Chris Cillizza discusses a couple of reasons to be optimistic that 2010 will not be a repeat of 1994.
Although few savvy Democratic strategists debate the difficulty of the national political environment, they do note that there are two important differences between the 1994 election and this one.
The first is the relative weakness of the Republican brand. In 1994, Republicans had been out of power in the House for four decades, and most voters had a limited sense of what a GOP House would be like. In 2010, the American public has fired Republicans — in the House, Senate and White House — twice in the past four years. And, in a recent NBC/Wall Street Journal survey, the GOP had its lowest favorability ratings ever. (We repeat: ever.)
Second, Democrats understand the building frustration and desire for change in a way that the party simply didn’t get 16 years ago. “The one advantage Democrats have is early-warning radar that we are facing a tough environment, and many of our incumbents have geared up their campaigns much earlier than in 1994,” said Fred Yang, a leading Democratic pollster. “The possible wave may be too big for any campaign, but we’re going to be ready this time and run harder and more aggressive campaigns.”
It’s our job to remind voters why they hate the Republican Party more now than they ever have in the past. (We repeat: ever). Most people would rather contract chlamydia than see the Republicans back in power. The problem is that most people are feeling apathetic and unenthusiastic about what the Democrats have accomplished. Anyone who wants to reinforce those feelings over the next 60 days needs to consider what the hell they think they are going to accomplish. But I’ve been saying this since July 1st.
I simply cannot believe this. Example? Elizabeth Warren still being trashed by Dodd and the administration not lifting a finger to help her. They want to leave her twisting in the wind like Dawn Johnsen. It’s not unreasonable to say she’s not nominated because it’s a recess, but they haven’t supported her.
The White House isn’t “Democrats”, as in those running for re-election or for election.
I agree. A recess appointment of Warren makes the most sense for getting the program going and for the politics in the fall. There are no other recesses before November’s election recess.
There is the possibility that unknown to us, the Fed is doing a trial run of Warren’s ability to handle the adminstrative/managerial parts of running an bureau. She apparently is involved in the set-up of the bureau that is going on.
The Fed? As in the Federal reserve?
They hate Democrats.
This has been common knowledge for sometime, ever since it was revealed that the Feds juice the gas in presidential election years for Republicans but throw cold water on the economy in presidential election years for Dems. If any one is relying on the Federal Reserve to vet Warren you know what the answer is going to be.
“‘The one advantage Democrats have is early-warning radar that we are facing a tough environment, and many of our incumbents have geared up their campaigns much earlier than in 1994,’ said Fred Yang, a leading Democratic pollster.” This drives me crazy. There is NEVER an excuse not to go all out for every election, whether problems are suspected or not. Democrats don’t seem to get the fact that in politics every single day has to be played as if it were for all of the marbles. I’m glad they’re awake this time, but there was no excuse for being asleep in 1994.
It’s not just that the Republican brand is in poor standing with voters. The national press will never cover it because the already-written story is the ‘Democrats Divided’ one, but the facts are that many current Republican office holders are terrified of their mentally-ill base and loathe them almost as much as Democrats loathe their base; and that a lot of Republicans and independents who stayed home or voted Democratic in the last two elections and would like to switch back are appalled at the twin spectacles of GOP base racism and GOP office-holder stand-patism.