Despite it All, The Democrats Could Still Fail
By Alan Stewart Carl | Related entries in ElectionsI’m no election prognosticator. But I do pay attention to political winds and I’m beginning to wonder if the Democrats might still have time to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
One concern is that “conventional wisdom� puts Democrats way ahead. Democrats do poorly when conventional wisdom puts them in the lead (See: Kerry, John and Gore, Al). But, more importantly, the Republicans have a proven strategy that has confounded the Democrats for years. Is that enough? Will right-leaning independents and moderate Republicans swing back to the GOP, as some pundits already believe is happening? Are there ways for such voters to find positives in the Republicans and decide not to punish the party?
The problem for the Democrats is that the economy is chugging along fine and the stock market is setting records. Unemployment is low. There have been no terrorist attacks since 9/11. And all of this can be attributed (rightly or wrongly) to Republican initiatives like tax cuts and national security decisions.
What Democrats have to rely on is voter frustration with the War in Iraq and general dissatisfaction with Republicans, whether it be the corruption scandals or the GOP’s ineffectiveness in addressing major issues like rising healthcare costs. That may be enough. But what if it isn’t?
What if voters decide that the Democrats’ muddled views on Iraq and less-than-justifiable plans for withdrawal are worse or no worse than what the Republicans are offering? What if voters decide that, while corrupt, Republicans are no worse than Democrats. What if the Republicans’ lone selling points of keeping the tax cuts and being better suited to defend our nation trump the Democrats’ selling point of … um … being different.
And there’s the problem. Democrats are selling change but, on a national scale, they haven’t exactly laid out a new course. Sure healthcare is a problem, but what will Democrats do about it? Sure the Iraq War is a mess, but what will Democrats do to win the conflict (or are they resigned to defeat)? The party is relying on mass dissatisfaction to push voters their way. But they’ve done little to pull voters in. If they fail, that is why they’ll fail.
As with all elections, this one will be decided state-by-state, district-by-district. Certain candidates will win on their own merits. Others will lose due to their own failings. But party affiliation does matter and national moods have a role to play. The Democratic Party has to hope their national ineptitude and lack of vision doesn’t hurt their local candidates’ chances of winning back Congress.
I’m rooting for them. But just barely.
This entry was posted on Wednesday, October 25th, 2006 and is filed under Elections. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
October 26th, 2006 at 2:30 am
The stock market being great has no impact on most Americans. Unemployment may be low, but partly because many have stopped being eligible, have stopped looking, or have accepted lower wage jobs than they could get in the past.
There have only been no terrorist attacks because they haven’t tried - the Republicans have consistently scored F’s and D’s on their terrorism actions, or more precisely, lack of actions.
And I’m actually kind of glad that the Democrats haven’t tried to come up with a one-soundbite-fits-all “plan” to fix the country - that means they’ll deal with issues on a case by case basis, seek consensus, and come up with a plan that works for more people than just a small minority core base, like the Republicans have been doing.
October 26th, 2006 at 6:25 am
The Democrats’ recent record of electoral collapse makes me think that despite the polls, they have no shot at taking the Senate. I’m guessing 48/52. But I do think they’re going to take the house by a few seats. And that will be enough to get this country back on a more rational track.
October 26th, 2006 at 11:11 am
Actually, it’s the reverse that’s true. The spending habits of most Americans have a great impact on the stock market.
That’s ALWAYS been true. If people have stopped looking now, it’s because they are LAZY. (At least the 2 people I know are). Unemployment is low because there are more jobs to be had, therefore, there is a much smaller pool of people that gave up looking
than there is when unemployment is at 7%.
October 26th, 2006 at 11:40 am
I think the reasons Dems haven’t come up with any plan of action for Iraq is
1) Iraq is a real head scratcher for a lot of people on all sides who haven’t come up with a viable solution for arbitrating a Kurd-Sunni-Shi’ite conflict
2) The Pottery Barn Rule. Republicans own Iraq.
Obviously, they can’t simply cry “Bring the boys home!” on a national scale. Doing so would first give Karl Rove a major orgasm and then secondly all the tools he needs to prove that the Democrats are flock a nancy-boy hippies who insist on fighting terrorists with flower power.
If Democrats were smart, they could jump back to the two Americas meme but maybe that wouldn’t fly when the economy is OBVIOUSLY doing SO well. Oh wait, the housing market just tanked. What’s that screeching sound?
October 26th, 2006 at 11:41 am
I am also adjusting my expectations.
My hope is that, at least, the Republican community will be chastened by the loss of moderate voters and will begin to lean towards the center. Perhaps this will raise the stature of the Republican Main Street Partnership and It’s my Party too.
October 26th, 2006 at 12:16 pm
[...] Yesterday I laid out how the Democrats could still lose the upcoming election. But, let’s be honest, the Republicans are the more likely losers, sure to lose seats and in danger of losing one if not both houses of Congress. [...]
October 26th, 2006 at 3:07 pm
So 1 of 50 or so indicators is slowing down, and the whole economy
is coming to a screeching halt?
That one’s another easy one. Try googling “Supply and Demand” + “low interest rates”.
October 26th, 2006 at 5:38 pm
Oh, how about such things as negative savings rates, highest debt levels ever, increasing interest rates, horrible trade deficits, runaway congressional budgets, and real wages decreasing over the last five years?
Of course you’re also ignoring the fact that the bursting house equity bubble has been one of the few things suggesting that the economy was actually doing well for anyone below the upper class…
October 26th, 2006 at 8:28 pm
Is the stock market really doing that great? Sure, it’s setting records but the records aren’t way over the previous record and that one was set 6 years ago. In other words, we’ve just recovered to a bit over the point we were at years ago. I don’t think that’s that amazing an economy when it took that long to reach this point. In addition, one reason the workforce participation rate might be so low is what a lot of these jobs are paying. If a new job in the household won’t pay enough to cover the daycare it doesn’t make much sense to work, now does it? I have lots of suspicions about the unemployment rate and I also recognize that yes, there is such a thing as underemployment and it affects voter attitude as much as unemployment.
October 27th, 2006 at 11:22 am
Here’s how it works sliepner….
The fed lowered interest rates to historic lows. People (well, the rich ones anyway) had more money because of the tax cuts. That means it’s time to buy a nicer house, becuase it’s more affordable. Since more and more people were buying, it was time to start raising prices.
That drives up the average house value. That’s called INFLATION.
Too much inflation can be a bad thing - so the fed starts raising interest rates to counter it. When interest rates come up, it costs more to borrow money. People don’t borrow so much then. The housing market cools, and the average house value starts to drop again.
Viola, the bubble bursts.
Another good thing about higher interest rates…. companies don’t borrow as much. The less debt a company has, the happier the shareholders are. I’m almost certain that happy shareholders drive the stock market, too.
We are moving into a world economy, our average wage is much higher than the average in the countries that are doing all the manufacturing. There will have to be some equalization, so maybe the average should come down. High paying (union) manufacturing jobs in this country are gone forever. Michigan (my state) has suffered the most from that. How has the state responded, by raising the minimum wage. Good move… my daughter works for a small pizza shop. They immediately raised prices, and cut everyone’s hours.
Don’t count on government to fix economic woes.
One last thing…
Runaway congressional budgets have nothing to do with economics. They are caused by the out-of-control people that we continue to elect. It doesn’t really matter which party they’re from, they know that “bringing home the bacon” assures them of re-election.
October 27th, 2006 at 12:26 pm
I’m no deficit hawk, JAI, but his might be a bit of a simplification. As a matter of tax policy, I’m all for a balanced budget, though. At its extremes (and I’m not saying we’re there yet) a huge national deficit will have an effect on our global competitiveness.
October 27th, 2006 at 3:27 pm
You’re right, DosPeros. Probably a mis-statement on my part, but I think the effect might be the opposite of what one would expect. Deficit spending is still spending. That money is going somewhere, and businesses are benefitting from it.
I won’t pretend to understand the intricacies of our deficit in the grand scheme of the global economy. But, deep inside, I think it doesn’t matter a whole lot. America’s consumerism now has the world by the short hairs.