made huge gain in 2006 BEFORE the collapse. I stand by my statement that the economic collapse didn't cost McCain the election.

Right you are. The fact that the Repubs are idiots is what caused McCain the election.

It wasn't the collapse as such. It was the cluelessness of the Repubs. It is generally agreed now that this Bush recession started in late '07 or early '08, yet in the summer of '08 the Repubs were still denying there was a recession happening. Everyone else knew it, and knew the Repubs were just blowing smoke. Had the economy not crashed, Obama would have still won, because it was obvious the GOPers were completely out of touch with reality.

McCain famously said, "The fundamentals of the economy are strong," and the stock market tanked within days. It wasn't the market that hurt him. It was the fact that he'd said such a stoooopid thing.

Plus, McCain ran the dumbest, most gimmick-filed campaign I've ever seen. Remember the tire pressure gauges? Joe the Plumber? Sarah Palin? "Drill, baby, drill"? Gimmicks all, no substance.

Andy said...

I find it intriguing the problems of the GOP going into the 2010 cycle are pretty much ignored.

You can't beat somebody with nobody and, if NY-23 has predictive power, the GOP could tear itself apart in primary battles, e.g., the Florida Senate primary, before the general election is underway.

Mononey: the fuel of pololitics.

filistro said...

barry: My thoughts on your poll are this:

In recent years the Republican propaganda machine has managed to pretty much equate "liberal" in folks' minds with "guys who wear fishnet stockings in gay pride parades."

So most people when asked to self-identify will recoil in horror from the term. They'll think... well, I believe in balanced budgets and sensible governing so yeah, I guess I'm pretty conservative, actually, so I'll tick that box...

In fact, that's what I'd probably do myself.

Doesn't mean I would ever in a million years vote for a Sarah Palin, or whatever other ridiculous candidate the tea-tossers manage to muscle onto the next ballot.

Jacob said...

For my money, it was the "lipstick on a pig" incident that put the final nail in McCain's coffin. It showed the pettiness and smarminess of his campaign up close, and forced McCain to overplay his hand on Palin, as well as leading to the plummeting of her star power.

Charisma, economic collapse, hopeful message, etc, aside, there just ain't no substitute for a weak opponent.

nkpolitics1279 said...

In 1994- Republicans picked up the Governorships in
AL,CT(open seat),ID(open seat),KS(open seat),NM,NY,OK(open seat),PA(open seat),RI(open seat),TN(open seat),and WY(open seat).
In 2010- Republicans will pick up the Governorships in KS,OK,TN,WY plus MI and PA. Democrats will pick up the Governorship in AZ,CA,HI,MN,and VT. RI will go Independent.
US Senate-In 1994- Republicans picked up AZ,ME,MI,OH,PA,2 TN seats. In 2010. Republicans will lose MO,OH,and NH. and gain CT and CO. . I see Dodd losing because of high negatives and has a credible GOP opponent. Bennett is a back bench member with low name recognition.

shrinkers said...

@Jacob
For my money, it was the "lipstick on a pig" incident that put the final nail in McCain's coffin.

Another fine gimmick.

ACORN, Ayres, suspending the campaign to deal with the economy, country singers warbling about "Raising McCain," ... the list goes on of dumb tricks McCain tried, anything, anything at all to avoid having any substance on actual issues.

And now, a year before the next election, we're already seeing a sample of gimmicks the Repubs are going to try - charges of "socialism", their simplistic drumbeat of "tax cuts!" that we've been hearing for 30 years, ACORN (again!), teabagging, totin' them gunz ... still no substance.

filistro said...

shrinkers: ACORN, Ayres, suspending the campaign to deal with the economy, country singers warbling about "Raising McCain," ...

You all are missing one of the classics... the chubby McCain campaign worker with the backwards "B" carved into her cheek :-)

Dear Lord, what a campaign that was. Will we ever see its like again?

shrinkers said...

filistro:

Hee hee! I forgot that one. I used to have a list, now misplaced somewhere. Another week, another gimmick, a pathetic and desperate attempt to find something that would cause some damage without seeming too "negative". The really sad thing was that the McCain of c. 2000 had been able to give the appearance of actual intelligence and even the occasional bit of thoughtful wisdom. but see what happens when a party or candidates lurches to the right?

Meanwhile, Obama ran a steady campaign of almost preternatural calm and assurance, coupled with a message of unrelenting hope and true productive policy ideas. The contrast was stunning.

filistro said...

Meanwhile, Obama ran a steady campaign of almost preternatural calm and assurance...

Didn't he, though? And the astonishing thing is, the man is managing his presidency exactly the sanme way.

It may irritate Ben's generation who clamor for immediate results... but it's surely going to pay off in 2012. Just as his calm, steady campaign infuriated all those fiery liberals in here who were always screaming for him to react, SHOW EMOTION, and GO NEGATIVE!!!

To be fair I do have to give Ben credit. After a little chat with us old battle-scarred veterans of the political wars, Ben showed a lot more reasonablness, didn't he? I do like a guy who can admit to the validity of an opposing viewpoint :-)

Jacob said...

Blogger nkpolitics1279 said...

"In 2010- Republicans will pick up the Governorships in KS,OK,TN,WY plus MI and PA. Democrats will pick up the Governorship in AZ,CA,HI,MN,and VT. RI will go Independent."


That seems like a pretty good list, with a few that are obviously going to be down to the wire.

I'd guess Republicans pick up MA, WI, and ME
Democrats also take FL.

Either way it seems Repubs get a majority or plurality of governorships, while Dems get a group of governors representing the majority of the country, sort of a reversal of the current situation.

Patricia said...

For me, the media most often overlooks the very point that you focus on: "But all of these factors are ultimately mediated to some, significant degree by the electorate and its composition. " This blog from Georgetown http://gnovisjournal.org/blog/crunching-numbers-media-polling-spin-zone-meets-election-2009
fleshes that point out more. Its a good read and reinforces the value of blogs like 538 over mainstream media.

Mike said...

shrinkers said...
McCain famously said, "The fundamentals of the economy are strong," and the stock market tanked within days. It wasn't the market that hurt him. It was the fact that he'd said such a stoooopid thing.
_____________

Barney Frank famously said that "Fannie and Freddie are fundamentally sound."

Was that equally as stoooooopid? After all, we've spent more money bailing them out than we did AIG!

Mike said...

Jacob said...
If 2008 is "not replicable"--an unprovable assertion in itself--how about 2006, when Democrats:

Picked up 30 House seats

Picked up 6 Senate seats

Picked up 6 Governorships

Flipped 11 Legislative chambers to the GOP's 1

As I recall, Obama wasn't on the ballot then
______

Correct, but that was smack bang in the middle of the Jack Abramov scandal. The Dems could have run Mickey Mouse in many places in 2006 and still won.

Dwight said...


Mike said...

Barney Frank famously said that "Fannie and Freddie are fundamentally sound." Was that equally as stoooooopid?


Roughly the same ballpark, yup. ((see below)) Although publicly trashing Fannie and Freddie at that point probably would have been a very bad idea, too.

So I guess Rep. Franks chances at a Presidential bid are now pretty minimal, right? :D

P.S. I happen think McCain got a bit of a bum rap for that quote. He likely simply chose really poor wording for what he had in mind, perhaps got caught trying to put too much of a rosy face on things, and got jumped all over for it. He certainly wasn't the first and it's safe to assume he won't be the last Presidental candidate to fall victim to a blunder like that.

Jacob said...

Mike said...

"Correct, but that was smack bang in the middle of the Jack Abramov scandal. The Dems could have run Mickey Mouse in many places in 2006 and still won."


Fair point. But you can make a point like that about virtually any election:

2008-Economic Collapse!

2006-Jack Abramoff!

2004-Swift Boat Vets!

2002-OMG OMG OMG Iraq Has WMDs!

2000-Nader Voters!

1998-Republican Impeachment Imbroglio!

1996-Dole Falls off a Stage!

1994-House Banking Scandal!

1992-Perot Voters!

And that's just the elections I remember. Someone older or more historically astute could probably go much farther back.

You can boil any election, especially wave elections, down to a single excuse--some are big explanations and some are small--but it's never the full story.

Eusebio Dunkle said...

filistro and all other old wise men. give it up already. I'm fed up with being condescended to for being young, impatient, and unwise...for not understanding the "process," the "struggles," the "difficulties." More or less I'm too unwise to except the f'ing excuses.

As far as I'm concerned your self-described age=wisdom is the problem. I had no part in the epic problems we face, but now they rest on my shoulders. Except not, somehow, the same old assholes who lead us off the cliff are always counted upon to lead us out of the pit. Your culture and everything about yrs>genX must be irrevocably destroyed. F*ing terminated.

You'll have to pardon my [and ben's or others] impatience on issues that are important to us, like civil rights, government transparency, abuse of executive powers. These issues, frankly, are important enough to kill or die for according to the American lore...

Patience:...It's only a matter of time before BHO brings the hammer down on the people who caused and subsequently profiteered from recent financial chaos, right? Before real financial regulations somehow replace the watered down anti-reform we have talked about maybe implementing? Only a matter of time before BHO suddenly realizes the imbalance between corporate rights and citizen rights, correct? IP/copyright reform? It's a big f'ing joke. I should calmly wait for the people around me to be treated fairly? What the f*ck?

I will not accept this. BHO is only the second major party vote I have ever made in my life. In part, it was his youth. The majority of our legislators don't even understand the things they legislate, WTF? Completely blind to actually fixing things. I'll be fine no matter what. I will not support the faux progressives. I will not support politicians. I would rather watch the world burn then patiently wait until some a$$hole politician calculates that he can "afford" to offer equal rights to my friends and family.

My intensity will not be wasted on the dfl.

Dwight said...

I would rather watch the world burn then patiently wait until some a$$hole politician calculates that he can "afford" to offer equal rights to my friends and family.

I understand it is small condolence to hear that the wheels of progress grind slowly but they are grinding right now. Inconvient, uncomfortable, and occasionally even fatal to those in distress right now. But still the reality of the matter.

Ultimately this is a good thing otherwise any progress could just as easily be lost when someone else stepped into the Whitehouse.

I believe the lowering of the boom, such as it may end up being, is in the works. Has been for months actually. The health insurance ruccus has tended to obscure that and other things. For example the amendment for the "hate crime" law to include sexual orientation motivation, for example. I haven't seen that mentioned here since it was signed a week or so ago. That's the type of stuff that's been >< close for a decade now but blocked up.