If you don't understand we are in trouble this election you are deluded

[dsc]

I am not saying we are definately losing the House and frankly I think we have very little chance of losing the Senate but we are in some degree of trouble and we have to admit that.

First the good news. We have more money than the GOP and in the Senate's high marquee races they have picked much worse candidates than they did in 94. In 94, the GOP picked candidates that were tailor made for their states and opponents. In Massachusetts they picked the then liberal, pro gay, Mitt Romney who provided a squeaky clean, youthful image to run against Kennedy. Turned out it didn't work, but on paper it should have and but for Kennedy's second wife, it might well have. In California, they picked a self financed moderate Huffington to run against Feinstein. She won only because he had managed to break the one and only law he wrote while in the House. This time the GOP has candidates that are total whack jobs running in Nevada, Alaska, and Colorado two of which should have been certain or near certain pick ups for them. Instead, they are at best, 50/50 shots. Our money advantage should allow us to spend in all the races we need to spend in.

Now for the not so good. We are, and have been, behind in the generic polls for Congress for months. We have long time Senate incumbents in trouble in the Senate. Boxer, Feingold, and Reid are all trending behind their opponents. They are all good campaigners who are survivors, but behind is behind. All three could easily lose along with PA where we are all but certain to lose, plus both Arkansas and North Dakota where we are dead in the water and that gives 6 seats to the GOP. We are showing no signs of having any certain pick ups to offset those loses. We might win in OH, KY, or NC but that is pretty much it. All three, we are behind.

Right now I still prefer our Senate hand to theirs but the House is iffy. We have a lot of Republican drawn seats we are defending that we could well lose. Add in some long term incumbents that are in some degree of trouble and it looks a lot closer than I like. I think we need to acknowledge this.

[liberal N proud]

1. K&R

The trolls are working overtime tonight

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

2. Yes, we are in trouble. But rather than obsessing about it, are we going to get busy?

What do you plan to do to help?

[dsc]

3. I have no incumbents around me in trouble

the closest would be Larry Kissel who is by Charlotte, which is a several hour drive. If the national party deigns to help Marshall so she becomes competative I will be helping her which should, by extension, help our endangered seats.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

5. Good job. Van Hollen is my congressman who is pretty safe. So, I'm traveling to PA on the weekends

to help Sestak. Some phone banking as well when I can't travel.

[FBaggins]

27. Not "around you" perhaps...

...but certainly in range of your checkbook.

[customerserviceguy]

4. I join you in acknowledging it

Frankly, there's really not a thing that's going to happen to change the trajectory of this for the next couple of months, so I think we need to look one election beyond this one.

After the 2008 election, when everybody was writing the Rethuglicans off as dead, the tea partiers saw it as their chance to take over that party. They pushed aside anyone labeled as a RINO, and got their own candidates on the ballot. I say we look at this year as an opportunity to get rid of the Blue Dogs and DINO's, and find some untainted progressives to run in 2012.

President Obama will be at the top of the ticket, and he will have the power to bring our base to the polls. Even if he's still doing poorly in approval ratings, we can try to get behind solid progressives that voters will elect as a counterbalance to a tea party president.

[pinto]

6. You make some good points. (aside) I think a Boxer win is a clear bet in CA.

:hi:

[dsc]

8. I would rank her as our best bet of the ones in trouble

She is in a friendly state, has run in tough campaigns in the past, and has a resevoir of good will. On the bad side she has the best opponent of the three but I still would bet on her before either Reid or Feingold.

[pinto]

10. Yeah. Boxer's got a well established state wide network of supporters and donors and a good

track record. Plus, she campaigns well. (I'm in CA.)

[Nite Owl]

12. Good

I've been wanting to hear from someone who actually lives there for an assessment. I couldn't bear Fiorina on the Senate floor.

[golfguru]

20. Boxer better win, if she loses then it is all over

But I am sure she will retain her senate seat.

[still_one]

7. Unless the Democrats come out and say the repukes will destroy Social Security and Medicare, and

that the republicans have been wanting to destroy unions since reagan, and were against rescuing the American car companies, and have been pushing to eliminate all regulation which is what led us to the financial crisis we are in we will not stand a chance.

It is way past due that the Democrats start to attack, if they don't then we will lose badly

[golfguru]

21. Not sure the social security angle works any more

It has worked nicely before, but not sure it will work
enough to pull us out this year. Lack of jobs is the biggest
reason.

[still_one]

24. It isn't an angle, it is true, among several goals the republican party has had since reagan, it is

to destroy social security and medicare

[jenmito]

9. But we DON'T have more money than the GOP when all of the outside groups are counted. I've heard

this reported on MSNBC AND CNN that the numbers are misleading. Rove, Barbour, and others have raised a lot of money that hasn't been counted when adding up the $ the DNC vs. the RNC raised, for example.

[Drunken Irishman]

11. Most DUers understand we're in trouble...

We just realize obsessing about the negative aspect of the situation ain't gonna do a damn thing.

Things are not set in stone. A week in an election cycle can be a lifetime. Months can be two lifetimes to a campaign.

This time in 2008, many pundits were talking about the resurgent McCain campaign. We were hunkering down for a tight race that, at the moment, had momentum shifting away from the Democrats.

By mid-September, Pres. Obama regained the lead and never really lost it again.

I'm not suggesting that will happen here. I believe Democrats will lose seats. I believe it'll be very close as to whether they control both the House & Senate. But I also understand that what seems dire today might not be as dire a month from now.

The election season is now officially really getting under way. Obama is going to be out on the trail for many Democrats and regardless of the perception here on DU, he's still plenty popular in a great deal of states.

Let's see what happens the next month before we officially hit the panic button and concede massive losses in November.

Democrats are in trouble. But there is a whole lot of ballgame to be played and remember, they're still leading officially (even if that lead is superficial and built on seats that are gonna shift Republican this November).

[Kdillard]

13. +1000. Seriously it is like every second has to be doom and gloom.

[oswaldactedalone]

14. Open up your wallet and support our candidates.

Volunteer to GOTV. Register voters. We must beat back the Republicon menace.

[scheming daemons]

15. We know we're in trouble... that's why we're responding to the doom-and-gloomers and

those whose rhetoric helps the GOP.



DU is rife with folks who have an agenda to help the GOP... some call themselves "the left", and some don't.


But their end goal is the same.

[Hekate]

16. How are your local GOTV efforts coming along? Does it look like your local Congresscritter will win?

[dsc]

23. my local congressman is a slam dunk

If he were to lose we would have to lose something like 100 seats.

[DemocraticPilgrim]

17. I think positivity will keep us motivated to the finish line,we can do damage assessment aftert that

[BzaDem]

18. I don't think we will have more money than the Repubs when all is said and done.

They have independent expenditure organizations that are collecting over 200 million dollars.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/07/08/democrats-fear-they-cant_n_639202.html

Furthermore, the generic ballot alone currently indicates a 50-90 seat gain by the Republicans. It is just that bad. We need to be ahead by 5-7 among registered voters for a tie in the House, and right now we are behind by 10. I don't think it will stay this bad until election day, but if the election were held today we would easily lose the House.

The Senate will come down to Boxer in CA, Feingold in WI, and Murray in WA. The latter 2 are trailing in most polls and the former is ahead in about half the polls. I think we probably have a greater than 50 percent chance of holding the Senate, but not much more than that.

The Senate is the really important thing because of appointments.

[golfguru]

19. You are a realist and not a dreamer like many here n/t

[impik]

22. So, let's just give up...

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

25. I'm quite sure you're enjoying every minute of it. (nt)

[karynnj]

26. I agree with most of what you say, but I am more cautiously optimistic

First, on the negative side, I think you could add that compared to 1994, the broadcast media is far to the right of where it was in 1994. This means that Democrats need clear simple messages that President Obama and others can use to frame the choice in our favor. They can not completely ignore the President.

From the bits and pieces that we are beginning to here, Obama's Ohio speech on putting billions into improving the infrastructure could end up being the spark of excitement needed. We need to get America working again - this rather than permanently eliminating the estate tax on estates over $7 million and keeping taxes for those making over %250,000 below Clinton levels makes a real nice frame of the different choices. (Those tax changes affect very, very few people)

This would seem to be something that would fundamentally be welcome to almost every part of the democratic base. It is a progressive idea. It is something the unions will be enthusiastic about. It also should make "good government" people anywhere on the spectrum happy because it is addressing a real problem in a non-gimmicky serious way. I would suspect that some people disillusioned and scared for the future would see this as a serious attempt to make the future better - and not partisan politics and yelling.

I suspect that this could increase the energy level on the left - which itself would tip many close races to us. Reid's race has actually trended in his favor. Murray, Boxer, and Feingold could be helped by this and I think in all cases, their opponents have lavishly outspent them on ads. It could be that - especially in Boxer's case, Fiorina's ads have reached the point of saturation, where everyone who wants to hear her has - and Boxer has had far fewer ads.

I do agree with you that to say that everything is great would be delusional. But, I think the take away is that we need to regain our enthusiasm (of 2008) or at least our motivation of 2006 to stop the Republicans. As to the latter the fact that the Republicans have so many extreme tea party candidates should make this possible. If that happens, all the "likely voter" models will be blown away. They assume that the Republicans will be out in force and our base completely not motivated. With that as the assumption, we have nowhere to go put up on this. (I was reading one Illinois poll, where the self reported votes of those polled as "likely voters" in 2008 would have resulted in Obama winning by 6 - instead of 25 points. Imagine that we get half of those people out and voting for the Democrats.)