At this point, you’re probably wondering what the heck the DNC was thinking with running this ‘mob’ nonsense.
After all, it seems relatively harsh – not to mention, stupid – to categorize anywhere from 45% (adult votes, CNN) (H/T) to 52% (registered voters, Quinnipiac) (H/T) of the population who have problems with either the entire policy, or the way that the Democrats are presenting it, as a “mob.” Mobs break things. These folks are just ticked off voters – and judging from the age levels we’re seeing in the pictures and videos, they’re ticked-off older voters. That demographic turns out for elections, and the Democrats are openly calling them names. What gives?
What gives is that a lot of those ticked-off voters live in districts that do not normally concern Democratic strategists. It’s one thing to have a town hall erupt in vigorous dissent in all of those swing districts; entirely another one to have it happen in areas that matter. With “matter” being defined as “have an impact on the Democratic leadership’s individual races.” Those areas need to be shored up, and while demonizing one’s opponents doesn’t help you with moderate voters it’s an excellent way to reinforce your appeal to partisan Democrats. As for the Blue Dogs… well, the Democrats do have got a really big padding in the House. What does Nancy Pelosi care if she only has a, say, ten vote majority? She still has the gavel and the title, doesn’t she? So let the ‘conservative’ Democrats eat cake.
Which was, by the way, the stuff that was left over when you baked bread: you rolled it up and shoved it on the baking pan so that the loaves didn’t get dislodged. The metaphor actually works better that way, in fact.
PS: Alternatively, you can listen to the critique of Senator Barbara Boxer, who thinks that… I’m not sure what she thinks, but it apparently involves clothing choices. And Ronald Reagan! And Al Gore!
I understand that the NRSC had some choice words in response; I look forward to reading them in full.
Crossposted to RedState.
4 thoughts on “DNC to Blue Dogs: Sauve qui peut.”
So, do you think this is a good strategy, then?
Depends on what you mean by “good.” It should allow the Democratic leadership to at least keep their seats (bad); but it’s going to be counterproductive to anybody running as a Democrat in a Republican district (good).
Yes, my feeling was that the narrative that there is some mandate for change seems diminished if the D advantage drops significantly (but does not reverse). Seems like things would grind to a halt in that case. Which, I guess, might be a good thing.
Comments are closed.