Democrats Are Primed to Win Big, Reclaim the House, and Save Our Democracy. Here’s How They Could Blow It.
Democrats Are Primed to Win Big, Reclaim the House, and Save Our Democracy. Here’s How They Could Blow It.
Pragmatism as Moral Imperative
GOP Rep. Charlie Dent of Pennsylvania announced this month that he was resigning from Congress and told Republicans: “Big wave coming—get off the beach.”
Dent is probably right. A little more than six months before the midterms, predictive models point to Democrats winning control of the House of Representatives. A strong history of pick-ups by the party out of the White House, disgust with President Trump, good results in special elections, 46 Republican retirements (compared to 20 Democrats), and an energized Democratic base all augur well .
The question isn’t whether the odds favor flipping the House, but whether Democrats should bank on it. And the answer—for anyone who cares about protecting American democracy—is an obvious no.
Six months is a lifetime in politics. Trump’s popularity won’t recover by fall, but a deal with North Korea and a couple of other breaks could shift the momentum just enough to protect vulnerable Republican seats. And the recent history of midterms strongly favors Republicans, who took the House in 2010. In 2014, turnout fell to 37 percent, the lowest in 70 years, with the steepest falloff among Democrats.
Most Democrats get it; they’re focused and girded for battle , with a bumper crop of young and exciting candidates, including a record number of women. But too many others wring their hands watching cable news without educating themselves about which seats in their states are in play and what they can do to flip them. And a remnant of lefties are still living in Jill Steinland—acting as if the midterms are in the bag and they can indulge in expensive primary fights over minor policy differences that drain resources from the constitutionally critical task at hand.
Are Democrats in danger of once again forming a circular firing squad? The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) is so worried that it’s pressuring weaker candidates in some districts to drop out in favor of well-funded moderates with a better chance of winning in November. California, where a half dozen seats are flippable (one quarter of those needed to gain control), is a particular concern because the state’s “top two” primary system means a large field of Democrats could split the vote and leave two Republicans running against each other in the general election.
Liberal activists say pressure from the DCCC and other Washington types is exactly what they dislike about the Democratic establishment. It’s the same thinking, they claim, that forced the party to nominate Hillary Clinton over Bernie Sanders. Their message: Don’t ram moderates down our throats!
The problem with this argument is that it ignores the mechanics of actually winning elections, which require party discipline and rejection of the narcissism of small differences. Nominating the most liberal Democratic candidate in a Republican district may feel principled but it reeks of moral vanity.
Democrats with their heads screwed on right are reviving an old ethic: party and country over personal preference. In swing districts, that means often resisting the natural inclination to support the candidate they like best in favor of the one who can win in November. In Trump’s America, pragmatism is a moral imperative.
Litmus tests—on support for a single payer health care system or even gun safety—are unaffordable luxuries in this year’s primaries. In 1980, Ronald Reagan issued his famous 11th Commandment—“Thou Shalt Not Speak Ill of Another Republican.” With the GOP violating that dictum every day, we’ll see if Democrats pick it up and play as a team for a change. The DNC might consider asking each primary candidate to sign a pledge committing to campaign for the winner.
Lest we forget: The stakes are the highest of any midterm election in memory. Imagine if House Republicans sustain heavy losses but hang onto their majority (24 seats as of now) by a few seats. This confounding of baked-in expectations would depress millions and have profound consequences for American life.
At a minimum, it would mean: The end of any investigation of Trump, whose presidency would be immediately normalized, with all that implies for his I-told-you-so behavior; new life for a right-wing legislative agenda that would include slashing social spending and, quite likely, finishing off Obamacare; even less oversight of federal agencies emboldened to wreak havoc.
Now imagine if Democrats, in the face of gerrymandered districts and financial disadvantages, re-take the House. It then wouldn’t matter nearly as much if Trump fired Robert Mueller, Rod Rosenstein, and the rest of the Department of Justice. The Democratic-controlled House Judiciary Committee could hire a large staff to pick up where Mueller left off and use its subpoena power to complete the probe.
Even if a Democratic House didn’t vote articles of impeachment (and it probably would), we might finally get to the bottom of Russian intrusion in American elections and Trump’s myriad other assaults on the rule of law. When they speak privately, a surprising number of Republicans agree that their party needs a whipping this year so the process of small-d democratic and small r-republican renewal can begin.
Accountability can’t wait. Imagine EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt having to answer for his corruption and vanity on Capitol Hill. He literally wouldn’t have time to redesign his seal, much less trash the environment .
Then multiply the idea of true congressional oversight across the federal government. The lame questions aging senators asked Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg have obscured just how potent an energized majority can be when it wants to tie up a dangerous president in knots.
All the country needs is one house of Congress under the control of Democrats to remove or reduce the threat Trump poses in every area except foreign policy. Even there, a Democratic House would find ways to check his power, summoning national security adviser John Bolton to answer for any warmongering.
This new world of accountability depends, of course, on money. Well-funded special-election victories for Democrats are misleading; it’s much harder to crowd-source across dozens of districts. Despite slightly more contributions for competitive races, Democrats still trail overall .
So far, the Republican Party has raised about $262 million and the Democrats about $206 million for 2018. Some of the Republican haul comes from the $400 million pledged in January by the political network controlled by the Koch brothers, which is aimed at maintaining the party’s control of Congress and the state legislatures that will draw the all-important legislative maps after the 2020 census.
Most of that $400 million won’t be donated and spent until the fall, when Democratic challengers now touted as likely winners could find themselves buried under mountains of cash. And we don’t know yet how much more might be coming from other Republican billionaires, for whom $10 or $20 million to GOP candidates in October is like a bar bill. The Mercer family has been sidelined by the Cambridge Analytica scandal but is still expected to kick in tens of millions.
Money isn’t everything. To drive turnout, Democrats need a strong “kitchen table” economic agenda and bold ideas that move beyond identity politics. (Marijuana legalization, for instance, turns more young people on than old people off.) But the record conclusively shows you also need the Benjamins: The best-funded candidates almost always win in state and local races.
That’s why squandering money and grassroots organizing in divisive primaries or contests far removed from competitive House seats is so aggravating. Every dollar that goes to those races is one less dollar for democracy’s main event in the fall.
In New York, supporters of actress Cynthia Nixon, who is challenging New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo in the Sept. 13 Democratic primary, argue that even if she doesn’t win, at least she’s pushing Cuomo to the left. But it’s false for Nixon to charge that Cuomo, for all his faults, is “governing like a Republican.” No Republicans favor banning fracking, family and medical leave, and a big hike in the minimum wage, as Cuomo does.....
This time, it’s all hands on deck. To flip the House, Democrats and other concerned Americans will have to dig deep in their pockets, subordinate their particular concerns to the cause of winning, and do what it takes to protect democracy.
Tags
Who is online
96 visitors
The anti-Trump people need to unite around candidates that can win in swing districts and put an end to the cult of Trump in this country. Third parties and/or a more "progressive" agenda may have to wait.
I don't know, it seems like some of the emerging platform ideas for 2020 are heading very progressive. Some of the ideas seem to be pushing too far to the left, guaranteed jobs, universal basic income, reparations. I think they should stay with increasing the minimum wage, and push harder to education, either free or at a greatly reduced cost. I think that would work better. What do you think?
I think that the message needs to fit the district. You can't go into swing congressional districts and think the time is ripe for a left wing message. It's not going to work that way.
I think the Democratic party needs to become more progressive, but I think it is more important at the moment to get rid of Trumpism.
I dont see the democratic party actually recovering until some of the old toxic players step or are pushed aside. And people with power rarely give it up willingly so......
Democrats Are Primed To Win Big, Reclaim The House, And Save Our Democracy.
Personally I dont think we have swung far enough to the right yet to bring out the masses that appose this change.
You mean that pendulums got some swing left in it (Christ that's scary)?
But I dont see the "drive" by the masses to change the power yet.
I pointed out in another comment that if the economy is humming along, employment remains up and inflation down the Dems may have difficulty moving the needle. That coupled with a seemingly obscure agenda at this juncture may prove a difficult path for them.
True money trumps many issues.
Do we see true equality ? NO. Yeah there is swing left in the left, to the left.
.
Wasn't it Tip O'Neil that said "all politics is local"? People are going to vote their pocketbooks and bank accounts, as they always have. Russia, Stormy Daniels, and fake collusion conspiracy theories are way down their list of concerns, right next to climate change.
True, that's why we have the government we have. Including the fact that hilldabeast was so out of favor because of her past that in part that is why she was not elected president.
People need to trust to a degree who they cast their vote for. They also want to vote for whoever can make their own life and their families lives better.
So, Too much crap on anyone can bring them down politicly. Sometimes real/imaginary or totally overblown even.
trump may not last as long as he would like but if not, his undoing will probably be of his own making.
Here’s How They Could Blow It.
By continuing their present tack, John they need something to run on. On a Congressional level they would be wise to run each candidate based on regional concerns, not National and address those issues as such.
The recent win in PA kind of reflects that, I believe.
“To flip the House, Democrats and other concerned Americans will have to dig deep in their pockets,”
That would be a be change from their usual tactic of trying to dig deep into other people’s pockets.
Considering how much it costs to buy an election even the republican politicians all have their hands in other people pockets.
But I dont see the "drive" by the masses to change the power yet.
The politicians that win my votes are the ones that promise to stay out of my pockets and then deliver on that promise like the Republicans just did.
yep they just passed on the cost of our increased spending to neverland...
Yes I also support the ones that favor big spending cuts. Hopefully the next time Trump proposes a skinny budget he won’t face as much opposition as the first time he tried.
A skinny budget will not cover all we need.
More people, more problems, more laws, more government.
Want to spend less ? reduce the population.
and that is done by ending immigration and funding birth control
I'd think controlling immigration numbers would be better long term verse totally ending immigration. Immigration helps keep us "fresh".
Haven't we been here before?
Of course we have. The power pendulum swings left then right as it always has. It swings between conservative and liberals policies, though eventually the pendulum makes headway left and conservatives always lose. Conservatives fought to preserve slavery, segregation, bans on women and blacks voting, bans on interracial marriage, bans on gay marriage, and even though they get the pendulum to swing in their favor for a short time, the progress is clear, we eventually move left as a nation. The conservatives of today wouldn't even be recognized as conservatives by the conservatives of 60 years ago. And the conservatives of 60 years ago wouldn't be recognized as conservatives by the ones who preceded them a hundred years earlier. Nearly all conservatives today accept the necessity of social security, medicare and wouldn't even suggest re-instituting bans on blacks or women voting or bans on interracial marriage. They've moved left quite a bit, but they still gnash their teeth at accepting gay marriage or universal healthcare. So we are going through a tiny swing back to conservative policies, but we'll keep moving forward with or without the bitter stubbornness of conservatives.
yeah, we can get back to progressive championed policies like forced sterilizations to weed out the 'wrong people,' prohibition, segregation and corporatism.
Quite a legacy.
Fact: Donald Trump is president because moderate voters were less afraid of him than they were the far left.
When it mattered, Hillary failed to realize and failed to assure us that she would not interpret her victory as a leftist mandate. Moderates feared she would stock the SCOTUS with leftist fuckwittery from which we would never recover.
The fact that this orangutan occupies 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue is one of the greatest national embarrassments of our history. But if the choice is to tolerate him or put on a pink vagina hat and march around screaming at the sky demanding everyone support whatever naive stupidity is the nonsense du jour....well...the frying pan is better than the fire....so I'll just put up with his yankee ass.
So how do Democrats blow it? Go full throttle Bernie. Go so far to the left that you alienate moderate Trump haters enough that voting against you becomes the primary issue.
Another thing to consider is that the spotlight of scrutiny is starting to shine on the Democrats and the previous administration, and their minions and lackeys in several high agencies like the DOJ and the FBI. The allegations are serious, they are real, and they will not be going away.