This evening HotAir ran a piece about the head of the DCCC saying that the Democrats do not have much to worry about in the election in November. It deserves a reading. I reproducing below four reader comments from that thread because I feel that what American Elephant says here is an excellent analysis and deserves wide dissemination. I agree with the Elephant and fear that if, the RNC is trusted to raise to the occasion. the Democrats will have a distinct advantage with their control of two branches of government and the MSM. The RNC has little concern about the constitutional and cultural issues that motivate most conservatives. One could characterize the RNC as just another lobbying firm whose main concern is raising enough money to pay their own inflated salaries. They are a creature of the Republicans in Congress and the Senate, most of whom have grown out of the habit of entering into two way communication with the citizenry. Concerned conservatives must become involved with individual candidates and keep working to inform themselves. If large numbers of individuals do not become deeply involved the most that can be hoped for is what I believe the RNC would be quite satisfied with: a still alive splinter party with a little loyalty to conservative principles that continues to limp along.
----*****----*****----*****----*****----*****----*****----*****
I’m afraid he is right. Democrats are WAAAAY out in front in terms of defining the upcoming election. Say What? Yes, Democrats, not Republicans are defining, or I should say, redefining the next election.
Democrats have a strategy, Michael Steele is bumbling along without a clue.
Notice how quickly the “narrative” is switching from this being a anti-Democrat year to an anti-incumbent year. This is the Democrat strategy (so naturally the media is helping push it). You see, in an anti-Democrat year, Democrats lose whether they are incumbent or challenging the incumbent. However in an “anti-incumbent” year, Democrats can beat Republican incumbents, thus stemming their losses.
But it doesn’t stop there. Notice how many Democrats are quitting? Again, this is not pessimism on their part, but strategic optimism. If they can define the election as a referendum on INCUMBENTS instead of a referendum on Democrats, as they are already doing, then all they have to do to hold their majority is get incumbents who look likely to lose, to forgo re-election so that they can run brand new Democrats instead, and suddenly those new Democrat candidates can label themselves as the Washington outsiders fighting corruption, fiscal conservatives, etc, while simultaneously reminding voters how horrible things supposedly were when Republicans were in charge.
Michael Steele and the rest of our pathetic party leadership have already ALMOST ceded this point to Democrats, which is evident in polls that consistently show that Americans WRONGLY blame Republicans for the recession and financial crisis despite the fact that the Recession didnt even BEGIN until Democrats controlled both houses of congress (and thus the laws, the budgets, the purse strings and the agenda) for a full year, and the financial crisis didnt happen (despite Republicans many blocked attempts to reform Fannie and Freddie and avert it) until Democrats had controlled congress for TWO years.
In fact, the economy kept growing fairly robustly, and Republican budgets were on track to eliminate the deficit by 2012, until Democrats took over.
If the GOP wants to take control of one or both houses this fall, they MUST make sure this election becomes even more of a referendum on Democrats, and the best way to do that is to remind voters that the economy didnt start going to hell until well AFTER Democrats took control,
If Dems are successful in making this an “anti-incumbent” election, Republicans will be lucky to take control of either house.
And yes, I am the first person to offer such an analysis, and yes, I want credit from anyone who realizes that its correct and promotes it on their site.
American Elephant on April 7, 2010 at 9:16 PM
Also, keep in mind that Democrats are far outraising Republicans because, like the mafia they represent, they are now getting protection money from businesses hoping to stem onerous taxes, regulation and outright seizure.
American Elephant on April 7, 2010 at 9:18 PM
American Elephant on April 7, 2010 at 9:16 PM
What is missing from your anaylsis is the red hot anger in the electorate. I agree the RNC is fumbling and fumbling badly, I don’t agree that we have to only rely on the RNC to fund conservative canidates.
It seems that conservative canidates are bringing in huge amounts of cash through money bombs (see Rubio, Brown, NY-23 Hoffman, Stupak’s challenger). This is cash that would have otherwise gone to the RNC. To me RNC = GOP Moderate/Beltway RINO’s. I don’t want any more RINO’s.
If I send money to the RNC it would be going to RINO type canidates (or strip clubs). I don’t want that. I rather give to the canidate that best represents my fiscal conservative views.
Thus, long of the short, this mid-term has the making of a different paradigm for us conservatives. Conserviates/independent grassroots will be there when they need to be. Let the primaries play out. The big donors will give. See DeMint’s PAC and Rove’s new adventure. Both have gotten some good money streams started and have the ability to pick up where the RNC is currently fumbling.
That is the power of a true grassroots movement.
So, I say have faith…Faith that things will work out in the end, no matter how bad they seem today! Get out and work for a conservative canidate…volunteer and/or give money to them. That is how we make an impact. Complaining about the RNC won’t get us a single Congressional chamber. Focus on the goal, GET OBAMA IN CHECK RAPIDLY!
Rndguy on April 7, 2010 at 10:02 PM
No, the anger of the electorate is not missing from my analysis. It fits right in there. Americans are angry at Democrats, but are also angry with Republicans. One of my major points is that Democrats have largely succeeded in getting Americans to wrongly blame Republicans for the economy. The economy was GROWING when Republicans lost control, and continued to grow for another year after they lost control of congress to Democrats.
So Republicans leave a growing economy, Democrats through promises of tax hikes and massive regulation turn it into a recession, and voters are still angry with the wrong party.
Voter anger has everything to do with my analysis. Democrats plan is to run new candidates in the place of at-risk incumbents by changing the narrative from anti-Democrat, to anti-incumbent, and then their new candidates will remind everyone not to vote for Republicans because no matter how mad they may be with Democrats, it was Republicans, they will say, who caused the mess.
And their strategy is already half complete since Republicans under Steele’s inept leadership never even bothered to refuse to accept the blame for the recession and financial crisis that happened because of Democrat policies, while Democrats were in charge, in spite of Republican attempts to avert it.
And lasty, I do work for campaigns. And I know how elections work. I know how Democrats scheme and strategize.
And no, just trusting that things will work out in the end is about the most naive, useless, reckless attitude anyone could possibly have. I think that was the Republican strategy in 2006 and 2008 — worked out AWESOME didn’t it?
Pollyanna-ism is great. Republicans need lots of happy volunteers. But actually winning as much as possible, on the other hand, requires strategy — figuring out what your opposition is up to, what their strategy is, and figuring out how to defeat it.
And considering nobody else has written about how this is what Democrats are up to, I’d say its a pretty safe bet that its because they haven’t figured it out yet. Whether its Jim DeMint, Karl Rove or the GOP.
And waiting for clueless leaders (all of whom were working to elect Republicans in 2006 and 2008, I would remind you) to figure out on their own what I already know, when they show no signs of being able to figure it out — leaders who by the way haven’t won an election in the past six years — is dangerously naive, pollyannaish, and submissive.
We dont get Obama in check by trusting that the same leadership who lost the last two elections (DeMint, Rove, etc) are going to suddenly shape up.
By allowing Democrats to define the economy as Republicans fault, they have already proven they are not leading, they are following. So PLEASE dont ask me or anyone else to put faith in the very same people who were in charge when we got where we are.
American Elephant on April 7, 2010 at 10:39 PM
No comments:
Post a Comment