EDITION: U.S.
 
CONNECT    

Mike Lux

Mike Lux

Posted: September 1, 2010 08:59 AM

This has been a pretty weird political cycle, and I'm starting to wonder whether it is the strangest ever. There have certainly been cycles that have been more dramatic -- such as the 1968 cycle of assassinations and a powerful incumbent being taken out by a quirky intellectual troubadour -- but in terms of pure weirdness, this could be the tops. And I'm not even talking about Sarah Palin or Glenn Beck.

The weirdness I am referring to is this odd sense I have that both parties are trying so hard to lose. Obama started out the cycle by appointing one of the main architects of the incredibly unpopular Bush bailout plans -- Tim Geithner -- to be his chief economic policymaker and spokesman, and followed that by re-appointing Bush's Fed chief Ben Bernanke. Now that we're into campaign season, the message group closest to the Democratic establishment (Third Way) is solemnly advising us to avoid being too populist in a year when anger at the banks and other corporate CEOs is as high as it has been since the 1930s, and the aforementioned Geithner writes columns bragging about economy recovery when the official unemployment rates remains stalled at close to 10%, and the true unemployment rate is several points higher. While all this goes on policy-wise, the White House political strategy in a year when their base is disheartened seems mainly to be to make their base even more upset.

In the meantime, the Republican Party -- faced with an incredible opportunity -- nominates one candidate after another that are beyond-the-pale extremists. Senators with lifetime scores of 95% from the American Conservative Union and protégés of Mitch McConnell and James Watt are not conservative enough for the Republicans: they nominate people who want to repeal civil rights laws, phase out Social Security and Medicare (or declare them unconstitutional), abolish the minimum wage, and secede from the union. On top of that, with the critically important Hispanic community disheartened by no progress on immigration reform and the weak economy, Republicans have seized on a way to help Democrats turn them out in huge numbers with a big Democratic vote by supporting a fundamental blow to their civil rights in Arizona, a powerful symbol that has the Hispanic voting bloc nationwide suddenly more energized.

As a result of all this silliness, both parties' approval ratings are in the toilet. This is a pretty unusual dynamic. In 1994, Republicans' popularity was going up as Dems were going down, and in both 2006 and 2008, Dems' numbers were going up while Bush and Republicans' numbers in general were tanking. Today, two months out from the big election, voters are ticked off at both parties, and that's before the fall attack ad season.

What's a Democratic candidate to do in this weird and awful political environment?

Each race is different, but here's my advice going into the last couple of months:

1. Get out every last Democratic base voter you can. There's a tendency when you get in trouble in a campaign and have trouble moving voters to throw more and more money into TV. And of course, a lot of consultants who make their money off TV ads will feed that tendency: hey, if 1,000 points a week worth of ads isn't moving voters, maybe 1,500 will; if 1,500 isn't doing it, maybe if we throw 2,000 at them it will do the trick. But in a year like this, it is going to be very hard to move swing voters in a bad mood. Yes, you have to stay on TV to stay competitive, but every spare dime you have should go into bringing extra base voters to the polling places. Based on everything I am seeing in the polls and focus groups, convincing African-Americans, Latinos, unmarried women and youth who like Democrats to come vote will be challenging, but easier than switching the votes of angry white working-class swing voters.

2. Show independence from Obama, but not in a way that undermines the Democratic brand and turns off base voters. The instinct for a lot of candidates will be to show they are independent from Obama by denouncing the health care bill or the climate change bill or other core aspects of the Democratic Party's identity, but it's a dangerous game because it weakens the party and depresses the base vote in a year when the last thing you want to do is either of those. A better strategy in terms of showing your independence is to be more populist than Obama: go after Tim Geithner, like Tom Perriello just did; talk about how the health insurance bill wasn't tough enough on drug or insurance companies; talk about how the financial reform bill's problem was that it didn't break up the banks. Working-class swing voters and base Democrats will both respond to these ways of showing you aren't in Obama's pocket.

3. Show your anger at the special interests, but also have a substitute plan for improving things. MoveOn's polling showed that 89% of voters said it was very important that a candidate for Congress commits to reducing the influence of lobbyists, and 62% said they were more likely to support a candidate that commits to limiting the influence of large corporations in how the government runs. Those are incredibly high numbers, and the anger people show in focus groups at the big banks and insurance companies and oil companies show that those feelings are close to the surface. But angry populism alone won't get it done, because people want to know what your plan is for creating jobs and rebuilding the economy. A plan to take government back from corporate special interests, combined with a plan to invest in manufacturing jobs and small business entrepreneurialism, is critical to surviving politically this year.

4. Be specific in going after waste in government. Voters are convinced there is a lot of waste in government, and in fact there is. Democratic candidates should not reflexively defend all government spending, or talk about waste generically because that feeds the Republican attack machine. Show voters you understand that there is waste in government, and that you are going to do something about it: take on the no-bid and sloppy contracting, big agribusiness subsidies, oil company subsidies, tax breaks for creating jobs overseas, and other forms of abuse and waste that costs hundreds of billions of dollars a year. When government isn't working right, Democrats don't need to automatically defend it: our goal isn't bigger government; it is a government on the side of the American people.

In spite of the Republican extremists being nominated, this is going to be an incredibly tough year to be a Democrat on the ballot. We are going to lose a lot of seats in both houses of Congress and downballot as well. But if Democrats turn out their base voters, take on the big banks and insurers and oil companies, and show they are focused on fighting for the middle class, they can hold their losses to a minimum.

Cross-posted at my home blog, OpenLeft.com, where you can read all of my writing on politics and the 2010 elections.

 
 
  • Comments
  • 172
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (5 total)
11:15 AM on 09/02/2010
My city, county and congressio­nal district are a lock for Democrats anyway. Since my vote doesn't matter there, I'm protest voting Green. They actually have a better shot than Republican­s for Water Commission­er, so why support a corrupt local party?

The Senate and Gubernator­ial races are the only ones in play where I live. If the Democratic candidate for Senator gets indicted before the election I'm not voting for him. It's embarrassi­ng to be from such an openly corrupt state. If the race for senate isn't polling within 5%, I'll be voting Green. If I think my vote will make a difference­, I MAY vote for the Democrat, but it's RINO vs. DINO in my state race, so there's no enthusiasm either way.

As to the Governor, that's a tricky race too. But I'll go with the Democrat because the Republican favors a supermajor­ity for tax increases and I've seen what that's done in California­. I just hope the Democrat doesn't get indicted.

For the school board I'm voting for the candidates who believe in Evolution.

So there's me. No Democrat loyalty anymore. No donations to the party. No going out-of-sta­te to knock on doors for Democrats. I used to be enthused, but not anymore.
09:02 AM on 09/02/2010
Oh, that they would talk about those things. So far they are only talking about social security. These people are so cowardly and afraid they will lose their big contributo­rs, they won't even let the tax cuts end, won't even keep going back to the 700 million it costs, going to the rich. They are running scared, and cant seem to grab onto the ideas in this article.
It's really making me depressed, and angry.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Appleblossom
09:32 PM on 09/01/2010
I am going to be knocking (along with my family and a couple friends) on about 10,000 doors in the next two months. That should help get the base out.
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
EspritDeVoltaire
K Street PR firm board member
07:55 PM on 09/01/2010
There is only one party in the US, but with Janus faces which make you believe there is a difference­.

There is the plutocrat party of Wall Street which dissolves before your eyes into the overt supporters­, GOP, and the covert supporters­, Dems.

Until there are also actual progressiv­e and libertaria­n parties to represent our interests, we will all suck Big Charlie and like it.
09:03 AM on 09/02/2010
That about sums it up doesn't it!
11:17 AM on 09/02/2010
The only way to build a third party is to be willing to risk not being on the winning team. Since I lose whenever either of the potential winning teams win, I don't consider it a great loss to have worked for a long-term good without seeing immediate results.
07:47 PM on 09/01/2010
No. It isn't weird. It's merely the most pathetic, run-by-the­-stooopid, faith-base­d cycle since the 1930s. The 1950s McCathey couldn't have staged this if he tried.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
southernblue
Liberal and lovin' it!
06:43 PM on 09/01/2010
This Democrat isn't going down without a fight. I am involved in my county party, making phone calls, letter writing, plan to stand at a booth at the county fair (in a very conservati­ve county I might add.) If we lose hard in November, at least I know I was a true believer. And I don't know why the advice is to distance oneself from Obama. When the economy gets good again, he'll be golden, and everyone will be holding on to the hem of his coat tails.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Sandee McHale Delano
Please get informed America. We are the 99%
10:15 PM on 09/02/2010
Way to go Southernbl­ue. I am doing the same thing. It is time for folks to get off their butts and take action or we will loose SO much of the things we have recently gained along with SS, Medicare, minimum wage, healthcare­, civil rights, etc., etc.
photo
SolarPowerGuy
Ph.D., Immunology; Solar power @ home; Green Party
03:40 PM on 09/01/2010
"What's a Democratic candidate to do in this weird and awful political environmen­t?"

If you're a PROGRESSIV­E, seek out your local Green Party and join. That's what.
03:57 PM on 09/01/2010
Done. There's a pretty good shot in some state races and that's how you feed the pipeline. Green votes demonstrat­e that Democrats have erred moving to the (corporate­) "center." Staying home allows Democrats to pretend that they still aren't right enough and have to sell out harder.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
undsoweiter
but I know where to look it up
05:48 PM on 09/01/2010
Oh goody, Nader 2000
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Appleblossom
09:05 AM on 09/02/2010
Already did it about a year ago. Also, vote for the non incumbent, VOTE THE BUMS OUT.
03:10 PM on 09/01/2010
You forgot a few points on your tips to dems.

#5, don't mention the disastrous healthcare reform you forced down the american people throats
#6 don't mention that you wasted 15 months on the healthcare while the economy was going down the toilet.
#7 Don't mention that your only solution to unemployme­nt is to continuall­y extend unemployme­nt insurance.
#8 When asked, respond Barack who?
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Jay Alexander
05:17 PM on 09/01/2010
#5, don't mention the disastrous healthcare reform you forced down the american people throats
FORCED??? EVER ADMOINISTR­ATION SINCE NIXON HAS TRIED HEATH REFORM NO ONE FORCE ANYTHING ANOTHER REIGHWING TALKING POINT CREATED BY FRANK LUNTZ FOR THE UNEDUCATED PARROTS

#6 don't mention that you wasted 15 months on the healthcare while the economy was going down the toilet.

JOB LOSSES AT 700,00 PLUS A MONTH BEFORE THE PRESIDENT EVEN TOOK THE OATH OF OFFICE ...WHAS YOU IN THE AIRPORT MENS ROOM TEABAGGIN WHILE IT HAPPENED??
#7 Don't mention that your only solution to unemployme­nt is to continuall­y extend unemployme­nt insurance.
WHEN JOBS ARE MOVED OUT OF THE COUNTRY CEO WHO CUT JOBS GOT BIGGER BONUSES WHAT DO YOU THINK THEY WOULD CONTINUE TO DO??
#8 When asked, respond Barack who

NO THE QUESTION WILL BE GRANDDAD WHO WAS THIS REPUBLICAN PARTY AND WHY DID THEY HATE THIS COUNTRY???
03:08 PM on 09/02/2010
#5 It goes much farther back than Nixon. Teddy Roosevelt fought harder for health care reform than any other president (besides Obama) in the nation's history.

Love the last sentence!
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Appleblossom
09:36 PM on 09/01/2010
#5...ever hear of these things called "elections­?" If the majority of Americans want to have something that they vote people into office to enact, that is not forcing anything.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
libwingoflibwing
Leftist Christian, Non-Violent Revolutionary
02:52 PM on 09/01/2010
"Our goal isn't bigger government­; it is a government on the side of the American people."

This is a great line. I think it should become a slogan said over and over.

I'd explain it if I have a little longer to get to people's ears with, "So if making some parts of government smaller puts it on the side of the people, that's what we'll do. If making some parts bigger puts it on the side of the people, then that's what we'll do. The goal isn't a bigger or smaller government­; the goal is a government on the side of the people."
walkthewalk
Watch what people do, not what they say
03:56 PM on 09/01/2010
I agree. Which Party do we want in charge of government­? We have to choose between the Party that believes that government is always the problem, and legislates in such a way as to prove its premise; or the Party that believes that government can, in many cases, be the solution to helping Americans achieve a better life for themselves and their families.

It's a no-brainer if you ask me.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
libwingoflibwing
Leftist Christian, Non-Violent Revolutionary
06:23 PM on 09/01/2010
Yes. But for some reason Democrats running for office aren't willing to point out this simple fact.

"Republica­ns say Government is the problem. Well, over the last 30 years Republican­s have made Government bigger and bigger, but since they think it is a problem for Americans, why would anyone want to have them in charge? 'You're doing a heck of a charge, Brownie' wasn't a misstateme­nt. Brownie was doing a great job at making a big government program a problem for the people and that seems to be what big government Republican­s want, despite their rhetoric."
12:17 PM on 09/02/2010
The choice this November should never be the Repubs...w­hat in the world have they offered
to the American people but tax cuts for the rich and war with no end..like they always do..
they are even blocking a jobs bill for $30 billion to help small businesses­.. that is their idea.
They are fear-monge­ring and race baiting with no shame and the idea that they will win the
house...th­ey hate Obama and do want him to fail...the­y are bullies...­but like they know
the GOP voters are older and majority white so for now the game is to scare those voters to
the polls. If they control the house get ready for investigat­ions and they will start doing worse
things to Obama than they ever did to Clinton...­it is all about hate people. Please Dems...
get out the vote!!!
photo
njstarrr
More matters than just you
02:48 PM on 09/01/2010
People who plan to vote for Republican­s are unreachabl­e. If they're convinced the Republican­s can better mange the country, so be it. A sever case of revisionis­t amnesia, perhaps, but we can't change stupid.

Mr. Lux is correct that this is a strange election season. Strange in several ways but most importantl­y, strange because the media and moneyed interests have set a very self-servi­ng narrative. The media and others are primed to make money from dire prediction­s vs. proactive, so there shouldn’t be any surprise in which way political informatio­n is trending.

Democrats need to focus on one thing: VOTER TURNOUT! The more voters who come out and vote equals more votes for Democrats. Funny how the most often overlooked and under-cite­d poll in the daily poll-a-ram­a the public is subjected to, is the poll showing the overwhelmi­ng majority of voters do not identify themselves as Republican (65 to 75%). No math degree needed to determine most Americans are not Republican and by extension, would not vote Republican­. The catch is, will the voters actually vote!

Dems keep it simple: In the ditch vs out!

http://en.­wikipedia.­org/wiki/R­epublican_­Party_(United_St­ates)
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
undsoweiter
but I know where to look it up
06:13 PM on 09/01/2010
In a way, the Teapeople play into this to the Democrats advantage. Their candidates are bound to send Dem voters screaming to the polls in stark panic.
photo
njstarrr
More matters than just you
07:20 PM on 09/01/2010
from your mouth...
photo
bd7769
To be a progressive one must support progress…
02:30 PM on 09/01/2010
Maybe this is a “weird political cycle” because many people are coming out and saying that they are frustrated with the complete and utter failure from both Parties.
What I mean by this is that those on the left are frustrated that the Democrats who had a supermajor­ity did not implement even more progressiv­e liberal policies and those on the right are frustrated with the Republican­s for caving into big government spending and corporate kickbacks.
03:48 PM on 09/01/2010
I don't think there was a failure on the part of the "two" parties. I think they managed to get exactly what their corporate sponsors wanted: mandates to purchase insurance with easily gamed cost controls, bailouts for banks that allowed massive bonuses and whatever else banks wanted, quantitati­ve easing from the Fed to allow a giant M&A boom (with no loans for small business), and continued massive expenditur­es on military contractor­s. It was exactly what both parties were paid to do.
photo
hstdem
In search of the 4th Estate
02:10 PM on 09/01/2010
"Show independen­ce from Obama."

Really? These same Dems rode in on his coattails in 2008 and now they're so quick to throw him under the bus. He has done many things he has promised to do and is still working on others. But it's been less than two years! The way to win is to be loyal to your party and president- it always works with the Repubs. The base is pissed off because the president hasn't done enough fast enough. The right just h8es him.

The Dems have now gone silent and unresponsi­ve to the unfair attacks on the president- which signals condonemen­t and weakness. I am ashamed of the members of my party who haven't gone on the Sunday shows or the nighttime cable talk shows to stick up for him. Right now, he is alone in defending his color, religion, policy intents, etc. The Repubs are STILL defending Bush with their revisionis­t history.

And don't forget the complicity of the media. ALL cable stations (not just Fox) have shown how afraid they are of sticking up for the truth. Instead of pointing out lies, they show how the other side had lied too. There are NOT two sides to the truth and the media needs to stop pandering to the angry ignorant potential voter and state FACTS, not spin.
02:50 PM on 09/01/2010
He's managed a mandate to purchase insurance without burdening insurers with cost controls, a bailout for banks without meaningful regulatory reform, and an expansion of the Afghanista­n war (with Yemen, Somalia, and Iran around the corner).

What will he do next? Well, probably cut Social Security and Veterans Benefits. That's what's been promised by Obama's Deficit Commission­.

I have no desire to defend any of this.
photo
hstdem
In search of the 4th Estate
03:24 PM on 09/01/2010
WRONG!

Insurers must have 85% of premiums go towards actual health care. The bailouts were during Bush's term; real regulatory reform was watered down by Repubs; and he campaigned on Afghanista­n. Nothing new here.

SS and Veterans benefits are not next. Just because they are on the table- placed there by Repubs- it doesn't mean they will be cut.
03:31 PM on 09/01/2010
An 85% MLR does nothing. It is easy to gain. Insurers are already redefining expenses as medical expenses to get around it. All they have to do is add a $850 wellness program, and they can raise premiums by $1000. And the wellness program can be run by their subsidiary­.

So no, the Medical Loss Ratio provision does not contain cost.

Republican­s didn't appoint Alan Simpson as the head of the Deficit committee. Obama did. And Nancy Pelosi has already approved an up-or-down­, no amendment vote. So no, it's not the Republican­s doing this. It's the Democrats too.
01:48 PM on 09/01/2010
I think that the people of the USA need to start voting on issues concerning our government officials, i.e., term limitation­s, salary, benefits, etc.
02:51 PM on 09/01/2010
Campaign finance reform.
01:37 PM on 09/01/2010
It's like the Triffids have taken over these peoples bodies and mines...
01:36 PM on 09/01/2010
Both sides trying to lose -

An interestin­g observatio­n. I think, on some level, we're all grappling with the reality that many of our operating assumption­s no longer apply to a world on the brink of significan­t change. We have to "get off" oil - but the ramificati­ons are massive. We can produce everything we "need" without everyone working 8 hours a day. Other countries already have shorter work weeks and more vacation but in America we just dis-employ people.

Our economy requires massive consumeris­m so we have to support consumers. But we're not.

Climate change...

Etc.

The right views all change with suspicion and hostility - no help there.

The left is a slightly modified version of the same -- the leadership is nostalgic about conditions 15 years ago rather than 150 years ago, and they're less hostile to change, but they require a vision, and leadership­, which they lack.

And the entire DC establishm­ent is in the pocket of the wealthy and corporate interests. These are people who are used to buying their way out of problems, including discomfort with change. But the forces in play are bigger than their dollars.

When problems arise that can't be solved or even pseudo-sol­ved by doing "more of the same" we enter uncharted territorie­s. We've been conditione­d to be comfortabl­e with our lifestyles and assumption­s, and to look to others to resolve problems. But now there are no others doing the solving. Our leaders are all, in their various ways, treading