Ssshhhhh, LB, you're totally jinxing us.
Speaking as someone who voted a straight-dem ticket, it is lesser of two evils. The current administration and Congress are appalling, but the Nancy & Harry duo doesn't make me think "oh, now the government will be in good hands."
Yeah, I should link to Ezra Klein on this one. He was wondering why everyone was being so quiet about the election, and I read the post and thought "Because I'm chicken." And decided not to be. And to berate the Democratic party leadership for chickendom. (Unless of course they're saying what I want them to and I just haven't seen it.)
I was unlikely to describe myself as "putting my trust in the government" when in the nineties I started voting, and after the past six years, I'm unlikely to trust the government, broadly described, for at least a decade.
The journalist/pundits can write your story and it won't really bother me, though, LB; I trust them even less.
2: Yeah, but you're a political junkie posting on a politicalish blog, you're guaranteed to be dissatisfied with any actual politician (not that there's anything wrong with that, it certainly describes me too). I'm talking about the way we've been hearing about the deep conservativism of the American people, and their instinctive distrust of latte-sipping liberals, as demonstrated by the razor-thin majorities Republicans have been eking out for the last decade and a half. If that makes sense, then the reverse does too.
Well, realistically, Democratic policies aren't going anywhere in the next two years. Even assuming we take both houses, the majorities are only going to be big enough to stop legislation, not push it through. Come 2008, there will be a chance to change that.
I take your point about the rhetoric, though.
That's most of what I'm saying. I just want Democratic politicians out there saying that they're going to win because ordinary Americans love and trust them, and believe in the ideals they stand for. We'll see what we can actually do when we see how many seats we win.
Given that we can expect Bush to start wielding his veto stamp with abandon if the Dems regain control of Congress, the best use of the next two years will be to propose mountains of legislature just to get the GOP to vote against it, in preparation for '08 ad campaigns.
Like, say, a constitutional right to privacy.
and:
People will vote the democrats into office because they like the democrats policies.
a constitutional right to privacy
Goddamn straight right yeah.
Also, I'd council running the House every bit as dictatorially toward the minority as the GOP has run it during the past decade. I think that might be good for an extra dozen or so GOP retirements in '08.
11: Mmm. That one I may not be on board with. A lot of the shit the Republicans have been doing, like not releasing the text of several hundred page bills to be voted on until hours before the vote, isn't just bad to the opposition party but really terrible practice in itself.
9: The legislation in the first link is all dead in the water, but good as campaign ad fodder. The lobbyist stuff, though, would make me happy as a clam.
re 15
Some of those things would pass. Republicans can cave too.
13: Hopefully they can screw the minority without screwing the public?
I just don't know enough about Congressional procedure. I'd prefer 'firm but fair' to 'treat those shitheads as badly as they treated us', but it comes down to fine points and I don't know what they are.
Some of those things would pass.
And get vetoed.
Student loan funding could conceivably pass.
Has Bush exercised a veto yet? Did he use one on the stem cell bill?
I'm talking about the way we've been hearing about the deep conservativism of the American people, and their instinctive distrust of latte-sipping liberals, as demonstrated by the razor-thin majorities Republicans have been eking out for the last decade and a half. If that makes sense, then the reverse does too.
But haven't we been hearing about this for the past thirty -plus years - ever since Nixon's Moral Majority? I see your point, but the Dems haven't really put forward an alternative beyond "not being Bush" (which is good enough for me this election). That isn't exactly an organized platform for the American people to get behind. To be honest (and these are my DLC sympathies showing), I'm not sure how much of whatever platform the Dems have put together represents what I want.
And I exiled myself from DC to get away from the political junkies. This is me strictly falling off the wagon.
20: Yes and yes. AFAIK that's still his only one.
Student loan funding could conceivably pass.
If it's accompanied by a constitutional amendment banning affirmative action.
Like, say, a constitutional right to privacy.
This has always seemed like an tactical no-brainer to me. Force Republicans to explain why they oppose it.
Is there anybody on "our" side writing such a Consitutional amendment? I get the sense that this is something you, apostropher, Kevin Drum, and I want but that the DLC is running away from in a Porsche. The reproductive rights groups should be on top of this, but probably shouldn't take the lead. What about the consumer rights groups? Can somebody kick Ralph Nader until he makes this his next crusade?
And force them to oppose it every single session of Congress.
13: Agreed that late-night text switches, etc. are bad policy (if good politics) -- I'd actually be on board with the Dems instituting a rule about releasing the full text of a bill two business days before a vote or such or something. But a lot of what the Republicans did is really classic, petty stuff; the minority party has fewer staffers, that's how it works, but the Republicans took away their parking spots, shuffled their offices to take away windows, gave them outdated Blackberries. It's just malicious, and there's no way to complain about it without seeming like a big whiny baby. So that's where you hit the GOP. Cut their coffee service. Dump their staffers in the basement, three to a room.
I'm all for a constitutional right to privacy but I don't think this is the no-brainer others seem to think it is. I mean, this will be spun as the "Abortion Amendment" or "Baby Killing Amendment" within 5 minutes of being proposed and end up dead in the water.
That's going to be a hard spin to perform ("please point out where the amendment even mentions abortion") outside of the rabid anti-abortion lobby. Anyhow, the point isn't passing it, any more than the flag burning amendments are. It's about having to make them explain why they don't believe in a right to privacy.
The response would be "Look, those people think everything is about abortion. You know how they are. But privacy is under attack all over the place: your medical records, your financial records, your internet activity, your phone calls, [blah, blah, blah]. The Republicans want to maintain their ability to spy on American citizens. We think that's just wrong."
apo's right, I think. It's too big a leap. First of all, most Americans already think we have a right to privacy. Second, most Americans don't have a clue that right to privacy = abortion. That link will just sound plain weird. Third, the privacy argument in favor of choice is the one that Americans feel most comfortable with (decision between me and my doctor, not me and my doctor and the federal government, etc.).
And yes, Dems would always talk about it in terms of apo's 30.
The Republicans want to maintain their ability to spy on American citizens
...and make sure their corporate fatcat donors are able to get your personal information so they can telemarket to you over dinner.
THe other thing that the Democrats can do is investigate, investigate, investigate. Just absolutely poison the well for the Republicans, synonymize them with corruption.
The Republicans want to protect identity thieves!
This so-called "privacy amendment" is a sneaky way for the Democrats to write their extremist liberal views into our Holy Constitution. It will prevent us from gathering the information on terrorists that we need to prevent another attack on our country, burden businesses with new regulations that will cause prices to skyrocket, and allow them to kill innocent unborn babies.
"They're hiding dead babies in the penumbras! PANIC!"
36 just sounds like crazy talk! It really does.
36: They already say that about everything. It shouldn't be a disincentive.
Seriously, every criticism should just be answered, ad nauseum, with "Democrats believe in a right to privacy. Republicans don't."
The problem with this advice is swing voters are moving to the Democrats because they don't like the way the Republicans have been running things. They aren't going to vote for Democrats because they are liberals and if you make the election a referendum on the liberal agenda instead of the Republican administration you are likely to lose.
When Gingrich was out of power (or in power when Clinton was president) he used losing votes on bills to set up the next confrontation. A vote can force the other side to go on the record. People should study Gingrich.
Seriously, you think that a voter who's disillusioned with the Republican party is going to look at Democratic politicians saying "Americans trust Democrats," and out of spite flip back to the GOP? I can't make that work psychologically.
No, he's suggesting that the Democrats take their rare electoral victory as a fluke and govern from the center-right. Or at least that's what I understand him as saying.
Oh. Well, screw that.
That's exactly the sort of talk I want people to stop. The national mood has a huge "Clap if you believe in fairies" component -- Republicans have been doing well for so long, despite all of those polls showing that the electorate likes an awful lot of liberal positions on the issues, partially because everyone's convinced that Average Joe Voter just feels good about conservatives and icky about liberals. Well, Average Joe is voting for us this time around, and it behooves us to be out there saying that it's because he wants us to govern the country.
44, many voters who are disillusioned with the Republicans nevertheless are looking for an excuse to stick with them because it is psychologically painful to switch sides. Reminding them of all the reasons they hate Democrats is not necessarily a good idea.
If they can't vote for the Dems this time, come hell or high water, they hate something deep about America, James. We were never going to get those people, anyway. They need to move.
45, no that's not what I am saying at all. After the election if you win you can claim the victory was a sweeping mandate for your liberal agenda and try to govern from the left if you want (although I don't see how you can do much with Bush still President). Of course this is more credible if you have actually run on a liberal platform however this is also riskier. In this election I think the Democrats are best off trying to make it a referendum on Republican performance in power rather than as a choice between Republican and Democratic policy going forward.
48, that is the sort of comment that causes people to stick with the Republicans out of spite.
50: As I said, if you vote against your country out of spite, you weren't going to vote for us anyway.
51, that's a convenient way of looking at things. It doesn't matter how many people you alienate by being a jerk, they were never on your side anyway.
I don't know that that's fair. Worrying about antagonizing voters by being hostile or unpleasant is reasonable. I think worrying about antagonizing voters who are planning to vote for us because the don't like the other guys by saying that Americans are voting for us because they actively approve of us is foolishly overcautious. Making that sort of claim isn't being jerkish.
But, and I think this is the key issue here, what's the evidence that all these people who are switching sides are doing so because they actively approve of Democratic policy positions?
My point is that if we start saying they all are, who's to say we're wrong? Any individual voter knows their own motives, but doesn't have any particular reason to doubt what's said about voters generally.
And there are enough polls out there to choke a horse (elephant?) on the broad approval of lots of Democratic policies, like universal health care, and keeping Social Security from being privatized. If they're voting for us, and they approve of our policies, they like us. We should be saying that.
Any individual voter knows their own motives, but doesn't have any particular reason to doubt what's said about voters generally.
Sure they do. If they hear "voters are increasingly enamored of the Democratic party and its liberal policies" but they don't think of themselves as being enamored of liberal policies and know lots of people who feel the same way, I'd expect them to be skeptical of news reports and less enthusiastic about voting Democratic.
If they hear "voters are increasingly enamored of the Democratic party and its liberal policies" but they don't think of themselves as being enamored of liberal policies and know lots of people who feel the same way, I'd expect them to be skeptical of news reports and less enthusiastic about voting Democratic.
Or maybe they will feel like Democrats might be more in step with the country as a whole than the out-of-touch Republicans they've been hanging out with. You know, the way all of us have felt for the last 5 years, living in our non-heartland enclaves. Our feeling isn't accurate.
Particularly if the Democrats are actually winning in the polls.
I'm just saying that I think most of this support for Dems in the polls is primarily opposition to Republicans, and isn't very firm. I think the second paragraph of LB's post is fine, but I'm a bit uneasy about the third. Can't stuff like that wait until after the election?
I have to admit that I'm leery of using the word "liberal" and of claiming too much of an agenda. I want to cement in place the idea that the Democratic Party is the natural home of moderation, because I think it's true, because I think it's electorally useful, and (admittedly) because I'm pretty moderate.
Yeah, I don't so much care about reclaiming the word "liberal"; I just want to rebrand Republican to mean "religious fanatics and neo-Confederates" in the public consciousness. Running against that is easy.
TAP had an article recently about Dems using the tools the Repubs have created in Congress. Definitely worth a read:
Yes indeed, a very bad link. Try this: