hipeter924
Not a zombie yet
Impeachment? Who needs it if we get this.
Democrats on edge of panic
Obama's party fears it could lose control of both houses in November elections
Sometimes in politics stating the obvious can get you into trouble. So it was three weeks ago when Robert Gibbs, Barack Obama's spokesman, admitted on a talk show that the Democrats might lose their majority in the House of Representatives in the midterm elections. This earned him a scolding from House Democrats, many of whom already resent Obama for forcing them to vote for unpopular bills and, as they see it, failing to campaign effectively enough to save their jobs in November.
It is therefore safe to bet that Gibbs will not be giving public voice to a new fear now spreading through Democratic hearts, namely that it is not just the lower chamber that is vulnerable in November. The Senate might be in play as well.
Only 37 of the Senate's 100 seats will be up in November. The Democrats are defending a majority of 59 to 41 (although their majority includes two independents), which means that the Republicans need a net gain of 10 seats to win control.
Until recently this feat was thought to be beyond their reach, and many pollsters continue to think so.
And yet Bill Galston, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, thinks that this could be another of those election years, such as 1980, 1986 and 2006, when most of the close races tip in the same direction and produce a shift of control. It is certainly the case that many once-safe Democratic seats, such as Wisconsin and Washington, are looking vulnerable.
The Cook Political Report now judges it possible for the Republicans' Carly Fiorina, the deep-pocketed former chief executive of Hewlett-Packard, to defeat the sitting Democrat, Barbara Boxer, in California.
As well as winning the House and Senate, says Galston, the Republicans could hit the trifecta, capturing Obama's former seat in Illinois, Vice-President Joe Biden's in Delaware and, in Nevada, unseating Harry Reid, the majority leader.
With more than three months to polling day, there might still be time for Obama's party to confound the doom-sayers. But the panic in the party is palpable -along with a mounting sense of injustice.
Its Democratic masters say that the 111th Congress has been bold, busy and effective. Since starting work in the middle of an economic crisis it has authorized $1 trillion or so of stimulus spending, steered GM and Chrysler out of bankruptcy, pushed through health-care reform and overhauled financial regulation.
True, unemployment remains stuck above nine per cent, but haven't the Democrats just shown their superior compassion by overcoming hard-hearted Republican objections to extending benefits for the jobless?
Don't they have one of the coolest and most articulate of presidents? Why, only yesterday (or so it seems; it was in fact 17 months ago) nearly seven out of 10 Americans approved of how Obama did his job.
So what have the Democrats done to deserve humiliation in November?
No answer to this question is painless to Democrats. Many explanations blame the fall from grace squarely on their own decisions.
Was it a mistake to work so hard on a divisive health bill instead of the economy and, especially, job creation? Did they underestimate how bitter the average Joe would feel at the spectacle of the government bailing out the undeserving banks, and carmakers, and feckless home-buyers who had spent beyond their means?
Has Obama positioned himself too far to the left? Could he have done a better job of giving his administration a sense of direction and his countrymen a sense of hope?
The economy drives election results; Bush wrecked the economy; the Democrats succeeded in staving off a depression; but voters will blame them anyway for the recession they could not avert. To put the blame entirely on the economy might seem crudely deterministic. But consider the findings of a recent Pew survey on how this recession has changed America 30 months after it started.
More than half of all workers have experienced a spell of unemployment, taken a cut in pay or hours or been forced to go part-time. The typical unemployed worker has been jobless for nearly six months. Collapsing share and house prices have destroyed a fifth of the wealth of the average household.
Nearly six in 10 Americans have cancelled or cut back on vacations. About a fifth say their mortgages are underwater. One in four of those between 18 and 29 have moved back in with parents. Fewer than half of all adults expect their children to have a higher standard of living than theirs, and more than a quarter say it will be lower.
Another way to put this is that for many Americans the great recession has been the sharpest trauma since the Second World War, wiping out jobs, wealth and hope itself. That is why fewer than half now think that Obama is doing a good job.
He and his party will need to present an astonishingly good argument to talk the electorate out of doing what will come naturally in a midterm: casting a protest vote against the party in power. They have not yet provided an argument that is sufficiently persuasive.
© Copyright (c) The Montreal Gazette
Read more: Democrats on edge of panic
Democrats on edge of panic
Obama's party fears it could lose control of both houses in November elections
Sometimes in politics stating the obvious can get you into trouble. So it was three weeks ago when Robert Gibbs, Barack Obama's spokesman, admitted on a talk show that the Democrats might lose their majority in the House of Representatives in the midterm elections. This earned him a scolding from House Democrats, many of whom already resent Obama for forcing them to vote for unpopular bills and, as they see it, failing to campaign effectively enough to save their jobs in November.
It is therefore safe to bet that Gibbs will not be giving public voice to a new fear now spreading through Democratic hearts, namely that it is not just the lower chamber that is vulnerable in November. The Senate might be in play as well.
Only 37 of the Senate's 100 seats will be up in November. The Democrats are defending a majority of 59 to 41 (although their majority includes two independents), which means that the Republicans need a net gain of 10 seats to win control.
Until recently this feat was thought to be beyond their reach, and many pollsters continue to think so.
And yet Bill Galston, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, thinks that this could be another of those election years, such as 1980, 1986 and 2006, when most of the close races tip in the same direction and produce a shift of control. It is certainly the case that many once-safe Democratic seats, such as Wisconsin and Washington, are looking vulnerable.
The Cook Political Report now judges it possible for the Republicans' Carly Fiorina, the deep-pocketed former chief executive of Hewlett-Packard, to defeat the sitting Democrat, Barbara Boxer, in California.
As well as winning the House and Senate, says Galston, the Republicans could hit the trifecta, capturing Obama's former seat in Illinois, Vice-President Joe Biden's in Delaware and, in Nevada, unseating Harry Reid, the majority leader.
With more than three months to polling day, there might still be time for Obama's party to confound the doom-sayers. But the panic in the party is palpable -along with a mounting sense of injustice.
Its Democratic masters say that the 111th Congress has been bold, busy and effective. Since starting work in the middle of an economic crisis it has authorized $1 trillion or so of stimulus spending, steered GM and Chrysler out of bankruptcy, pushed through health-care reform and overhauled financial regulation.
True, unemployment remains stuck above nine per cent, but haven't the Democrats just shown their superior compassion by overcoming hard-hearted Republican objections to extending benefits for the jobless?
Don't they have one of the coolest and most articulate of presidents? Why, only yesterday (or so it seems; it was in fact 17 months ago) nearly seven out of 10 Americans approved of how Obama did his job.
So what have the Democrats done to deserve humiliation in November?
No answer to this question is painless to Democrats. Many explanations blame the fall from grace squarely on their own decisions.
Was it a mistake to work so hard on a divisive health bill instead of the economy and, especially, job creation? Did they underestimate how bitter the average Joe would feel at the spectacle of the government bailing out the undeserving banks, and carmakers, and feckless home-buyers who had spent beyond their means?
Has Obama positioned himself too far to the left? Could he have done a better job of giving his administration a sense of direction and his countrymen a sense of hope?
The economy drives election results; Bush wrecked the economy; the Democrats succeeded in staving off a depression; but voters will blame them anyway for the recession they could not avert. To put the blame entirely on the economy might seem crudely deterministic. But consider the findings of a recent Pew survey on how this recession has changed America 30 months after it started.
More than half of all workers have experienced a spell of unemployment, taken a cut in pay or hours or been forced to go part-time. The typical unemployed worker has been jobless for nearly six months. Collapsing share and house prices have destroyed a fifth of the wealth of the average household.
Nearly six in 10 Americans have cancelled or cut back on vacations. About a fifth say their mortgages are underwater. One in four of those between 18 and 29 have moved back in with parents. Fewer than half of all adults expect their children to have a higher standard of living than theirs, and more than a quarter say it will be lower.
Another way to put this is that for many Americans the great recession has been the sharpest trauma since the Second World War, wiping out jobs, wealth and hope itself. That is why fewer than half now think that Obama is doing a good job.
He and his party will need to present an astonishingly good argument to talk the electorate out of doing what will come naturally in a midterm: casting a protest vote against the party in power. They have not yet provided an argument that is sufficiently persuasive.
© Copyright (c) The Montreal Gazette
Read more: Democrats on edge of panic
Last edited: