And I use that term "debacle" deliberately, because seriously, Americans have no idea what they are in for. I refer to two disparate groups: 1) the energized and angry Repubs who were driven by Obama hatred to take it out on any Dem, and 2) the lazy-ass Dems who sat at home or never even attempted to vote in the first place, enabling this travesty.
Anyway, let me give 5 takeaways from this debacle which has left the Repukes in control of the Senate with a 52-48 majority so far, and also in charge of many governorships (which could allow a lot more gerrymandering to ensure future repuke domination):
1) Democratic coalition voters are politically immature and too mesmerized by the cult of personality.
This explains why they never turn out in the same numbers for mid-terms as they do for general elections. In so doing, by their absence, they invariably cede power to the angry wackjobs who are always intent to vote in mid-terms to "teach them libruls a lesson". The numbers as displayed this morning on the CBS stat board tell the sorry story:
In the 2012 general election, young (18-22 yrs.) voters represented 19 % of the electorate while yesterday they represented only 13 %. African-Americans, meanwhile dropped from 13% to 12% representation and Hispanics from 10% to 8 %. Given many races - such as here in Colorado for the Senate seat occupied by Mark Udall - came down to 5-7 pt, wins it means that this absence in the current election could well have explained Udall's losing his seat to the nimrod Cory Gardener.
I attribute this backsliding to political immaturity, driven especially by younger voters' need to embrace a personality, as opposed to grasping the issues in play. If they would detach from personality worship, and simply study issues in each state and the candidates, this regular falloff should not happen.
2) As usual the Right was energized by fear and anger.
And in contrast, as in 2010, the Right's loonies came out angry in their numbers, driven by the nuts on FOX and Rush Limbaugh. They came out in larger numbers than the original "Obama coalition" and this possibly explains up to 50 percent of the losses suffered by the Democrats.
It is no secret that the handlers of the Tea Party nuts and others on the Right know how to manage their minds to drive them to the polls in higher numbers than their D-counterparts. We call it "dog whistle" politics, especially presenting numerous unsavory images of Obama to try to instill racial hatred and fear. The voters will deny this plays any part, of course, but at a deep subliminal level it certainly does. One need not go out on a black person's lawn and actually wear a white robe and burn a cross to be a racist. He need only put up a 'skunk' image on Facebook and assert that it should be the "Presidential seal" for Obama so long as he's in office, since he "smells" and is "part black, part white". Funny? Not!
3) Money, as usual, trumped votes in at least three states - probably more.
As noted on Scarborough this a.m., the Koch brothers, using their tons of money and the front of "Americans for Prosperity" were significantly better this time around at the ground game -especially in North Carolina and Florida. That easily made the difference in those states, i.e. in Kay Hagen losing to Tillis in NC and Charlie Crist losing to Columbia HCA criminal Rick Scott in FL.
Meanwhile, in Colorado, big money flooded the state to try to get rid of Mark Udall (which succeeded) as well as the ability to label GMO foods (downed by a 68% 'No' vote). In the last case, opponents - mainly the pawns of multinationals like Monsanto- deluged the state with negative ads and spend nearly $12 m to the 1/2 m of pro-labelers.
The only good news? Hickenlooper held on as Colorado governor by 48.3 percent to 47.1 percent for Bob Beauprez.
4) Democratic candidates need to embrace their leader not run from him.
This was evident throughout as Dem Senate and other candidates shamefully ran from Obama and his accomplishments rather than embracing them, touting them. This was especially critical in states like Colorado where health exchanges were set up under the Affordable Care Act and have proven a boon to many. But Udall didn't say a word about the Act, or its benefits - focusing mainly on how women will suffer by losing contraceptives if Cory Gardener is elected.
News for you, Sen. Udall: Colorado women care about more dimensions of their health care than just contraception and you ought to have made that message clearer!
5) The Democrats need Think Tanks to Craft Their Narratives.
I have said this many times before but will repeat it again: the Dems are lousy at formulating convincing narratives which are as good as the Republicans. Classic case? The Reeps call removing the Bush tax cuts a "tax hike". The Dem response? To sit on their thumbs and sing 'la-la-la'. They have no convincing response. The Reepos say that estate taxes are "death taxes" - again no response. The Dems simply appear dumbstruck at how the other side has seized the language and used it to create multiple mind fucks. Can they create a mind fuck of their own? NO they can't.
This is why they need real Dem dedicated think tanks to think up narratives for them, analogous to the American Enterprise Institute on the Right, as well as American Heritage Foundation.
Maybe, just maybe, these takeaways will be acted upon next time around. But I remain a skeptic.
Showing posts with label Cory Gardener. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Cory Gardener. Show all posts
Wednesday, November 5, 2014
Tuesday, November 4, 2014
If GOP Wins Big Tonight Will Dems Use Filibusters Come January?
There is the real prospect that the Repukes could seize control of the Senate when the dust settles after this mid-term. Right now the pukes hold 45 seats and the Dems 55 (including Bernie Sanders a socialist who votes with them), so if they gain at least 6 seats - which is possible- they would end up with a 51-49 majority in the Senate as well as a sizable majority in the House which they've held since 2010.
I don't believe this will actually happen, as I instead see the Ds hanging on by their fingernails, with a a 50-50 standoff in the Senate - the tie vote going to VP Joe Biden. So it would be a 'win' albeit a narrow won. But anything is possible. A primary indicator is the North Carolina race. If Kay Hagen wins (assuming too many African-Americans aren't hindered from voting), then look for the Dems to hold on, same if Mark Udall edges by Cory Gardener in Colorado.
But what if, as Nate Silver forecasts (75 % probability) the Repubs DO take the Senate? Then congress will be totally in their hands with only Obama the 'firewall' to act against their insanity using his veto power. (And veto he must, and veto, veto and veto - until his left hand goes into spasm.)
The good thing is that whatever advantage the Reeps manage to secure it won't be sufficient to get any of their wackier legislation passed - including rolling back the Affordable Care Act, increasing interest on private student loans (from 6.8% to 8%) or militarizing the southern border as part of "immigration reform"
However, in order to prevent these nutso laws being passed one of two things must happen: 1) The Democrats need to use the filibuster - demanding 60 vote majorities the same way the Reeps did when they were a Senate minority, and 2) If the Dems punk out with (1) and lose their cojones when it counts, then Obama must be ready with his veto pen.
Indeed, I would argue that if the Reeps do gain the Senate and hold the House (99% likely), the Democrats must become as "obstructionist" as the Reeps were when they had only 45 seats. That means using the filibuster at every turn to block all legislation issuing from the Reep zone, including any approval of the Keystone pipeline. After all, the Reeps will have been rewarded for their obstructionism so why not the Dems?
Harder to figure, as Scarborough noted this a.m., is why Americans would reward these jerks anyway, given all they've done is block Obama's agenda at every turn. They have contributed to the worst congress in history with their do-nothingism and have a 20 percent approval rating (this is compared to 42% for Obama in the most recent polls).
Repub pollster Frank Luntz, this morning on CBS, opined the election is not really about Obama at all, but about "Washington", but I am not sure I buy it. Tune in any time to FOX, including Hannity and O'Reilly, and all you hear and see is anti-Obama blather. It's no wonder their viewers (surveys show 47 % of repukes go to no other station) and end up brainwashed Obama haters.
If in fact it is really about Washington, as Luntz suggests, then it is the Republicans who should lose big because they are the party - via their incessant 'call in' filibusters, who've mucked it up the most. Especially as Luntz said that in his own polling what mattered to voters the most was "accountability and getting things done". Well, Katy bar the door, the Repukes fail on all counts there! Or is it people are really living in a parallels universe where the Reepos have been beyond reproach in their work?
Whatever the outcome in a potential GOP Senate takeover, 51 seats or 54 (making a 9 seat gain and the greatest since 1994 and the 'Contract On America') the Dems cannot allow themselves to be suckered into accepting that any R-takeover translates to a "mandate". It doesn't. It amounts to a temporary advantage that will likely be reversed in the next election. The same as the GOP 2002 gains were reversed in 2006.
The main thing we need is for the Democrats to stand with the people, come hell or high water, and that means filibustering whenever it's needed - which will likely be about every week!
I don't believe this will actually happen, as I instead see the Ds hanging on by their fingernails, with a a 50-50 standoff in the Senate - the tie vote going to VP Joe Biden. So it would be a 'win' albeit a narrow won. But anything is possible. A primary indicator is the North Carolina race. If Kay Hagen wins (assuming too many African-Americans aren't hindered from voting), then look for the Dems to hold on, same if Mark Udall edges by Cory Gardener in Colorado.
But what if, as Nate Silver forecasts (75 % probability) the Repubs DO take the Senate? Then congress will be totally in their hands with only Obama the 'firewall' to act against their insanity using his veto power. (And veto he must, and veto, veto and veto - until his left hand goes into spasm.)
The good thing is that whatever advantage the Reeps manage to secure it won't be sufficient to get any of their wackier legislation passed - including rolling back the Affordable Care Act, increasing interest on private student loans (from 6.8% to 8%) or militarizing the southern border as part of "immigration reform"
However, in order to prevent these nutso laws being passed one of two things must happen: 1) The Democrats need to use the filibuster - demanding 60 vote majorities the same way the Reeps did when they were a Senate minority, and 2) If the Dems punk out with (1) and lose their cojones when it counts, then Obama must be ready with his veto pen.
Indeed, I would argue that if the Reeps do gain the Senate and hold the House (99% likely), the Democrats must become as "obstructionist" as the Reeps were when they had only 45 seats. That means using the filibuster at every turn to block all legislation issuing from the Reep zone, including any approval of the Keystone pipeline. After all, the Reeps will have been rewarded for their obstructionism so why not the Dems?
Harder to figure, as Scarborough noted this a.m., is why Americans would reward these jerks anyway, given all they've done is block Obama's agenda at every turn. They have contributed to the worst congress in history with their do-nothingism and have a 20 percent approval rating (this is compared to 42% for Obama in the most recent polls).
Repub pollster Frank Luntz, this morning on CBS, opined the election is not really about Obama at all, but about "Washington", but I am not sure I buy it. Tune in any time to FOX, including Hannity and O'Reilly, and all you hear and see is anti-Obama blather. It's no wonder their viewers (surveys show 47 % of repukes go to no other station) and end up brainwashed Obama haters.
If in fact it is really about Washington, as Luntz suggests, then it is the Republicans who should lose big because they are the party - via their incessant 'call in' filibusters, who've mucked it up the most. Especially as Luntz said that in his own polling what mattered to voters the most was "accountability and getting things done". Well, Katy bar the door, the Repukes fail on all counts there! Or is it people are really living in a parallels universe where the Reepos have been beyond reproach in their work?
Whatever the outcome in a potential GOP Senate takeover, 51 seats or 54 (making a 9 seat gain and the greatest since 1994 and the 'Contract On America') the Dems cannot allow themselves to be suckered into accepting that any R-takeover translates to a "mandate". It doesn't. It amounts to a temporary advantage that will likely be reversed in the next election. The same as the GOP 2002 gains were reversed in 2006.
The main thing we need is for the Democrats to stand with the people, come hell or high water, and that means filibustering whenever it's needed - which will likely be about every week!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)