Should The Democrats Play To Lose?
Adam Nagourney thinks maybe:
Democrats are all but breaking out the Champagne. Republicans are divided and disheartened; President Bush’s poll numbers seem to be in free fall. Many Democrats are talking not only about victory in November but about what they will do once Congress is in their hands.
Such talk may well be premature. Election Day is six months away, and the party has lost many a winning hand. But here is a slightly heretical question, being asked only partly in jest right now: Is it really in the best interest of the Democratic Party to win control of the House and Senate in November? Might the party’s long-term fortunes actually be helped by falling short?
As strange as it might seem, there are moments when losing is winning in politics. Even as Democrats are doing everything they can to win, and believe that victory is critical for future battles over real issues, some of the party’s leading figures are also speculating that November could represent one of those moments.
From this perspective, it wouldn’t be the worst thing in the world politically to watch the Republicans struggle through the last two years of the Bush presidency. There’s the prospect of continued conflict in Iraq, high gas prices, corruption investigations, Republican infighting and a gridlocked Congress. Democrats would have a better chance of winning the presidency in 2008, by this reasoning, and for the future they enhance their stature at a time when Republicans are faltering.
Do me a favor, seriously. All joking aside: read that last paragraph again not once, but twice. It won’t take long.
Done? Anything wrong with that?
How about the prospect of rooting for a bad two years for America? Doesn’t that sicken you at least a little? Hey, I’m as Republican as the next guy (unless the next guy is, say, Ann Coulter – pun intended), but somebody do me a favor and come over to my house and smack me upside the head with a two-by-four if I ever put partisan interests ahead of the good of the country. This is the kind of smartypants speculation that makes one want to take the entire chattering class and maroon them on a desert island.
And believe me, the premise is specious anyway…nobody plays to lose. If the Democrats do manage to lose it, there will be other smartypants pieces like this claiming it as a great victory – never you mind. Remember, people don’t elect ‘Republicans’ or ‘Democrats’, they elect individuals – and when you keep that perspective, you see how ridiculous the whole notion is…
I’ve said for a while now that if you’re a liberal in America, you pretty much have to want America to fail. During most of the Clinton years, if something good happened, Republicans could say it was because of the Republican Congress while Democrats could say it was because of a Democratic president. Essentially the same story during most of the 80’s. Now, with a Republican president, House, and Senate, if America succeeds, it can only be credited to the GOP. Likewise if it fails. And if America does well, liberals will keep losing elections. That explains why liberals have been proclaiming Iraq to be a failure and the new Vietnam ever since April 2003 (and yes, I know the war didn’t start until May) — it’s because they want it to be the new Vietnam. And on Zombie’s page, you can see how leftists really feel about troops dying in Iraq.
I’ve said for a while now that if you’re a liberal in America, you pretty much have to want America to fail.
That’s just stupid.
At any rate, Nagourney is roundly loathed by liberals; while I haven’t followed it myself, this article gives a good indication of why. I don’t think I’ve ever seen such bald & cold political calculation.
Excuse me; I should have qualified that as “liberals who want to win have to want America to fail.”
Mickey Kaus once wrote a column entitled “Thank you liberal media”, shortly after the California recall election in 2003. In it he noted how liberal bias in the media (which he does believe exists) actually HARMS liberals as much as it helps them. One of the ways that it does so is unrealistically raise expectations for their “side” and unrealistically lower the expectations for the other “side.”
The media coverage of the Democrats chances in 2006 is an excellent example of what Kaus was taking about. The seriousness that the media is giving to the possibility of a Democratic takeover stands in marked contrast to their reporting on the 1994 election, where only a few commentators and journalists even predicted the Republicans would take over the Senate, and nobody other than Gingrich predicted the takeover of the House. However, this puts the Democrats in a Catch-22, because they are now in a situation where a 10-14 seat gain in November could conceivably be spun as a win by Republicans. For that reason, I don’t think the Democrats have any choice but to try to take over the House outright.
That is indeed the most absurd statement I’ve ever seen. What I want is accountability, regardless of who is in power. A party that “plays to lose” for one election will lose until new leadership is put in place. I guess the democrats are lucky Nagourney isn’t a leader of the party…
Aaron: The smiling pictures of people are rallies against the war are supposed to prove they are people who want soldiers to die? So, the folks that celebrate the Dia de los Muertos in Mexico must all be desecrating the spirit of their ancestors. How absurd. They got together to protest. How disgusting of them to want to use the rights afforded them in the constitution, and then to smile while doing it! Yeah, those leftists love the troops getting killed. Hardy har har.
Other acceptable alternative names for smartypants would be wisenheimer, poindexter, and splitting – atoms – with – your – mind.
The seriousness that the media is giving to the possibility of a Democratic takeover stands in marked contrast to their reporting on the 1994 election
IIRC, the republican revolution came from out of nowhere within weeks of the election. There wasn’t the same lingering anticipation/dread.
jpe: I think that if the media had looked at the situation a bit more closely, they would have seen the potential. Instead, there were a number of stories pumping up the economy (unemployment was over 6% in ‘94, as opposed to under 5% today) and how that would protect the Democrats from voter backlash. In fact, at least one newspaper I know of (the Los Angeles Times) started running stories in October 94 about how the Democrats were beginning to rebound and were set to minimize their losses.
Sean P: Unemployment in ‘92 was 7.5%. Then 6.9, 6.1, 5.6, 5.4, 4.9, 4.5, 4.2, 4.0 in the years that followed. So, 6% was indeed news as it dropped since he took office. Now, it’s higher than when Bush took office, but still very good and trending downward from 2003 high of 6%.
“The smiling pictures of people are rallies against the war are supposed to prove they are people who want soldiers to die? So, the folks that celebrate the Dia de los Muertos in Mexico must all be desecrating the spirit of their ancestors. How absurd.”
The “How absurd” is meant to refer to that comparison, right? They’re celebrating the fact that US troops are dying, no matter which way you spin it.
Especially considering that, in their objections to conservatives referring to these events as “Death Parties” instead of “vigils,” the protesters claimed that these events would be solemn and mournful. Is that what you saw in the photographs? They’re liars if nothing else.
I like the button.
Aaron: Hardy har har. I’ve been to many wakes/showings where people tell stories and smile and celebrate the lives of those who have passed away. You can be solemn and mournful while smiling, especially when there are cameras everywhere. It’s sort of like the Uncertainty Principle, by trying to measure something you introduce error (by taking the pictures you have introduced a party like occurrence and people’s natural reaction is to smile, there were only a few pictures where people were not looking directly at the camera).
mikebdot: Taking your example in isolation, the media’s editorial decision seems defensible. But in the run-up to the 2004 election, the unemployment rate dropped over half a percentage point, and since then unemployment dropped to 4.6% How many stories have you seen addressing that fact? About the only story I saw was an AP story noting the unemployment rate was 4.8% and the lede was that the unemployment rate was RISING. In toto, the media’s coverage of economic news is extremely biased.
Sean: I understand your view, but I think since the unemployment rate is higher than when he took office, that might have something to do with it (even with 9/11 in there). My point was that unemployment dropped over 1.5% in two years, straight out the gate. With Bush it increased in his first year. Plus, he’s a lame duck…
I don’t think you can claim bias, but perhaps bad reporting.