Let us assume – well, actually, I’m not assuming this; I’m expecting it – that a Republican wins the Presidential election in 2016. Also assume (I am not quite expecting this) that the Senate stays Republican in the process. Real quick: who is going to be the Democratic nominee in 2020?
This is not actually a facetious question. The top two contenders for the Democratic nomination (Clinton and Biden) will simply be too old to run in 2020 (they’re also too old in 2016, but never mind that right now). The next obvious step is to look to the governors… but right now there isn’t a viable Democratic candidate in the bunch. The RGA had a good year, and the DGA a bad one: which becomes relevant because the Presidential crop in 2020 will be heavily dependent on which Democratic candidates won this year. It takes time to build an executive record in state government; so even if the Democrats have a good year in 2018 it won’t benefit them until 2024. Continue reading Amusing thought about how 2014 hurt 2020 for the Democrats.
Voting records in Oakland County show [Pia] Farrenkopf, who has not been positively identified by the Medical Examiner’s Office, is shown as voting in the November 2010 gubernatorial election.
Pontiac city records indicate Farrenkopf registered to vote in 2006 and had not voted until 2010, but officials point out that could have been an administrative error and she may not have actually cast a vote.
The city clerk, who was not in that job in 2010, said infrequent voters tend to vote in presidential elections, like 2008, over gubernatorial elections like the one in 2010.
And he has some excellent advice for Democrats worried about the 2014 elections:
If GOP challengers want to run ads criticizing the recovery act as wasteful, Democratic candidates should lift up the police officers, teachers and construction workers in their state or district, those who are protecting our communities, teaching our children and repairing our roads thanks to the Democrats’ leadership. Highlight the small-business owners who have kept their doors open through projects funded by the act.
The recovery act has been stigmatized. We need to paint the real picture, in human terms, of what it meant in 2010. In future elections, it will be clear to all that instead of another Great Depression, Democrats broke the back of the recession with not a single Republican vote in the House. In the long run, this will haunt Republicans, especially since they made the mess. Continue reading *Trust* David Plouffe, Democrats. He is all-knowing, and always right.
And yes, I would like to take this time to remind the American people with regard to Obamacare that we, in point of fact, told you so.
That’s then-House Minority Leader John Boehner pointing out in 2010 that Obamacare was passed in shameful fashion and in grotesque guise. He also noted that this entire “if you like your plan you can keep it” was arrant nonsense – and, oh, yeah: that if the Democrats passed this bill they were going to lose their House majority in record time.
This is an interesting and amusing alternate history by National Journal’s Josh Kraushaar:
…it’s useful to consider an alternate history of what could have happened if Obama pursued an economy-focused agenda after passing a stimulus in February 2009.
Instead of taking up health care reform in the wake of the Great Recession, the president could have spent his time addressing Americans’ economic insecurity by promoting programs for those finding themselves out of work, struggling to find new jobs, and looking to get back on their feet. By shoring up the banking industry and bailing out the domestic auto industry in the wake of the crises, he helped avert potential economic disaster. But there wasn’t a follow-through to focus on the personal end of the crises, to tackle the pervasive economic pessimism across the country. The speech Obama delivered Wednesday, absent the campaign-style rhetoric, would have been an effective first-term speech, not one nearly five years into his tenure.
Imagine if Obama began his presidency pitching an economic opportunity platform focused on, say, expanding job-retraining programs, extending the payroll-tax cut, and streamlining the tax code. Such measures would have showcased Obama’s commitment to the economy’s health, proving that he could pass legislation to meet his rhetoric. Remember: The president’s party held huge majorities in Congress to pass almost anything he wanted, within reason. With Democrats holding 60 Senate seats between September 2009 and February 2010, Republicans didn’t even have the opportunity to filibuster, unless they won over disaffected Democrats. With health care reform, Obama chose the path of most resistance, and paid for it both politically and at the expense of achieving other policy goals. Continue reading Actually, Barack Obama was unlikely to be sensible about #Obamacare. Ever.
…at least, that’s why I think that I bothered to save this one from the weekend; it’s a HuffPo piece, which means that it’s both inaccurate AND hideously biased. I suppose that blaming the voters – and the GOP, of course! – for the Democratic party’s generally lackluster fundraising, recruiting, and electoral efforts is more appealing than concluding that perhaps the voters actually were paying attention, and voted accordingly.
But I should be nicer about this. It’s always easier to assume that in any dispute between yourself and the people, it’s the people who are always self-evidently wrong…
(Via Battle ’10) Although I suspect that the participants in said video would bitterly argue my observation, assuming that any of them are sober at this moment. No, wait, it’s 8 AM on the Left Coast; they won’t start the anticipatory heavy drinking until about 1 PM my time.
This New York Times article was probably not meant to give the game away, but many things are done these days that have had results that were not actually meant. It was probably not the author’s intent to subvert the obligatory optimism of the article with such a stark headline, either. Here’s the mistake, in a nutshell: while the title (“Democrats Plan Political Triage to Retain House”) is an accurate enough summation of the article it’s still using a politically disastrous word (“triage”). Let me explain why. Continue reading The ‘Democrats ready for 2010’ myth, exploded.