Tweet
Read between the lines. Image via HuffPost
Democratic pollster Stan Greenberg predicts that if the 2010 election were held today, it would be bad enough for Democrats to be 1994 all over again. According to new polling released by Greenberg and partner James Carville, Democrats are held in such little regard today that “we’re on the edge of 1994… If the election were now, you would be there.”
Don’t act surprised. Rahm promised us this would happen:
White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel has been telling Democrats a win on the health issue will reverse the slide in public opinion, just as passage of another controversial proposal, the North American Free Trade Agreement, lifted President Bill Clinton in the polls.
Greenberg notes that his models show that Democrats should at least “marginally” improve by November, with “Democratic enthusiasm rebounding a little in the aftermath of the healthcare bill.”
That’s hardly reassuring. We’re on the brink of 1994, and it’s all because Rahm Emanuel drove us to the edge of this cliff. (And remember, he did the same damn thing in 1994, too.)
85 Comments
I called this back in September, because I knew that a) he’d try the same third-way corporatist punch-the-hippie shit in 2009 and 2010 that he got away with in 1994, and b) just like in 1994, he’d try to shift the blame onto us:
Memo to Dems: Rahm, Not Hippies, Cause 1994 Debacle
I love that pic.
“High four-and-a-half, Rahm!”
Any rebounding due to HIR is likely to be quashed by the announcement of offshore oil and gas drilling, though. Especially among the younger & DFH base
Yup. Which is eerily similar to how Rahm killed Demo turnout in 1994 with NAFTA and other punch-the-hippie base-killing moves.
Problem is, the election is not being held today. The situation in May will will be a more accurate gauge.
Sorry, not buying it. Carville’s motives aren’t pure, I wouldn’t trust anything coming from him. For all we know this is a scare tactic to drum up political consulting business. You know, kind of like selling “survival seeds”.
What does this really mean? Who will lose? Will it be the most “liberal” or the blue dogs running against repugs? It seems that whatever the dems pass is to the right of main stream anyway. Yes, I know, the repugs are nastier and dirtier but the dems seem to be just as dishonest. My frustration and anger is turning into apathy.I need a pep talk.
Here’s an important distinction: The 1994 losses were engineered by the Republicans, whereas this year’s catastrophe is being engineered by the Democrats.
More and more, with Democrats like Rahm, Obama, Reid, etc. running things, seems like it’s time to say fuck it, and find a third party.
Good, the Democrats deserve to lose thier majorities in both chambers.
Maybe this will finally teach them that when you come in with a mandate for change you don’t spit in the face of that mandate and go back to deal making in secret.
“But the republicans will bring us back to the dark ages!” Really? Obama is implementing every policy the GOP would, what else could they do? I mean Obama is even going with drill baby drill.
It’s easier to replace Republicans with real progressives than fake Dems with progressives.
Is Rahm a Republican mole or does it just seem like it?
It’s almost as if the Obamacrat Third Wayers do it on purpose.
…and it’s all because Rahm Emanuel drove us to the edge of this cliff.
Well, it’s his job to actively pursue the Plutocratic agenda. Did you expect anything else?
And, seriously, who’s the “us” on this cliff? I mean, personally and in my circle of political acquaintances, no one considers the Democratic Party representative of Progressive values.
A few months back the talk was that the Ds needed at least an improvement of 8% unemployment to win. The only way for that to happen is to push even more people into the not counted category because there sure won’t be that many jobs created. Fortunately, for the lovers of U3 statistics, a lot of people are pretty close to that situation right now.
Perhaps all of those promised NAFTA created jobs that we heard so much about in the 90s, from folks like Krugman, will finally start ramping up.
Funny how the we keep seeing the same cast of characters explain how this time they will be proven right.
If I had to guess, I’d say it’s the more conservative Democrats. They’re the ones who are in vulnerable seats. The left of center Democrats are mostly in very safe seats, due to either a very liberal population, or, as in many cases, a strong non-white population (Bob Filner will never lose to a Republican, due to the big hispanic population in his district.) No Republican’s going to take out Dennis Kucinich, for example.
Rahm’s promise that HCR will do for Obama what NAFTA did for Clinton is kinda reminiscent of when we were hearing about how Dubya would bring his CEO skills to the White House and do for America what he did for all his oil companies.
Read down into the article and you find:
It looks like it’s going to be a fight to stay away from the polls. And there’s seven months to go until the elections–who knows what will happen in the time?
That was before they just issued their moderate Republican energy policy with Drill baby drill and Nuke baby nuke contained in it. Are they getting their campaign advice from Dick Morris. Energy like Healthcare starts out with major concessions to the Repubs before any negotiations. This way when the energy plan is complete it will give in to the Repub demand that all coastline be available for drilling. Gee, who did they negotiate with? My guess would be, like in healthcare they have already negotiated support with the industry for 2012.
Rahm was right, we progressives are effin retards for continuing to make excuses for these policy decisions.
”
I’m thinking this thought by Greenberg assumes no further erosion such as could occur with a botched Financial Reform package, or screw the pooch Immigration Reform.
He could never run for President in the Repub party. The other problem he has is that even though he is a Repub at heart he is still a moderate.
well, I can name you one DFH that’s not supporting any democratic incumbents, and his name is Brendan Fuckin’ Skwire.
so that’s one vote they don’t have. I’m voting for the socialists, of which we have a few here in Philadelphia.
What we hear from some economists is that things will look a bit better on the job front by November. Hence, the election won’t be quite so disastrous for Demos as is currently being predicted. I remain skeptical on the point, however. Further, with Fox News (Pravda of the Republican party) leading the cable ratings, all bets are off.
“Well, Glenn and Sarah say it’s true, so it must be true…”
He sure is good at it.
It is not going to look any better in May. Gallup today found the GOP got a 5% bounce after health care “reform” passed last week.
So much for all the promises Obama, Pelosi, Rahm and Reid made to House Dem’s.
And, it is going to get worse. The more that comes out about the bill, the more people don’t like it. In addition, Dem’s will have to keep churning out PR events on health care just to keep further erosion from happening due to all the attacks from left and right and bad news.
That will keep them from oxygen on any other issue.
In addition, Dem’s, seeing the shellacking they took AFTER health care passed, will have no inclination to walk the plank again for any other Obama issue.
Prognosis: Dem’s dead in the water and taking on gallons and gallons.
Thanks Obama! You are going to make history alright.
Yes, but the special seat at the table they set for us effin retards is just Oh So Nice /s
Obamarahma would be content if Republicans took Congress. The current administrations policies are by and large Republican in origin.
Yep. In the drilling as healthcare sequel we are likely to see that famous bipartisanship that we’ve heard so much about. On the other hand, since the progressives, at least here, are simply powerless viewers of the train wreck we probably don’t deserve the label applied by Rahm to the easily rolled over folks represented by the other happy campers.
First, it’s Obama’s car and he’s the one giving directions. Rahm is just the driver.
Second, who is this “us”? Obama and Rahm drove the Democratic party to the cliff, but they were all pretty much happy to go there, and the few who weren’t went anyway. He did not drive many of us here. Many of us are independents not Democrats. If Democrats want to make themselves indistinguishable from Republicans, why should any of us here care if Democrats stand or fall?
Since Obama is basically Bush’s 3rd term, it’s not a surprise that the party in power will be thrown out.
Yes, both Democrats and Republicans are running on a platform that they are only marginally less pathetic and criminal than the other side. Talk about energizing voters . . .
I don’t watch Glenn, but I’m sure he must have said that the HCR bill was not going to result in some big Dem bounce.
He certainly has a lot more credibility on that front than Obama or Rahm!
“If the election were now …”
Well, it isn’t.
Castles made of Sand.
I think Obama will be a one-term president.
I’d rather see them go down resulting in a Congress that’s stalemated and unable to pass anything, better than getting the Corporatist crap that has been passed so far …
Actually, he’s much more like George H.W. Bush.
What does it matter anymore? Many of us here at least were skeptical of BHO to begin with but held our noses and voted for him bc (speaking mainly for myself, but I think many others felt the same way) we couldn’t stand the thought of Palin-McSame.
Now: what’s the difference? IMO there is, simply, no difference whatsover. If Palin-McSame had won, we’d be in the same place with the same kind of crummy legislation. So come Nov, who cares?
There’s no “us.” Rahm and the Dems are on the edge of the cliff, not me!
I also see similarities with Reagan, on policy, methods and personality
well, maybe not on methods, Reagan was quite hands off of the wonks, let the wing run things …
Any rebounding due to HIR is likely to be quashed by the announcement of offshore oil and gas drilling, though. Especially among the younger & DFH base.
That has to be one of most ignorant things I’ve read here for a long while. Teddy, why don’t you just crawl up in bed and hide for the next four years.
It’s March 31. I very much doubt that Democrats and Independents seven months are going to decide to stay home because of the potential for oil exploration on the outer continental shelf from Delaware to Georgia.
Couldn’t agree more, onitgoes. Found this list at some blog I visited:
* If McCain had won, we’d still be at war in Iraq.
* If McCain had won, we’d have sent more troops to Afghanistan.
* If McCain had won, Guantanamo would still be open.
* If McCain had won, a woman’s right to choose would be restricted further.
* If McCain had won, the government would protect corporations over people.
* If McCain had won, unconstitutional W. Bush-era practices would still be in place.
It had links and the whole bit. Can’t find it now. Great list though. Glad I saved it.
and to @rmwarnick @ 38 – very good point on who is “us” – will make sure to keep that in mind for future posts
I’m certainly not going to do anything to help slow down or cause Obama to swerve. They are going off the cliff and I’m happy to let them. It is sad, but the Democrats need to realize they are not Republicans and can not represent them without there being ramifications for that view.
Lloyd Doggett, you were a good rep, but your time has come. Perhaps some other hippie Austinite will take up the slack for me, but I’m not voting for you. You sold us down the river and frankly, you don’t deserve to be my representative anymore. I wish you well in your retirement, but I refuse to support anyone who would cave to party pressure as opposed to representing the views that you supposedly held.
Let me know when you guys back a third party. I’m ready to go.
Actually, the Dems are much more dishonest. We expect the repugs to be nasty and dirty, but the Dems PRETEND to care about the American people before they throw us under the bus.
So… We passed a health care plan written by a committee whose chairman says he doesn’t understand it, passed by a Congress that hasn’t read it but exempts themselves from it, signed by a president that also is exempt from it and hasn’t read it and who smokes, with funding administered by a treasury chief who cheated on his taxes, all to be overseen by a surgeon general who is obese, and financed by a country that’s broke.
What could possibly go wrong?
Always enjoy seeing the smiling Rahm. Anyone know if Ari has any of his Hollywood writers working on scripts for the White House. It would be exciting for the veal pen and the media. All that professional grade wag the dog drama. I mean how boring would it be if Ari weren’t involved. Maybe reality does bite.
And the Texas Rangers.
sums it up nicely, Great Visuals !
Similar to the defense the Catholic Church is using to address its systemic pedophilia and coverups. Others were doing it and others were just as bad and worse.
No other group, like teachers or boy scouts (Funny, The Arch Bishop of NY never mentioned the boy scouts) posits that it is the quintessential arbiter of morality. Only The Catholic Church (and Rick Warren) posits that it is the ultimate (earth bound) authority on morality and other important social issues.
Likewise, the D Party presents itself as a peoples’ party. It is now blantently obvious that it is not.
The argument that the D Party uses: We are “better than the alternative” does not hold water.
I disagree with this one. The “pro-life” stance is the GOP’s bread-and-butter fundraising and campaign platform, they always promise to do something about abortion, but they would never actually DO ANYTHING to remove it as an issue.
What the Left should keep in mind is the marginality of the differences between Democrats and Republicans on the most significant issues of our time: those involving war and peace, global trade, environmental protection, energy policies and climate change, the Bill of Rights, re-regulation of the financial industry, health-care as a not-for-profit service.
The issues on which there are more significant divergences between the two major parties are the so-called “cultural” issues. These are very important to many individuals, but they are not critical as are the former.
What they amount to is base formation: each party cultivates a base that differs strongly, even bitterly on these matters: abortion, gay rights, feminism, racial equality, etc.
The worst aspect of the November, 2010 elections is that we, voters, still do not have other choices than those offered by the Democrats or Republicans. Yes, there are other candidates in presidential elections, but with only a few exceptions you will have a Dem or a Repub as your senator or representative.
As we have seen in the recent House vote for the health insurance company care bill, the so-called “progressives” cannot be trusted to keep to their pledges when the chips are down.
Oh Noes!! One half of the corporate establishment may lose a little power to the other half of the corporate establishment.
And yet the Obama DOJ issued a brief in support of DADT that includes quotes from Colin Powell representing his views in 1993, rather than his current views. “Fierce advocate of gay rights”?
I changed my registration so that I could vote for a progressive (or, at least, “more progressive”) challenger to Blue Dog Jane Harman (CA-36) in June.
Very true. They will have many new reasons by then.
That’s quite true. The Republics had total power for most of the Decider’s terms. With the Decider willing to sign anything, they could have outlawed abortion. They didn’t do that because they want to keep it as an election issue, year after year. It’s funny that their anti-abortion supporters never get that.
We – the base – sent the Democratic Party a message when 800,000 stayed home and let Brown win in Massachusetts.
the result was a GOP for life in a Mass Senate seat (we do not remove incumbents) and a note from the Dem Party saying “message not received”.
Hard to see the path forward. Hard to see the need to protect Obamacare from repeal in 2013 under a GOP president.
I would tend to disagree a bit.
Obama has simply discovered that constitutional democracy is too difficult. Much more easy to be a dictator.
“Take what I give you and like it.”
In my opinion, a Democrat and Republican differ only marginally on the great issues confronting the US: imperialism, economic policy, Bill of Rights, financial regulation. The differences between the two parties are largely in the socio-cultural matters: abortion, gender issues, etc. These are significant in base-formation, but the real constituency of both parties are the corporate financiers and lobbyists.
The recent cave-in on health-care reform of the House progressives (e.g. Dennis Kucinich) demonstrates that no MC is reliable, even among the “progressive” Democrats. Until there are alternative parties that draw popular support, it makes no difference which party wins in November.
I can’t imagine voting for a Democrat even if someone were holding a gun to my head. I can’t imagine voting for or supporting in any shape or manner an incumbent, even with a bazooka held to my head.
There is no such thing as moderate when it comes to fascist mandates and intentionally leaving millions without health care.
There is no such thing as moderate trillion dollar bailouts to criminals with no more instruction than hurry up blow another bubble.
There is no such thing as a moderate needless war/occupation.
If there are two evils (and clearly that’s the situation), I choose neither.
Yes, and Democrats keep getting excited and donating money over the issue of gun control when the US Constitution and 50 state constitutions plus established public opinion will always prevent significant change. The lobbyists for each party have scams that they spring every election cycle. Scare a group, collect money for the elected officials, fight publicly, then do a face-saving deal of some sort and nothing gets done. No gun control, good for me and other libertarians by the way, no anti-abortion legislation which is good for you liberals and for me. It is a game that keeps the lobbyists and fund raisers prosperous and the populace on edge. Better than working for a living!
Wasn’t it wonderful that we had Ralph Nader to vote for in 2000, 2004, 2008? We did not have to vote for any of the Republicans or Democrats. When Bill Clinton ran, Nader was not on the ballot in my state, and I had no one to vote for.
It’s nice to have a choice even though most voters wanted to vote for a “winner”. Well, they got a winner in 2008, and we are all stuck with him for another three years.
I disagree that we’d necessarily be in the same position with McCain-Palin that we are in today.
I think if McCain-Palin had pushed the Obama policies, the strong Democratic majority in both houses of congress would have made it possible to block them. What I’m saying is that Dems would have fought these things if it had been a Republican president pushing them, and we’d at least in some areas and some ways be better off. Once the president’s stacked budget commission is done and the president “pre-compromises” with Republicans (by adopting what heretofore had been the Republican position) on Social Security “reform”, the ranks of people on the left who feel the same way I do now will likely increase somewhat. Then again, I could be wrong about everything…but I don’t think that I am.
I actually voted for D’s in a couple of those cycles.
For that I am ashamed and I apologize.
who would that be?
you’re dead on.
There are a few positive outcomes of stalemate …
Do you remember that movie with Eddie Murphy, “The Distinguished Gentleman?”
In it, there is one scene where he is trying to determine what side of an issue to take. His aide says, “Well, if you are for it…..” Then lists about 10 groups and companies that would give him money. “If you are against it…” He then lists about 10 groups and companies who would give him money. (not companies by trade associations)
It was clear there was money no matter which way you went.
That seems to indicate public financing, but then, you get a situation where some guy–think GOP–who has a position no one wants, gets a lot of tax payer money to run for office.
For me, the only solution is only individuals can contribute and then no more than $2000 or so. No groups, companies, trade associations or PACS.
I hope, I really hope, the Dems and Obama go down in historic flames. Maybe then they’ll move to the center instead of rightwing policies.
Make up a list of the worst qualities of Reagan, Nixon, Clinton, the two Bushes, and Dick Cheney. Then see if the composite doesn’t resemble Obama.
Ouch BigJess, and I thought I was Cynical
Since your comments are consistently in defense of the Obama administration, do you work for the government, in Washington D.C., or as a lobbyist?
“The worst aspect of the November, 2010 elections is that we, voters, still do not have other choices than those offered by the Democrats or Republicans. Yes, there are other candidates in presidential elections, but with only a few exceptions you will have a Dem or a Repub as your senator or representative.”
As long as people keep perpetuating this myth that a third party candidate won’t win…they probably won’t. There is nothing in the constitution that states we must vote for a Democrat or Republican. So, let’s get united as citizens who want a better country for ALL citizens, not just the wealthiest, and maybe we CAN bring about change. The Democrats and Republicans do not represent the interests of the people first…therefore, they should become the inconsequential parties.
http://www.the13thstory.com/krg/words/myths.html
I dunno. I’m really wondering about this.
One of my first thoughts when I read the “drill, baby, drill” story last night was, “I wonder how Kos, TPM, Digby and all the other blogs that came over to promo health care ‘reform’ are going to react to this? Are they in a ‘whatever our Dear Leader says; he must know best’ mode? Do they have any capability to think for themselves/evaluate? Will their ‘base’ rise up against this?”
From Obama/Rahm’s perspective, the brilliance of the health care strategy was that it co-opted “the Left” — not just steam-rollering it, but bringing it over to cheer for “the team.”
Now that they’ve experienced those catered lunches in the Veal Pen, will any of these guys go back to “independence”?
But your comment was about members of Congress: I think the same applies to them. Who, after all, is going to “oppose” this Mighty, Successful President? And who out there among the MSM or other information sources, is going to point out what a collosal Fuck the health care bill is, such that folks can become aware — other than the “it’s socialism” bullshit from Fox — of how the bill both solves few problems and creates many, many new ones.
Actually, I now think this is much worse than if McCain/Palin had won. At least under that scenario there would be energized opposition — as there was under Bush — to the radical, corporatist policies. Under Obama, there’s not only no opposition — the folks you’d normally think would be the opposition are cheering things along.
There’s NO locus for opposition. The Republicans are either crazy or just obstructionist. There’s no articulate, critical opposition to Obama’s disastrous policies. He just goes on his merry way, rolling out one after another.
One term president? We can only hope!!!
Edit: and what Romberry said @ 63
Wow! Couldn’t have said it better myself. I listened to each of the “progressive” radio shows today and was astounded that ALL of them made excuses and were spinning this decision by the President. The media is purposely trying to co-opt “the left”…what I wonder is, do people realize that some of the basic progressive principles result in a more humanitarian society? By following this path to conservatism, we are hurting each other for the benefit of a very few…
Thanks.
My view and concern about the “no opposition” comes from my own experience. I [I am now ashamed to admit] supported Obama after Edwards dropped out. I donated & worked hard. I bugged my friends — none of whom is as politically involved as I, and almost all of whom welcomed and relied upon my e-mails, forwards, etc.
My role as “political mentor” continued through the health care wars. I continued to e-mail links [esp. to FDL] with comments. And once it became clear to me what a disaster this bill was, I sent along my opinion.
Fast forward to now: ALL of those folks must have been secretly consulting Kos, TPM, OFA or whatever [even though I know none of them were] because they ALL are now, “well, it’s not perfect, but it’s a start;” ” get over it, MM; the bill has passed;” and variations thereof.
Result: none of these folks is available to hear criticism of Obama’s latest folly, and yours truly has been “silenced” — at least with regard to these “friends” — as a source of organization, inspiration, etc.
It’s lonely out here for a . . . Pup.
Krugman is a hired gun for corporate democrats.
Seems like it’s turning out more and more that Obama is the most moderate Republican the Democrats ever sent to the White House.
“One of the truest tests of integrity is its blunt refusal to be compromised.” – Chinua Achebe
You are not as alone as you might think. There are quite a few people who can still look objectively at what the President proposes. For those who say “it’s a start”, I say, “in what direction”. As many have already stated, it is far worse if a “friend” stabs you in the back because of the emotional toll when you didn’t expect it. We need to keep speaking out, otherwise our voices will be lost once again. During the Bush administration, it was “unpatriotic” to say anything negative about it. Now we are called names by the Obama administration. Will we be “silenced” again?
When you pass a GOP health care bill and call it your own as a liberal, and then you adopt energy policy of drilling off shore, you can count on 2010 to be like 1994. You’ve basically said “Fuck You” to your base. You know, the people who got you elected.
The Dems have become the GOP while the GOP has fallen off the cliff. As a Progressive, I’d never vote for anything the GOP stands for, so why would I vote for a Democratic party that has moved so far to the right that it has become the new GOP?
Agree.
Note to GREEN party. You have taken a honorable self-imposed position of not corporate donations as part of your party charter. Focus your energy and sparse resources on five deep blue districts and one small blue state senate seat with door to door campaign and no amount TV nonsense from the corporate dems and corporate republicans can counter that. If voters see how your party will legislate what is good for the people and country because of this self-imposed charter you will have momentum on your side and you will put the country in a better direction.
My daughter did offer up the insight that if Obama had lost in 2008 then we’d never have known what complete frauds he and the rest of the D.C. Democrats were.
As it is, we do know that, and since the party knows that it won the Presidency and its large Congressional majorities by running at least relatively progressive campaigns if it gets the living sh!t kicked out of it next November it won’t as easily be able to claim that it was because it governed too far to the left (given how far to the right its behavior has been compared to its campaign positions).
Perhaps better that all this came to light such that we can start trying to deal with it now rather than yet more years down the road. I mean, I’ve been sufficiently displeased with national Democrats to have denied them my votes since early 2004, but I really had no idea just how utterly disgusting they were until the past year.
I have been reading FDL for awhile and have been a contented lurker until yesterday.
I, like so many others on this board, busted my ass for Obama/Biden after I got over loosing Edwards then Hillary. I have been disappointed by his administration at more turns than not. But, drill-baby-drill was the last straw.
I have read your posts and I feel as conflicted as do many of you. Do I do the progressive cause more good by turning my back on the Democratic Party, focusing on one or two true progressives whether in my district or not, or in the bigger scheme do I do more harm by making it easier for the R’s to win?
My calculation is that it is easier to elect a progressive running against a republican than a sell-out democrat. And, on a more personal level, I refuse to donate my my time and money to pols that lie to me. I do not care if they can “spin and nuance” their flip flops, I know one when I see one!
Thanks for listening and let us all hope for the change we were promised.