The WaPo on 2006: Too Far, Too Soon
It is certainly true that 2006 stands a good chance of being a Democratic year; I think it’s more likely than not that Democrats will gain seats in both chambers. Still, this Washington Post piece by Dan Balz and Chris Cillizza goes too far:
Not since 1994 has the party in power — in this case the Republicans — faced such a discouraging landscape in a midterm election. President Bush is weaker than he was just a year ago, a majority of voters in recent polls have signaled their desire for a change in direction, and Democrats outpoll Republicans on which party voters think is more capable of handling the country’s biggest problems.
The result is a midterm already headed toward what appears to be an inevitable conclusion: Democrats are poised to gain seats in the House and in the Senate for the first time since 2000. The difference between modest gains (a few seats in the Senate and fewer than 10 in the House) and significant gains (half a dozen in the Senate and well more than a dozen in the House) is where the battle for control of Congress will be fought.
The contest begins with Republicans holding 231 House seats and Democrats holding 201, with one Democrat-leaning independent and two vacancies, split between the parties. Democrats need to gain 15 seats to dethrone the GOP majority. In the Senate, Republicans hold 55 seats to the Democrats’ 44, with one Democrat-leaning independent. Democrats need six more seats to take power.
There’s nothing inevitable about it; the Democrats have a history, at least recently, of blowing seemingly sure things.
It strikes me, as the initial reports of the NSA hearing trickle in, that Republicans have once again regained the initiative politically, though I admit that the polls don’t show it yet. Consider how successfully the apparently resurgent Karl Rove has recast the NSA surveillence story; you have Ted Kennedy, Patrick Leahy, and Diane Feinstein practically falling over one another to show that they don’t have a problem with the spy program itself, but rather with the way Bush chose to implement it.
Such niceties will be lose on the general public…it’s much easier to understand the administration view than that of his critics. Fitzgerald appears to have settled on his sacrificial lamb, and though Libby now appears in real danger of jail time, his trial starts after the midterms. Iraq is, well, Iraq…it seems to improve, it seems to get worse, but the Murtha ‘withdraw now’ line has few supporters outside of the progressive fringe. Abramoff is already losing steam, and though individual members of the House and Senate may yet be shaking, I don’t think the ‘culture of corruption’ line is going to be the winner Democrats hope it will be, either.
The problem with the Democratic strategy (other than the fact that it is too diffused – the kitchen sink can’t be far behind) is the same one they had with Alito, and the same one they had with the Kerry candidacy; it’s not enough to castigate your opponents, you have to offer something real in return. If anyone who reads this blog, right or left, can give me a positive reason to vote Democratic (one that doesn’t mention just opposition to one aspect or another of Republican rule), one that can be easily summarized and sold to the American public, I’ll send you a $10 check (minus, of course, $10 shipping and handling).
“I’m not Bush” did not win Kerry the White House, and “We’re not Republicans” will not put the Democrats in charge of Congress…
You should put quotation marks around “I’m not Bush” and “we’re not Republicans,” otherwise it will be too hard to comprehend. I had to read that sentence four or five times before I understood what you were trying to say.
Done and done! Thanks – I meant to do that…
You may well be right: I’m not sure who is better at blowing opportunities, the Democrats or the Palestinians.
Reason to vote Democratic: of course this depends on who runs, but ideally someone with Clinton’s mastery of public policy issues (but lacking his moral problems) will be a compelling alternative. The candidate would run on the platform of competent government, fiscal responsibility, free trade, and an enlightened foreign policy. Social issues would be civil unions for gays, reasonable gun control, limited but protected abortion rights, etc.
The media promote the myth that the Democrats lack an ideology or a program. While there is a diversity of opinions among Democrats, there is a core ideology which is roughly equivalent to the Clinton administration’s programs which is sharply opposed to most of the current administration’s policies. While there is nothing new about this – to use one example, returning FEMA to the level of James Lee Witt is admirable, but not unprecedented – to mistake it for the lack of ideology is misleading.
Hi Mark,
Both political party’s are gaining and loosing a little around the fringes. Some minorities are becoming Republicans as some libertarians leave the party. Some libertarians, but not many, are becoming Democrats as some who want a strong national defense leave the party. Some who straddle the party’s still straddle. Nothing significant has changed since 2002. The very slight trend is toward Republicans. The Senate races are shaping up to give the Democrats a slight advantage in the quality of candidates in swing States, not enough to take six seats.
I am personally in favor of more legal immigration, but not necessarily a cumbersome guest worker program. However, it seems that there are many voters who are passionate about ending illegal immigration. Perhaps the candidates or party that has a simple, clear, and effective solution to illegal immigration would change the status quo.