.

.

Saturday, May 23, 2015

THE DEMOCRAT PARTY – RUMORS OF ITS DEMISE ARE BEING GREATLY EXAGGERATED…


According to a recent issue of the ‘National Journal’, it is made to sound as if the Democrat Party is now in its final death throes and claims as part of its evidence for making such a claim, the deterioration of the Democrat bench under Barry’s tenure in office.  It puts forth the claim, one that I sort of agree with, that “the party has become much more ideologically homogenous having lost most of its moderate wing as a result of the last two disastrous midterm elections.”  It also points to a party-strength index introduced by RealClearPolitics analysts Sean Trende and David Byler that is said to show Democrats in their worst position since 1928.  That dynamic has manifested itself in the Democrat presidential contest, where the bench is so barren that a flawed Hillary Clinton is barreling to an uncontested nomination.

Much was also made about how the shrinking number of Democrat officeholders in the House and in statewide offices is said to be affecting the party's Senate races. It's pointed out how dependent Democrats have become in relying on former losing candidates as their standard-bearers in 2016.  For instance, Wisconsin's Russ Feingold, Pennsylvania's Joe Sestak, Indiana's Baron Hill, and Ohio's Ted Strickland all ran lackluster campaigns in losing office in 2010, and now are looking to return to politics six years later. Party officials are courting former Kay Hagan of North Carolina to make a comeback bid, despite mediocre favorability ratings and the fact that she lost a race just months ago that most had expected her to win. All told, more than half of the Democrats' Senate challengers in 2016 are retreads.

On one hand most of these candidates are the best choices Democrats have. And Feingold and Strickland are even running ahead of GOP Sens. Ron Johnson and Rob Portman in recent polls.  Hill and Hagan boast proven crossover appeal in GOP-leaning states that would be challenging pickups. Their presence in the race gives the party a fighting chance to retake the Senate.  The point is made that Democrats are in the position of having to rely on former failures because they have no one else to turn to, but if your failures are already beating your competition, what’s that say about your competition?  The argument is also made that if the brand-name challengers didn't run, the roster of up-and-coming prospects in the respective states is short.  But as long as your brand-name challengers are running and winning, what’s the problem? 

And the point is also made that Democrats face the rather ominous historical reality that only two defeated senators have successfully returned to the upper chamber in the last six decades. And as political analyst Stu Rothenberg put it, they're asking "voters to rehire them for a job from which they were fired."  Senate Democrats are relying on these repeat candidates for the exact same reason that Democrats are comfortable with anointing Hitlery Clinton for their presidential nomination: There aren't any better alternatives.  But I would argue the point that Democrats simply are not all that fussy.  Because what it really comes down to, at least for Democrats, is which candidate will end up giving away the most free stuff if elected?  Who cares if they lost yesterday?  It’s about what you’re gonna give me today?

To illustrate the Democrats' slim pickings, the Journal pointed to three of the most consequential battleground.  Republicans hold 12 of Ohio's 16 House seats, and all six of their statewide offices.  In Wisconsin, Republicans hold a majority of the state's eight House seats and four of five statewide partisan offices.  In Pennsylvania, 13 of the 18 representatives are Republicans, though Democrats hold all the statewide offices.  These are all Democrat-friendly states that Barry carried twice.  The claim is made that if Strickland didn't run, there in Ohio, the party's hopes against Portman would lie in the hands of 30-year-old Cincinnati Councilman P.G. Sittenfeld, who would make unexpected history as one of the nation's youngest senators with a victory.  But Strickland IS running so doesn’t that make this entire argument a moot point?

The Journal argues that without Feingold in Wisconsin, the Democrat’s only logical option would be Rep. Ron Kind, who has regularly passed up opportunities for a promotion.  Former Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett already lost to Scott Walker twice, and businesswoman Mary Burke disappointed as a first-time gubernatorial candidate last year. And despite the Democrat establishment's publicized carping over Joe Sestak in Pennsylvania, the list of alternatives don’t impress with his only current intra-party opposition being the mayor of Allentown.  In the more conservative states, it was said that the drop-off between favored recruits and alternatives is said to be even more stark. Hagan would be a flawed nominee in North Carolina, but there's no one else waiting in the wings. The strongest Democrat politician, Attorney General Roy Cooper, is running for governor instead.

Even in Indiana, the Journal claims that the bench is so thin even the GOP's embattled governor, Mike Pence, isn't facing formidable opposition. Hill, who lost congressional reelection campaigns in both 2004 and 2010, is not expected to face serious primary competition in the race to succeed retiring GOP Sen. Dan Coats.  Even in the two swing states where the party landed young, up-and-coming recruits to run, their options were very limited. In Florida, 32-year-old Rep. Patrick Murphy is one of only five House Democrats to represent a district that Mitt Romney carried in 2012—and his centrism has made him one of the most compelling candidates for higher office.  But if Murphy didn't run, the alternatives would have been limited: freshman Rep. Gwen Graham and polarizing Democratic National Committee Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz being the most logical alternatives.

It’s in Nevada that it’s said the Democrats are able to boast one of their strongest challengers in former state Attorney General Catherine Cortez Masto, vying to become the first Latina ever elected to the Senate.  But again the Journal makes the point that her ascension is due, in part, to the fact that other talented officeholders lost in the 2014 statewide wipeout.  Democrat lieutenant-governor nominee Lucy Flores, hyped by MSNBC as a "potential superstar," lost by 26 points to her GOP opponent.  Former Secretary of State Ross Miller, another fast-rising pol, lost his bid, and rather badly, for attorney general against a nondescript Republican. By simply taking a break from politics, Cortez Masto avoided the wave and kept her prospects alive for 2016.

We’re told that what was being presented here by the Journal is not meant to be some sort of an assessment of Democrat chances for a Senate majority in 2017, but a glaring warning for the party's longer-term health.  The notion is put forward that if Hitlery can't extend the Democrats' presidential winning streak—a fundamental challenge, regardless of the political environment—the party's barren bench will cause even more alarm for the next presidential campaign. And if the Democrats' core constituencies don't show up for midterm elections—an outlook that's rapidly becoming conventional wisdom—Democrats have serious challenges in 2018 as well.  It's why The New Yorker's liberal writer John Cassidy warned that a Clinton loss next year could "assign [Republicans] a position of dominance."

The Journal said that by focusing on how the electorate's rapid change would hand Democrats a clear advantage in presidential races, Barry's advisers have overlooked how the base-stroking moves would play in the states. Their optimistic view of the future is said to have been adopted by Hitlery, who has been running to the left even without serious primary competition.  But without a future generation of leaders able to compellingly carry the liberal message, there's little guarantee that changing demographics will secure the party's destiny. The irony of the 2016 Senate races is that Democrats are betting on the past, running veteran politicians to win them back the majority—with Hitlery at the top of the ticket.  If that formula doesn't work, and it remains a sizable if, the rebuilding process may be long and arduous. 

Personally I don’t really see this as being much more than wishful thinking on the part of this particular publication.  Especially when you take into consideration that a growing number of people today not only do not pay any income taxes but are also becoming increasingly dependent upon a growing number of government programs.  Who is that this publication thinks these people will end up voting for?  Will it be for the ones that will demand that they pay income some amount of taxes and will need to wean themselves off of their multiple government subsidies?  I hardly think so.  The Democrat Party will be around for many years to come.  And I feel quite confident in saying that any rumors regarding its impending demise are more than a bit premature, and to assume otherwise would ‘make an ass out of you and me.’    

And while I suppose it might be fun to ponder such an eventuality, the reality of the situation is that for most of us what is of a far greater concern is the continuing viability of the Republican Party.  Especially at a time when our supposed party leadership seems hell-bent upon sabotaging the party’s prospects for the future.  Because while all of this talk, about the dire straits in which the Democrat Party supposedly finds itself, is really not much more than watercooler scuttlebutt.  The fact is the parasite class in this country has been growing exponentially for decades, and is continuing to grow.  All thanks to encouragement coming from both parties, but primarily because of only one.  And it is that rather sizable parasite class that may very well decide elections going well into the future.

No comments:

Post a Comment