Decision ‘08

The Party Without A Message

Eric at Viking Pundit has been on a long, lonely vigil to find out what the Democratic Party stands for, other than hatred of the ‘Bushites’. He’s still looking; E. J. Dionne is not. Eric is right…

UPDATE 9:42 a.m.: Glenn Greenwald comes down in the wrong camp:

Democrats will have a hard time agreeing on some broad policy programs and alternative vision to sell to the electorate by November. But they don’t need to have that. Americans are tired of Republican rule and have abandoned the President. Restoring some balance back to our government and ending the increasingly corrupt, unchecked one-party rule of our country will be, in my view, more than enough for Democrats to at least take over the House.

Time will tell…it’s an interesting strategy, to run solely on the platform of ‘Can you believe these guys?’…the House, and the Senate, are looking increasingly safe…

10 Responses to “The Party Without A Message”

1 Fargus Says:
March 8th, 2006 at 10:53 am
Being against what Bush stands for is more than just a Democratic position now. You’d hardly call Bruce Bartlett a Democratic shill.
2 Mark Says:
March 8th, 2006 at 11:05 am
Yes, but is it a message that wins elections? That’s the question…November holds the answer, of course…
3 Dennis Says:
March 8th, 2006 at 11:10 am
But the problem is Bruce Bartlett goes on to make an argument of what Bush should be doing. The Democrats haven’t said much other than, “We’ll be better.”

I think that may be enough to carry the Democrats over the top, as the nation does go through occasional bouts of “throw the rascals out,” and that’s probably a healthy thing for a democracy. But it’s not all that useful a slogan once you’ve been elected and now you’re the rascal. What would the Democrats do about Iraq? Iran? Health care? Social Security? Trade policies? Immigration? It’s not really clear, because the Democrats are terribly divided themselves on those issues. That’s why you have Hillary Clinton triangulating herself all over the place.
4 Brassband Says:
March 8th, 2006 at 12:14 pm
The big problem for the Democrats is that disappointment with Bush does not translate into votes for Democrats.

Remember that in 2000 the “wrong track” polling number was not good for President Bush, but he won anyway. He won because a majority of voters obviously believed that Democrats would put us on a “worse track.”
5 Fred Says:
March 8th, 2006 at 12:26 pm
As Hugh Hewitt said: “Democrats Vow Not to Give Up Hopelessness.”

I think their “Contract with America,” which is again due out in a few weeks, will not have any positive programs. As they can’t come to agreement on what they should stand for, their best move right now is to maximize party unity by being negative. If this doesn’t work in 06, they’ll have enough time to change their track for 08. But, if they win this November, don’t expect any changes in the 08 campaign.
6 dmac Says:
March 8th, 2006 at 12:51 pm
Dole didn’t win with his “where’s the outrage” theme versus Clinton, and the Dems will see similar results. Those who do not learn from history, etc.
7 Fred Says:
March 8th, 2006 at 2:13 pm
What changes the political landscape in America is a third party or a controversy that effects the everyday life of a majority of voters. A draft, high unemployment/high inflation, the perceived threat to “take your doctor away” or some type of Social Security reform that lowered its benefits but not its tax rates etc. If vague accusations of far off “corruption” were enough to cause a political party to lose then the Democrats would have been out in the cold since Boss Tweed’s last campaign. That’s why I think the Democrats will pick up a few seats but not enough to control either House of Congress. Of course, as there are 8 months to go I could be completely wrong. But that’s my take for now.
8 megapotamus Says:
March 8th, 2006 at 6:43 pm
The 3rd party phenomenon is a real factor. Donkeys have short memories, apparently. Clinton’s election and reelection were supposed to harbinger an “emerging Democratic majority”. Only they never factor in the Perot effect when they look back on those elections. H Ross is an unperson as he played so ignominious a roll; dividing the Rep base. All I can say is that I pray fervently for the continued good health and fervor of Ralph Nader. He’s my hero. Or could well be in ‘08.
9 dmac Says:
March 8th, 2006 at 7:01 pm
Yes, everyone seems to foget that Clinton won a plurality, not a majority. But I don’t think Nader has any relevance anymore - didn’t he get less than 2% of the vote last time? Granted, this could make the difference again, but then you’d be assuming he gets the same share of the vote, when his trends are clearly downward.
10 Shawn Says:
March 9th, 2006 at 12:08 am
Megapotamus:

Nader barely beat Badnarik (of the Libertarians) for third place (I think his percentage was somewhere closer to 1% or less, actually). Ralph reached the pinnacle of his political career in 2000. Add in the fact that he’s in his late 70s (I think?), and hasn’t even made a peep anywhere since 2004, and I don’t think that adds up to another presidential run.