« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
Diagnosing DEAD (Democratic Election Anxiety Disorder)
Hi. Come on in. Close the door behind you, please. Thanks. Did you find the office okay? Wonderful. Have a seat. No, not there. On the large, padded day bed over there. Sure, you can lay down if you want.
Comfortable? Good. Would you like a soda? No? Okay. Well, let's talk. What's bothering you?
You say you've been reading a lot of stuff on the Web about how Obama's losing the election. How does that make you feel?
Whoa! Okay, okay. Here's a paper bag. Put it over your mouth. Inhale and exhale deeply into it until you calm down.
Feeling a little less panicky now? Good. So what's got you so jumpy?
Wait. I'm a professional. Let me guess. You're not happy that Obama probably isn't picking Clinton as VP. You don't like the fact that McCain puts out one negative ad after another, and Obama doesn't really seem to respond with the punch you'd like. You're having flashbacks to 1988, 2000 and 2004. You think Obama should be up by 20 in the national tracking polls, not 3 or 4. You've been reading TPM, DailyKos and the like, and read all these blogs and posts screaming for Obama to change things up.
All of the above? Hmmm. This is worse than I thought.
I see cases like yours every four years, though you seem to be particularly afflicted. I do believe you have a full-blown attack of DEAD.
No, I'm not saying you're dead! It's an acronym. DEAD stands for Democratic Election Anxiety Disorder. As I said before, this happens every four years, during a Presidential election. It's particularly bad between August and October.
DEAD happens to overactive, intelligent Democratic brains that have unfortunately become conditioned to take every single Republican action or media declaration as a sign that the sky is falling. That's why our journal also describes this as "Chicken Little" syndrome.
There are many therapies for DEAD, but each has its drawbacks. Electric shock treatments aren't covered under your insurance. I could have you come visit me every week for a relaxing chat about electoral reality, but the price of gas is high, and so are my fees.
So, I'm going to go with an experimental treatment. This hasn't been tried much, but I've had great results with it. Before we begin, though, I just need to you sign this waiver...good.
Okay. Now, I need you to sit up straight. Very good. Now I'm just going to pull up a chair right in front of you, and sit down. There. We're all set. Ready for your treatment?
WAKE UP! OBAMA'S WINNING!
Excuse me, did I break your concentration? I'm sorry about that. Please, continue. You were saying something about Axelrod's incompetence, Burton's milquetoast press responses, and Obama's wimpiness. Oh - you're finished? Well, allow me to retort!
National tracking polls? National polls (most of which Obama has led in since June 3) do not matter. Why? Two words: Electoral College. A popular-vote margin is meaningless without the electoral vote.
(OK, OK. Sorry about causing the Gore flashback. Here's the bag again. Breathe...better now? Good.)
Now, follow the electoral college projections. Nate Silver, Pollster, ElectoralVote - even Karl Rove's - all have Obama winning in the neighborhood of 280-300 electoral votes. Which means that McCain's not even holding the Bush electoral map from 2004 - and that, for all his lies and negativity, he is way, way behind.
I'm going to give you this card. I'm almost out of them. I had 500 printed up a few months ago. Yes, there are a lot of people feeling the same anxiety, but many of them seem to be doing much better now.
Let's read the card, to ourselves, together. On the count of three, okay? One...two...three.
Understand that the people running Obama's campaign (1) have been doing this a lot longer than you, (2) have more information than you, (3) are much better at gaming this out than you, and (4) clearly have a plan to win the general. Just because you may not like the plan doesn't mean the plan isn't working.
What I want you do to is to read this card every time you feel a panic attack coming about the election, or you visualize John McCain's axe-murderer grin about to deliver his Inaugural Address.
Then, immediately after reading the card, go do something to help Obama. Talk to friends and family. Go to your nearest campaign office. Do canvassing. Do phone banking. Help plan or set up an Obama event. Go to the local market and register voters. Donate to the campaign or the DNC. Do oppo research on McCain. (Did you know that the Hess bundling story was originally caught by a TPM reader?) Go campaign for a local House or Senate candidate.
Do any of these things. Do anything else you want. Just don't sit around and panic. And, I promise you this: The more you work constructively, and the more people you talk to about this election, the more you will find that many people are tired of the same failed policies, the same "bait-and-bitch" politics, and the same economic misery.
(Hell, I've even had to actually share my helicopter to my summer home in the Hamptons with another family because of fuel costs! But don't tell anyone - I don't want them to think I'm struggling.)
Are you cured? No. You'll always have DEAD symptoms that occur whenever some Rove acolyte launches another negative attack. It's an unfortunate consequence of being intelligent and free-thinking (another way to say "non-Republican").
But, if you read that card out loud, and then take one or more of the steps I've outlined for you, you'll find that you won't be DEAD. You - and your candidate - will be very much alive...and celebrating in November.
Well, gee, that's really nice of you to say. Oh, don't mention it. Helping political junkies is what I do. Don't forget, now - make sure you go do something positive every time you feel DEAD. Take care. Buh-bye!








Comments (32)
Rec'd. I wish this was just good snark. But I really, honestly think it's a variety of PTSD.
It's not hard to date, either. Before 2000, I was not a political junkie. I would read the occasional article, and vote, but that was about it. The obsession dates from November, 2000.
August 8, 2008 11:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
Co-sign.
Before 2000, I'd start following after Labor Day.
November 2000 was sort of like "WTF just happened here, and WHY?"
August 8, 2008 3:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Agreeing with the above two.
August 8, 2008 5:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks. I needed that.
August 8, 2008 12:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Boyd - was your patient by chance a TPM employee? They could probably use your help.
August 8, 2008 1:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Doctor, thanks for your healing approach to the political anxiety experienced by those who are focused on November. We need that same healing power over on another thread, where the focus is on the Democratic convention this month:
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/08/notes-to-dramatis-personae-whe.php
August 8, 2008 1:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Very good. Thanks. Rec'd.
August 8, 2008 1:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes! And on one specific front, it's worth saying even more, namely, how people have been misled by the notion that Obama is supposed to be way ahead in the polls, an idea manufactured by Republicans and the MSM and vice versa. Obama, as Boyd explains, is doing just fine, thank you.
May I offer two suggestions for further reading:
"Media Hype and Election Polls (or the sky is falling)"
http://msa4.wordpress.com/2008/07/25/media-hype-and-election-polls/
and for fun (and to keep in mind just what we are really up against):
"Who Does McCain Remind you of? A New Game for Hard Times"
http://msa4.wordpress.com/
August 8, 2008 2:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Choice!!!! Rec'd!!!!!!
August 8, 2008 2:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Watch this. I just change one word...
"Understand that the people running Kerry's campaign (1) have been doing this a lot longer than you, (2) have more information than you, (3) are much better at gaming this out than you, and (4) clearly have a plan to win the general. Just because you may not like the plan doesn't mean the plan isn't working."
... and suddenly all my paranoia is justified.
August 8, 2008 2:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
But point (4) of the statement is no longer true in your alteration.
If you don't perceive that difference between the Kerry campaign and the Obama campaign, well, that's unfortunate.
August 8, 2008 3:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Are you saying that Kerry had no plan to win the general?
If so, I think you're very mistaken. Of course they had a plan, and it failed.
Kerry thought he could let ridiculous attacks go unanswered because he believed people were smart enough to see through them. He believed he would get points for taking the high road. He was gravely, gravely wrong.
To write off everyone who sees similar tendencies in Obama as delusional is misguided. To paraphrase Blue Oyster Cult...
History shows, again and again
How nature takes down the wimpy old Dems
August 8, 2008 4:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Even if you want to count not addressing smears as a plan, it's a distinction without a difference. In presidential politics, rapid response is inordinately important.
A lie unresponded to becomes the truth. This is something Rove & Co. understood well. It's also something Obama has shown twice this week. Look at his response to McCain's energy criticism - "They're lying about my energy plan." And today's Sevugan response to the latest McCain ad - "This ad is a lie." Notice the direct language. Obama clearly realizes that GOP lies must be branded as such - within the 24-hour news cycle.
You are correct about what Kerry believed. However, not responding to criticism is NOT a plan (or, at least, not one worth following). Kerry's admitted as much.
Finally, I don't dismiss concerns about Obama, and I've called no one delusional, so please drop that. On the contrary, I've brought up Obama concerns myself from time to time, and I've repeatedly said that those who are concerned should not be ignored. (My blog history has proof of that.)
But for you to insinuate that Obama is going down the same road as Kerry is inaccurate at best. On the contrary, Obama's already shown better rapid response in the last few weeks than Kerry showed throughout his campaign. Which is not surprising, as Kerry has given numerous interviews stating that he's advised Obama to do exactly that.
August 8, 2008 4:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
I was refering to this post itself. No one said anything about you saying it, so please drop it.
In your opinion, but you're wrong. The fact that McGoo's "celebrity" ad nonsense -- which could have been torpedoed with one quick response regarding $500 loafers and private jets -- has instead been allowed to command top shelf coverage for over a week backs me up completely. Obama's apparent decision not to snuff this burning butt before it turned into a grass fire that hasn't yet gone out completely is distinctly Kerryesque.
August 8, 2008 5:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
My response is down-thread. Forgot to click the reply box.
August 8, 2008 6:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Rec'd for content and style
August 8, 2008 2:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Rec'd for therapeutic value. Like Lamont, most dems are out there either getting freaked out by the "unperforming Obama" and "wussy Obama" narratives or becoming uncertain because they're afraid of backing a possible loser yet again. But even the horserace polls prove that most of us are sitting our horses pretty well.
I'm confident that the plan is to come out swinging hard and fast after the convention and knocking every McCainist and media wonk on their asses. And most of us, while they're at it. Many, many bad things can happen. But Gore was as charismatic as a tree stump, and Kerry--well, it's hard to come up with a good analogy for his wooden, sluggish, unimaginative, and dull campaign, to say nothing of the complete lack of the organizing finesse of Obama and, by extension, the party as a whole.
There will be some with their panties in a wad because Obama isn't spending enough money on the single state they believe is absolutely, positively essential to winning the EC, or because Obama isn't "hitting back hard" against every attack, or because "women" hate him notwithstanding the polls proving otherwise, or because Obama isn't issuing a daily smear against McCain's wife or an expose of his misconduct, duplicity or stupidity.
That's OK. We'll get schooled, and those of us who've had our inoculations will do our damnedest to channel our "I told you so" into gleeful action.
August 8, 2008 4:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Freaked out? Hardly. Like noted crazies as Josh Marshall and Chuck Shumer, I simply believe Obama could do a better job of nipping Parisgate in the bud.
August 8, 2008 5:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Priceless!
August 8, 2008 5:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ahhhh! I feel so much better!
August 8, 2008 5:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are DEAD right. This one is a lock. For those who want to read something interesting and calming, try looking at Allan Lichtman's 13 Keys to the Presidency -- Lichtman is a history professor at American University who created a predictive model with the help of a Russian geologist who had developed a similar model for predicting earhtquakes. It is based on 13 true false questions and has accurately predicted the popular vote winner of every presidential election since the USA became a 2 party nation (1860) (That would be "the winner" and not "popular vote winner" were it not for that quirky 2000 blowjob . . . uh, I mean election debacle -- in Florida. [Lichtman's model had Gore winning, which we all know is what happened.]
In any case, if 8 of the 13 questions are answered true, the incumbent party candidate (McCain, this year) invariably wins. If less than 8 of the 13 questions are answered true, the incumbent party candidate invariably loses. In this election, the most true answers that are possible is 4, and arguably only 1 or 2 will end up being true. In other words, this will be a blow-away, with Obama winning big. Here they are:
1. The incumbent party holds more seats in the U. S. House of Representatives after the midterm election than after the preceding midterm election. FALSE
2. There is no serious contest for the incumbent-party nomination. FALSE
3. The incumbent-party candidate is the current president. FALSE
4. There is no significant third-party or independent candidacy. STILL OPEN, BUT LIKELY TRUE BY HISTORICAL STANDARDS (Barr)
5. The economy is not in recession during the campaign. ALMOST CERTAINLY FALSE
6. Real (constant-dollar) per capita economic growth during the term equals or exceeds mean growth for the preceding two terms. FALSE
7. The administration has effected major policy changes during the term. FALSE
8. There has been no major social unrest during the term. OPEN - LIKELY TRUE
9. The incumbent administration is untainted by major scandal. FALSE
10. There has been no major military or foreign policy failure during the term. FALSE
11. There has been a major military or foreign policy success during the term. HIGH LIKELY TO BE FALSE
12. The incumbent-party candidate is charismatic or is a national hero. FALSE -- YOU NEED AN EISENHOWER OR GRANT LEVEL OF HERO, OR A KENNEDY OR REAGAN LEVEL OF CHARISMA
13. The challenger is not charismatic and is not a national hero. FALSE
Prepare to enjoy election day. This one is going to be a blast.
August 8, 2008 6:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, you did say that I was dismissing people who saw parallels between Obama and Kerry as being "delusional". But if you're backing off that false assertion, I'm willing to drop my opposition to your characterization.
Now, for this...
This is the wrong answer - and it shows you miss the point about Obama's campaigning entirely.
Obama's talked repeatedly about not getting into "tit-for-tat" politics, because it distracts from the real issues. He's been very consistent with that, and with good reason. It's absolutely the way to go.
If you respond to ridiculous accusations and ads with ads of your own, you drag the debate down to a lower level. Obama doesn't need to do that, as he can't win a gutter campaign. His best bet is to stay assiduously on the high road, but make sure that he calls out GOP lies as they roll out. That's what he's doing, whether you admit it or not.
Right now, Obama is seen as the serious candidate, talking about serious problems and serious solutions. McCain is seen as the attacking, whiny candidate. When Jake Tapper, of all people, starts writing about McCain being the real "celebrity", and when Republican politicians, strategists and donors go on TV and say McCain's campaign runs close to being juvenile, it's obvious which candidate comes across better.
Obama's betting that the serious, non-frat-party candidate will win. I like his bet. Maybe you don't, and that's okay. But you're so far off on him being like Kerry that I can't see your position even with the Hubble. Answering attack ads with more attack ads is straight old-school. Answering them with the truth - aided by roadblock TV coverage, of course - is more effective.
August 8, 2008 6:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
This was a response to Lamont Williams above. (Stupid check box...)
August 8, 2008 6:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, this comment was directed at "Boyd Reed" and I hadn't noticed that eastside93 and Boyd are the same puppet. Sorry. You got me there.
Answering attack ads with more attack ads is straight old-school. Answering them with the truth - aided by roadblock TV coverage, of course - is more effective.Ah, so you agree with myself, Josh Marshall, and Chuck Shumer. Answer the attacks with truths...
TRUTH: McCain wears $500 loafers.
TRUTH: McCain flies around in his wife's private jet.
SUMMARY: Lamont's assertion that pointing out these two truths as an answer to McGoo's "celebrity" attack would have been an effective move and completely in tune with the spirit of Obama's campaign is -- as eastsideBoydReed agrees -- right on the money.
So what exactly was your question, again?
August 8, 2008 8:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oops. This part...
Is a quote from "eastside" that should've been in blocks.
August 8, 2008 8:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Like the inflating the tires. :)
August 8, 2008 8:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Same puppet", huh? Stay classy, Lamont. And to think I liked reading your posts. (Just for the fun of it,
Anyway...the point is that the McCain celeb tack is small potatoes - in execution and in substance. The only thing a full-wave retort/attack ad does is validate McCain's juvenile approach to campaigning.
Why do that, when Obama can use his stump speeches to repudiate McCain and get his talking point(s) recycled on the evening news for free? And, as an extra bonus, Obama gets online pundits across the spectrum to carry the negative tack against McCain. (Even Rich Lowry said McCain is on the wrong track.)
To sum up - I don't think McCain's "celeb" meme is working at all, and Obama is right to publicly treat it as the childish, un-presidential stunt that it is. (Note that this is MUCH different than Kerry's unwillingness to issue any kind of response.) As Fred Allen once said about Hollywood, there's no "there" there.
August 8, 2008 9:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
The first paragraph here shouldn't have that sentence fragment at the end.
August 8, 2008 9:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Woah, woah, now. Down, boy. I didn't mean the puppet thing as a putdown... notice my own dual moniker. I am hardly the person to use puppet as an insult, here or anywhere.
Your post was a good read and nicely executed. I simply disagree with a few points. But I hope you're right about Obama's approach.
If I'm right, we're all in trouble.
August 8, 2008 10:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you, thank you, thank you...I'm going to print your post, stick it on the mirror and force myself to read it every day! Maybe I will be fit to live with...BTW how did you get me on the couch w/o me knowing it (except for the part about Hillary for VP, yuck!)
Highly rec'd! And it's very clever, too!
August 8, 2008 7:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Funny, accurate, and bonus points from me for snarky psychology related content.
However it is my opinion that the anxiety is necesesary, overconfidence can lead to complacency and lack of action. Hypervigilence may be maladaptive after that traumatic event has passed, but we are still in the middle of the trauma (-George Bush) and so what seems like paranoia may just be good survival instincts.
August 8, 2008 10:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
If you substitute "vigilance" for "paranoia", we're in 100% agreement.
I believe that the energy devoted to Democratic paranoia, if channeled to activism, will render this election a happily foregone conclusion. It's really just another call to political arms.
And thanks for the bonus points. :-)
August 9, 2008 12:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment