Oct 25th, 2008 at 5:49 pm
Everything is Bad News for Democrats!
Democrats, who are within reach of the 60 votes needed to break a filibuster in the Senate, would also face high expectations, especially from the party’s more liberal quarters, that could be difficult to meet even with enhanced numbers in the Senate as well as the House. And they would be at risk of overreaching, a tendency that has deeply damaged both parties in similar situations in the past.
Obviously, the more seats a given party wins, the more it has to lose the next time around. In that sense, yes, victory leads to “risk.” But nothing lasts forever — certainly not grasp on political power. The real risk is the risk of not seizing the opportunity to accomplish useful things.
48 Responses to “Everything is Bad News for Democrats!”
Register
RSSLogin
Advertisement
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Books By Matthew Yglesias
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Abortion
Afghanistan
Basketball
Blanche Lincoln
Budget
China
climate
Congress
Crime
DC
Demographics
Economics
Economy
Energy
Environment
EU
Finance
Football
Gender
Health Care
History
Inequality
International Law
International Relations
Iran
Israel
Media
Monetary Policy
National Security
NATO
NBA
Palestine
Political Reform
Public Health
Public Opinion
Race
Regulation
Russia
Sarah Palin
Sports
Stimulus
taxes
Technology
Trade
transportation
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Contact Matthew Yglesias
Use this form to contact blog author Matthew Yglesias.
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
October 25th, 2008 at 6:33 pm
Yeah, I saw that headline and just rolled my eyes. The only surprise is that the article wasn’t written by Adam “Democrats are losers” Nagourney. Glad you have the stomach to read the NYT’s political coverage, because I don’t.
October 25th, 2008 at 6:47 pm
Not only that, but electing a black person as president would be bad for the civil rights movement.
October 25th, 2008 at 6:58 pm
Maybe it would be worth comparing this article with the one the Times wrote after the 2000 election.
Oh wait….
October 25th, 2008 at 7:02 pm
If our biggest worry in the next two years is Democratic overreach, those two years are going to be jam-packed with awesome.
October 25th, 2008 at 7:05 pm
We’ll be hearing a lot of this post-election, where the Beltway pundits warn the Democrats that despite winning the most outstanding trifecta in decades, they better not try to actually do anything with it, heaven forbid.
October 25th, 2008 at 7:10 pm
The biggest thing Democrats have to worry about is being territorial, which is what sank them after Clinton’s ‘92 win.
The Right Wing noise machine will make the Clinton years look tame. This is why the Deomratic “herd of cats” needs very strong and principled leadership to promote an agenda and tell the Limbaugh incited Republican rioters (aka the GOP House Caucus) to settle down, even on occasion, tell them when they get particularly wing-nutty to ’shut the fuck up.’
October 25th, 2008 at 7:12 pm
The Democrats DO need to make major structural changes in US politics and news media:
a) We need a way to encourage reporting of the truth and a way to shut down deceitful propaganda intend to advance unchallenged private agendas that damage the country
b) We need to strip the richest 3 percent of the population of a major portion of their wealth and redistribute it to the population — because you cannot maintain a Republic if the only people who can talk,debate, and gain office are Whores for special interests. The collapse of the Roman Republic shows the danger that the “Reagan Revolution” poses to the USA
c) We need to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine — and ensure that the common citizens who fight this country’s wars and work to create this nation’s wealth have as much a voice in the public forums as lying , whoring assholes like Bill O’Reilly and Rush Limbaugh. Bill Clinton and the Democratic Congress of 1992-1994 had this opportunity, fucked up big time, and we have suffered greatly in the 14 years since.
d)We need to mandate public funding of campaigns and ban private funding. Including control of public debates between the candidates.
e) Make the evangelicals make up their mind –either they are religious or they are a political movement . IF they latter, their preachers can start paying income and property taxes. Oh, and take their goddamm TV networks away. Those airwaves belong to the public.
f) Cable TV, radio, satellite etc need to be as much under FCC control as the broadcast networks — they all serve the same market.
October 25th, 2008 at 7:12 pm
Call me irresponsible, but I think I prefer the risks of success to the risks of failure.
October 25th, 2008 at 7:15 pm
Um, please, please don’t throw me into that briar patch?
October 25th, 2008 at 7:23 pm
1) Those structural changes should not favor the Democrats over the Republicans, the liberals over the conservatives.
What they should favor is rational, intelligent discourse that reachs valid conclusions. What they should suppress is the continual barrage of deceit that has become the norm in the past 10 years.
2) There needs to be some way to expose the liars and idiots and drive them out of the public forum. There has to be some way to unearth where factions agree, where they disagree, and some way to determine which faction is right.
3) I have no problem with the adversary system –people motiviated by passion for a cause have greater energy to address problems than lazy, bland, corrupt technocrats.
But the courts have a Judge to enforce rules for fair discourse — we don’t have anything like that in the public forum.
4) We need to destroy the News Media as it currently exists. It is not only corrupt, it is ignorant and stupid. Free market competition doesn’t work because the newspapers merely compete to see who can most shamelessly whore for rich men.
But could any national leader or corporate CEO survive if he received information the way it is delivered to the People by the New York Times and Fox News?
October 25th, 2008 at 7:29 pm
I expect to be disappointed with the Obama administration. I look forward to being disappointed. Disappointment is pretty damn good compared to having no basis for any hope at all.
October 25th, 2008 at 7:36 pm
CJColucci: I agree.
October 25th, 2008 at 7:38 pm
What can we do to make sure that the Democrats figure out a way around the GOP obstacle machine if we don’t get a 60-vote majority? Really we can’t let 41 obstructionists stop Obama.
October 25th, 2008 at 7:53 pm
Re etaoin’s question “What can we do to make sure that the Democrats figure out a way around the GOP obstacle machine if we don’t get a 60-vote majority? Really we can’t let 41 obstructionists stop Obama. ”
———-
Recruiting a few Republican Senators when they are in the minority is not a problem — bribery ,such as earmarks for their district , usually works.
The problem is that the 41 obstructionists will include a fair number of Democrats. Look at Joe Lieberman and Zell Miller’s past acts, for example. Bush’s tax cut passed with the Yea votes of 12 Democratic Senators.
And if you bribe one Republican Senator, then you’ll have 59 Democrats swarming over you like the begger children of India.
October 25th, 2008 at 8:03 pm
Oh, you mean like after the 2006 elections?
October 25th, 2008 at 8:25 pm
Well I’m willing to risk it…who else is in?
LOL
October 25th, 2008 at 8:31 pm
If I was a Republican, one of the things I’d worry most about is that fact that Obama has built this massive citizen-driven political infrastructure, and it can be used to advance his agenda once he is in office. I don’t think the Obama team is foolish enough to let all of us sit idle until 2012– I expect that we will be called into service starting on Jan. 20 to help change this screwed-up country. The GOP has always been a corporate-funded, top-down organization– they have nothing comparable to our very powerful and effective citizen base. They are screwed for a long, long time..
October 25th, 2008 at 8:36 pm
Mercy me! We can’t have the risk of success, then!
Rinse away these punditurds along with the wingnuts, please.
October 25th, 2008 at 8:41 pm
The problem with your analysis Matt, is that you have just signed yourself and the rest of the liberal blogosphere up to never criticize the Democrats.
You won’t criticize Reid, or Pelosi, or Obama.
Anything they do, will be okay with you.
Sometimes Matt, a stopped clock is right, and sometimes, it’s dumb for you to criticize other people for stating the obvious.
Carry on pundit.
October 25th, 2008 at 8:53 pm
The real risk is the risk of not seizing the opportunity to accomplish useful things.
Well, that’s one risk. Another is the risk of trying to do too much, provoking a backlash, and getting punished by angry voters at the next election. See Clinton, William J. and Revolution, Republican, 1994.
October 25th, 2008 at 9:04 pm
This is just like the old sports cliche: USC is favored by three touchdowns. Which means there will be a lot of pressure on them to win! Which could cause them to lose. The better you get, the more presure there is on you to be good. Whereas a team that sucks like Northwestern has the great advantage of being able to go out there and play loose.
Another thing about overreach. Liberals could indeed overreach by pushing a very liberal agenda along culturally divisive lines. Repeal the Defense of Marriage Act, for example. Federal strong pro-choice legislation. Dismantling the tough-on-crime Clinton reforms, or radically liberalizing immigration policy. But no one thinks they will do these things. Most of the stuff they have planned now is popular. Their positions on taxes, foreign policy, health care, education, etc. are all popular, even if you have 100% Democratic bills, without GOP input. That’s vastly different than the GOP program over the past 8 years. Most of Bush’s biggest policy goals were things he had to keep secret or lie about in order to advance. The tax cuts, social security reform, the war, torture, eavesdropping, you name it.
“The Right Wing noise machine will make the Clinton years look tame.”
Sure, they’ll want to do this. But a lot of the “noise machine” was based on MSM coverage of congressional investigations. Which won’t exist, at least for Obama’s first four years (there will probably be some midterm loss, but not enough to take back both houses). I seriously doubt that the NY Times is going to be duped once again into printing dozens upon dozens of stories on fake scandals like Whitewater. Call me an irrational optimist.
The GOP will want to get Obama very badly. But the attacks they’ve got going now, and which they’ll be pushing for the next year or so, are pretty pathetic.
“they have nothing comparable to our very powerful and effective citizen base.”
Is 2004 so long ago? The right wing has the white churches, which kicked our “effective citizen base” asses in Ohio. If the GOP had a guy like Huckabee right now, they’d be going toe to toe with Obama’s prganization right now. Of course Huckabee would have no money, but McCain is probably the worst candidate for activiating the organizational potential of the GOP. Palin is better, but she has no organizational ties to these churches at the national level right now.
October 25th, 2008 at 9:33 pm
The Democratic Party does not have to be successful to extends its margin of control. All it has to do is spread enough government money around to enough of its base groups such as more government jobs, more 8a contracts, and more grants to universities while it puts 20 million illegal aliens on a fast track to citizenship.
The Democratic Party has every demographic edge going for it whether it is successful or not.
October 25th, 2008 at 10:05 pm
Come on, people. By the time Wall St. is done looting the Treasury… errr, getting bailed out, we’ll be lucky if there’s enough money to continue the programs we have. Obama won’t have anything to overreach with but rhetoric, and I think he’s smart enough not to do that once he’s in office.
October 25th, 2008 at 10:31 pm
Well, of *course* everything is bad news for Democrats — if you always go to *Republicans* for your political advice.
But there’s no way the media would do that, because…
(crickets)
October 25th, 2008 at 10:47 pm
It’s Been A long time getting for here to there. When the voice of the citizen is heard the times are a changing.
change is not when, but now!
October 26th, 2008 at 2:34 am
After the landslide we can elect new leaders in the Congress and sweep Pelosi and Reid out too.
I think Hillary has earned top spot in the Senate.
And Judiciary Commiyyee Chairman Conyers would make an excellent Speaker if he would take the job. My second choice would be Waxman.
October 26th, 2008 at 2:35 am
typo: commiyyee = committee
October 26th, 2008 at 3:07 am
Hulse and Herszenhorn might’ve done well to check which senators are up for reelection in 2010.
Potentially vulnerable Rs: Bond (MO), Bunning (KY), Burr (NC), Grassley (IA), Gregg (NH), Martinez (FL), McCain seat (AZ), Murkowski (AK), Specter (PA), Thune (SD), Vitter (LA), Voinovich (OH)
Potentially vulnerable Ds: Boxer (CA), Dodd (CT), Dorgan (ND), Feingold (WI), Lincoln (AR), Obama seat (IL), Reid (NV), Salazar (CO)
Anybody see a wipeout of Democrats here?
October 26th, 2008 at 4:14 am
The flaw in the woe-is-us argument is that Democrats never needed a filibuster-proof majority to get things done. That deflecting argument has been their excuse for caving before the fact on everything of importance, with a predictable 30-50 percent of spineless wimps siding behind the scenes with lockstep Republicans. The Demos are a bankrupt party that’s out of ideas and out of excuses.
October 26th, 2008 at 8:36 am
I hated the headline even more than the article. Rereading it just now, I see no sign at all of “Democrats see risk.” I see a reporter who sees risks. I see Democrats quoted, but very sparsely indeed, about the benefits of a solid majority. I see a slew of GOP quotes on running against that. In sum, I see a pro-GOP article with s sleazy title attributing it all to the Democrats, adding the implication of their weak will as well.
October 26th, 2008 at 11:27 am
one of the things I’d worry most about is that fact that Obama has built this massive citizen-driven political infrastructure, and it can be used to advance his agenda once he is in office.
Did you ever think of how many people Obama is going to have to appoint or select to replace those who will be resigned, or indicted. Once some kind of legal and financial accounting is down for the last eight years, a huge number of qualified and honest people will be needed. I hope Obama has been thinking about this.
Think about the number of crimes and malfeasances needed just to get the Iraq war going- beginning with the mis-apropriation of the 700 million dollars (remember that little malfeasance?) from the funds for the Afghanistan operation. How many people had a hand in that? The Pentagon and the military need a thorough housecleaning.
Obama cannot do a thing until he gets rid of the Repubs and criminals and gets an accounting. Then he will be able to take action, and he’s going to need lots and lots of people, many with high qualifications, able to pass security checks, and willing to move, and willing to take the jobs.
October 26th, 2008 at 11:29 am
One of the most discouraging things I’ve seen is that nobody even remembers how the US government operates when it operates properly and legally. Even on the ( and maybe especially) liberal blogs everybody assumes the government will operate the same way, only with different victims.
It’s disgusting to see.
October 26th, 2008 at 11:52 am
I feel we need to have our Republican friends join in an effort to totally destroy the Democratic party. They can do this on Nov. 4th by voting for as many Democrats as possible. For surely such an overwhelming majority would be the best thing that could happen for the Rs.
REPUBLICANS OF THE NATION UNITE! THE ONLY HOPE OF SAVING THIS COUNTRY AND GIVING THE REPUBLICAN PARTY ITS RIGHTFUL PLACE IS BY VOTING A STRAIGHT DEMOCRATIC TICKET!
We can only hope that anyone stupid enough to have ever supported Boy Blunder and his Super Friends will fall for this too.
October 26th, 2008 at 12:50 pm
Greg:
The Right Wing noise machine will make the Clinton years look tame. This is why the Deomratic “herd of cats” needs very strong and principled leadership to promote an agenda and tell the Limbaugh incited Republican rioters (aka the GOP House Caucus) to settle down, even on occasion, tell them when they get particularly wing-nutty to ’shut the fuck up.’
During the primary, I remember being warned that the “effective” Right Wing noise machine would destroy Obama in the fall and it didn’t happen. All McCain could muster was echoes of what Hillary did in the primary.
If Obama is elected there will probably be a lot of energy and excitement. The NYTimes story had a nice graph showing which parties controlled Congress over the years and it’s easy to forget the Democrats controlled it a lot of time. What’s new if I remember correctly, is that many of those Democrats during the past were Southern Democrats, remnants of the South’s white supremacy politics, especially in the Senate. That is less true today.
October 26th, 2008 at 7:30 pm
“The collapse of the Roman Republic shows the danger that the “Reagan Revolution” poses to the USA”
No, the collapse of the roman republic shows the danger of letting in too many immigrants from a single ethnicity.
October 26th, 2008 at 10:32 pm
What’s new if I remember correctly, is that many of those Democrats during the past were Southern Democrats, remnants of the South’s white supremacy politics, especially in the Senate. That is less true today.
That’s a good point, but some of those riding the Obama coattails are southern Dems, albeit moderates rather than Dixiecrats.
I stand by my main point that if Dems do not work in a unified way, they will get picked off. Hopefully Obama will live up to his reputation as a consensus builder and Reid and Pelosi will do their part to further a solid Democratic agenda.
December 22nd, 2008 at 12:19 am
Love the blog! some great information, its one of the greatest loves of my life. I’ve bookmarked your blog so will be back. Thanks
March 1st, 2009 at 7:42 pm
cialis
It is the coolest site,keep so!
March 11th, 2009 at 5:12 am
I bookmarked this site. Thank you for good job!
March 13th, 2009 at 12:09 am
Great site. Good info
March 17th, 2009 at 2:36 am
I bookmarked this site. Thank you for good job!
tramadol
March 22nd, 2009 at 6:33 am
tramadol
Great site. Good info
April 2nd, 2009 at 5:47 am
It is the coolest site,keep so!
buy cheap viagra
April 3rd, 2009 at 4:28 am
Very interesting site. Hope it will always be alive!
cheap brand pfizer viagra
April 14th, 2009 at 9:38 am
I rarely comment on blogs but yours I had to stop and say Great Blog!!
viagra