Democrats aren't in as much trouble as you'd think

[babylonsister]

http://theweek.com/article/index/260975/democrats-arent-in-as-much-trouble-as-youd-think

Democrats aren't in as much trouble as you'd think
May 4, 2014, at 7:53 PM


Recently on Political Wire's podcast, we spoke about Hillary Clinton's 2016 presidential hopes and the 2014 midterm campaigns with Geoff Garin, a longtime Democratic pollster who worked for Clinton's campaign in 2008.

Here are four takeaways from the conversation:

1. Were she to run, Hillary Clinton shouldn't have the same inevitability problem that plagued her in 2008. She was widely seen as the inevitable Democratic presidential nominee in 2008, and that perception seemed to produce some complacency within her campaign and contribute to her eventual loss to Barack Obama. This time, should Clinton choose to run, would go much differently, Garin argued. Clinton, fresh off her tenure as secretary of state, would have an even stronger case to make that she's the right person for the Democratic nomination (and the presidency). Her time as secretary of state has bolstered her leadership credentials, and Americans will find those credentials attractive at a time when they feel Washington is lacking in the leadership department. "There is a really good fit between what she would offer as candidate in the presidential leader and what the country is hungry for at the moment," Garin said.

2. Democrats aren't in as much trouble as you'd think. Garin said Republicans have a legitimate shot to take the Senate in November, given the president's sagging approval numbers and what is likely to be a more conservative electorate during a low-turnout election. But he also believes that some vulnerable Democrats like Mary Landrieu (D-La.) and Mark Pryor (D-Ark.) have enough of a unique, independent persona that they're not seen as a rubber-stamp for Obama's agenda. Not only that, but Republicans lack one critical edge that they had in 2010: Then, many voters chose Republicans to take out their anger on President Obama and the Democrats, but now voters have soured even more on Republicans, in part for their ideological rigidity. "There's a real debate to be had, and I think Democrats have shown a much greater inclination and willingness this time to join the debate in an aggressive way and not sit back and just hope for the best," he said. As a result, while turnout this fall will favor the GOP, a 2010-like wave doesn't seem to be in the cards.

3. Republicans' near-singular focus on ObamaCare could come back to bite them. It may be a great strategy to pump up conservative base voters, but voters in the middle of the electorate have other issues in mind besides the Affordable Care Act, Garin said. ObamaCare certainly will play a role in the campaign, but issues such as jobs and the federal deficit are much more of a priority in the eyes of less-partisan voters. The ObamaCare obsession he referred to may serve as another example of how the GOP has become more ideologically rigid in the past few years, Garin said. Additionally, "I just think this Republican obsession is neurotic at some level, and certainly excessive beyond what people want to be talking about," he said.

4. Democrats are right to fight back on ObamaCare. A recent wave of good news about the health care law is giving Democrats the potential to regroup and reframe their ObamaCare argument. Instead of continuing to take a largely defensive tone in their "keep it and fix it" platform, Democrats now are going on offense, Garin said, by explaining the benefits of the law and attacking Republicans' efforts to take away those benefits via repeal votes. "Rather than being in a defensive crouch and hoping this will go away, Democrats really around the country are leaning into the issue," he said. It's true that Republicans now increasingly say they want to replace ObamaCare, but Garin noted that they have yet to offer, much less vote on, a substantive alternative. "If somebody actually came up with a real plan to replace it, I am confident whatever that plan would be would be less appealing to voters than what we have now," Garin said.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

1. Their renewed focus on #BENGHAZI! probably won't help much either.

Destroying the GOP might be PBO's greatest legacy as POTUS- mostly without lifting a finger.

[Thinkingabout]

2. The GOP cannot run on their jobs record, ACA was patterned after the Romney plan,

NO is not a plan to promote, so what do they have left. Same sex marriage is going to be in the future for sure, someone is going to push immigration reform. The big push for Democrats is GOTV, for the states with photo ID assist those who do not have ID's to get them, beat the Republicans at the game they thought they could win. Wonder if they will turn that around to whoever has an ID they will not be able to vote.

[The Wizard]

3. The best thing the GOP has in its favor

is media ownership. They can blast their lies through conventional media and the Democrats really can't compete. The Democrats must use the social media to get the base off their asses and out to vote.

[AllyCat]

41. I would add personal conversations

We are good at the face to face stuff. Knocking on doors, pounding pavement, voter outreach at public events.

[wyldwolf]

4. great piece. I've acually been arguing 3 & 4.

What Democrats haven't done a good enough job on is the one thing 'experts' have been hammering for several years - the DEM PR campaign on the ACA has been weak.

[Scuba]

5. Liberals and progressives, on the other hand, are fucked.

[woo me with science]

6. If the message of the OP is our rallying cry, the whole country is fucked.

Last edited Mon May 5, 2014, 09:40 AM - Edit history (4)

This OP lays out with depressing clarity what passes for a rallying cry for our party these days.

1. A corporate, warmongering Third Way politician has a chance of being elected.

2. The other party still sucks.

3. The other party can't run on the important issues any more than we can.

4. At least one of our policies that funnels obscene profits to corporate billionaires offers at least *some* relief for certain Americans...even though that relief ends up being paid for by taxpayers while the billionaires' take is carefully protected.

I would add as Number 5:

We still have a corporate media that will never, ever focus on the most egregious betrayals of this administration, including expanding the surveillance state and the trashing of due process and transparency; targeting protesters, whistleblowers and journalists; implementing a machine for propaganda and smear targeted at Americans; handing our free internet to corporations; renewing the Stay-Out-of-Jail-Free card for criminal bankers; and pushing perhaps the most predatory "free trade" agreement in history.

Go team!

[progressoid]

7. Yup. n/t

[MannyGoldstein]

9. I disagree

For the first time in decades, Americans are ready to hear our message, and we have a great one: "We Liberals fixed it last time, in the 1930s, we'll fix it again this time." We just need to get our @#$% together, organize, and get the word out.

[riqster]

12. + 1

[Blanks]

16. You're right...

And smart democratic candidates will point to the legislative victories of the 2009-2011 legislative session and compare it to the 2011-2013 session as well as the current session where the republican controlled house has worked almost exclusively on something that they knew wouldn't pass.

We pay these people, they should be trying to accomplish SOMETHING. Even if we don't agree with their issues - they shouldn't be rewarded for sitting on their asses and pandering to the extreme wing if the party.

[Scuba]

20. Thanks Manny, I needed a shot of optimism this morning!!

[MannyGoldstein]

25. Remember, it's always darkest before the dawn.

Or before the lights go completely out.

I'm guessing there'll be a dawn!

[IronLionZion]

15. Support liberal candidates and get out the vote

More democrats of any type, helps put long time liberals in leadership positions who decide bills to vote on and set policy goals.

Also there are downticket races at the state and local level that need support, many of which are liberal candidates. And there are many important liberal referendums on ballots across many states for important issues.

[tridim]

26. Uhm no. Liberals and progressives are thriving.

Unless you're joking, I'm not sure you even know what "Liberal" and "progressive" mean.

Both words are clearly defined in the actual world.

[Scuba]

32. Yeah, I never even heard of Bob LaFollette.

I agree that liberal and progressive ideals are thriving among the populace. Sadly, we can only vote for those candidates funded by the oligarchs. That includes most of those claiming to be liberal and progressive.

And on the off chance a real liberal or progressive should ever be elected, he/she will be marginalized by their own party. And if that fails, the oligarchs don't hesitate to deploy their assassins.

What do you think? Was Obama faking it when he said all those progressive things in 2008, or did he succumb to threats?

[tridim]

35. Clue: Obama is both progressive and Liberal.

The proof? History.

I think it is now clearly confirmed that you don't know what "Liberal" and "progressive" mean. That is a huge fucking problem.

[Scuba]

37. Funny, this guy says you're wrong ...

[tridim]

38. The proof: History.

You obviously don't know us at all. Have fun in obscurity.

[Scuba]

40. Your argument is pathetic. If that's all you've got you should stay off discussion boards.

[IronLionZion]

43. Just one more Democratic appointee on the Supreme Court

would make a world of difference in many important cases to reign in the power of oligarchs

[Scuba]

44. I absolutely agree, assuming we have the right Democrat.

[NorthCarolina]

8. Democrats would do well to listen to Elizabeth Warren. She and her ilk are the near future

of the Democratic Party. Third-way interlopers will be cast back to the GOP where they came from. Thanks to the internet, and brave whistle blowers, Americans are waking up to the fact that our voting system has been rigged in favor of the 1%; two parties with essentially the same goals save for some minor differences in Social values pushed to the forefront to give an appearance of "choice". We all know that in the big picture, we have no "choice" other than Corporatist A or Corporatist B.

[Auggie]

10. Democrats need a national narrative … a fresh version of "New Deal," say

[woo me with science]

11. Unfortunately, the party has been hijacked by those more interested in PR narratives

than in actually working for the 99 percent.

You are right. We need an actual New Deal. We also need *real* defenders of the Bill of Rights and transparency.

And we need someone who will fight to get corporate money the hell out of elections and the halls of government.

[Auggie]

14. I mean PR narrative … there isn't a cohesive national communication strategy.

Sure, tie into an actual program like a New Deal. But come up with an engaging narrative first.

[Scuba]

33. That's also true. But we have no populist platform to trumpet, so why blow the horns?

[Auggie]

36. Create one!!! Aren't Democrats supposedly the party of the people? Let's remind everyone of that.

[riqster]

13. We need to GOTV and get people to the polls, too.

[L0oniX]

18. I like corporapublicrat B ...because B looks and acts nicer than A.

[riqster]

19. And not voting changes that paradigm how, exactly?

[L0oniX]

22. That's what I'm saying. Voting is voting for a corporapublicrat ...either way.

[riqster]

29. So not voting helps to change that paradigm?

Decreased citizen engagement just strengthens their oligarchical position.

[L0oniX]

39. Well it does keep the corporate clown circus going

[L0oniX]

17. We are all fucked as long as corporapublicrats are in office.

They are closing ranks around us. They have almost completely co-opted our government. They are countries unto themselves and above the law. They know they can continue to suck the life blood out of our country and THEY KNOW THERE'S NOTHING WE CAN DO ABOUT IT. Enjoy your delusion while you can.

[AtheistCrusader]

21. I'm optimistic, but we still need to show up to the polls.

So, keep beating those drums. If we don't show, we're fucked.

[INdemo]

23. So in other words this guy is telling Democrats what they want to hear

However Democrats set back and allow the Republicans and the likes of CNN and Faux blame the Democrats for all the stupid shit GW did. They allow the Republicans to blame Democrats for the huge budget deficit and it worked. Democrats assume that voters are so pissed off at the Republicans that they will flock to the polls and vote for them just like they did in 2012 when they allowed Republicans to walk all over them and win the huge Majority in the House.Its no different in 2014 and the Republicans have all their ducks in a row and all the scripts are wriiten for their mouth pieces and Democrats are setting back as usuall and assuming it wont happen. They don't care as much as we do because they are protected by a probable nest egg they have built and they don't care about how much a gallon of gas costs or a loaf of bread because if they have served any time at all in Congress they have had the advantage of those quick stock exchange trades where insider trading is permitted Remember?
So Mr pollster I don't believe your BS

[jwirr]

24. This article seems to be referring to 2016. If we do not start working on 2014 we are going to lose

in 2016 by default as they will have rigged it to the point we will not be able to have a fair vote.

[riqster]

30. Damn right. GOTV, every election, every year.

[Scuba]

34. That ship sailed in 1968.

[glowing]

27. #3 is somewhat misleading...

What voters are wanting to hear is that one of these parties is invested at creating a more equal playing field (a reason why Sen Warren and Sen Sanders are so popular).

The candidates that come out with an economic agenda that pushes for equal pay for women/ men, passage of an anti-discrimination act that includes LGBT as well as women and other minorities, a policy that raises minimum wage to a living wage - or at least a path to that wage, and "pro-family" stances/ policies that make it easier for Americans to catch up....

The highest prices in today's families is that of day care, health care, and secondary school, i.e. college and trade schools. If the Dems supported, as a party, creating daycare programs and/ or voucher programs for families struggling to work and have their child(ren) in a safe, credible govt run facility or approved daycare provider (vouchers for those who have to hire private sitters when they are working the 2nd and 3rd shifts and in rural communities giving aid for child are would be cheaper than creating a facility for a handful of children spread out. Peace of mind knowing your child is in a govt run, approved program for children who are not of school age and then after school and summer programs for those whose parents work longer than a school day or are struggling to pay for daycare services when their kids aren't old enough to go to school yet. With regards to college, if the govt created a school/ service choice for students, then the cost could go down, while the young population does some good worlks in the world and has their minds and outlooks broadened.. Example, one could choose to serve in the Peace Corps thru their college/ training acceptance to help pay for the overall costs... And they could choose to do it right away, in the middle of college, or at the end of college. I would think most would choose before or midway they their college/ training experience to serve so they knew that they were on the right track with their degree. This way, there wasn't only military service as an option to help out with school. And health care is finally starting to be addressed, but hopefully we could move toward a single-payer system or a system like the VA?! This would take the financial burden off of companies, new companies, young people, and people who are near retirement age and could retire, but stay for the insurance benefits. Having people able to retire younger and fee up positions that pay better and could use a fresh set of new eyes and ideas, would be able to do so without fear of breaking their retirement funds due to a major illness or an illness they currently have.

Not only supporting families and smart economics of the most having the spread of wealth across the populous, but the idea that with our technology and our production rates thru the roof, so to speak, we could be utilizing the technology to work better for all of us. What was the point of making computers thin and compact or phones that connect to the Internet and with one another and take pics/ video, etc, if we weren't using the technology to let us work smarter and work less. Isn't our Utopian Sci-Fi fantasy having robots doing the crap jobs we don't want to do, while the rest of us having more time to enjoy a walk with loved ones, taking a vacation, having less time in the office, being able to retire earlier to try something new or to travel. The politicians that can start thinking outside of the regular box and offer that "better life" for people to envision will be the one's who can lead the pack.

BTW: (last point) people aren't worried so much about acquiring a job, they are more worried about the ripe of job it is and if the pay or the conditions of the employment pays enough to live, has room for advancement, and treats them like human beings... Also, no one is all that worried about debt, this is an inside the DC beltway bubble agenda. What people worry about is what and how their money is being alloyed and what they are going into debt from. Another war, like messing around with Russia over the Ukraine is something the American people cannot stomach and if we end up involved, by a Drmocratic president and majority in the senate, we will lose on subsequent political races into the future for some time... The blame will be placed on the Dems for going to war and wasting more money on military. What people want to be using money and have debt from is smart infrastructure that makes our country safer and easier to navigate (hello high speed rail). And investments in education so our people can compete with the world; even if that means the US Govt comes in and helps to subsidize more science, engineering, sustainable farming practices, animal husbandry, and foresting... It would also be smart , depending on the are in the country one lives, pushing for saner drug policies, decriminalizing marijuana, and treating other drug addictions with mental health services, rather than jail.

These items I've listed are things that I hear all types of people say they want from all walks of life, across political divides, across racial, ethnic, religious, and social boundaries. The only one's who prefer to keep their hoarding, powerful voices in the lead of the pack is the 1%. The system they have set up for theirselves, have left them insulated from the rest of the world. They don't have to share, empathize with anyone, or deal with the many hoops they set up for us. Their privilege has above the law (they seem to make it/ buy it; even the Supreme Court these days), they throw out their words, opinions, ideas as if they are the only one's who count or know to do anything (just look at the Gate's Foundation asserting they know how to teach better than a professional, seasoned teacher), they have the right to say as they wish with little repercussion (if you think Sterling is unique in his views, think again), and they can stand around waiving guns or shooting their friends in the face while hunting (and no investigation, arrests, or fear of law even gets put in their direction-- look at the wealthy rancher not wanting to pay his taxes and housing dangerous, radical militia groups on his property to state down the govt and proclaim he's above it all).

[tclambert]

28. I'm still worried about the massive corporate money the Supreme Court says is free speech

and that they insist won't have any corrupting influence on politics. In Chief Justice Roberts' "mind," big money and corruption are two widely separated things.

The Koch brothers' organizations are already running deceptive TV ads here. Americans for Prosperity in particular has attacked Gary Peters and Obamacare. Republicans are clearly hoping that the recent redrawing of Michigan's 14th congressional district will make Democrat Peters vulnerable to a Republican.

Democrats have plenty of issues with which to attack Republicans. But money can buy a lot of propaganda.

[riqster]

31. Very true. We have to engage on the ground and via social media.

Because the 1% can (and do) buy the airwaves and control the message there.

We can educate, inform, and GOTV. Hard work but achievable.

[okaawhatever]

42. The Senate majority is ours to lose. We don't have to lose, if we do it's our fault. nt