Everybody’s gabbing about this WashPost article: “Anger at Bush may hurt GOP at polls.” Well, maybe I’m just whistling past the graveyard here, but at this point there’s little indication that the Democrats can generate the momentum to take over either the House or Senate. Michael Barone makes some good points in his article on Real Clear Politics on the difference between a referendum election and a choice election.
If the 2006 midterms are a referendum on Republican leadership, there could be a lot of Maalox flowing at RNC headquarters. But to make this work, the Democrats are going to have to dip into the “anger” well one more time. This strategy worked wonders in 2000, 2002, and 2004 for Al Gore, Tom Daschle (who?) and John Kerry, respectively. Now Harry Reid of the stern finger and Nancy Pelosi will try to convince America that any change would be better than none at all.
Will Americans buy that? I’m unconvinced. I just don’t see how the Democrats can gain with a message-less message. Maybe it’s an effective ploy for Presidential candidates (e.g. Nixon’s “secret” plan to end the Vietnam war) but legislative positions are fought out on policy differences, not national sentiment. The Democrats are so fractured, they could never promote a unified policy such as Newt Gingrich’s 1994 Contract with America. As a result, they appear more concerned with getting elected than leading the country, never an attractive choice.
Still, if policy and positions don’t shape the midterms, here’s another non-trivial factor:
In its most recent filing with the Federal Election Commission, the DNC reported raising $50.1 million so far in the 2005-2006 cycle and had $5.8 million cash on hand at the end of last year. The RNC had raised $103 million and had $34 million cash on hand.Let’s keep our powder dry. California-50 may have been the first sign that there is no groundswell for the Democrats, despite the warning signs we’ve heard over and over in the past.
4 comments:
Tom Daschle (who?)
It's pronounced "San-TOR-um."
Tom DeLay doesn't count, because his political suicide technically goes under another heading.
But to make this work, the Democrats are going to have to dip into the “anger” well one more time.
Riiight. Those angry, angry liberals. All those state referendums on gay marriage in '04 just happened to reach the ballot in states that saw, and went, red.
Good gravy, how can the rudderless Democrats ever compete in 6 months with a strong, decisive, unpatronizing leader like this?
"I listen to all voices, but mine is the final decision. And Don Rumsfeld is doing a fine job. He's not only transforming the military, he's fighting a war on terror. He's helping us fight a war on terror. I have strong confidence in Don Rumsfeld. I hear the voices, and I read the front page, and I know the speculation. But I'm the decider, and I decide what is best. And what's best is for Don Rumsfeld to remain as the secretary of defense."
"I'm the decider." Because deciders decide the decisions. And next week, I'm gonna be an astronaut!
The question remains: when was George W. Bush's last GOOD day?
The people making those predictions are MSM regulars who suffer from BDS. So when they see Bush's low approval ratings, they think it means all those people also share BDS.
Good call on the MSM and their raging BDS. They hate GWB. So when they think the GOP is SOL, I just have to LOL. YMMV, but IMHO those SOBs are OTW. They'll be FDW PDQ when the RFOC come OTTP and JSKIM, ITTGTJ. SWN OPPAWEABB? ROTFLMAO, IEBDJUUVXLLAIENDJ!!!
Post a Comment