Everytime they do any polling in Nevada, they discover that the people there are fed up with Harry Reid and inclined to vote him out of office. The latest polling shows Reid losing to Republicans who have little stature. Nevada has been hit extremely hard by the collapse of real estate values and has whole communities facing foreclosure on their homes. People there are hurting financially and that appears to be fostering an anti-incumbent sentiment. Reid is not alone. The people would also vote out the Republican governor and Sen. John Ensign.
Nevada is a swing-state that is trending Democratic due to demographic changes. Yet, it’s huge Mormon population and live-free-or-die libertarian streak assure that Republicans will remain competitive for quite some time. In an abstract sense, Nevadans would be crazy to vote out a politician that carries as much clout as Harry Reid. Whatever his failings, and they aren’t that severe, the same logic that made Alaskans reluctant to vote out Ted Stevens should hold some sway in Nevada. No freshman backbencher from either party is going to be able to do as much for the state as the Senate Majority Leader. But that logic didn’t save Tom Daschle in South Dakota, and it may not save Harry Reid.
Sen. Reid would probably be safer if he didn’t have quite so high a profile. If he were just one senator among a hundred, he could trim his votes here and there to create a little distance between himself and the mainstream of the Democratic Party. But he is not able to do that because his responsibility is to usher through Obama’s policy agenda, and he can’t show leadership if he is voting against the legislation he is trying to advance.
Yesterday, I wrote about the plight of Blue Dog Rep. Allen Boyd from the Florida Panhandle, who was faced with some virulent town-hall opposition to Obama’s health-care plan. But look at what one of his constituents had to say:
John Webb, a retiree from the small village of Woods, said after a Boyd town hall meeting in the county seat town of Bristol that he thought the country is headed in the wrong direction — and he wasn’t alone.
“I go to church. I hear it at church. They’re just afraid. They don’t trust this administration,” Webb said.
Exactly why is tougher to pin down, but it often returns to the same litany, a mix of conservative and populist frustrations. Webb cited the stimulus before wondering in his next breath: “I don’t understand how a company can fail and then the head of that company gets a $3 or $4 million bonus.”
That’s a pretty straightforward articulation of a worldview that combines conservative religiosity with populist anger. I don’t think John Webb’s political views are reducible to a simple left/right Democrat/Republican definition. He goes to church and hears a lot of angst and mistrust about the administration. People are worried about an expanded role for a government they don’t quite identify with, but they also want someone to do something about corporate CEO’s getting away with murder and stealing their money. In a bad economy, churchgoing folk are getting hit just as hard as everyone else. The collection agencies are going after them, their jobs are disappearing, their savings are drying up, and Goldman Sachs is making record profits.
So, if you are a Democrat in a vulnerable seat, how do you think you are going to reach a guy like John Webb? He’s already suspicious of you because of his social conservatism and bias against the federal government. I don’t think you reach John Webb by protecting the profits and market-share of large corporations. I think you reach him by helping his neighbor avoid foreclosure. Maybe you reach him by helping him buy a new, more energy-efficient automobile. You reach him by telling him that you’re going to keep corporate bean-counters from rescinding his health-care coverage when he gets sick.
Despite his protestations against government action, government action is something he wants. But he doesn’t want to see the government helping just CEO’s and poor, urban people. He wants to see the government helping his peers and himself. There are connection points to be made between the Democratic Party and John Webb, but the consultants in Washington DC are misidentifying what they are. Yes, it might help a Democrat connect with John Webb if they cast some socially conservative votes. But, on economic matters, it is precisely the wrong thing to do to tell him that you are going to look out for the market-share of health insurance corporations.
I don’t know why this is complicated, but if Harry Reid doesn’t figure it out quickly, he could be out of a job.
The silver bullet is a single-payer universal health care plan that only covers white people.
Ha ha. Way to marginalize your entire party.
The funny thing about liberals is the depth to which they hate people that don’t sit in their circle jerk.
No, I’m serious. That’s how Social Security got passed in ’36. If you want to build a record of legislative success with voters around providing a new social provision, stick with the tried and true.
Now I’m seriouser. The populist tradition in this country is fatally compromised by racism — look at how it was invoked during the last primary campaign, and being used now in the health-care battle, and wait to see how it’s employed during the coming battle over immigration reform.
The salient fact in American politics is that there are enough people who would volunteer to live with their family in a cardboard box under a railroad bridge, and toast sparrows on an old curtain rod over an open fire, if you would only guarantee them that the people in the next box over — black, gay, foreign, liberal, different — don’t even get the sparrow, to elect a president, pass an agenda, build a minority.
There’s no way forward for the Democratic party in that direction.
If that means a liberalism de haut en bas, then we’re stuck with it.
Oh yeah, it’s racism. Always racism. Every time a liberal doesn’t get what they want it’s due to racism.
Maybe, just maybe some people have real concerns about the government’s ability to provide any sort of quality service in healthcare, or any other industry.
On top of that, there is so much dirty pool being played by both sides of the aisle, that it’s doubtful any sensible legislation could be passed. Instead of encouraging more dirty pool (as you did), people should start demanding straight-up honest governance. A lot of voters thought Obama could deliver leadership with integrity. Nobody believes that any longer.
The only thing to do now is wait until the next round of elections.
The only thing to do now is wait until the next round of elections.
That’s the true Churchill spirit, ‘decided only to be undecided, resolved to be irresolute, adamant for drift, solid for fluidity, all-powerful to be impotent’.
Don’t feed the trolls.
That’s right. Trust the circle jerk. The circle jerk is your friend.
oh do shut up you fucking moron.
seriosuly, when your first comment ends with how much liberals hate other people, no one takes you seriously.
now go back under your bridge, trolly mctroll.
You do hate people that don’t share your perspective. And you just proved it.
Obama missed a huge opportunity by not giving the bankers a swift kick in the nuts when he had the chance. The insane levels of executive compensation at the failed financial institutions is an issue that resonates on both sides of the aisle.
Obama’s reaction was to jump in front of the pitch forks so this problem is just as much of his own making (though I doubt he sees it as a problem) at the Congress.
I keep on coming back to what Dennis Kucinich said on The Ed Show this past week:
MAIN STREET looks are real, genuine healthcare reform
AS THEIR BAILOUT.
it was a simple, but profound statement.
we have had an administration that has given everything to WALL STREET
crumbs to MAIN STREET
hasn’t even put forth the effort to put in place rules regulating WALL STREET so that they can’t do it again…
MAIN STREET WANTS THEIR BAILOUT.
and, that’s GENUINE HEALTHCARE REFORM.
and, if HARRY REID doesn’t get that..
fuck him.
The sad part of the story. There is no Democrat in Nevada who has figured it out either and has the ability to beat Reid (and Rahm Emmanuel) in a primary. None that has the resources. None that has the stature.
Talk about the consequences of neglecting to have a 50-state strategy.
Obama could have nailed the bailout to the skulls of Bush and the GOP, reluctantly finishing a bad policy because the government was committed inextricably to it. He could have taken the crisis as an opportunity to sell deep reform to an angry population. Instead he bought into the core principles of economic royalism. Change we can believe in became c-notes for Wall Street and small change for the rest of us.
I still think he’s the best we could have hoped for, but it’s becoming clear that that’s not saying much. The New Democratic Hegemony hasn’t turned out to be a very good party, has it? I don’t blame Obama as much as many lefties do, because he’s had no one to help prepare the ground for real change. The Dems joined the GOP in a coalition to co-opt fundamental change some decades ago. In the current state of paralysis, no new president is going to willingly go down as the one that broke the system. It appears that our only remaining option is to simply wait until the system falls of its own weight, and try to rebuild something functional over the blood and ashes that the crash leaves behind. Maybe the deepest responsibility of those who long for a decent American society is to prepare to seize that sorry day.
It appears that our only remaining option is to simply wait until the system falls of its own weight, and try to rebuild something functional over the blood and ashes that the crash leaves behind.
I don’t think that’s a viable option either. If we have a crash, a real crash, what we’re likely to get is the brownshirts and the posse comitatus types seizing control by fair means or foul. I don’t want to go there if we can prevent it.
I didn’t say “viable”. I think it’s all that’s left if the current political system continues to prevent real change. Right now it’s hard to see any significant movement in that direction, but I’m still hoping to be wrong.
Are you serious? These “churchgoing” folks have been voting against their own economic best interests for decades. All that matters to them is the culture war bullshit. As long as republicans keep beating the drum on abortion/gay marriage/school prayer/creationism, et al, they will vote for them every time, economics be damned…
you’re missing it.
>>These “churchgoing” folks have been voting against their own economic best interests for decades.
this is the “What’s the Matter With Kansas” scenario. The social conservatives had been shifting right since Nixon, but the real avalanche came when Bill Clinton and the DLC gave us unregulated free trade and destroyed a lot of good union jobs. Up til then the churchgoers included socially conservative Democratic voting union members. But when there were no candidates available who represented their economic interests, they all switched to the Republicans.
So remind me what it was that convinced all these folks to vote for Nixon (“Southern Strategy” anyone)? As I recall, this had zip to do with economics and everything to do with race, and well before the Dems ever threw unions under the bus…
Are personal economic interests the only valid voting interests? Should not all of Hollywood vote Republican in that case? The beauty – and problem – with a democracy is that everyone is free to vote for whomever they like, for whatever reason they like. How many people couldn’t vote for Dukakis because of his eyebrows and because he looked like a doofus in a tank? How many women voted for Obama or Bill Clinton because they had a crush on him? How many people voted for Dubya because they could see themselves having a beer with him?
I would love it if we would vote like Vulcans – reason through all of the advantages and disadvantages of potentially electing each individual who puts themselves forth for office and then logically deducing which one would be the best for the office. However, in the real world, some people will be elected because they have good hair, some because they have a famous name, some because they go to the right church or belong to the right club or were born with the right color or accent.
There is no invalid basis for placing one’s vote – economic self-interest, culture wars, property rights (Kelo anyone?), foreign policy or likability. I may choose something different as the basis of my vote, but this is a democracy and we all have that right to express ourselves through our own votes based on our own criteria. It is, indeed, our responsibility.
Perhaps if more people actually took the time to get informed on issues (as opposed to the typical “low information voter”), we would make better choices in our elections. I can only imagine how much better off we would be as a country had Al Gore been elected in 2000…
Let’s flip it another way: let’s say that the GOP implodes and another party takes its place. Let’s say that party runs on a platform that will remove our military from Iraq, Afghanistan, and every other country where they are not welcome; repeal the Patriot Act and shut down GitMo and its ilk immediately; and tax corporations 3% more and redistribute that income to universal healthcare and as an $x annual tax credit/cash rebate to every citizen. The catch is that they also propose banning abortion, embryonic stem cell research, and gay marriage.
How big does the $x need to be before your vote against this party would be considered “voting against your own economic interests?”
But is this a credible scenario, or is there an overriding pattern or set of values that would preclude such an aganda? I don’t see any way to package your proposed party’s ideology in a way that would make sense to voters.
It’s less about the party details than the overarching point – some issues are more important to some voters than their potential personal financial windfall. You could offer me the opportunity to never pay taxes again, but if that comes at a cost of repealing the 13th through 15th Amendments then I may have to vote against my economic interests.
Indeed. At my income level, I am voting against my economic self-interest every time I vote for the Democrats. Granted, that might change if the super-rich keep getting super-richer, but for the time being, if I was voting purely on the basis of my own economic self-interest, I’d vote GOP straight down the line.
Instead, I vote Democratic for much the same reason — though from the opposite side — that poor and middle-class churchgoers vote GOP: I want to win the culture war. I believe that better education and better living conditions, in addition to being nice things for my neighbors who can’t afford them right now, will chip away at the ignorance and desperation that is the wellspring of religion and social conservatism. I dream of the day when the US is like most of northern Europe and Japan and “people of faith” are a small minority group, tolerated, of course, but no longer able to mold society in their Bronze Age image.
And for this, I’m more than willing to pay higher taxes. Money is only the most important thing when you don’t have enough to get by. Once you have enough to meet your needs, you can start to think about other things.
if harry wants to continue his tenure as senior senator from nevada, the best move for him would be to get the blue dogs behind a health care bill with the public option.
given that Nevada has one of the highest rates of uninsured in the country, it would seem prudent counsel to get’er done.
as for his position as majority leader…if he can’t make this happen, he should resign. failing that, re-election or not, it’s time for a change of leadership. imo, he’s been the most ineffectual dem senate leader in memory.
Harry Reid is a bought and paid for corporate whore. He wouldn’t understand populism if it smacked him in the face. Though he should given his formative years. Isn’t Reid’s son possibly running for Governor of Nevada?
no shit.
how’d kissing liebermans’ ass work out?
not so good, eh.