« A Quick, Partially Biblical History of Employer- Based Health Insurance | Home | Where There Isn't A Will... »
Democrats: Awesome
In this here political journalism game, sometimes you read an article and think "damn, I wish I'd written that one." Amy Sullivan on why the Democratic leadership is "Not As Lame As You Think" is one of those examples. I'm not quite as sanguine as she is, especially about the handling of the Murtha incident, but basically I think this is totally right and the conventional wisdom so mistaken that differences of nuance hardly matter. See also Kevin Drum's comments. It's worth saying that, last time I looked, the approval rating for the Democratic congressional leadership was pretty mediocre but would actually have been excellent had committed Democrats been more enthusiastic.
Advertisement
I noticed the words "Supreme Court" weren't in her piece...
At best, I read this article as, "Democrats got the shit kicked out of them so bad, they finally figured out they need to do something right."
I'm not sure that's something we should be so proud of.
Sullivan highlights the few things we've done right. When you look at how much the Bush Administration and the Republicans have done wrong, it just seems like there should be so much more in our column.
I dunno. Maybe I'm expecting too much from a minority party...in any case, on to November. The proof of how much we Dems have it goin' on is at the polls.
Dissent Protects Democracy
April 6, 2006 1:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
How exactly would you have proposed to keep Alito off the Court?
April 6, 2006 4:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
"In this here political journalism game, sometimes you read an article and think "damn, I wish I'd written that one." Amy Sullivan on why the Democratic leadership is "Not As Lame As You Think" is one of those examples."
Think Daily Kos will dedicate one tenth as many front page references to this Sullivan piece as they did to the equally excellent Sullivan piece on the bad apples among the Democratic consultants?
Somehow I doubt it. I wonder why that is, exactly...
April 6, 2006 4:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sullivan is the anti-Matt Bai.
April 6, 2006 4:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
"The proof of how much we Dems have it goin' on is at the polls."
Well, sort of, but not really.
If we're all very happy this November, it's going to be because the other side committed suicide, not because we slayed the dragon.
I think Dems have been playing their cards reasonably well in the '05 - '06 period. But I also think we've been dealt some extraordinarily good cards. The other side is losing a war, y'know...
In other words, we're likely to do better this November than a true reflection of our electoral strength would otherwise indicate.
April 6, 2006 5:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
That wasn't the point. It was that there seemed to be no real strategy (as opposed to the Pelosi-Murtha move).
Dissent Protects Democracy
April 6, 2006 6:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
"That wasn't the point. It was that there seemed to be no real strategy (as opposed to the Pelosi-Murtha move)."
Yup. I think Alito was Harry Reid's worst moment as leader.
Reid specifically warned Bush not to select Alito. 48 hours later, Bush selected Alito. And Reid's only riposte was the surprise Senate rule technicality shutdown.
Don't make threats you can't back up. It leaves you weaker than if you'd never issued the threat.
(And I actually think the Gang of 14 compromise was a loss for Reid as well, although the CW mistakenly sees it as a loss for Frist instead...)
April 6, 2006 6:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sure, but what was Reid supposed to do about Alito? Imagine the howls from the "base" if he didn't do anything at all.
I guess making Frist actually pull the trigger on the nuclear option was the thing to do, but it's hard to imagine a sitting minority Senator seeing that as a good idea.
April 6, 2006 9:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
This Amy Sullivan piece sounds just all of her work: nice sentences, carefully polished anecdotes, and lots of very argueable propositions. She may have found the only bright spots in the Dem. leadership record, but she omits some major disasters because they don't fit her thesis. Bankruptcy Bill? Alito? Budgets? Oversight? Iraq War? Medicare Part D?
Gingrich created theater that got attention. Day after day. If the media wasn't responding, he went around them until they did.
Only AFTER BushCo was busy doing hari-kiri and the polls headed south for them, did the Dems awake a bit. Sullivan's dismissal of the Dem. base (grassroots, netwoots, and blogs) is palpable.
Sullivan seems to understand that the Conventional Wisdom or Meme of the Season outlasts the reality on the ground, but her article is just more CW. Yes the leaders have done some good things rather recently. Are they acting like a robust opposition party? Hell no.
April 7, 2006 1:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
""Are they acting like a robust opposition party? Hell no."
And thank god for that.
You (and a lot of other folks in the blogosphere) may lust after a robust opposition party. I'd much, much rather have a majority party instead."
April 7, 2006 1:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
Many believe we won't get the latter without the former. Maybe this year, because the GOPs are as bad as they are, it doesn't matter. Hopefully we'll win, but it won't decide "who's right" in terms of strategy.
But we're circled around this a hundred times at least, petey. No use going around again. We all want a majority in 06. And we'll have something to argue about for another few years. :-)
Dissent Protects Democracy
April 7, 2006 5:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
""Many believe we won't get the latter without the former."
Quite true. Many also believe in the Easter Bunny.
----
Regardless of what happens this November, we're still going to be the electoral minority party in this country come next year. We've been the electoral minority party in this country for at least 25 years now, and arguably for more than 35 years.
We need a re-alignment. And to get that, we need to be Big Tent Democrats, not small tent democrats. Anyone who can't see the logic in that is simply part of the problem.
If we continue the trend of getting destroyed among white voters without a college education, we're going to be the electoral minority party for another generation, and I think that'd be a lousy outcome for my country.
The irony of history is that the Republicans dumped the Rockefeller wing of their party off on us to become the Dean wing of the Democratic party. And it suits us electorally just as badly as it suited them.
---
"We all want a majority in 06. And we'll have something to argue about for another few years. :-)"
Yes. We all do want to take the best advantage of our luck this November.
But the rot in the intellectual foundation of the Party proceeds apace. The GOP took back the House in the 50's when the luck of the draw smiled on them. But their small tent coalition was no more prepared to be the majority party than our small tent coalition is today.
April 7, 2006 6:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
And to get that, we need to be Big Tent Democrats, not small tent democrats. Anyone who can't see the logic in that is simply part of the problem.
You make it seem like we lost by more than 60,000 votes last time.
In any case, I don't want to spin around and around again about your opinion on how Dems can win. Everyone agrees that we need more Dem votes; the question is how to get there. I think we all will all need to re-examine our ideas after the 06 election, as well as 08.
Dissent Protects Democracy
April 7, 2006 6:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
"You make it seem like we lost by more than 60,000 votes last time."
We lost by 3,000,000 votes last time.
And the Presidency is the least of our problems. Even if we're the electoral minority party for another generation, we'll still win a few Presidential elections during that time.
And that 60,000 vote loss:
Kerry won 19 states while Bush won 31. That means the Kerry coalition won 38 Senate seats while the Bush coalition won 62 Senate seats.
Kerry won 180 Congressional districts while Bush won 255 Congressional districts.
See the problem yet?
And even worse, look at the 2000 election where Al Gore actually won the popular vote.
Gore won 20 states while Bush won 30. That means the Gore coalition won 40 Senate seats while the Bush coalition won 60 Senate seats.
Gore won 194 Congressional districts while Bush won 241 Congressional districts.
And once again, that's in an election where Gore won more votes.
In a 50/50 election, the current Democratic small tent coalition is a clear electoral minority party in this country. And we're seeing 50/50 elections only on our very best days.
We need converts, not purity. Like I said, anyone who can't wrap their minds around those facts is part of the problem.
April 7, 2006 7:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
My reply was misplaced. I hate Drupal.
April 7, 2006 7:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
"That means the Kerry coalition won 38 Senate seats while the Bush coalition won 62 Senate seats. Kerry won 180 Congressional districts while Bush won 255 Congressional districts."
Even if we get our landslide this November, think about what the above means:
Lots and lots and lots of Democratic Senators and Representatives will be representing red states and red Congressional districts.
I'd much rather win than lose this November, but what do you think that dynamic will mean for what the Democratic leadership will be able to accomplish?
April 7, 2006 7:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
I understand all that. Looking at the numbers another way, even as a minority, Dems still represent more people.
But you're fundamentally missing the position of the blogosphere, which you consistently write off. It's not "purity," it's a willingness to stand up to the GOPs. I agree that inital people were looking for purity, but lessons have been learned and thinking has matured.
Dissent Protects Democracy
April 7, 2006 7:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
hmmmm doesn't the color of the state change to blue when the Dems win? Isn't that the color determinant, the winning party?
April 7, 2006 9:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
"hmmmm doesn't the color of the state change to blue when the Dems win? Isn't that the color determinant, the winning party?"
Look at Nebraska, for example.
It's about as red as a state can get. It'll next go Democratic in a Presidential election when pigs fly. But one of Nebraska's Senators is Democrat Ben Nelson.
So Ben Nelson is a red state Democratic Senator. Because he has to win re-election in a red state, he's very susceptible to being pressured into not voting with Democrats on controversial issues.
Due to the nature of the Democratic electoral coalition, there are always going to be more red state Democratic Senators than there will be blue state Republican Senators. This has big implications for how successful the Democrats can be in Congress.
This problem has existed for at least the last 25 years, and to some degree, more than 35 years. It will continue to exist until the Democratic coalition broadens to be more competitive in inland America.
April 7, 2006 10:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Looking at the numbers another way, even as a minority, Dems still represent more people."
Yup. Of course, that and three dollars will get you a cup of coffee...
-----
"it's a willingness to stand up to the GOP"
I'm in favor of a strong Democratic party. I was proud of the successful efforts to derail Bush's SS initiative. I was disappointed in the failure to stop the Bankruptcy bill and the failure to mount a better effort on judicial nominations.
But at the end of the day, all of that are holding actions staged from a place of weakness.
To change the situation for the future, we need to create a Democratic electoral coalition that is significantly broaden than the current one.
To change the situation for the future, we need to win many more votes in geographical and demographic areas that are definitely not currently part of blue America.
"Standing up to the GOP" is all about playing to the already blue audience. We need to spend much more time and effort playing to the currently red audience.
April 7, 2006 10:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Standing up to the GOP" is all about playing to the already blue audience. We need to spend much more time and effort playing to the currently red audience.
I should have said standing up and differentiating from the GOP.
How to play to the current red audience if we're just the same? Or worse, a watered-down (read: lacking conviction, poll-driven positions) version of the same?
Paul Hackett played to a red audience just fine. No one demanded purity from him. Just a fighting spirit, which he had.
There is also something to be said for the 50% of America that currently doesn't vote. In my mind, that's a much better place to try and get votes, rather than the shaving votes off the GOPs.
Dissent Protects Democracy
April 8, 2006 8:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Paul Hackett played to a red audience just fine. No one demanded purity from him. Just a fighting spirit, which he had."
Sure. We are joined in our love for Hackett as a candidate. He's a natural like Obama. Hackett has a fighting spirit which I love as much as you do because it's a fighting spirit that will play outside of blue enclaves.
(And FWIW, you wanna know why I dislike Markos? Were you paying attention to the way Markos and Jerome threw Hackett over for Brown based solely on the criteria of which candidate was more willing to line their pockets with dead presidents?)
-----
"There is also something to be said for the 50% of America that currently doesn't vote. In my mind, that's a much better place to try and get votes, rather than the shaving votes off the GOPs."
Ugh. Back to believing in the Easter Bunny...
-----
"How to play to the current red audience if we're just the same?"
We're not the same. But we could choose to emphasize our differences with the GOP in a thousand different ways. And I'm in favor of emphasizing our differences in ways that will play best in Cincinnati, not ways that play best in Burlington or New York City.
I highly recommend to you Ryan Lizza's piece on Chuck Schumer. Here's a money quote for you:
April 8, 2006 12:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here's kos's explanation; it's a bit more involved than "solely" fundraising, but that certainly a big part of it. I thought Schumer's actions were pretty underhanded in that case, at least if you believe Hackett's version.
I've read the piece on Schumer, and I'm not disputing that lefty issues don't play in red states. I've already stated that purity is not a litmus test.
But I just don't understand writing off the tons of people that just don't vote. Joe Biden was on Bill Maher last night, and said as much. That's the "pond we need to fish in" was how I think he described it. So he believes in the Easter Bunny too, then.
We can agree to disagree on that point.
Dissent Protects Democracy
April 8, 2006 1:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
"But I just don't understand writing off the tons of people that just don't vote. Joe Biden was on Bill Maher last night, and said as much. That's the "pond we need to fish in" was how I think he described it. So he believes in the Easter Bunny too, then."
The problem is that the pool of nonvoters aren't noticeably different in terms of their preferences than the pool of voters. If voting participation were 100%, election results would be remarkably similar to what they are with participation at 50%.
And as we saw in 2004, Democratic efforts to enlarge our pool are easily matched and even exceeded by the other side's efforts to enlarge their pool.
If we want a Democratic electoral coalition that can govern, we're going to need lots and lots of converts from the other side, specifically among white non-college graduates inland from the coasts and Great Lakes. Those folks vote, and for the last generation, they've been overwhelmingly voting for the GOP. Until we expand the Big Tent enough to stop getting blown out there, we're going to keep being the electoral minority party.
-----
"Here's kos's explanation; it's a bit more involved than "solely" fundraising, but that certainly a big part of it."
I don't think it has anything whatsoever to do with fundraising. I think it has to specifically do with payola from the Brown campaign going into the personal pockets of Armstrong-Zuniga.
Likewise, Jerome and Markos will be in the Warner camp instead of the Edwards or Bayh camp in '08 because they've been paid cash money to be in the Warner camp. Netroots authenticity goes to the highest bidder.
If I were running a campaign, I'd outbid my competition and pay them top dollar. It's a good cost/benefit play. But as an interested Democrat, I think it's sleazy corruption that's bad for the party.
-----
"I thought Schumer's actions were pretty underhanded in that case, at least if you believe Hackett's version."
I do believe Hackett's version. And while I'm normally a pretty big fan of Schumer, I think he just got this one wrong. But I wouldn't characterize it as underhanded - politics ain't beanbag. Schumer simply made the wrong call here, but the way he carried out that wrong call is perfectly legit.
April 8, 2006 2:16 PM | Reply | Permalink