Category: Elections

Alterman & 12 Dimensional Chess

At the end of a long, thoughtful and dare I say, Must Read piece in The Nation on the structural hurdles in American politics and the media that prevent a truly progressive presidency from being realized, Eric Alterman writes:

What’s more, one hypothesis—one I’m tempted to share—for the Obama administration’s willingness to compromise so extensively on the promises that candidate Obama made during the 2008 campaign would be that as president, he is playing for time. Obama is taking the best deal on the table today, but hopes and expects that once he is re-elected in 2012—a pretty strong bet, I’d say—he will build on the foundations laid during his first term to bring on the fundamental “change” that is not possible in today’s environment. This would be consistent with FDR’s strategy during his second term and makes a kind of sense when one considers the nature of the opposition he faces today and the likelihood that it will discredit itself following a takeover of one or both houses in 2010. For that strategy to make sense, however, 2013 will have to provide a more pregnant sense of progressive possibility than 2009 did, and that will take a great deal of work by the rest of us.

In effect, Alterman writes twenty some odd pages of thoughtful analysis as to why Obama is and will continue to be a serial compromiser and throws it out the window. Nothing in Alterman’s analysis suggests previously that Obama is forestalling meaningful change to remain electorally safe and then will act boldly once he is a lame duck. And there’s nothing in the Obama administration’s rhetoric in the first year and half of his term, nor the two year campaign which preceded it, wherein Obama has suggested that he’s simply holding fire until he gets past 2012.

Moreover, not only are we not seeing this plan put forth by Obama, there are no predictions that I know of that suggest that between now and January, 2013, the Democratic majorities in the House and Senate will increase nor that there will be meaningful filibuster reform. In fact, Alterman has already identified filibuster reform as a necessity for political change, while he bemoans that Senate leaders have not gotten behind it. So not only is Obama not out there saying he’s holding fire deliberately, but the congressional landscape he will need to actually open fire is likely to erode from where it was in January, 2009.

Alterman does a tremendous job explaining why realizing progressive change is hard. But it makes absolutely zero sense for any progressive to hold out hope that President Obama is in fact playing twelve dimensional chess and waiting an entire term to do Really Big Progressive Things. Rather than hold out any hope that President Obama will improve his behavior if re-elected, progressives need to focus on (1) improving the political and media landscapes that currently impede change and (2) forcing the Obama administration and Congressional leadership to govern as progressives now.

Exactly Right

Markos, in looking at polling that shows while Democrats are very unpopular in Ohio, Republicans are even worse, writes:

By all rights, Democrats should get crushed in November. They took office promising change, and their actions have been, at best, weak tea. Hostile corporatist interests have successfully watered down every bit of legislation passed. The job picture is dismal, with zero apparent urgency in DC to do something about it. Democrats have actually convinced themselves that voters care more about deficits than they do about job creation. We’re still myred in unwinnable wars. And remember, this was all with super majorities in both chambers of Congress.

So yeah, there’s plenty of motivation to punish Democrats for their ineffectiveness and timidity in the face of dramatic challenges.

But Republicans, as effective as they’ve been in blocking much of the change Democrats could’ve delivered, have utterly failed in presenting an alternative. And in that vacuum, voters can only assume the GOP agenda is exactly what they delivered in the eight years of the Bush Administration.

So one party is hated, the other one is seen as ineffective. What’s a voter to do? We’ll see, but it’s clear as this cycle has shaped up, that the biggest impediment to massive Republican gains this November is the GOP itself.

This is exactly right and a big part of why I highly doubt that, as of now, Democrats will suffer large-scale loses in November. The alternative is utter crap and the American people know it.

What Markos Said

What Markos said:

The GOP establishment tries to nominate electable candidates, and gets sabotaged by the teabaggers. We’re trying to nominate electable candidates, and we get sabotaged by the Democratic Party establishment. We won in Pennsylvania, lost in Arkansas. You can’t win them all. But make no mistake — we made the politically smart move. [Emphasis added]

An advantage to primarying a sitting politician is that the primary can be an impetus for them to be a better Democratic elected official. In the case of Blanche Lincoln, this was undoubtedly true. She introduced tough derivatives reform language that goes farther than anything else in the Senate (or House) and unlike many times when progressive champions introduce great language that goes nowhere, Lincoln’s (for now) is actually likely going to be something the Senate votes on and passes (with the caveat that this was a cynical political ploy and it is unlikely to survive her nomination). Regardless, the strength of Halter’s campaign wasn’t merely a moral victory or a warning shot (though it was both those things). It actually forced Lincoln to stop sucking for a little while.

Markos is also right when he writes:

How much do you think the Chamber of Commerce and its corporatist allies will spend on behalf of Blanche Lincoln through the fall? Zero. Suddenly, you’re going to see Lincoln quite friendless.

Those evil “out of state” unions and progressive groups sure won’t lift a finger to help her. The only question is how much the DSCC wastes on the losing effort.

In a just world, Lincoln will be forced to continue her populist binge and will have to be good to have a shot at reelection. She would continue to be a better senator, even in the general election. I’m not optimistic that it happens, though. I think she will revert to being a conservative corporatist, whose vote is for sale to the highest corporate donor. Undoubtedly the DSCC will do exactly what the White House accused labor of doing and spend millions of dollars which could be better used to protect seats in more reliably blue states, or be redirected to holding the House.

I hope labor stays the hell away from Blanche Lincoln, after the shots she took at working Americans during the runoff. And yes, her new best friends at the Chamber of Commerce will be nowhere to be seen for the rest of the cycle. Actually, that’s not true. I’m sure they will dump hundreds of thousands of dollars into electing John Boozman to Senate in Arkansas.

Last thing: primaries matter. Elections matter. Voters should always have a choice and the act of saying, “We are unhappy with our current representation,” is always a fruitful one that should not be looked down upon. Money isn’t wasted when it’s made making a powerful statement. Belittling efforts to reflect popular dissatisfaction within the party is offensive and speaks to a pure lack of understanding of both today’s political and economic climate and the nature of progressive commitment to the Democratic Party.   The continued failure of the White House to understand the how and the why of Bill Halter’s primary challenge to Blanche Lincoln will only result in lost seats in the House and Senate, alienated base activists, and even the loss of the White House in 2012. I’m obviously frustrated by the White House’s attacks on labor last night, but I’m even more concerned that the speak to an arrogance and disconnect from reality that will prove to be a fatal electoral combination.

Stay Out of Primaries

Chris Bowers:

The lesson for the White House here should be to stay out of primaries. These stories are costing them a lot of news cycles, not to mention the hundreds of thousands of dollars they sunk into Arlen Specter’s campaign.  Further, these primary challenges are actually helpful to the administration’s legislative agenda, as they do a lot more to prevent defections on big votes from Specter and Bennet than any backroom deal ever will.  If the White House had just let these campaigns play out, they would be a lot better off right now.

This strikes me as self-evident, but evidently it needs saying. Beyond the White House, I’d say the DSCC and DCCC should stay out too, but that is less relevant to Bowers’ point.

Post-Primary Thoughts

Greg Sargent writes:

While anti-incumbent sentiment was no doubt a factor in the stunning upset of Arlen Specter and the forcing of Blanche Lincoln into a runoff, isn’t it also possible that many Dem primary voters, even moderate ones, simply opted for the candidate who better represents mainstream Democratic positions?

Yes. It’s hard to frame this as failures of the Democratic establishment, which backed Lincoln and Specter, in the context of electoral chances for November. Yes, incumbents were rebuked, but it was so their constituents could have more liberal Democrats who stand closer to their beliefs. It can’t be shocking that Specter, who served as a Republic Senator for 29 years, did not win a Democratic primary!

Add in the PA-12, where Blue Dog Democratic voters elected a Blue Dog Democrat over a Republican, and things don’t look so bad for the party on whole; given the choice moderates are voting for Democrats in swing districts.

Let’s be clear: Sestak and Halter are no true progressives, which is why I haven’t spent a lot of time supporting their candidacies. But they are better than what we currently have in those states. While Democrats are pulled slightly to the left in Arkansas and Pennsylvania, we are seeing the Republican Party moving dramatically to the right in Kentucky and Pennsylvania.  Rand Paul and Pat Toomey are true extremists, perfect indications of the direction the GOP is headed in, lead by Glenn Beck and the Tea Partiers. Currently Congressional Democrats poll at 40%, which isn’t great, except when compared to Congressional Republicans, who poll at a Cheney-like 24%.  I just don’t believe that the American public, writ large, is behind an even more radical version of the Republican Party, which is what the Tea Party is driving to do around the country.

As of now, it looks like the Democrats will give the public a chance to vote on what they currently have with slight shifts to the left in a number of states, while the GOP is going to present the public with a more radically conservative version of itself. While I still expect the Republicans to make gains in both the House and Senate, I continue to feel confident that Democrats will not fall victim to a 1994-style wave that throws them into the minority in either house.  Obviously we will see what happens over the next five to six months and everything can keep changing, but off of last night’s strong Democratic performance, things look good.

Primaries Matter

It’s a big day for Democratic Senate primaries, with Arkansas and Pennsylvania going to the polls to challenge the tenure of Blanche Lincoln and Arlen Specter. While I don’t know what the outcome will be of these elections (I’d guess Lincoln gets a plurality but there is still a runoff and Specter barely loses), it’s clear that both primaries have forced the sitting senators to behave more like Democrats. Specter has evolved from a major roadblock in the Democratic agenda to a top cheerleader for things like healthcare reform and even labor reform. And Blanche Lincoln has recently put forward language in a derivatives bill that is far stronger than anything emerging from Chris Dodd or Barney Frank, two of the more liberal Democrats on the Hill. Neither of these senators would have been behaving like Democrats if they didn’t have to face a Democratic primary challenger and Democratic base voters today.

As Jane Hamsher points out, what is happening in the Democratic Party is normal and healthy. It is not a product of extremists in the base, but rather that Specter and Lincoln have been morally pliable and often times available to vote for whichever business interest group makes the strongest play for them. That’s not principled nor centrist – it’s insiderism that ignores the needs of voters. As a result, voters are prepared to punish them.

Unfortunately, Blanche Lincoln’s insiderism has another noticeable symptom: cynicism.  While I mentioned above that Lincoln has introduced incredibly strong derivatives reform which has won well-earned praise from progressives for its effort for real, meaningful change, she is now prepared to pull back the language after today. To repeat: she offered a bill that Democrats in Arkansas and nationwide loved, days before a primary for her life, and is now saying she may drop the language as soon as the primary is over. This is quite possible the most cynical move I have ever seen in American politics (and I lived in Alaska when McCain picked Palin as his running mate).

Obviously I hope Lincoln is defeated by Bill Halter today. But more importantly, I hope that Senate Democrats do not allow Lincoln to withdraw her worthy and beneficial language as soon as its political usefulness has past its expiration date. Complicity by Senate Democrats to help Lincoln survive a primary is no less cynical and no less disgraceful. It’s clear that Lincoln is a blight on the Democratic caucus, hopefully soon to be excised, but it’s hard to imagine either her or this once proud body ever stopping to such cynical lows as they may be poised to do around Lincoln’s derivatives language.

Strange

It feels really weird to write this, but as of today, April 22nd, 2010, I’m not that concerned about the fate of Democrats in midterms. Granted, they haven’t done much to make me care too deeply about the size of the Democratic majority in either chamber or even holding on to both. If I had to guess based on where we are in late April, Democrats will lose a couple seats in the Senate and a low two-digit number in the House, but maintain legitimate majorities in both chamber.

In addition to healthcare, I expect Wall Street reform and immigration reform to pass in some state. There’ll probably be a number of smaller jobs bills that are passed before the fall too. Take into account that Republicans continue to abide by a doomed-to-fail strategy of mistaking their base’s disappointment with Obama with independents’ disappointment with Obama and this doesn’t look like it will be a catastrophic election for Democrats. I don’t expect gains, but given where we were six to nine months ago, I think it’s a pretty good place to be, if you care about the electoral fate of Democrats.

Kaus-tastrophe

Alleged goat blower Mickey Kaus is apparently, sort of, running for US Senate as a Democrat in California. James Wolcott makes the brilliant point that Kaus’s campaign site looks like something Stephen Glass cooked up during his fictionalization of sources on Jukt Micronics. But beyond the shoddy design, the fact that Kaus thinks he can appeal to Democrats as an anti-union, anti-immigrant, anti-teacher candidate is appalling. If he wants to run on these issues, there is a natural home to him: the Republican Party.

Of course, I doubt his campaign is serious.  It’s more likely an effort to get some page views on Kaus’s column on Slate. And, at least for today, the role he plays as a punchline to progressive blogger jokes will likely help that effort succeed, albeit temporarily.

Challenging Blanche Lincoln

I’m glad to see that Arkansas Lt. Governor Bill Halter is challenging Blanche Lincoln. The challenge will be coming from the left and is exactly what conservative Democratic Lincoln deserves. She was a big part of the reason labor reform did not pass last year and has been obstinate on health care reform. At a certain point, the party has to recognize that the biggest obstacles to achieving progressive legislative goals are not in the Republican Party, but are to be found in conservative Democrats in both the Senate and House. The best way to remove these obstacles or show obstructionists that it is not in their best interest to block the Democratic agenda is through primaries. It’s not an overnight fix, but at least it shows the conservadems that even in places like Arkansas, in the way is not a good place to stand.

Weak Sauce

Apparently Dick Blumenthal thinks chickenshittery will save us all. Blumenthal is in line to be the Democratic Senate nominee in Connecticut, in a bid to replace the retiring Senator Chris Dodd. Despite being Connecticut’s Attorney General, Blumenthal has repeatedly made a big deal out of the fact that he thinks all terrorists should be tried in military tribunals and that the federal court system, which has convicted hundreds of terrorists already, is not the place to mete out justice.

Blumenthal is positioning himself to be the next Joe Lieberman. He is campaigning on his “independence” from the President and the Democratic Party. And he doesn’t think he’ll even want President Obama to campaign with him. Right – because cowering from your party and the people who believe the same things as you is a real sign of strength that will appeal to voters.

Perhaps most sickening is that Blumie thinks the lesson of Scott Brown’s victory in Massachusetts is that people think “Washington is broken” and as a result, he needs to run against it. If Blumenthal believes that, I have a Democratic Senate majority for him to join in 2010. Naturally, a college junior has better sense than a Democratic Senate  candidate, ““The lessons of Massachusetts are that people are looking for real leadership,” [Brian] Bills contended.” Bingo.

Democrats are in trouble, not because Obama is unpopular (he is popular) and not because Republicans are popular (they are as unpopular as ever). No, Democrats are in trouble because they internalize Republican talking points about them while college studnets are able to distinguish between GOP spin and existing political dynamics. Blumenthal’s stated campaign plan involves running away from his history as a Democrat, running away from the majority party, and running straight towards the Republican position on most issues we’ve seen him talk about so far. Republican Lite doesn’t sell. And the only benefit of Dick Blumenthal not getting this simple fact of American politics is that we won’t be stuck with Dick Blumenthal as a senator from Connecticut.