Listening to the spin-meisters pre-election rationalizations on what they think will happen on Tuesday, i.e. massive Republican gains in the House and some gains in the Senate as well, is entertaining. Some Democrats have been able to convince themselves that losing is actually winning. The reasoning behind this is that this will give the President a better chance for re-election in 2012 because he will again be able to blame the Republicans for the country's woes. This argument has some force; as we saw from the 2008 Presidential election, and what we are seeing again, is that it is easier to run against something than to run for something. The "strategy" of losing the mid-terms may work. It is apparent from recent polls that the President needs to do something to improve his re-election chances.
Another common theme from pundits, especially those on the left, is that the reason that the Republicans will likely make huge gains is that the "messaging" from the Obama administration has been poor, not that his policies have been. According to this line of argument, those who have turned away from the Democrats have done so because they don't understand the tremendous things the President and Congress have done for them in the last 18 months. Here I am not referring to Republicans who would not have supported the Administration no matter what it accomplished, but honest to goodness independents, young people and others who have no ideological bone to pick. The argument that they have failed simply to understand the situation is not very kind to them, aside from being a pretty bad messaging strategy.
I also have been thinking about Arlen Specter the past few days. He as you will recall was a Republican senator for decades. He decided to quit the Republicans and become a Democrat. Saw no future for himself as a Republican. He then lost the primary to run as a Democrat in Pennsylvania. And guess what? The Republican candidate has a very good chance of winning that seat. Reminds me of all the times I switched from one queue to another while waiting at customs or security, only to find out that the line I switched to was really slow. Oh well. Bad guess.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
so? thoughts on the election outcome??
ReplyDeleteMine, in no particular order:
ReplyDeleteThis election means the end of a legislated repeal of DADT.
Russ Feingold was a good Senator.
I could carve a better Speaker than John Boehner out of a banana.
Toomey didn't deserve to beat Sestak.
How did Charlie Crist fall so far in two years?
New John McCain = 1/Old John McCain
The GOP deserved to win in Illinois.
Mitt Romney should pick Christine O'Donnell as his running mate.
The Iowa judges thing makes me happy we don't have retention elections.
The most conservative Republicans in the Senate are now much, much further to the right than the most liberal Democrats are to the left.
What about you, Sam?
Hey Scott.. I agree with you on the unfortunate Iowa judge outcome and the bleak prospects for DADT; I think Romney should pick Kay Bailey Hutchison; I don't think voters dislike Democrats anymore than they did 2 years ago -- but this time they just don't have any likeable candidates to vote for an individual basis; the GOP is now in a GREAT position to either take credit for improvements in the economy due to their control of the house or, alternatively, blame Democrats for a continued recession due to Obama's presidency .. this will end up with a good year for the GOP in 2012; and, finally, I don't know if I agree about Dems being more liberal than GOPs are conservative. You might enjoy this: http://www.voteview.com/animate.htm .. it shows all legislators graphed along a L-R continuum. Hope to see you soon!
ReplyDeleteRomney-Hutchison would be a good ticket. I had thought she should be McCain's runningmate in '08, although her pro-choice leanings would have been hard for the SoCons to swallow. (That would arguably be an even greater disability were Romney the candidate, given his shifts on that issue.)
ReplyDeleteAs for Romney, he is definitely a serious candidate. While in the US earlier this year, I met up with various conservative lawyers I'd met over the years - in Albuquerque and Denver - and they were all hoping that Romney would run. He was, in retrospect, by far the superior choice in '08. And I think Scott is wrong about who Romney would pick as a runningmate. He will not repeat McCain's fatal mistake of selecting a geopolitically ignorant runningmate.
I was only kidding about Romney-O'Donnell 2012. But I hear Bristol Palin is available.
ReplyDeleteI knew you were kidding, Scott. But then again I would also have thought McCain was kidding about Palin in '08.
ReplyDeleteI never know when you're kidding, Scott. What with some of the crazy tomfoolery you spew.. And Kay Bailey Hutchison should just run for President. She's got a shot.
ReplyDelete