No clear path for Dems to win House in November?

[lwcon]

Chris Bowers at Open Left:

For the first time since I began monitoring the national House ballot since October, Democrats have fallen behind. Further, they have no clar path back into the lead, as five separate polling organizations now show them facing a deficit.

Here's a clear path: think liberally, act liberally, talk liberally, write legislation liberally, and vote liberally.

In 2006 and 2008 Americans voted for change. The Dems have demonstrated virtually no interest in giving it to them.

As Chris Floyd put it brilliantly:

And what is Barack Obama's agenda? What is his political program? It breaks down into three main elements: unwinnable wars, unconscionable bailouts, and unworkable, unwanted health care "reform" that forces people to further enrich some of the most despised conglomerates in the land. It is, in every way, a recipe for moral, economic and political disaster. It is a gigantic anchor tied around the neck of the Democratic Party, and it will drag the whole lumbering wreck back to the bottom in short order.

It also provides a fertile breeding ground for the willful, belligerent ignorance of the Right to thrive. With such an egregiously stupid and destructive agenda at work in the White House, opponents need only say that they are against it, and they are guaranteed a wide following. Who would not be against unwinnable war, unconscionable bailouts and unworkable boondoggles serving rapacious elites? The actual positions held by these opponents – the actual policies they will pursue once in power – are given little scrutiny in such circumstances. The opponent represents change from a hated status quo – and that's enough. Later, when their odious positions come to light, it is too late.

Where have we seen this dynamic at work before? Oh yes, it was way back in November 2008. Barack Obama represented change from the hated status quo, from the agenda of the ruling Republican party. And what was that agenda? Why, unwinnable wars, unconscionable bailouts and the assiduous service of rapacious elites. The actual positions held by Obama – the actual policies that he would pursue once in power – were given little scrutiny. Except by a precious few – such as Arthur Silber, who long ago warned that Obama's election would be ruinous for genuine progressive change, that he would merely put a new gloss on the old corruption while disarming dissent from 'progressives,' who would feel bound to support the president against his rightwing enemies – even if it meant "holding their noses" and supporting bad policies like the health care reform bill or the Afghan surge.

[Aramchek]

1. how dark the lwcon of man

[lwcon]

3. I guess we need a whole Congressful of Scott Browns before

the Dems claim their liberal birthright instead of coasting/drifting along as Republican Lite.

[leveymg]

2. Most people don't reward failure to deliver.

I wish the White House political office and Senate Majority leader understood that. Maybe they do.

[lwcon]

8. You've got to admire their sticktoitiveness

If at first you don't get re-elected with policy FAILs, try try again.

The Repubs are much better at making bad politics look good, and the Dems are afraid (or too well paid) to pursue the fixes we need. What a country!

[spanone]

4. No clear path for reTHUGS to win House Seats in November

they have nothing to offer...n o t h i n g

[lwcon]

5. Just like in liberal Massachusetts

Home of Sen. Scott Brown.

[spanone]

6. i think that was lost as much as they won....poor candidate...i see no mandate for rethugs

[lwcon]

7. You just might revise that thinking come November, sorry to say n/t

[KingFlorez]

9. That's one race

A special election at that. Plus, they aren't going to have Scott Brown clones in every race, he basically ran as an outside Independent and not as a national Republican.

[mdmc]

10. we take our lumps and move on

I think we are tied to the hip to corporations..
The reform called for in the OP would take too much courage and spine, imho.