With the 2010 election less than three months away, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs' finger-in-the-eye remarks about the "professional left" could hardly have come at a worse time. After all, it is the first lesson of Politics 101 that successful politicians energize rather than alienate their base. Yet here we have Gibbs mocking progressives as the kind of people who won't be satisfied until "we have Canadian health care and have eliminated the Pentagon." Then, when given the opportunity two days later to distance himself from his remarks when CBS's Chip Reed asked, "Did you put your foot in your mouth," Gibbs shot back, "I think I have both feet firmly planted on the floor."
So progressives -- many of whom are already upset by the Obama administration's escalation of the war in Afghanistan, its refusal to fight for a public option in health care, its failure to end "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" and to close Guantanamo, its loosening of the rules on offshore drilling, and what is perceived as its excessively solicitous stance towards Wall Street -- now have still another reason to feel unenthusiastic about the fall election. Yet when asked on Wednesday whether progressives might stay home in November, Gibbs seemed casually confident that they would not.
In truth, turnout is always a problem in midterm elections. In contrast to presidential elections, when turnout typically exceeds 50 percent of the voting-age population, congressional election year turnouts are always under 40 percent; since 1972, when 18 year olds first voted, the average turnout for presidential elections has been 53 percent, compared to 37 percent for congressional elections -- a 16-point gap. But midterm elections not only have lower turnout; Those who vote tend to be older and of higher socioeconomic status -- an ominous pattern for the Democrats, who benefited from unusually strong support from the young and from low-income voters in the 2008 election.
Midterm elections are usually unfriendly to the party of the incumbent president; over the course of the past 17 midterm elections, the party in the White House has lost an average of 28 seats in the House of Representatives. But 2010 could be much worse for the Democrats than the typical midterm election because of the much-discussed "enthusiasm gap" between the parties. In a June 2010 USA Today/Gallup Poll, 53 percent of Republicans reported being more enthusiastic than usual about voting compared to 39 percent who were less enthusiastic; for Democrats, the figures were 35 percent more enthusiastic than usual and 56 percent less enthusiastic. The gap between the Republicans (+14 percent) and Democrats (-21 percent) is thus 35 points -- the largest gap ever measured by Gallup in a midyear election poll. This enthusiasm gap is why Democrats face a very real prospect of losing control of the House of the Representatives to Republicans in November -- a prospect that the Irish-based online prediction market, Intrade, now estimates to be more than 60 percent.
One additional source of the Obama administration's problems -- one that extends well beyond its difficulties with progressives -- is the widespread perception that its policies have often taken the side of Wall Street over the interests of ordinary people. In a September 2009 poll taken by Hart Associates, 60 percent of respondents felt that the banks had been helped by government economic policies, but only 13 percent felt that average working people had been helped. And when asked in a 2010 National Journal poll who had benefited most from the government's response to the financial crisis, a whopping 76 percent said the wealthy and the powerful (banks -- 40 percent, major corporations -- 20 percent, wealthy individuals -- 16 percent).
This is a toxic political environment for the Obama administration, and it is one in which it can ill afford to take pot shots at progressives -- the very people whose votes, money, and enthusiasm helped propell Obama to victory first in the primaries over Hillary Clinton and then in the November election. But there is something that President Obama can do that would simultaneously help mend his strained relations with progressives and counter the popular perception that he is too cozy with Wall Street. He could immediately appoint Elizabeth Warren, who reportedly met with White House officials on Thursday, to lead the new Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection.
A passionate, charismatic, and effective advocate for consumers, and the person who originated the idea of the agency in a paper she wrote in 2007, Warren has become a critical test case for whether President Obama has the courage to protect the interests of ordinary people, even when it means conflict with Wall Street. The substantive case for Warren has been made eloquently elsewhere (in the Nation, New York Times and Huffington Post); my point here is that, especially in the wake of Gibbs' ill-advised remarks, the appointment of Warren is an opportunity for President Obama to show that he remains committed to the ideals that brought him to the White House and willing to put these ideals into practice.
In a video presentation to the Netroots Conference in July, President Obama told those in the audience "to keep holding me accountable, to keep up the fight." That is what progressives are trying to do in pressing for the appointment of Elizabeth Warren -- nothing more and nothing less.
If progressives have scant reason to turn out for Democrats in the midterms, then, taking a long-term view, perhaps we should turn out, en masse, to vote a straight Republican ticket. When our vote is taken as a given (What are they going to do, vote Republican?), then it's probably time to withhold it.
If we announced we would do that, and then did, there should be a noticeable "bump" in the election results that we could claim, and deny was part of any "mandate" for Republican policies.
Granted, having made our point, there might not much left of the country to "turn around" in the next election. That said, if you play every hand of poker the same way, you're bound to lose your stake.
If it's heads we lose, tails we lose, might as well try to change the game.
Disastrous.
I don't think Gibbs so called "gaffe was a gaffe at all. But part of a calculated strategy to the Republicans control of the House. Why? You might ask? Easy. The West Wing guys think they can have it easy in 2012 with the Republicans in control of the house. That way they have an excuse to do nothing.
Elizabeth Warren
Elizabeth Warren
Elizabeth Warren
Elizabeth Warren
and the writer here says that anything better than a stone cold sell-out is acceptable to Democrats
this may be all a show, hesitation and then appoint her and cry 'mission accomplished'
Obama will lose in 2012 , ask a bookie
I wonder what is different?
GWB was an AWFUL president that caused many of problems Obama is now dealing with. Even if he is not reelected he will have accomplished more in his first 2 years as GWB did his whole tenure. Especially if he appoints Elizabeth Warren…
GWB was elected by people from the carefully constructed base of frightened people scared sh*tless on purpose, religious fundamentalists, racists, the military and others that Republicans traditionally pander to.
A lot of Obama's support came from people who pay attention to issues and who worry about how the cards have been increasingly stacked against the little guy ever since Reagan. We were OPTIMISTIC about the chance for change. Now we are being called names for noticing the difference between candidate Obama and president Obama.
1) measures put in place to tie her hands
2) back room deals with Wall Street and megacorps, such as the ones the WH had with Pharma, to compensate them for having put in a legitimate watchdog.
Mr. Rush and Co have effectivly gotten a free ride.
No Republican really fears the left enough change their no votes. They did not add one vote to HCR. Why?
Ed should be Mr. Limbausg's nightmarte. He is not
Hell most of the time Ed has been bookending Democrats in tough districts and states Something had to give.
Also let be fair The Professional Left basical wrote off HCR,particularly after Scott Brown was elected.
It was President Obama who after the SOTU took the ball to the right's court and scored
The PL has been chanting for months about, 'the base being demoralized.'
The Obama coalition of young hip and professional, gay female and minority is ready.
The 'professional left' does need to refocus and get it's priorities straight. 'You have to make your own bones.' This Congress is now in play. Hopefully the PL will find its way before it is too late.
Seems you've forgotten a pretty significant piece in your post - that the WH bows to the right every chance it gets - Sherod being the latest example. How are your going to blame the left for that?
The left wrote off HCR after the president refused to push for a public options and it became obvious the was no real R in that HCR.
As far as the "PL" - I never voted for any commentator or show host. I voted for the guy in the WH, and I expected him to man up to his position and push the policies he ran on.
BHO-08
The Professional Right says in contrast 'the buck' stops with them.
Rush and co have fought like hell and put the Republicans back in play. This is the issue.
The 'P'L', is alright, but seems to want some kind of free political ride, or for Obama to do all the heavy lifting and fighting. Or to bookend moderate Dems.
They could have and should have spent all that 'negative' energy adding more progressives to the Congress, by beating (R)s. That;s what The Obama Coalition did and Howard Dean's 50 state strategy achieved. With due respect.