The Democrats expected to do a good deal better in the mid-term elections than they did. In particular, they were shocked to do so poorly in state races for things like governor and attorney general. Even more shocking, these losses occurred in reliably blue and purple states. Even worse, the Democrats saw the people who lost as their rising stars, i.e. their future leaders. These individuals included people like Michelle Nunn in Georgia, the daughter of the respected Sen. Sam Nunn, Alison Grimes in Kentucky, who would be seen as a giant-killer for unseating Mitch McConnell, Mike Michaud in Maine, who would have been the first openly gay governor, Anthony Brown in Maryland, the country's only black governor, etc. But a funny thing happened... each of these candidates lost, as did many more supposed future stars.
As a result of these losses, the Democrats are now fretting about having lost everyone they saw as their future leaders. And the loss of these people is making many Democrats think they are now handicapped in national elections for maybe as much as a decade. Others think these people can run again in 2016, win, and restore the farm-team. But even those people agree that this has hurt the party.
I find this interesting on several levels. First, I agree that this has hurt them. No matter how promising a candidate may be, having a big loss on the resume can be a killer. At the very least, this has delayed these people's careers for another election cycle. Secondly, I note that these people are all minorities -- women, blacks, gays. Up to now, the Democrats have remained competitive by running white males who then pretend to be more conservative than they really are, see e.g. Harry Reid. This group of candidates would represent a real shift in strategy, a shift which may send whites and males to the GOP in even greater numbers as it become harder for the Democrats to pretend to be conservative and to pretend not to be a party in the service of minorities.
Third, I think the real problem actually began with Obama's victory in 2008. It is often true that a president will harm their own party through things like protest votes registered at the mid-terms which wipe out candidates unexpectedly and by pulling strong candidates onto different career paths as federal agencies, where they effectively vanish into the federal black hole. But Obama has been worse. Obama's instincts seem to be to rid himself of potential competitors. Thus, he wiped out any possible challengers he could face by pulling them into the cabinet or ostracizing them. The result has been that the only Democrats who have appeared on the national stage since he took office have been either irrelevant to the future (e.g. Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi), treated like outcasts (e.g. Hillary Clinton), or kept at a distance far away from relevance (e.g. Andrew Cuomo). The most obvious proof of this is the utter lack of alternatives to Hillary Clinton. Are they seriously talking about Joe Biden as a contender? Wow.
All in all, the Democrats definitely have a problem. They have no viable alternatives to Hillary Clinton, who is not very popular with their base or the public. They also have few heavy-hitters left who can anoint someone after Obama's "purges" and the debacle of Obamacare leading to mass retirements. And they have no viable set of princelings after the midterms who can step up and replace the likes of Reid, Pelosi and Obama. Moreover, they have lost so many governor's mansions and legislatures that they have no realistic way to show off their ideas to build their brand.
Interesting times.
Andrew,
ReplyDeleteAdd to this an article in the Washington Post by Dana Milibank called "Purity Politics, Democrat-style" where he spoke to the leader of protest by environmentalists against Mary Landrieu over her support for Keystone Pipeline.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
“You would rather allow Big Oil to dictate the politics of this country and your reelection at the expense of . . . this country and the world, just to get reelected,” Pica charged. “Shame on you!”
I pulled aside Pica, water dripping from his nose, to ask whether he really believed that it would be better for the environmentalist cause if Republican House member Bill Cassidy — who says he isn’t even sure climate change exists — wins the runoff against Landrieu, the top Democrat on the Senate Energy Committee.
“Yeah, I think it would be good thing,” the activist said. “Even if it’s a freshman junior senator from Louisiana who’s a Republican, it ends up being better for our issues because you don’t have a leader in the Senate on energy issues fighting for more oil pipelines.”
In fact, Pica wasn’t troubled that so many moderate Democrats with “wishy-washy positions on oil and gas” lost their seats this month. He said a smaller group of uniformly liberal Democrats would help his cause, “particularly as the president is trying to push through executive orders. Having a more united Democratic caucus helps.”
I’ve heard this argument before, coming from tea party activists who said that they would rather have a smaller but reliably conservative caucus than a large majority full of RINOs — Republicans in Name Only — who aren’t reliable votes. The emerging purists on the left aren’t nearly as strong as the tea party was (and they won’t be, as long as there’s a Democrat in the White House), but it’s noteworthy that Democrats are becoming more willing to purge those who aren’t ideologically pure.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It feels like I'm watching a re-hash of 2006 and 2008, but flipped.
"they have no viable set of princelings after the midterms who can step up and replace the likes of Reid, Pelosi and Obama."
ReplyDeleteMeanwhile, the GOP has Scott Walker, Marco Rubio, Paul Ryan, Rand Paul, Bobby Jindal, Nikki Haley, Tim Scott, Tom Cotton, etc.
Yes, each has their flaws but they are talked about and hold more promise other than any in the Democratic Party.
Andrew,
ReplyDeleteNot too sure about your theory. It seems like whenever the presidency is held for two terms, the party's next nominee is weak (nods towards Bush 1, Gore and McCain). I think some of that may be due to deliberate action, but much of it is due to the fact that after a two term president leaves the next election is about them anyway because they have had such a massive impact on the perception of and direction of their parties. Look at the elections after Reagan, Clinton and Bush II left office. They were no longer on the ballot, but they might as well have been :).
I don't think their youngin's will be too harmed. Everyone loses at least one election. What the Dems need to do is get rid of their leadership -
ReplyDeleteHarry Reid who they inexplicable have reupped as the Senate Minority Leader
Chuckles Schumer will continue to Senate Minority Whip and key political strategist - Seriously???
Nancy Pelosi who will most probably continue as House Minority Leader who is senile at best.
Debbie Wasserman-Whatever inexplicably will stay as Chairperson DCC.
I thought the Republicans were bad and not getting the messate, but the Dems cannot fathom how they lost so badly. It can't possibly be their platform or policies or campaign strategies that are wrong. It has to be something else - voter fraud and stupid voters are a the top of their list. Obama went so far as to declare "I hear you, you people who didn't vote! I am with you..." or something like that. Seriously.
But, I do not think that they are dead for generations as was declared by James Carville of the Republicans in 2008.
On another note, I must applaud the Republicans this time around. They actually got the message and found candidates who were actually good, disciplined politicians who knew how to stay on message and not get shaken by stupid questions.
Oh, and watching Mary Landrieu fight for her political life in the LA runoff is pretty entertaining. She has suddenly found her inner-wingnut and is turning into a reborn hard right conservative Tea Partier wannabe. She forced a vote for the Keystone XL pipeline (an important vote for state) that lost by one vote.
ReplyDeleteMy favorite moment was when either ran an ad or during a publicized campaign stump asked an open question to Bill Cassidy
"Where was Bill Cassidy during Katrina??"
Ooops someone didn't do their homework. Bill Cassidy responded just as publicly "Who me? I was setting up a field hospital for refugees. Where were you?". And it came along with a news article that had been published at the time...something a two second Google search could have found.
Btw, that is why Landrieu is going to lose so badly. Not losing the Keystone XL vote...
It was a stump. Landrieu's question was nonsensical.
ReplyDelete“When this hospital needed a champion to build and rebuild, literally out of the rubble of Katrina and Rita, where was Sen. Landrieu? Standing here and fighting. Where was Bill?”
And she tweeted: “When the New Orleans #VA hospital needed to be rebuilt out of the rubble of Katrina & Rita, #WhereWasBill?”
Apparently, she was hoping to make #WhereWasBill trend on twitter.
Now, Bill Cassidy was not involved in politics yet. So even if he hadn't been helping refugees it would be kind of silly and pointless. And desperate.
But, alas, he had been helping refugees so it very silly and pointless and desperate. Which makes it looks like she thinks she is losing. And in politics, since half of winning an election is getting your people to the polls, if your people think you are going to lose they won't even bother to show up.
Kit - Yes, silly, pointless, desperate, and just stupidly avoidable. Again, simple Google search...not hard. And you are right. Dems won't come back to the polls. She lost the moment she only got 42% of the vote in the general election. If she has gotten 49%...maybe. The Dem leadership aren't helping her either. They would have if the Senate leadership were on the ropes by 50-50. But since Landrieu loss won't really change anything, she's been abandoned. She will give the Repubs #54.
ReplyDeleteKit, I suspect there will be some fireworks. Losses are usually a great time to start feuding, and with the heir-apparents down for the count at the moment, that opens the door for the crazies. Let's hope they go full-retard on us! :D
ReplyDeleteKit, Yep. We have an excellent farm team coming up. Not only do they have solid executive experience, but they've done it in states that are blue-friendly, which means they must have solid political skills.
ReplyDeleteAnthony, I think there are many factors at play in the "third term" elections. Often, the public just wants a change, but the parties typically look for a safe continuation. One big factor is that the heavy-hitters on the other side tend not to run against incumbents, but will run against the "third term" guy.
ReplyDeleteIn any event, presidents can seriously harm political fortunes with the way they act. Getting appointed VP is almost always a bad thing because the job description requires you to do so much dirty work and to play fall guy. And yanking people from governorships or leadership positions and putting them into places like running the VA or Dept. of Ag is a guaranteed way to ruin a career.
I'm not so sure that these loses will kill these Democrats, as liberals are now worrying, but it will certainly slow them down as they must now rebuild their credibility before they take the next step.
It seems like every so often each party needs a house cleaning and the Dems may just be due.
ReplyDeleteNoticed you didn't mention Elizabeth Warren. Don't count this squaw out as she is on the war path. The left loves her and she could run against Obama policies of giving gifts to big banks; something the GOP needs to criticize more as well. Plus we will have the added benefit of her being a her. Any criticism of her is sexist and racist, whatever "race" a drop of native American is.
Bev, I agree about the Republicans. They found solid candidates who didn't scare people and they stayed on message. This was truly refreshing. And the result was a big victory.
ReplyDeleteAgreed that the Democrats didn't get it. They still think they would have won if the demographics had been different, so they aren't going to make any changes.
On the youngins, I think the harm to them is that they now need to repeat this level and win before they can move on. That will delay most of their careers by 2-6 years. In the meantime, they will have little influence within the party, which leaves the current crew to keep running things. It also opens the door if they are no longer seen as up and coming, and that can kill a career if you start facing internal challengers.
I guess we'll see. I think there is certainly something to this, but it's not a "dead for a generation" thing as many liberals are whining.
Bev, That is hilarious about Landrieu and Cassidy! Landrieu is in serious trouble.
ReplyDeleteThe Keystone vote is pretty funny because the Democrats saw it as a freebie. They could vote yes to sway the public, and then Obama would veto it and gain environmental cred. Only, things didn't work that way. Ha ha.
Kit and Bev, I agree. Landrieu has serious problems. Not only is she acting stupidly, but it's obvious that she has no momentum. That means the public won't turn out. And the Democrats aren't helping her because they've stopped caring at the moment. I'm sure they'll show up at the end, but that's too late to build the sense of energy it will take to turn out her supporters.
ReplyDeleteKoshcat, I'm not sure what to make of Warren. It sounds like she's gone off the reservation (oh yes, he went there...) and the Democrats don't quite count her as one of their own even as they won't quite disown her. I think they are cautious of her and view her as a spoiler.
ReplyDeleteIn terms of periodically cleaning house, that's true too, but this election wasn't really about that. This election was a shock to them. They were not expecting to lose in the blue states or to have their stars go down in flames.
I'm not sure who irritates me more. People with less native American blood than I who march around pretending to be a member of the tribe or voters who won't punish her for a pretentious fantasy.
ReplyDelete>>Yes, silly, pointless, desperate, and just stupidly avoidable. >>
ReplyDeleteStupid. Not only is Ms. Landrieu "owner" of the company, she's a US voter, too. Gruber, justified.
Ok, before I got to class I have to say something on this Monday's topic, Obama's Executive Order threat.
ReplyDeleteWhat Obama is doing is really dangerous and arrogant. He is playing with fire. I mean, good God. Obama has changed the game in ways I don't think he or even the Republicans realize.
Right now the Republicans are mulling to deny him the appropriations needed to carry out his executive order. This could work and stop him like it kept him from closing Gitmo back in 2009.
Of course, Obama could apply a "they have passed their appropriations now let them enforce it" attitude which would most definitely get slapped down or he could take an indirect approach and simply use executive orders at a whim to play legislator on other laws. anything really.
This could cause the Republicans to deny appropriations to those executive orders. In other words, Obama playing legislator with executive orders and the Republicans in Congress playing executive with appropriations. This would be bad.
We could spend the next two years in Constitutional Crisis on a scale we have not seen since days of President Andrew Johnson. If you thought the gridlock of the last 4 years was bad, just wait for the next two years.
Late to the fray, and there doesn't seem to be much I can add. Between this election fiasco and Obama's newly-found madness in his search for a legacy, I don't know where the Democrats go from here. Of course, as Andrew suggested, new leadership would help. But Reid, Pelosi, and Co. are probably going to see their power taken away only from their cold, dead hands. So...stinks to be them.
ReplyDeleteAlso- because we all need a laugh every now and then- I hope everyone had a happy Life Day this week!
I'm not sure if it has anything to do with Dims, but the Border Patrol says they don't have enough M-4 carbines,,,,well, with the major drawdown In the military recently there should more than enough M-4s to go around. FWIW, the military has an overabundance of good old M-16 rifles...which would do just as well,,,,but Dims can't think outside the box and the Border Patrol isn't one of their priorities...
ReplyDeleteKoshcat, What irritates me is the people who claim it matters what race/gender you are who then go on to ignore her BS just because they like her views. That shows you that the whole race/gender garbage really is just a pretext.
ReplyDeleteEric, LOL! So true. Let me put it this way... it wasn't conservatives who were stupid enough to overlook all the lies Obama told, that was liberals.
ReplyDeleteKit, These are interesting times. Obama seems determined to completely ignore the Republicans for the next two years, and they seem determined to stop anything he does. The result, as you note, could well be a significant constitutional crisis that could lead to call kinds of problems for our government in the future... no matter which side (legislature/executive) wins.
ReplyDeleteAs an aside, I am now thinking half of what Obama is floating about the executive orders is either just trial balloons or meant to enrage conservatives into attacking him for something he will claim he never even said he would do.
In terms of what he will actually do, it sounds like his executive order is shrinking by the minute.
... at last report, we were down to families of children who are American citizens, who have been here 10 years or more, and aren't criminals. That's a LOT less than "half of all illegals."
ReplyDeleteRustbelt, Isn't it interesting that Obama is struggling so hard to find a legacy? He passed at least two items of major legislation, stopped/started wars, was the first black President, nearly changed the shape of the SCOTUS, nearly broke the government but claims he made historic budget cuts, etc.... and yet, he has nothing he wants to hang his hat on. Sad.
ReplyDeleteAgreed on the fugly-threesome. If I were a Democrat, I would want them gone immediately, but there is no one who can unseat them. And these princelings losing will ensure that the current power structure remains the same for at least another couple election cycles. Good for us!
Critch, I'm not sure what is going on with the Border Patrol. You hear so much, but none of it is ever confirmed.
ReplyDeleteIn any event, I don't think a shortage of weapons is the problem. They seem to have little problem catching the people who sneak across. The problem is getting rid of them once they are here. It sounds like that part of the system is broken and about to get neutered.
Dems have really overplayed the identity politics. In a handful of key races, the democrat candidates lost with white males by double digits, even into the high 20s! The Dem message for years has pegged white men as the root of all evil, so I'm not sure what finally made white men realize the party rejects them now. I suspect some of the bitter pills Obamacare fed to unions played a part. I'll give unions credit, they keep their members informed on policies that affect them. And they're not so easily blinded by "good intentions." Reps have never done anything for unions, but Dems are the first to really do something against unions.
ReplyDeletetryanmax, I think it's more that the Democrats have been playing this game of being conservative, white FDR males at home and libertine socialists in Washington. The voters didn't pay as much attention to what happened in Washington because their only source of news was the networks, who presented a very skewed presentation which made the Democrats out as more conservative, patriotic, religious, white, middle class than they really were.
ReplyDeleteThey lost the south under Nixon. Then Reagan came along and their nastiness in attacking him and the military shocked white males everywhere. Then the internet opened the door to the information the MSM had hidden for years. Suddenly, whites and white males in particular fled the party.
The Democrats made this all the worse by basically deciding to toss away white males in the 1990s when they came to believe that they could win demographically without them. Since that time, the South became solid red. Now the midwest is flipping at the state level, and even parts of the Northeast are flipping at the state level.
It's going to be interesting to see how all of this plays out, especially if their next crop of leaders are all blacks, women and gays. I think people shouldn't under-estimate the effect that may have on the decision of white male voters.