Can Democrats Limit Their Losses with Attacks on Republicans?
In just a few days as soon as Republican voters in my adopted home town choose a candidate to run against 28-year Washington veteran Barbara Boxer, that hyperpartisan Democrat with few accomplishments for her near three-decade service in Congress will do what she always does, attack, attack, attack and then attack some more.
And she’s not alone. The Democratic President of the United States continues to attack the GOP as if this party with barely enough votes to muster a filibuster in the Senate and fewer than 180 seats in the House has enough votes to block his initiatives and is responsible for the nation’s current woes.
Obama’s Democrats are still running against George W. Bush. Guess they figure that what worked in the last two electoral cycles is certain to work in this one. Michael Barone finds that well, these Democratic “tactics are predictable“:
Running against George W. Bush (who?) is not likely to get them very far, though Obama can’t resist attacking him wherever her goes. But emphasizing local issues (as in Pennsylvania 12), banking on intraparty Republican splits (as in New York 23) and disqualifying Republicans as wackos or on personal grounds can salvage some seats that otherwise seem lost.
Still, the fact that Democrats are reduced to such tactics underlines their problem: The policies of the Obama administration and congressional Democratic leaders are deeply unpopular. And those policies have swept into politics hundreds of thousands of previously apolitical citizens symbolized by but not limited to the Tea Party movement.
Given the fact the memories of the big-spending Republican Congresses are still fresh (even though the congressional Democrats’ current spending makes said GOP congressional sessions look parsimonious by comparison), Democrats may be able to score some points in their attacks on the GOP. Some voters still don’t trust the GOP to hold true to its Reaganite principles.
That said, Barone gets at the real problem that ails the Democrats: their policies aren’t popular with the American people. If only Republicans could convince our fellow citizens that they learned the lesson of ’06 and ’08, ’10 and ’12 would be banner years for our party.
10 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
The tactic worked in the past and it will work in the present. If nothing else, if Boxer’s attacks are entertaining enough, folks will vote for her. Kaus may be on to something – keep the attack short, focus on Boxer being a tool, and keep the whole thing short, entertaining, and withering.
Running on issues is definitely the wrong thing to do. Issues and their impact on everyday life does not appear to be the strong suit of most Californians.
Comment by DaveOnotinSF — June 6, 2010 @ 9:40 pm - June 6, 2010
Politicians will use the tactics that won for them in the past until they stop working. Its up to the voters to decide if those same tactics will work again.
Comment by Delusional Bill — June 6, 2010 @ 10:14 pm - June 6, 2010
Of COURSE they are! Because Republicans for some bizarre reason known only to them, refuse to point out to the American people that Democrats have controlled both houses of congress for the past four years, since a year before the recession even began and two years before the housing and financial crisis.
Republicans refuse to point out that they left Democrats a growing economy and deficits that were on track to be ELIMINATED by 2010 according to the CBO,
Democrats policies and promised policies caused the recession, and the recession caused their socialist housing policies to turn into the “toxic assets” that are responsible for the financial crisis.
Why on Earth wouldnt they continue to blame Bush, when Republicans still refuse to demand that Americans listen to the truth?
Comment by American Elephant — June 6, 2010 @ 11:52 pm - June 6, 2010
“Because Republicans for some bizarre reason known only to them”
I’m sorry, that’s not accurate. I know the reason — its sheer political cowardice.
Comment by American Elephant — June 6, 2010 @ 11:54 pm - June 6, 2010
Yes, because the Democrats have the major media, giving them a hold field advantage. E.g., the double standards that are constantly practiced in Democrats’ favor.
History shows that Republicans win only when they stand for something. (Bush, though flawed, at least stood proudly for a pro-America foreign policy and War on Terror.) For the Democrats, being “not the GOP” can be enough to win elections. But for the GOP, being “not the Democrats” is never enough. They must offer the American people something good, like Reagan or the 1994 Contract With America.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — June 7, 2010 @ 12:30 am - June 7, 2010
Sorry, “home field advantage”
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — June 7, 2010 @ 12:30 am - June 7, 2010
Good point, Delusional Bill. Democrats didn’t really run on issues in 2006 or 2008 either. In 2006, it was about Republican corruption and disenchantment with George Bush, and in 2008, it was still about disenchantment with George Bush and the aura of Barack Obama’s personality. Even when it was about issues, Democrats were all about sounding moderate. Democrats will still try to run against George Bush (which won’t work) and against the negative aspects of particular Republican candidates (which may work) since they definitely can’t run on issues in 2010. People now realize how far to the left Democrats are. When Chris Christie feels empowered to take weekly shots on the teachers’ union in, of all places, New Jersey, you know that liberal ideas and liberal institutions are in trouble this year. The only thing Democrats can try to do is go negative against their opponents personally or, in the case of Democrats who haven’t been in congress yet to prove their centrism to be a farce, such as Critz in PA-12, try to fool voters into believing they won’t vote with Nancy Pelosi.
I expect things to get worse for Democrats heading into the fall. Right now, Republican primaries are, I think, suppressing support for Republicans. Once the intraparty battles are over and Republicans can rally around specific nominees, those nominees will get to attack Democrat achievements (or lack thereof) in debates, in campaign appearances, and in ads. The economy doesn’t appear ready to improve this year. With each passing month, Pres. Obama’s Bush-blaming excuses sound more stale and stale and the better “Miss Me Yet?” billboards will look. Democrats will be forced to desperately dig up dirt on Republicans to inspire voters to vote against Republicans because there is no way they’re going to inspire voters to vote for them.
Comment by chad — June 7, 2010 @ 11:31 am - June 7, 2010
Critz in PA-12 ran on maintaining the status quo. The status quo being hundreds of millions pumped into the district to keep the citizens in the black. Take away useless government pork and PA-12 turns into a ghost town.
Republicans have presented themselves for decades as possessing high moral standards. That theme is dead.
Do Republicans and their advisors, outside of South Carolina, know anything about hitting hard, hitting often, and setting aside morality until after the election?
Comment by DaveOnotinSF — June 7, 2010 @ 9:04 pm - June 7, 2010
A good defense is a good offense, enough said.
Comment by darkeyedresolve — June 7, 2010 @ 9:34 pm - June 7, 2010
HARDLY!
Yes, Republicans hold themselves to much higher standards than Democrats. Thats why, unlike Democrats, we hold our officials accountable for their behavior. Hell we hold ours accountable for even the APPEARANCE of impropriety. For example, Tom Delay is GONE, even though the charges against him were made up by a corrupt Democrat prosecutor, and the judge threw them out, while Democrats wont even hold ethics hearings on Charlie Rangel or half a dozen other Democrats. Your presidents administration is FILLED with felony-level tax evaders, and the president himself has been bribing people with appointments to drop out of political races — a felony. A case which raises brand new questions about whether Obama was involved in bribes over his former Senate seat. Not to mention his crooked deal on his mansion with convicted felon Tony Rezko,
You re-elected and promoted child molesters and a man who drowned his mistress while attempting to save his sorry drunken ass, and you called him the “Lion of the Senate”. Dems still refer to KKK Grand Dragon Robert Byrd as the “Conscience of the Senate”.
Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Dianene Feinstein, Chris Dodd, Barney Frank, John Conyers, and on and on…. virtually any Democrat you can name is up to their eyeballs in corruption charges, but Democrats refuse to acton any of them.
Hell yes, we have higher standards AND unlike the party of corruption, the Democrats, we actually hold our politicians to those standads, and get rid of them when they break them.
Comment by American Elephant — June 8, 2010 @ 6:55 am - June 8, 2010