Why I’m still skeptical about the Republican surge

A summer reaches its midway point, we’ll be turning more and more to the North Country’s big political campaigns — primarily the fight by Democrats Scott Murphy (Glens Falls) and Bill Owens (Plattsburgh) to keep their jobs.

Both men are expected to face stiff challenges in districts that were once seen as Republican strongholds.

The background climate for the 2010 midterms is distinctly hostile for Democrats, for several reasons.  Republican voters are clearly more energized and passionate.

Also, because Democrats have been winning lately in a lot of unexpected places (like the North Country) they’ll be playing defense in fairly conservative rural and exurban districts.

Finally, the party in power almost always loses seats in midterms — especially during a time when jobs are scarce.

A lot of pundits are predicting a full-scale blow-out, the kind of 1994 surge that can realign national politics.  I’m still skeptical.  Here’s why.

1.  I’m not convinced that Republicans have succeeded at nationalizing this race.  Yes, a lot of people are concerned about Barack Obama’s policies.  Will that be the key issue when voters decide whether to give Reps. Owens and Murphy another term?

If Democrats can turn the mid-term into a seat-by-seat trench battle, they’ll lose a lot of races — maybe a couple of dozen — but still maintain a comfortable majority in the House.

2.  I’m not convinced Republicans have the organization or money to capitalize on Democratic weakness.  Two years after the implosion of the GOP, it remains a party divided.

RNC chairman Michael Steele is a deeply polarizing figure.  Even some right-leaning critics say House minority leader John Boehner is a bit of a slacker.

Some Republican leaders, including Sen. Lindsay Graham, are openly wishing for the early demise of the tea party movement.  Not exactly a disciplined message machine there…

3.  Democrats know what’s coming.  In 1994, they were taken off-guard.  In 2010, Democratic leaders are spending tens of millions of dollars on high-tech get-out-the-vote efforts to try to limit their losses.

They might even win two or three House seats in Republican districts that voted for Barack Obama in 2008.

4.  The Democrats have governed more or less from the middle.

I know, I know — this is the one that people will see as controversial.  A lot of conservatives are convinced that Obama-Pelosi-Reid is synonymous with Marx-Engel-Mao.

But when you look at the health bill (chock full of Republican ideas) the surge in Afghanistan (embraced by conservatives), the bank bail-outs (launched under President Bush and now showing tidy profits) and even the stimulus bill (praised by many Republicans, when talking about Federal projects in their home districts), it’s hard to see the last two years as Capital R Radical.

Yes, the tea party folks are angry.

But will Democratic policies spark the kind of groundswell that will get soccer moms and commuter dads voting in big numbers for Republicans?  As I say — I’m skeptical.

There is one area where Democrats remain vulnerable, and that’s the apparent apathy of many young and minority voters. If the Democratic Party base sits this election out, Republicans won’t need a surge.

Tags:

11 Comments on “Why I’m still skeptical about the Republican surge”

Leave a Comment
  1. JDM says:

    Two things.

    1)But when you look at the health bill (chock full of Republican ideas)

    You use the word Republican as if it were synonymous with conservative. It is not.

    Many of the “Republican” ideas are just as progressive as the liberals.

    2) I would add a third reason to your premise about being skeptical of the Republican surge.

    The Republican leadership is inept. They are an embarrassment.

  2. hermit thrush says:

    oh nuts, sorry about the bum hyperlink! does anyone know a way to preview comments before publishing?

  3. knuckleheadedliberal says:

    Um, I think I expressed my skepticism months ago when you were predicting doom for the Dems.

    And I still hate the horse race stories. Doesnt mean I don’t read them. It’s like picking a scab, so wrong but I can’t stop myself. Sue me.

  4. scratchy says:

    The health care bill is largely moderate, but the individual mandate remains deeply controversial. Indeed, some have speculated a more liberal plan – with the public option or Medicare for all- would have been less controversial than individual mandate which some view as an unconstitutional giveaway to the insurance companies.

    The bank bilaout- moderate or not- remain unpopular, and rightly so.

    The stimulus came nowhere near to meeting its objective of keeping unemployment below 8%. The economy may be better off than it would have been without it, but I don’t think it can be regarded as a solid success.

    The surge in Afghanistan? Hardly a solid success.

    If your policies are unpopular with the public or unsuccessful in meeting their objectives, then I don’t matters how moderate they are.

  5. JDM says:

    Brian says, “Yes, the tea party folks are angry.”

    You never finish this sentence. “The tea party folks are angry because……”

    Why do you think they are they angry? Do you know?

  6. It's all Bush's fault says:

    While one might expect the Republicans to gain seats in both houses during the upcoming election, I don’t think anybody expects that they will take a majority holding in either house of Congress.

    I would rather see the Republicans stay in the minority so that POTUS won’t have any excuses leading up to the 2012 election.

  7. Bret4207 says:

    I don’t see any massive Repub gains coming. I think there is a good chance for true conservatives, although I haven’t seen any around here yet. I’m afraid there are a lot of people embracing the Tea Party moniker simply for publicity.

    I still have major problems with the Constitutionality of the Health Care bill. Several states are fighting it I understand. Interesting I hear so little about it.

    JDM- I don’t think most people know or care about the difference between a Republican and a conservative, much less what TP types are angry about. Didn’t you heart? They’re all rich white men who want slavery back and women barefoot in the kitchen.

  8. verplanck says:

    Bret,

    I hope that conservatives take that to heart before calling liberal policies ‘socialism’.

    JDM,

    Do we really know why the tea partiers are upset? We’ve been in an economic downturn since 2007. We’ve been busting our budgets since the 1980’s, and really piled on the pork in the early 2000’s. Why do they pick 2009 as the time to rise up? That’s why many folks think they are more anti-democrat than pro-anything else (including myself).

    As for the horserace, I’m with the knuckleheaded liberal. It’s fun like a soap opera, but shouldn’t be confused with actual news.

  9. Bret4207 says:

    Verplanck- for myself, it took until 2007-8 for me to figure out the Repubs were selling us down the river. Yeah, I’m a little thick headed, but they were supposed to be the good guys. Turns out they were just Democrats in disguise.

  10. Ronald Schofell says:

    I think the word is scared, with the democrats doing such a shody job in washington and in Ny state in particular, who would blame anyone for voting their sorry asses out of office and giving the other party a shot, I for one would never vote democrat , no matter who it is

Leave a Reply