One of the problems making predictions is that so often we presume that the future will simply look like the present or the very recent past.
We've been hearing for a few years that the Dems have no chance of taking back the House until after the Census in 2020.
This may be prove to be the case. But we've heard other dire warnings. Remember Karl Rove's Permanent Republican Majority after Bush beat Kerry in 2004? In retrospect we have to correct him and call it the Last Gasp of a Fleeting Republican Majority.
In that election, the GOP got a lot of mileage running against gay marriage. Again, how quickly things can change.
As to the Dems winning back the House this may well be correct. Yet it seems to me that when these predictions were made few thought anticipated the rise of Donald Trump. It remains to be seen just how much collateral damage he really brings in his wake.
Certainly the Dems have a very good shot at taking back the Senate. This was already the case before we knew about Trump as there are a lot more Republican seats up for election than Democrats. However, between Trump and what has become a potent issue in the GOP Senate refusing to give Merrick Garland a hearing, these chances look very good, when you consider that even John McCain in Arizona and Kelly Ayotte in NH are in for the fight of their lives.
Democratic strategist Simon Rosenberg says this is a real year of opportunity for the Dems.
"One of the great lessons of the Obama and Clinton Presidencies is that it is not enough just to win a Presidential election; to move their agenda from promise to law, a President must also create a governing coalition that remains in power over time. For Hillary Clinton, the success of her Presidency may depend in part on whether she can also produce a Democratic majority in the Senate, and potentially the House, next year. And given that we’ve now seen the party in power suffer enormous losses in three consecutive mid-term elections, it suggests that the Democratic Party must not just be focused on winning the Presidency this year but winning as many Senate and House seats as possible to help prevent Clinton’s governing coalition from being just a two year aberration."
http://ndn.org/node/630341
Indeed. The Berner types always reproach the Dems-'but you've had the White House; what have you accomplished.'
The answer is a good amount. True many things have remained out of reach. But as Rosenberg says, this is due to the fact that the Dems have not had Congress in many years.
I've talked about this a number of times. The longer historical trend in American politics has been for divided government. In 1992 Bill Clinton helped us 'remember' how to win the White House again. But in 1994, the GOP remembered how to win Congress again.
Between 1968-1992 the GOP totally dominated the Presidency winning 5 of 6 elections; while 4 of them were total landslides where the Dems lost 41 or more states and the GOP got at least 426 in the electoral college.
But the Dems had held onto Congress. This had been a longer historical trend going back to FDR and the New Deal. In 1994, the Dems had held onto the House 58 out of 62 years, post New Deal.
Then came the Gingrich Revolution.
So the key has been split government, that is to say gridlock. I like to say for those who value bipartisanship: we've had that.We've had bipartisan government: for 24 years we had a Dem Congress and GOP President. In the past 24, it's mostly been the reverse.
Until the Dems are able to achieve a Congressional majority to go with the POTUS, it will be frustrating. But, of course, the Berners don't see this. They don't grasp divided government-and a divided country. They just call the Dems sellouts.
Rosenberg thinks this year the Dems can make some real gains in Congress:
"What this breakdown suggests by competing in just 14 states (AZ, CO, FL, GA, IA, IL, MI, NC, NH, NV, OH, PA, VA, WI), Democrats will be able to hit all their Presidential and Senate targets and more than half of their House targets. Adding California and New York will bring it to 30 of 37 House targets. By historical standards, this is a remarkably concentrated and efficient map. It means: a strong showing at the Presidential level will have disproportionate impact on Congressional races (coattails on steroids); it is an enormous opportunity for Democrats through their digitally enhanced coordinated campaigns to gain efficiencies that will allow more time/spending on expanding the map to states like AZ, GA and NC; the Clinton campaign’s success at raising high dollar monies and the Sanders success at low dollar fundraising suggests the Democrats will have enough money to contemplate a more expansive effort if the Clinton Sanders rapprochement is successful; and it means that the national campaign committee with the hardest job – the DCCC (House campaigns) – will be able to throw far more of its resources into those seven races outside the national footprint."
"Given the innate advantage Democrats have at the electoral college level, and the debilitating early demographic and political challenges of the Trump experience (not sure it is a campaign yet), one could understand how the Clinton campaign and national party would play it safe, stay focused on the core 10 states needed to win the Presidency, and feel understandably that electing the first woman President was a big enough job for any Presidential campaign. But the map and circumstances of this year suggest a more aggressive, and yes, perhaps more risky approach.
"What would that look like exactly? It means making it explicit that the national campaign map is now 16 not just 10 states (the 14 above plus portions of CA and NY). It means running paid advertising and establishing coordinated campaigns in all 16 targeted states, including a national strategy to win over Millenials led by Sanders campaign veterans; deploying the candidate/VP and Bidens, Obamas, Sanders and Bill Clinton to these states; and it means letting the broader Democratic community know about this strategy to give them something incredibly powerful to fight for – ideological control of Washington – and not just something to fight against – Trump."
"I have no doubt that this “man on the moon” kind of approach would produce an enormous outpouring of financial support at all levels for the party, and broader citizen engagement/activism in these critical elections. Its audaciousness and ambition itself will be a tonic to the risk adverse culture of Washington that so many Americans would have grown weary of, and will signal the nation that the Democratic Party and its new leader mean business."
"At a practical level, the Democrats can pull it off. A Clinton Sanders deal would mean sufficient resources. We have an unusually rich and popular surrogate pool that will need to be deployed in creative ways for Democrats to gain advantage from this structural opportunity. The controversial DNC Clinton joint fundraising committee has meant the operational mechanisms for managing all this have been in place already for some time. The Clinton campaign is being run by folks like Robbie Mook who come from the Party, understand how the Senate and House campaign committees work, making this kind of cooperative arrangement possible. And the far more sophisticated data driven tactics of a post Obama Democratic Party means the upside of a truly coordinated campaign are far greater than in the past – much more can be gained with better technology and targeting."
"Given the unusual map of 2016 and the Democratic Party’s enormous operational/technological advantages, this is a particularly bad year for the Republicans to offer a deeply unpopular, unsophisticated and just crappy candidate. The question for the Democrats now is will they seize the opening they now have and turn what is likely to be a good year into a great one."
I like that-'not sure Trump has a campaign yet.'
But I do have misgivings. Rosenberg admits this could be a more risky strategy but doesn't elaborate on this point.
What concerns me are two words: Bernie Sanders.
Let's be clear: this is Hillary Clinton's Democratic party not the party of Bernie Sanders. The last thing the Dems want is to owe him anything.
It would depend very much on what he would want in exchange.
Again, while the Berners may not like the idea of incrementalism, the record seems to show the Dems have done it right over the last 24 years beginning with Bill Clinton's win in 1992. They have been the Center Left party, not Hard Left and it's reaped benefits.
Compare the condition of the Democratic party to the disaster that is the GOP today. The Berners seem to want us to become an Ultra Left ideological party like the GOP has been an Ultra Right ideological party.
Looking at the conditions of the two parties, this is absurd.
It's not about substance. Hillary is strongly liberal or 'progressive' if you insist on the word. She was out yesterday discussing the public option for health insurance. It's stylistic and tactical. It's having Holy Wars over what it means to be a progressive like the GOP has them over what it means to be a conservative.
As Obama says, we don't need or want a Tea Party of the Left. Like he says, Democrats can agree on 95 percent of things and disagree on 5 percent. But this is not true for the Berners. If you differ at all it's because you're a corporate shill.
We've been hearing for a few years that the Dems have no chance of taking back the House until after the Census in 2020.
This may be prove to be the case. But we've heard other dire warnings. Remember Karl Rove's Permanent Republican Majority after Bush beat Kerry in 2004? In retrospect we have to correct him and call it the Last Gasp of a Fleeting Republican Majority.
In that election, the GOP got a lot of mileage running against gay marriage. Again, how quickly things can change.
As to the Dems winning back the House this may well be correct. Yet it seems to me that when these predictions were made few thought anticipated the rise of Donald Trump. It remains to be seen just how much collateral damage he really brings in his wake.
Certainly the Dems have a very good shot at taking back the Senate. This was already the case before we knew about Trump as there are a lot more Republican seats up for election than Democrats. However, between Trump and what has become a potent issue in the GOP Senate refusing to give Merrick Garland a hearing, these chances look very good, when you consider that even John McCain in Arizona and Kelly Ayotte in NH are in for the fight of their lives.
Democratic strategist Simon Rosenberg says this is a real year of opportunity for the Dems.
"One of the great lessons of the Obama and Clinton Presidencies is that it is not enough just to win a Presidential election; to move their agenda from promise to law, a President must also create a governing coalition that remains in power over time. For Hillary Clinton, the success of her Presidency may depend in part on whether she can also produce a Democratic majority in the Senate, and potentially the House, next year. And given that we’ve now seen the party in power suffer enormous losses in three consecutive mid-term elections, it suggests that the Democratic Party must not just be focused on winning the Presidency this year but winning as many Senate and House seats as possible to help prevent Clinton’s governing coalition from being just a two year aberration."
http://ndn.org/node/630341
Indeed. The Berner types always reproach the Dems-'but you've had the White House; what have you accomplished.'
The answer is a good amount. True many things have remained out of reach. But as Rosenberg says, this is due to the fact that the Dems have not had Congress in many years.
I've talked about this a number of times. The longer historical trend in American politics has been for divided government. In 1992 Bill Clinton helped us 'remember' how to win the White House again. But in 1994, the GOP remembered how to win Congress again.
Between 1968-1992 the GOP totally dominated the Presidency winning 5 of 6 elections; while 4 of them were total landslides where the Dems lost 41 or more states and the GOP got at least 426 in the electoral college.
But the Dems had held onto Congress. This had been a longer historical trend going back to FDR and the New Deal. In 1994, the Dems had held onto the House 58 out of 62 years, post New Deal.
Then came the Gingrich Revolution.
So the key has been split government, that is to say gridlock. I like to say for those who value bipartisanship: we've had that.We've had bipartisan government: for 24 years we had a Dem Congress and GOP President. In the past 24, it's mostly been the reverse.
Until the Dems are able to achieve a Congressional majority to go with the POTUS, it will be frustrating. But, of course, the Berners don't see this. They don't grasp divided government-and a divided country. They just call the Dems sellouts.
Rosenberg thinks this year the Dems can make some real gains in Congress:
"What this breakdown suggests by competing in just 14 states (AZ, CO, FL, GA, IA, IL, MI, NC, NH, NV, OH, PA, VA, WI), Democrats will be able to hit all their Presidential and Senate targets and more than half of their House targets. Adding California and New York will bring it to 30 of 37 House targets. By historical standards, this is a remarkably concentrated and efficient map. It means: a strong showing at the Presidential level will have disproportionate impact on Congressional races (coattails on steroids); it is an enormous opportunity for Democrats through their digitally enhanced coordinated campaigns to gain efficiencies that will allow more time/spending on expanding the map to states like AZ, GA and NC; the Clinton campaign’s success at raising high dollar monies and the Sanders success at low dollar fundraising suggests the Democrats will have enough money to contemplate a more expansive effort if the Clinton Sanders rapprochement is successful; and it means that the national campaign committee with the hardest job – the DCCC (House campaigns) – will be able to throw far more of its resources into those seven races outside the national footprint."
"Given the innate advantage Democrats have at the electoral college level, and the debilitating early demographic and political challenges of the Trump experience (not sure it is a campaign yet), one could understand how the Clinton campaign and national party would play it safe, stay focused on the core 10 states needed to win the Presidency, and feel understandably that electing the first woman President was a big enough job for any Presidential campaign. But the map and circumstances of this year suggest a more aggressive, and yes, perhaps more risky approach.
"What would that look like exactly? It means making it explicit that the national campaign map is now 16 not just 10 states (the 14 above plus portions of CA and NY). It means running paid advertising and establishing coordinated campaigns in all 16 targeted states, including a national strategy to win over Millenials led by Sanders campaign veterans; deploying the candidate/VP and Bidens, Obamas, Sanders and Bill Clinton to these states; and it means letting the broader Democratic community know about this strategy to give them something incredibly powerful to fight for – ideological control of Washington – and not just something to fight against – Trump."
"I have no doubt that this “man on the moon” kind of approach would produce an enormous outpouring of financial support at all levels for the party, and broader citizen engagement/activism in these critical elections. Its audaciousness and ambition itself will be a tonic to the risk adverse culture of Washington that so many Americans would have grown weary of, and will signal the nation that the Democratic Party and its new leader mean business."
"At a practical level, the Democrats can pull it off. A Clinton Sanders deal would mean sufficient resources. We have an unusually rich and popular surrogate pool that will need to be deployed in creative ways for Democrats to gain advantage from this structural opportunity. The controversial DNC Clinton joint fundraising committee has meant the operational mechanisms for managing all this have been in place already for some time. The Clinton campaign is being run by folks like Robbie Mook who come from the Party, understand how the Senate and House campaign committees work, making this kind of cooperative arrangement possible. And the far more sophisticated data driven tactics of a post Obama Democratic Party means the upside of a truly coordinated campaign are far greater than in the past – much more can be gained with better technology and targeting."
"Given the unusual map of 2016 and the Democratic Party’s enormous operational/technological advantages, this is a particularly bad year for the Republicans to offer a deeply unpopular, unsophisticated and just crappy candidate. The question for the Democrats now is will they seize the opening they now have and turn what is likely to be a good year into a great one."
I like that-'not sure Trump has a campaign yet.'
But I do have misgivings. Rosenberg admits this could be a more risky strategy but doesn't elaborate on this point.
What concerns me are two words: Bernie Sanders.
Let's be clear: this is Hillary Clinton's Democratic party not the party of Bernie Sanders. The last thing the Dems want is to owe him anything.
It would depend very much on what he would want in exchange.
Again, while the Berners may not like the idea of incrementalism, the record seems to show the Dems have done it right over the last 24 years beginning with Bill Clinton's win in 1992. They have been the Center Left party, not Hard Left and it's reaped benefits.
Compare the condition of the Democratic party to the disaster that is the GOP today. The Berners seem to want us to become an Ultra Left ideological party like the GOP has been an Ultra Right ideological party.
Looking at the conditions of the two parties, this is absurd.
It's not about substance. Hillary is strongly liberal or 'progressive' if you insist on the word. She was out yesterday discussing the public option for health insurance. It's stylistic and tactical. It's having Holy Wars over what it means to be a progressive like the GOP has them over what it means to be a conservative.
As Obama says, we don't need or want a Tea Party of the Left. Like he says, Democrats can agree on 95 percent of things and disagree on 5 percent. But this is not true for the Berners. If you differ at all it's because you're a corporate shill.
No comments:
Post a Comment