Official response from the Democratic establishment: "La la I can't hear you!"

Many of us in Wally Herger's district (CA-2) are hoping the Dems run a candidate we can get excited about.

The Democratic Party's strategy seems pretty clear. Ignore the base in favor of corporate interests for now; and then try to market their candidates using corporate financing in the coming elections.

You are spot on. The catastrophe in the midterm elections in Clinton's first term came as a direct result of the failure of the Democratic congress to effectuate health care reform. They were seen by the electorate as ineffectual and incapable. That will be exactly the response in 2010 if the Dems don't put in place a strong reform of the health care system. I know if I am disappointed by Blue Dogs here in North Carolina, I won't have any motivation to go to the polls for them.

Blue Dogs beware. Yours are the first heads to roll.

Steve and Jeri nail it. The corporate whores hate the dirty fucking hippies.

Republicans have been dreaming of 1994 ever since election day, mostly because they buy their own nonsense narrative of that year - mighty Newt and his Contract rallied the real 'murikins to repudiate the libs.

The reality is that '94 was the result of long-percolating forces, in which the GOP finally consolidated its white southern base and elected its own in the red districts where wingnuttery reigns supreme to this day. At the same time, there were still enough blue-district republicans to form a majority with.

In the years since, the blue state goopers have been slowly eliminated, such that in large parts of the country the GOP is pretty much dead. The republicans are a regional party with strength in the south and relatively empty plains states. This base area is not large enough to elect a president or create a congressional majority.

In order for the GOP to regain a majority of the House, they'll need to win in lots of areas that are pretty hostile to them. I don't think we'll see another '94 no matter how much Fox News predicts we will.

Strike one = voting in the Senate to let the telecommunications companies get a pass on domestic spying. Strike two = increasing US involvement in Afghanistan & bombing in Pakistan. Strike three will be the health care reform bill if it requires an individual mandate while handing the insurance industry a gift of my tax dollars to subsidize premiums and dumping a vigorous public option.
I looked up Kennedy's old Medicare for All bill and it was universal coverage; 1.7% payroll tax for individuals' share and 7% payroll tax for employers' share. It's what we should have instead of what we're probably going to end up with.
In 2012 I will likely be voting for a third party candidate.

Nate Silver believes it could be anywhere from 20 to 50.

I hate it when he says things like this because he has an uncanny knack for being spot on.

Sorry, but I just can't take any of this seriously right now.

Why not? Because, for starters, I remember the end of August eight years ago, when Dubya was at this point in his first term. He was regarded as a frequent vacationing, do-nothing president. It was expected that his ineptitude would drag his party down in the 2002 elections. And then, less than two weeks later, something happened.

I don't expect a similarly earth-shaking occurrence this September 11th. But I do expect other events will occur in the coming months, and the trajectory being proposed from now to November 2010 will shift course in significant ways.

Or maybe not.

I have to agree with jeri. If the Democrats don't want to get stomped on badly, they need to counteract the rise of the batshit crazy (BSC) wing of the GOP. The way things are going now, lots of Democrats don't see a whole lot of reason to keep their reps in office because they, particularly the Blue Dogs, are just Republicans. Therefore Democratic voters will sit out the next election allowing the BSC's to dominate.

The way to get the Democratic voters mobilized is to start approving legislation that benefits real people, not imaginary people, i.e., corporations. We need a real health reform NOW. You've had 15 years to work on it. It should be ready to go.

We need the mortgage and credit card industries to be brought to heel. That should have been done long ago, and you need to show that Mr. Lugar was wrong when he said that the banks owned Congress.

You, Democrats in Congress, need to get your act together.

Harry Reid, in the Senate, needs to get his act together, too, and put the fear of God into the wolves in Democrat clothing that are screwing up things. There is a good chance that his wimpiness will result in him being taken out the next election with lots of Democrats voting against him.

so, per poltico, the glenn beck hour -- or whatever the hell that bat shit program is on the teevee -- is the future.

caint say the dems havent been warned for 3 goddam years...

caint say this country doesnt deserve the indecent society that the repugnants, their wacko ignorant mobs, and the corporations have planned for it...

the democrats' hapless imbecility just aint a big vote-getter...

We need to push the White House and Congress. And we need to push back against the Republicans and their noise machine. Both tasks are equally important.

I consider myself a strongly liberal Democrat. My vote doesn't really matter much where I live, but I head to the polls every November. I agree the Democrats need to do something to make base voters like me care.

My two cent prediction. If Congress passes a decent health care bill with some type of public option (a national co-op might work, 50 state co-ops won't) and health insurance reform the loses next year will be limited. If they fail to pass a bill, or they pass a weak one (mandates and subsidies only) they'll loses a lot more.

Cheese-n-rice, folks...the 2010 elections are over ONE YEAR FROM NOW -- which is a life time in politics. A skinny black guy won Iowa in January and is now POTUS -- no pundit, forecaster, pollster, etc would have ever prognosticated that Obama had a likely chance of winning the White House, but ten months later, well....

Articles such as this, and the attention given to articles such as these are worthless and contribute nothing. Shame on Steve for even wasting his time on something with no value.

Can we make some reality of our own?

We criticize wingnuts for making up their own reality and living in their own universe. But they know something that liberal softies like Kevin Drum and Matt Yglesias and Ezra Klein just don't get:

Reality is malleable.
You can bend the future into being if you have the guts and the spine to make is so.

For example consider the 59 votes the Dems have to overcome a filibuster:

You can throw in the towel and cower "rationally" behind the fact that 59 is 59 and not 60. You can then start writing posts that argue why a compromise bill is better than no bill at all.

Or...

You can go to work undermine the reality of 59 and bend it into 60. The wingnuts don't lack ardor. They would pound away at the very nature of the filibuster. And they would pound away at any in their party who would cast a vote to support it. They would change reality rather than negotiate within it.

Not our softies.
They are quick to throw in the towel...

So the problem isn't just with the spineless Democratic party. Any problem definition should also include the softie liberal net roots. They aren't driving reality forward. Instead they are negotiating us into a tepid timidity. They have no idea how to play power poker. They always fold too early and too easily...

Note: I consider Steve Benen an exception. He clearly hasn't folded.

It may be a year away but many of us are forming our opinions now. this general feeling of malaise could easily grow and result in inaction. although i have given up on the republicans the democrats are not exactly acquitting themselves well. people of my ilk (the long dead rockefeller republicans) as well as others who thought change didnt just mean giving other politicians a chance at the federal booty will stay home if we dont feel the democrats are gonna be demonstrably better. it wont be aqbout whether or not reform gets passed it will be about whether or not they try to pass real reform (and on that theyre currently failing).

Not surprisingly, the result of the fight over health care reform will make a very big difference, and if Dem strategists are thinking about how to improve their chances, the reform fight offers a pretty big hint. Three words: motivate the base.

MOTIVATE THE BASE!!!

Unfortunately, Jeri's prediction is far more likely with this steaming pile of clods.

Whatever it is, it will somehow be a mandate.

"That's why the midterms are dangerous for Democrats. Losing on health care and collapsing into recriminations and internal divisions pretty much guarantees that Democratic voters of all sorts are turned off."

This is spot on.

In 1994, there were FEWER votes cast for Republican House candidates than there were in 1992. There was no Republican surge, there was no wave of support for the Republicans in the country.

Too many Democrats stayed home.

Whether they mistakenly thought after electing President Clinton in 1992 that they didn't need to be concerned until 1996. or whether some bought the propaganda that their taxes were raised, even though it only applied to the top 1.2% of taxpayers, they didn't vote.

Republicans care more about their base because the ideology of their base more closely aligns with the demands of the big business lobbyists.

Not so much for the Democrats. Not so much at all. So once the election is over and it's back to business as usual, they need to shut us up in order to cater to big business lobbyists (as we've seen, for example, from Pharma, medical insurance, fossil energy interests).

This is my view of why Democrats in DC so often shit all over their base.

The people showing up all freaked out at town hall meetings are died-in-the-wool Republicans who are pissed off that they lost the last election. What goes on at these town halls is indicative of nothing other than what a bunch of sore losers Republicans are.

In 1994, columnists and pollsters had already written Bill Clinton's political obituary.

In 1996, he beat Bob Dole in an electoral landslide.

Predictions at this stage are mere conjecture by navel-gazers with nothing better to do (such as, say, getting off their asses and helping Obama pass meaningful HCR).

Add in that the wave of young voters who were energized by Obama's campaign probably aren't going to turn out for the midterm election anyway

The question isn't whether young voters are going to turn out for the midterm election. The question is How many of them will?

If Democrats go into 2010 with a major success under their belt young liberal voters will be far more enthusiastic because it will have proven that change can come at the ballot box.

If the Democrats cave, they'll undoubtedly return to the nihilistic view that it doesn't matter whether they vote or not.

doubtful,

In what universe can "between 20 and 50" be described as "spot on"?

Success breeds success. Failure breeds failure. If the Dems fail to pass health care reform, they'll be branded as losers. If they pass something -- anything -- they might be regarded as politicians who can get something done.

Are you people nuts? Seriously? We are in a position to make the biggest mid-term pick-up since FDR. We have opponents who are playing not just to their (dwindling) base, but to the most insane, irrational, totally loony part of it. And you know, even most Republicans aren't as crazy as their Reprsentatives.

We have incredible weapons working for us, weapons like Michelle Bachman, Glenn Beck, Janet Folger Porter, and even Rush Limbaugh. Every Republican District probably has -- among Republicans -- 10% 'true bliever' nutjobs, maybe 30% people who hear the nonsense and, because they are never forced to think about it, nod their heads, and 60% that merely vote for 'the guy with the R after his name' and have no idea what their Congressman is actually saying.

Give me just enough money for 1 newspaper ad and 10,000 fliers per week per District, each one listing the insanities that Republicans and talk radio people have come out with this week, and challenging the Republican Incumbent whether he agrees with or repudiates such statements, and I guarantee you a major loss of seats. (Some will go along with the crazy, and turn off the sane conservatives -- yes, they exist. Others will repudiate the idiocy -- and get primary challenges from the insane right. And that is already happening already. The authentically conservative Rep from SC (Ingliss?) who told his audience to turn off Glenn Beck already has 4 challengers from the right.)

Yes, we need to make good policy moves, we need to get some health care bill done -- if only to show that mob rule does not work here -- afterwards we can work on getting a good one. (Remember that Social Security started out with any number of flaws, including the -- deliberately racist -- exclusion for agricultural workers.)

More importantly we have to put the blame for whatever weakness we are forced to put in the bill right where it belongs -- with the Republicans, and with our misguided belief that the rules hadn't changed, that -- as always in the past -- despite the vicuious political posturing on both sides, things could get passed, there were truly bipartisan actions. ("Obama-Coburn" "McCain-Feingold" "Kerry McCain" even in the post-Gingrich world, thousands of things in the past. Even when McCarthy was calling all Democrats traitors, and many of his party were encouraging him, bills still got past with cooperation from both parties.)

We need to dig up quotes on health care from the last election, when even Republicans were conceding it was a mess that needed fixing, and challenge them why their own leaders have declared they won't pass any changes.

But instead of seeing the opportunities we have, what I am getting is our own brand of paranoia, our own scare stories, and our own attempt to attack -- not push, not pull, but attack -- Obama from the left. WE are telling the Republicans they have the great chance they bthink they have, because we won't be defending our ideas, our principals, by working with someone who has, consistently tried to get them actually implemented. (Kuchinich-like speeches feel as good to some of us as Ron Paul speeches sound to them, but neither one of them are aiming for anything but 'noble defeats.' Obama knows if we can get something started, we can and will improve it.

So let's stop with our own brand of n9onsense, because it uis about as realistic as theirs.

(I don't usually get this mad, but the frustration has been building up for too long.)

In November 2006, Ken Silverstein wrote this about Obama/ Barack Obama Inc.: The birth of a Washington machine in Harper’s Magazine.

Obama has taken an approach to his policymaking that is notably cautious and nonconfrontational. “Since the founding, the American political tradition has been reformist, not revolutionary,” he told me during an interview at his office on Capitol Hill this summer. “What that means is that for a political leader to get things done, he or she ideally should be ahead of the curve, but not too far ahead. I want to push the envelope but make sure I have enough folks with me that I’m not rendered politically impotent.”

The question, though, is just how effective—let alone reformist—Obama’s approach can be in a Washington grown hostile to reform and those who advocate it. After a quarter century when the Democratic Party to which he belongs has moved steadily to the right, and the political system in general has become thoroughly dominated by the corporate perspective, the first requirement of electoral success is now the ability to raise staggering sums of money. For Barack Obama, this means that mounting a successful career, especially one that may include a run for the presidency, cannot even be attempted without the kind of compromising and horse trading that may, in fact, render him impotent.

Ken Silverstein/Washington Babylon/Harper’s Magazine today writes, “When the piece came out, Obama’s office issued a press release criticizing it and said I displayed too much cynicism about the American political system and politicians. Clearly, I wasn’t cynical enough.”

Amen!

In his November Harper’s article, Silverstein recalls a remark made by Studs Terkel in 1980, about the liberal Republican John Anderson, who was running as an independent against Ronald Reagan and Jimmy Carter: “People are so tired of dealing with two-foot midgets, you give them someone two foot four and they start proclaiming him a giant.” In the unstinting and unanimous adulation of Barack Obama today, one wonders if a similar dynamic might be at work. If so, his is less a midgetry of character than one dictated by changing context. Gone are the days when, as in the 1970s, the U.S. Senate could comfortably house such men as Fred Harris (from Oklahoma, of all places), who called for the breakup of the oil, steel, and auto industries; as Wisconsin’s William Proxmire, who replaced Joe McCarthy in 1957 and survived into the 1980s, a crusader against big banks who neither spent nor raised campaign money; as South Dakota’s George McGovern, who favored huge cuts in defense spending and a guaranteed income for all Americans; as Frank Church of Idaho, who led important investigations into CIA and FBI abuses. Today, money has all but wrung such dissent from the Senate…All of this has forged a political culture that is intrinsically hostile to reform. On condition of anonymity, one Washington lobbyist I spoke with was willing to point out the obvious: that big donors would not be helping out Obama if they didn’t see him as a “player.” The lobbyist added: “What’s the dollar value of a starry-eyed idealist?”

That is what we are up against. And, as Paul Krugman said, “turning this country around is going to take years of siege warfare against deeply entrenched interests, defending a deeply dysfunctional political system.”

In what universe can "between 20 and 50" be described as "spot on"? -Jinchi

Nate's predictions have a proven track record, and while yes, there is a lot of room between twenty and fifty, the scary part was that his minimum was set at twenty. So I read this as, "Democrats are going to lose at least 20 seats, many more are currently too close to call." I'm sure the predictions will narrow as more data becomes available.

So I guess the answer to your question is this universe.

Prup, thanks for neatly exemplifying everything that's wrong with the Democratic Party. I especially love the breezy "some health care bill" and the crack-inspired delusion about "fixing it later".

If you think this kind of horseshit is going to motivate volunteers, donors and voters, you're going to be in for a rude shock.

Nate's predictions have a proven track record

Not to badmouth Nate, but his projections were accurate to the final count only when the election was a few weeks to at most a few months away.

His analysis depends on the accuracy of polls (which are very low this far from an election) combined with historical trends. We're far outside that range right now.

If Democrats want to ensure victory, they need to stop looking at horse race polls and spend this time accruing a series of political wins. Their numbers will be much higher in 2010 if they win on the health care issue, they'll be much poorer if they lose.

Not to badmouth Nate, but his projections were accurate to the final count only when the election was a few weeks to at most a few months away.

Plus I got every single state right and he didn't! Yay me!

But I failed to predict that NE would give one EV to Obama, so my count was off by that much. Duh me!

Skipping all other comments, my solution is to pass comprehensive health care reform that goes into effect immediately so the American people can see the Democratics Congress do something IMPORTANT.

I believe dems will pick up seats unless they continue to cater to repub demands of bi-weaken and corrupt-partisanship.

There are those already saying, "We now know the stimulus package didn't work and was a complete failure..." WTF? It did work and pulled us back from the depression cliff...whereas a republican spending freeze would have destroyed the economy.

DEms must "claim" their successes and point out the disaster the new administration had to deal with in all areas of governsment. But first they must have those successes...de-Bushify the government by getting rid of Bush appointed USAs...freeing Siegleman and publicizing the corruption surrounding his incarceration. Make the message clear and stop being so "nice" to those who created our present disaster.

No one but maybe 20% want Bush back or his policies continued which is all the repubs have to offer since they have not "progressed" or changed in any way...they have paid no penalty and have nothing new to offer. No dems should lose their seats unless they have chosen to live in the past or promote the status quo that led to failure for the country.

The one dominate idea we have witnessed in the past election is that ***what used to work, doesn't work anymore***...thanks to the internet...not even swift boating. The public has grown tired of being 'manipulated' like lab rats and resent being lied to though the press on TV would have us think we're too pre-occupied to notice by showing examples of only a few as if they were a majority.

To amplify my previous comment about 'passing some health bill,' I am someone who has been in favor of single-payer for years. I support the best bill possible. I want us to use the reconciliation process, etc.

BUT the current situation has changed the equation. This is the first time when the crazies have swarmed over the Chinese wall that even the Republicans built to keep them out. It looked for a while like they might win, and keep any type of reform from being passed -- and we can't let this happen.

We cannot accept a triumph of this type of mob rule "Weimar politics." Right now the Republicans are using their crazies as a weapon against us. We have to use that same weapon against them, show them how they themselves will be consumed by the crazinbess if they don't walk away from it, use it to 'split the vote' in Republican districts.

But to do that, we have to defeat them on this field. I want the best bill we can get, yes, but the only thing we can't do is fail to pass any type of moderate reform. If we succeed in this, we'll have the FDR-sized majority I expect after 2010 and we'll be able to 'negotiate' with the 'Blue Dogs' as the true opposition, and ignore the dwindling Republicans. We will be able to 'fix it later.'

But backing away from Obama because, lacking the support of the Blue Dogs, lacking the ability to end this insane filibuster rule, and lacking the 'favors and threats' that FDR and LBJ had available -- and in some cases not wanting to use them, the way FDR blackmailed a gay Senator into supporting him by threatening to out him -- we might not get anything like what we want, is there anything better we can do the help the Republicans? We don't have a choice, we can't afford to lose this one, even if we have to take a tiny victory.

....unless thinking comes into the process, in which the Republicans should be thinking about a 12 - 15 seat loss.

I meant, "in which CASE the Republicans..."

" ... it stands to reason that Democrats will lose some seats ... "

No, no it doesn't

If reason had anything to do with it, conservatives wouldn't have any place in government at all after they screwed things up as bad as they did.