What’s ailing the Democratic Party?
In 2008, Democrats won the White House and solidified one of the largest Congressional majorities in US history.
Voters essentially handed the Republican Party a nationwide pink slip, with GOP candidates falling short even in relatively safe bastions like the North Country.
But now a growing number of pundits are saying that Democrats could suffer a similar massive rebuke just 24 months later.
It is now conceivable that the Dems could drop as many as 55 House seats — casting them into the minority — and lose control of the Senate.
That kind of loss would effectively mirror the party’s setbacks in 1994.
But there are two key differences.
First, this Republican Party is far more conservative than even the culture warriors of Newt Gingrich’s “Contract with America” insurgents.
For voters to embrace (re-embrace?) this very right-wing movement so quickly after rejecting it soundly would represent one of the great pendulum swings in US history.
Secondly, it’s still very difficult to understand why the pendulum is swinging so sharply.
President Obama and Congressional Democrats have done more or less what they promised to do during the 2008 campaign.
They haven’t suffered major scandals, at least outside the gossip-driven pages of the conservative media — where questions about birth certificates and Mr. Obama’s religious orientation flourish.
Indeed, Republican politicians may still have a slight edge in terms of sleaze, with Nevada’s Senator and South Carolina’s governor grabbing headlines for infidelities.
Yes, the stimulus and the health care bill were controversial, but most independent policy experts see them as relatively moderate approaches to very real problems.
So what gives? So why are Democrats losing so much support so quickly?
Honestly, I don’t think anyone has a clear answer to that question. But here are five obvious possibilities.
1. It’s the economy, stupid. Americans are still scared, with millions of us still unemployed. And we’re a famously impatient people.
We want jobs now and we’re willing to punish Mr. Obama’s party for failing to deliver.
What else can he do to boost employment? Voters don’t care. Just do something. Now.
2. Americans are still viscerally uncomfortable with the idea of big government, and bigger deficits — even when we are demanding that Washington do more for us.
Yes, we want Mr. Obama to deliver healthcare and boost employment. But we don’t want more government spending or higher taxes.
How can he accomplish both those things? Voters don’t care. Just do it. Now.
3. Change is scary. For the first time in our history we have a black man in the White House and a woman as Speaker of the House.
Those profound cultural changes have come at a time when the country is in serious trouble. For millions of Americans, that’s a frightening combination.
4. Republicans are just better politicians.
The GOP has trounced the White House again and again in framing the debate over everything from the stimulus (“socialism”) to the healthcare bill (“more socialism”).
Unless the Democrats find a way to tell their story better, they’re finished.
5. Conservatives are passionate voters, while liberals are lazy.
The truth is, conservatives have always out-hustled liberals at election time.
Most Democratic constituencies — young people, Hispanics, single women — don’t vote with much zeal. (African Americans are an exception, voting at high rates.)
That changed in 2008, in large part because voters were so angry at George Bush, and also because Mr. Obama inspired people.
But those big liberal crowds have faded away, replaced in the streets by fired-up tea partiers.
In 1994, millions of urban liberals and moderates sat on the sidelines while conservatives — many of them in rural America — swept to a majority.
It now appears that the same could very well happen again.
I agree. The National Republican Party is able to compartmentalize all of the major debates into clear and easily understood messages. John Kerry proved in the 2005 campaign that most people do not have the patience to listen to long-winded explanations of policy. Obama has been able to overcome this by his eloquent speaking style. Unfortunately, inspiring speeches will only work for so long. The Democrats now have to follow-up the speeches with something the American people can hold in their hands. While the changes to healthcare are likely to be positive in the long run, that will be too late for Democrats. At this point it seems like they need a good a good PR Firm.
It's pretty simple really. Would you vote for politicians that supported and instituted "death panels"? Would you vote for politicians that want to turn the USA into a "communist country". Would you vote for policians that have raised your taxes and want to take your guns away? I could go on and on but I think you get the point. There is a segment of the population that believe these things and nothing is going to change their minds.
I question if the average American voter even knows what it wants anymore. Most people seem to know they are unhappy… and want "change"… but that is about it. They don't seem to vote for or against people or parties based on the complexities of policy, they vote for something different.Add into that the lack of patience the typical voter has with political change, and that is a recipe for large, unexplainable swings in voting behaviors.Point in case. I have a friend who hated Bush and excitedly voted for Obama. Now, he is upset about health care passing and is looking to vote against Obama in the next election. Seems weird to vote for someone and then get mad when they do exactly what it was they said they were going to do. But he just knew he didn't like Bush and Obama was the alternative. Now, he doesn't like Obama, and will vote the alternative again.Rinse, repeat.
Anonymous: If you asked your friend why he does not like the health care bill, what would he say? Would he provide an explanation of his differences or would the response be a Republican crafted one-liner. I am really curious about this because the majority of the reasons I hear against the Obama policies are the quick responses that you hear everyday in the media.
Brian Mann,"very right-wing". I'm not a Republican, but your biases are showing again. TARP, Medicare prescription drug benefit, and earmarks are not the policies of a very right-wing political party. With resprect to voters rejecting Republicans, that was largely due to Iraq and GOP scandals. Both of those have ceased to be major issues.Why are voters titlting to the GOP? It's the economy stupid! Most swing voters don't care about ideaology; to them it's more of a question of "are you better off than you were 4 (or in this case 2) years ago? One of the reasons health care reform is unpopular is not because people think that others should not have access to health care, but rather a sense that things have changed too fast. Between TARP, the stimulus, and health care, it's a dizzyng amount of money.
Fear trumps Hope.
Scratchy – TARP, Medicare prescription drug benefit, and earmarks are all things that the 2010 version of the GOP is railing against. Republicans are clearly moving to the right of positions taken by George W. Bush. Another example is immigration. –Brian, NCPR
What's ailing the Democrats…I think Brian's #4 probably comes closest-"Republicans are just better politicians." That is to say better mudslingers because the Republicans have this down to an art.and yes knuckleheadedliberal, it would appear that yet again, unfortunately, fear trumps hope.
My prediction, and I've been wrong before, is that the result will not be as large a loss for the Dems as is predicted now. Obama will soon be nominating a Supreme Court justice. The hearings will be a reminder to people about what is at stake if the Republicans gain too much power, as they had in the Bush years. Also, the country is not as conservative as the Tea Party types would have us believe. I know many life-long Republicans who have stopped voting the Republican line because the party has moved too far to their right. I believe the far right activists are feeling powerful and will continue to act in ways that turn people against them when it comes time to vote. I do believe that the economy is still the biggest single factor in how people will vote and we will have to wait and see how things look in the fall, but it is far too soon to be writing off the Democrats just yet. Tangentially, do check out the video "Uncounted" about computerized voting machines.
I'm not sure just who these incredibly adept Republican politicians you guys see are. All I see is blundering, plastic haired empty suits that would sell their kids off for some votes. I don't think it's the moderate Republicans that are carrying the fight now. The McCains, Bushs, Romneys are not "the right". They are centrists paying lip service to conservative ideas and ideals. John Kennedy would be a Republican today and a bit of a far right Republican at that. So I don't see this amazing Republican machine at work at all. I think it died out after Newt dropped the ball. The right in this country has been voting against "the other guy" since Reagan, not "for" anyone on the right.What I do see is a very structured, very well greased Democrat party. They've been far more effective over the past years than you give them credit for. Yes, very effective- mention ACORN or SEIU and you're branded a kook or a bigot. Disagree with Obama and you're a racist. Disagree with Pelosi and you're a hard hearted chauvinist. Very, very effective.I think the population that supported the idea of Obama is slowly realizing you can't get something for nothing. All those huge bailouts and new entitlements are going to cost zillions of dollars. People are starting to wonder just where it's all going to come from. California is bankrupt, NY is near bankruptcy, jobs are not increasing despite the Gov't assurances that we're recovering. Taxes are going up and so is the price of fuel and food. Folks have to start wondering whats coming next? More layoffs? Another round of foreclosures? More war? Another new multi-trillion dollar entitlement? One poster says fear trumps hope. Yes, in a way that's true. But it works both ways. Democrats tell us Republicans want to see the poor starve, outlaw all abortion, make war on the world, hang gays, return to slavery, protect the rich and rape the environment. None of that is true, but it sells. I don't believe every hair brained theory the right comes up with either. You can't "just do it" in the words of Ron Paul, not without consequences. We can lessen the pain and ease our way past some of our hurdles by slowly moving away from huge Gov't and returning responsibility to the States, Counties, Towns and Cities. Of course that would result in those entities having to make tough decisions and weaning themselves off the Federal teat. The alternative is to just suspend the Constitution and Bill of Rights and rush headlong into a Socialist/Fascist economy and Gov't. instead of taking the baby steps we are now. I think a lot of people are starting to think this trough. I think that's why people are leaving both major parties. They aren't all going to become Tea Partiers, in fact I think the vast majority will just become so apathetic that they won't even bother voting anymore. That'll just leave the zealots on both sides. And won't that be just what both sides want?
Sort of shows how far to the right the country has shifted when McCain, Bush and Romney are considered centrists by some… and John Paul Stevens – a justice appointed by Ford and someone who was widely thought of as center right at the time – is now described as the liberal leader of the court.
Brian Mannn,Most Republicans still seek earmarks and I haven't heard of any- except for Ron Paul- call for repealing Medicare druge benefit. In fact, they're actually calling themselves the defenders of Medicare. That being said, i think the GOP is more partisan than ever and their tax cut mantrai is getting old.
What's really getting my goat with the Republicans is this move to become "centrists". Why would either major party try to become more like their opponent? I realize my idealism and naivety is showing, but what about sticking to your guns and working toward your long term goals? IMO the Democrat party has been far more successful than the Republicans because they never moved right. They were always seen as the side moving forward while the Republicans were seen, portrayed actually, as the party wishing to go back to….I don't know what- 1950? Segregation? All white communities? Not true, but it seems to be what the masses will believe.I think the Democrats have done a marvelous job of selling and maintaining the idea that they are the party of the people. I also think it's complete and utter horse….pucky. "Democrats are for the Unions and against big business!!!" Truth is Wall St, the Fortune 500 crowd, the mega rich, there are just as many Dems sitting in those corporate headquarters as Republicans. Unions ARE big business these days. Hollywood is filled with Democrats, does anyone seriously believe those people are poor? Democrat politicians have raided Social Security and taxed your retirement right alongside the Republicans. So I think the fact that the vast majority of America still buys the idea the Democrats are somehow still out there fighting for "the little guy" and that Republicans are all Lionel Barrymore look alikes smoking big cigars while plotting the foreclosure of a widders and orphans home shows the Democrats have little to fear from anything showing them in a less benevolent light. Republicans will always be Mr Potter and Democrats will always be George Bailey. The fact it's not true means nothing, the idea is entrenched.Good for you Democrats. You win this part of the game.
I think it was Bret4207 who said many are leaving both parties and I think there is some truth to that–many in the center have become disillusioned by the trend for both parties to move to their respective fringe. In a strange way though I think that the extremes of each party have a lot in common, maybe more in common, with the fringe of their opposite than with the center of their own party. Thinking of the range of political thought as a line with a left center and end may not be as accurate as if it were to be thought of as a circle with the center at the top, a left and a right in opposition and the extreme left and extreme right meeting at the bottom directly in opposition of the center.
Bret,I'd be interested in hearing which issues you feel the "little guy" is better represented by the Republican Party.I have many Republican friends, some far enough to the right they no longer even associate with the party, and almost all of them will unashamedly admit that they lean toward supporting business over individuals when it comes to policy issues.Health care? They sided with the Insurance companies.Workers rights and safety regulations (hello, coal mine)? They don't want to see industry burdened with regulations.Environmental protections, clean air, clean water for individuals? Not at the expense of business.Who should carry a heavier tax burden? Definitely not the rich or the corporations.Omitting slavery while waxing poetic about the confederacy? Ok, ok, that doesn't fit, but I could't resist…I struggle to name an issue where it is obvious that the Republican party represents the "little guy" over business or corporate interests. The closest I can come up with is guns. But that is a divisive issue even for "little guys" – I'm a little guy and I sure as heck do not want more people carrying more guns…. so even there they are not representing the little guy, per se. They are just representing the portion of little guys who want to have firearms.To the credit of some of my republican friends, they will often say the reason they support industry over individuals is because they have bought into the idea of trickle down economics, and they feel that doing so is an indirect way to support the "little guy".But in terms of being directly, and obviously on the side of individuals and little guys? I'm sure there are issues and examples, but I'm struggling to name them. That can't just be a product of perception.
Some of this post makes sense but I disagree with Brian that democrats and the administration have delivered on what they promised. How do you figure? With the exception of the "surge" in Afghanistan they have not really done anything yet that was promised. Brian you point toward healthcare? That bill was a shell of what was promised during the campaign. No public option and it may end up raising health care costs if some estimates are correct. Folks just have to wait and see now, and do it in the animosity that the debate created. The stimulus? That was a campaign promise was it? Even if it was again we are still waiting to see if it had a long term positive effect. Wait a few years divide the number of jobs created (or saved) by 1 trillion dollars and see if it was worth it. Think about the math. Again this will be a tough sell. One promise that has clearly not been delivered on was to “change” the way Washington works. In my opinion it has gotten worse. Who can argue with this point? Blame whomever you like, but the party in power always has more to answer.
I won't say Republicans support the little guy any more than the Dems. I'll use the terms Right and Left because the Republicans aren't really on the right anymore.First- taxes, simplest thing in the world. The more money you take from people the less they have to spend. The longer Gov't gets used to taking from the people the more corrupt and wasteful it becomes. Read Sundays Watertown Times story on the Comptrollers report on the cheating and stealing our politicians have been doing for years. Why do they do it? Because they can, because they have large donors and voting blocks depending on them to get lots of bucks to whatever cause they owe, so that those donors will enrich the politicians. The Right, and this is a bit idealistic and simplistic, favors smaller Gov't and lower taxes. That leaves more money in the hands of "the little guy", results in lower school and land taxes, lower fuel and other excise taxes. It forces Gov't to be more efficient. IOW- it makes Gov't work like you and me. We live within our means because we have no other choice. I see that as good for everyone. The Left believes in larger Gov't, more entitlements, taking from "the rich"- regardless of how hard those "rich" might have worked to have earned their money. The left tends in many cases to use class envy to further their agenda of bigger Gov't, more taxes (money to essentially buy votes with), more Gov't intrusion, less personal freedom, more centralized control, less local input and control. The Left, overall, see's nothing wrong with hamstringing business, even though hamstringing that business results in lost jobs. It happens time and again. Same with entitlements- the more entitlements you have the more people expect. And they expect it all for free, let "the rich" pay for it. If you continue to take from the "rich" eventually they become the "poor". Smaller gov't, more efficient gov't, less intrusive gov't, less expensive gov't. In fact let's stop saying Government and say Ponderous Corrupt Bureaucracy because that's what Gov't is these days. Second- Responsibility. The Right tends to believe in personal responsibility. That doesn't mean a free pass. That means you get out of life what your put into it. You want to drop out of school and sell soda and beer at the Quickee Mart, fine. Hope that works out for you. You want to get through school and become an engineer, fine. Best of luck to you. Hope you succeed. Gov'ts role in this is to ensure nobody gets kicked down because they're black, white, male or female, whatever. Those who work harder will probably get further ahead. Those who decide to sell drugs and rob people will probably go to prison. Seems pretty simple to me.The Left feels it's up to Gov't, sorry, PCB to meddle in the responsibility game. Pull some groups up, push some down. Send some groups to college for practically nothing on the taxpayer dollar, while leaving others to fend for themselves and somehow compete against the collaboration of special interest groups and PCB. That guy that robs people at gunpoint? He's a victim, he needs sympathy and understanding because society and PCB weren't their to hold his hand his whole life and make sure he got good grades and wiped his butt. What about the guy he robbed? Who?……….I'd be happy to go further tomorrow. I don't expect anyone to whole heatedly agree with these examples, but you get the idea. Enough, I have lambs to feed.
What's ailing both corporate parties is lack of competition. Democrats think they have a god-given right to every left-of-center vote in America and Republicans think they have a god-given right to every right-of-center vote in America. The rise of the Tea Partiers is challenging that on the GOP side. It'd be nice if the Greens could get organized and provide a progressive alternative to the Democrats.
Brian,The right has a better megaphone. For all the railing about "liberal media," there is simply nobody on the left with anywhere near the drum-beating clout of Rush or Fox News. It keeps up a steady, tendentious beat that appeals to the inner road-rager in all of us.And that 25% of angry loud people can move opinion polls down several ticks, and push mainstream media coverage, especially in scared but influential organizations like the AP. (Brian, how many times do you have to bend over backward to say you're not a liberal activist, but a person from a small town brought up in a fundamentalist household, yada yada…?) But without any real ideas to run on, I'll believe big GOP gains in the fall when I see them.
Anon, the right absolutely has a better megaphone. But they also have better organization. And their troops are more committed. Conservatives are willing to withhold their votes and money from Republicans who don't represent their values. Liberals always whine and moan incessantly about Democrats who don't represent their values but still vote for them anyway. Conservatives exalt the Tea Partiers. But when real reformers appear on the left like Kucinich and Nader, liberals bend over backward to defame, or at the very least marginalize, them.
Here's an interesting article concerning the "little guy".http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2010/apr/08/ill-fares-the-land/?page=1 I especially liked the author's definition of a liberal. There is a lot of food for thought contained within.
Brian,Do you think liberals ought to exalt, say, the Free Mumia people, the way the right exalts the Tea Partiers?Because I'm glad they don't. Nader was the liberals' Ross Perot. He cost them an election. But the country was much worse for what Nader did than for what Perot did.
I find it odd that some people compare Fox news, which has only been on the scene for what, 10 years maybe?, and Rush Limbaugh to the mainstream media that for decades ruled the airwaves and print. Limbaughs audience and Foxs audience are all voluntary, are they not? Neither is the only option like NBC/ABC/CBS were for decades. True, they give a different take on things than the traditional sources, and Limbaugh certainly isn't a journalist, but their audiences voluntarily listen and watch. So why is that always somehow portrayed as though people have no free will, no choice but to listen to Fox? Face it, many people seem to prefer Fox over CNN/MSNBC/CBS/PBS/etc. and they apparently prefer Limbaugh over Air America or any of the other left wing format shows. I find it puzzling that so many people seem to think both Foxs and Limbaughs existence is somehow wrong in every respect. Having watched the likes of Tom Snyder, Phil Donohue, the early CNN (and I can recall people complaining CNN was taking audience from the 3 majors) I find this….whining, frankly, to be silly and completely political in nature. People will watch and listen to what they choose to. The idea that the right somehow has a better megaphone than the other 90% of the media is just ridiculous.