Charlie Cook: A Glimmer Of Hope For Democrats

[babylonsister]

Now he's walking it back? CYA? :eyes:

http://www.nationaljournal.com/njmagazine/po_20100717_5341.php

A Glimmer Of Hope For Democrats
A new poll suggests how House Democrats can keep their losses down in November.

by Charlie Cook

Saturday, July 17, 2010

snip//

Things got more interesting when 43 percent said that the phrase "supports a failed economic agenda" better described Democrats; 34 percent said it described Republicans. However, when people were asked whether they would prefer a candidate for office who "will stick with President Barack Obama's economic policies" or "one who will return to President George W. Bush's economic policies," the result was a 15-point advantage for the Obama approach, 49 percent to 34 percent.

In other questions, just 27 percent rated President Bush as having done an "excellent" or "good" job of "ensuring fairness in the tax code." Respondents similarly gave him a bad review on "helping the middle class," with just 28 percent saying he was excellent or good on the issue. Finally, just 14 percent said that Bush had done an excellent or good job of both "regulating Wall Street and the oil companies," and "managing the federal budget deficit."

Although some pollsters don't care for the "excellent/good" versus "fair/poor" questions because fair is neither positive nor negative, these are still ugly numbers for President Bush. However, when asked "Which is closer to your view of the economic agenda that Republicans in Congress would support if they win a majority of seats in Congress," just 25 percent said that the GOP would back "a return to George W. Bush's economic policies." A whopping 65 percent thought that the GOP would have "a new economic agenda that is different from George W. Bush's policies."

The bottom line is that even though many voters express disdain for Bush's economic policies, they do not attach those policies to a possible new GOP majority. If this midterm election is a referendum on Obama and the Democrats in Congress, the party is going to lose a lot of seats, very likely the House, and possibly the Senate. If the Democrats can frame this election as Bush versus Obama, even to a moderate degree, Democrats might be able to keep their House losses down. They don't have a great shot at succeeding, but they don't seem to have many promising alternatives.

[CTLawGuy]

1. Simple message

"What have the Republicans been doing this whole time? Filibustering. A vote for an R is a vote to filibuster any solution to our problems. If you want government to do something about our problems, vote Democratic."

[fasttense]

2. The Democratic party should have been pounding away on this issue for the last 2 years.

But instead we had to have bipartisanship which merely gave the RepubliCONS the control. If you are desperate for a compromise at all costs, in order to avoid a fight, then you have just turned control over to the other side.

I really believe President Obama will NEVER learn that you can not compromise with gangsters. They are not playing the same game you are playing. They will kill you if the chance comes along. But compromise means you wont kill them and they know it.

[babylonsister]

4. I give Dems credit for being a tad busy the past two years and

getting a lot accomplished while rethugs sat on their hands and made idiots of themselves (to those who were/are paying attention).

[DCBob]

3. I knew this was coming too..

Things are a changing!

[Clio the Leo]

5. Remember how everyone thought HCR was dead in early February?

The President is infamous for not starting speeches until the night before .... or stalling on debate prep until days before .... he's either a procrastinator, or is WAY more patient than everyone else, realizing that DC exists in a 24 hour news cycle. No point in starting early when you cant control the message every single day.

I'd suggest that those who are impatient are setting themselves up for disappointment.

Slow and steady always wins the race.

[karynnj]

6. I really don't agree with the advice

It looks like the link between the Republicans and the Bush policy is already broken. That is not that much of a surprise. Remember the 2008 GOP convention? Even then the Republican message was that they too thought Bush made a mess. They have continued to push that - and the idea that they had repented the "liberal (!) big spending of Bush policies that the Democrats are now pursuing. They then positioned themselves as deficit hawks and fiscal conservatives. That has been the message that their echo chamber has been pushing.

It would seem that what we need to do is to defend the Obama policies and to use Kyl's statement that the entire party seems to have backed. People are not dumb enough not to understand that cutting revenue by passing legislation to continue to allow no estate tax - letting a man pass $9 billion tax-free to his beneficiaries and not restoring Clinton era income tax rates for the top income groups increases the deficit by the amounts those taxes would have brought in. I remember Kerry saying long ago that values are seen in budget choices. This contrasted to not being willing to extend benefits beyond 26 weeks is stark. I bet more people know someone out of work or who fears being out of work than know someone in the richest 2%.

This though means we take on restoring the Bush tax cuts heads on. But, remember in 2004 and 2008, our position was a plus - which explains the prominence EVERY Democratic candidate in both elections gave it. We need to counter their arguments on how those tax cuts stimulate the economy. But, I don't remember any reluctance to grow businesses or hire in the late Clinton years. Economic conditions, far more than a relatively moderate change in marginal rates determined when employers were willing to do so. To argue that for estate taxes is ludicrous.

I have been following the MA papers' articles on Scott Brown and the unemployment extension. Both papers have had their bouts of Brownmania, where their articles have been as unbiased as any articles written by Beatles fans in 1964 on the group would have been. However, the RW Herald had an op-ed last week that praised his silly alternative bill but ended by advising him to vote for the Democrats' bill because people are in great need. The comments in both papers have really turned on Brown - with at least 3/4ths being negative and some supporters bizarrely whining that the papers aren't covering Kerry to the same degree picking on all his votes. When your supporters are whining that you ARE getting coverage and are not disputing its accuracy, this is not a good sign. Now, MA is one of the mot liberal states, but in all states there are people who have been out of work for more than a half year who are hurt by this Republican filibuster.

We can still use Bush - but we can't make linking the Republicans to Bush the centerpiece. We need to speak of what they are now doing and what they intend to do. This is where people are now. I hope Obama takes major advantage of appointing (hopefully Warren) the consumer protection advocate called for in the finance bill. Let the Republicans defend Boehner's position. We need to run on passing healthcare - and let them run on repealing it. Even some moderate Republicans argued for that in primaries against tea party challengers. We need to get them to either stand behind that unpopular position or risk alienating the right by rejecting it. We have the videos in many cases. (61% of the country is against repealing it. I would bet that the percent would be far higher if it were just computed for districts held by Democrats. )

The worst thing about Cook's advice is the implicit assumption that we can not defend what Obama has done. Yet he himself knows a midterm is a referendum on what has been done. He also ignores that the Congressional Republicans have by far the lowest approval. If you believe that letting people know more about what the Stimulus did LOCALLY, healthcare and financial reform can improve their approval ratings - it is easy to see that rise in approval should raise the Democratic Congressional number and Obama's. How do the - we tried to stop everything and we think Obama is a socialist Republicans raise their extremely low numbers? They already have their core believers and I don't think their message flies well with anyone else.

Also a plea - I know that many here are unimpressed with the Congress - especially by the Senate. I would hope though that they would - if polled - think of the impact of the numbers and give Obama and the Democrats the highest approval.

[mikekohr]

7. Republican versus Democratic Economidc Record -RESULTS MATTER-

THE PARTY WITH THE BEST RECORD OF SERVING REPUBLICAN ECONOMIC VALUES IS THE DEMOCRATS, AND IT ISN'T EVEN CLOSE!"
-Michael Kingsley-


FEDERAL SPENDING: since 1960 Republicans increased Federal Spending by 71% more than have Democrats

FEDERAL DEBT: since 1960 Republicans have increased the National debt by 100% more per year than have Democrats

GROSS DOMESTIC PRODUCT: since 1921, adjusted for inflation, Democrats outproduce Republicans by 43% . Starting in 1940 the Democratic advantage is 23% better.

REAL PER CAPITA INCOME: since 1960 Democrats have outperformed Republicans by 30%. (This is perhaps the most important economic statistic of all).

INFLATION: since 1960, Democrats outperform Republicans 3.13% to 3.89%.

UNEMPLOYMENT: since 1960 it decreases in an average Democratic year by 0.3% to 5.33%, and increases in average Republican year by 1.1% to 6.38%.

JOB CREATION: from 1945 to 2003, Democrats produced 174,200 jobs per month, Republicans have only produced 60,600 per month. Every time a Democrat succeeds a Republican, job creation soars. Every time a Republican succeeds a Democrat job creation plummets. NO EXCEPTIONS!

DOW JONES AVERAGE: since 1921 the DOW has increased by 52% more under Democratic administrations.

THE BOND MARKET: since 1940 the value of 10 year Treasury bonds rose 1.2% under Democrats and fell 0.5% under Republicans.

SOURCES-Bureau of Labor Statistics, Economic Policy Institute, "Christian Science Monitor," "The Los Angles Times" -Michael Kingsley-


by mike kohr 3/7/2006



RESULTS MATTER, VOTE DEMOCRATIC!



?



Bureau County Democrats
http://bureaucountydems.blogspot.com/p/economic-record.html

[babylonsister]

8. The thing is, the rethugs are linking themselves to

Bush and his 'successes'. We'd be foolish not to capitalize on that, doncha think? From yesterday...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=8771013
Cornyn: Americans are nostalgic for Bush

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/07/18/pete-sessions-nrcc-chair_n_650431.html
The GOP's Solution For Cutting The Deficit? Return To The Bush Years

[karynnj]

10. I saw one of those after writing this

I think you are right - it is a gift and we should take it.

I still think that it would be an error not to primarily lead with the good that we did. Linking to Bush at best leads to a very uninspiring "at least we're better than Bush" message.

[DCBob]

11. +1.. Bush is ancient history... thank goodness.

lets focus on the the past 18 months.

[zipplewrath]

9. That guy versus this guy

When you look at some of the nut jobs that are running for the GOP, it would seem that the democrats would do better not making this a referendum on national issues, but merely a case of "do you want that guy or this guy?" The GOP is getting stuck with alot of whacko candidates out of the whole tea party mess and connecting the GOP to many of those candidates would spill over into other races too in the sense of "do you really want these nutball/bagger/birther/bircher folks in charge?"

[girl gone mad]

12. It will be hard to frame this election as Bush versus Obama..

when for most intents and purposes, we're running Bush's third term.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

13. I don't think this is a cycle that's going to play by the rules.

Making guys who normally are really good at this thing (like Charlie Cook) pretty much useless this year. It ain't his fault, it's just going to be a strange, wild ride in 2010.