Centerfield

Good year for nose plugs all around. Here's how the Democrats are starting off the season.

It not being a presidential election year, there will be a lot of nastiness but no clear party agendas, other than demonizing the opposition.

Sorry for the bad link. It's here.

OK so the news is that a political party decides to use a strategy that has worked the past two national election cycles. And we're surprized and horrified?

Republicans are the party in power, and it is their responsibility to defend their policies. The article from the Times suggessts that Democrats are attempting to challenge Bush on his strongest point, national security. I don't see this as "dirty," if the Democrats are offering a critique of the party in power's programs.

On the other hand, if the GOP follows the strategy in the other article--to change the subject to divisive "values issues" rather than debating national security and the economy--it will mark a sad political ploy.

Is that the Democrat line now? Only WE get to choose the election issues that people should care about?

And the actual Democratic strategy right now is to use the word "incompetent" over and over and over and over to describe President Bush in hopes that the old adage is true, say it often enough, and people will believe you.

Did I miss something there, JP? I'm sure the GOP will be delighted to run on national security and the economy! In fact, that's exactly what Barnes says they'll do.

There are numerous "luscious targets" offered by Democrats, including the fact that two-thirds of House Democrats voted against the reauthorization of the Patriot Act and three-fourths of congressional Democrats opposed the president's tax cuts.

To state the obvious, Bush isn't running. It's a real uphill battle to make an off-year election a referendum on a lame duck. The GOP tried that in '98--and lost seats. The Dems can scream about Bush all they want, but the public's had six years of it and it didn't work in '04, when it actually counted.

I think the Democrats have a lot of opportunities here. Imagine a GOP candidate having to face an ad saying that he/she supported bigger government and record deficit spending for the past 5 years.

Or pictures of Katrina, contrasting that to the disasters taken care of by FEMA under Clinton.

As for "incompetence" while it's nice to hear the refrain from the Dem pundits, the truth is that more than half the electorate has already made that judgement according to recent polling and so reinforcing the obvious, however Pat might disdain such, is a great tactic, albeit unfortunately for the GOP, not the only one.

Let's not forget DeLay, Abramoff, Libby, Enron, and all the other scandals. Let's not forget the public's unease over pension plans the the GOP's tendency to side against retirees. Our woefully diminished standing and international reputation.
Mine disasters and the lack of job safety enforcement. That's fresh in a few minds.
10 billion a month for Iraq. Ouch. Despite the faked out employment numbers, lots of unemployment still out there. All you had to do is look at the last set of numbers...good employment rise but underneath one notices that a lot of people gave up on looking for work for a long time. I'll post something inre that later from Merril Lynch. Abortion restrictions.

Then there's the medicare drug plan.

I mean it's like shooting ducks in a barrel. Unfortunately for the GOP, there's going to be a lot of sharpshooters out there this time.

And this is just the short list.

Of course Dems have lots of opportunities--but they're local, and it'll take local work to win 'em. National "referendums" won't do it.

Knocking a booming economy won't work other than locally, where pockets of trouble persist. But those are mostly in Dem states. Abortion restrictions will work better as scare tactics, but the same problem applies--they're only being offered out in solid red states where there's heavy support. Go compare the econ-growth numbers by red-blue. Sobering. Health care would work even better, if they could develop a believable policy.

That's the problem with the "Bush referendum" strategy. As I pointed out with the Texas 28th, they're forgetting the wisdom of their elders. Tip O'Niell, in this case. All politics is local. The Dems need to work the individual races in competitive districts and quit wasting resources on the "referendum" thing. There are some excellent opportunities for them in tight districts, especially if the GOP come up with hard-right candidates out of the primaries.

As might happen in the Arizona 8th. If the GOP puts in the hard-righter, the Dems can take it with a moderate. If they run a hard-lefter against a hard-righter in that district, the GOP'll take it. If both parties run moderates it'll be competitive, with (IMHO) a slight edge to the Dems.

I have no problem at wall with "all politics are local" - in fact I get into giggles when GOP operatives complain loudly that Democrats have "no agenda". However, you can't forget what the GOP did in 1994, which kind of threw "all politcs is local" on its head. Hence, both strategies should be used by the Democrats. Local politics definitely need to be the main focus, and I agree in that I'm of the mind that every Dem candidate should be just a bit to the left of every Republican. But it would be foolish to avoid making this a referendum on the failures of Republican governance, that is the numerous failings of the current GOP controlled house, senate etc. Use that as an umbrella national strategy with cookie cutter ads, mailings, etc. as the GOP used their "Contract" and now the Democrats have pretty potent 1-2 punch.

(Ducks in a barrel - that's what the CHP officer told me when I tested out my brand new Honda CB1100F on Hwy 5 13years ago. He was cool though, only ticketed me for 75 because I was nice enough not to run off.)

I think all the plans on both sides will get ground up by the reality of life.
Man plans and god laughs.

It doesn't matter whether its 3 Dollar gas, bird flu or another hurricane, reality will determine the election. High gas prices will benefit the democrats. Another Katrina type natural disaster could be an opportunity for W to show his competence. I wouldn't even consider trying to guess how it will all wash out at the polls.

I agree with Tully that 2nd midterm elections are an unlikely spot for + or - coattails. but then I am agnostic on coattails in midterms anyway, and skeptical of even prez election year coattails in all but the closest of races.

Look at impending elections on a case-by-case basis and find out what the issues are, that'll tell you what each election will turn on. Here's the thing. We here are in the wonkjy minoirity that pas pretty close attention to national events, but even we don't have time to pay much is any attention to the local goings on in any place but where we live. So we all want to impose our "national issues lens" on each local elections politics, becuase our interest is really only in the cumulative results for Congress as a body (again, except for our own local congressional/gubernatorial races). But IMO, it's the President as quarterback fallacy at work. The prez gets too much credit for wins and too much blame for losses. No matter the 2006 mid-term results, you'll be able to make a better argument that each given candidate won or lost based on his or her appeal to his or her electorate than you can that ther President deserves either the blame or the credit for the outcome.

I think all the plans on both sides will get ground up by the reality of life. Man plans and god laughs.

I just thought that deserved highlighting.

Brian,

"Here's the thing. We here are in the wonky minority that pays pretty close attention to national events,"

Very true and I often have to remind myself of that. Most people are only acutely aware of what we take for granted.

But is that a good thing or a bad thing? My friends in Europe seem to, pound for pound, pay more attention to politics than Americans. Maybe it was just the crowd I was hanging with but I really get that impression from there. And Europe is hardly problem free...not by a long shot.

So, what would America be like if people like us represented 40-50% of the electorate instead of, say 15-20% (which I believe is what we are)?

Would things be better? would elections be better? would the process be more transparent? Would government function better? I dunno. You can make a case for both sides of that question.

You can make a case for both sides of that question.

You sure can. Europeans tend to be more involved and knowledgable of their own internal political issues because (IMHO) they are much more dependent on their governments.

Whether or not that translates into more responsible and beneficial "citizen action" is highly debateable. Witness the youth riots in France last week. Self-interest and national interest are not the same thing.