It’s the Dems, not the Repubs, that should ‘nationalize’ this election. Here’s how:
Best as I can tell, the concept of “nationalizing” this election has been used exclusively to mean that the Republicans want to make this election all about Obama, Obamacare, and such. Therefore, if the election is “nationalized,” the Repubs win, right?
In a post here at AB two weeks ago, I listed some of the many important financial-matters legislative accomplishments of the Dem-controlled Congress of 2009-10 that most people don’t know about or have forgotten about, and that I would love to see the Dems run on. Three days after I posted that post, Elizabeth Warren gave this short, impromptu video interview to New York Times reporter Axel Gerdau, in which she discussed, among other things, the Senate Republicans’ filibuster earlier that day of an important bill she had sponsored that would significantly lower interest rates on former students’ student loans. Warren used it as an example to illustrate the very essence of what is transpiring in Congress, courtesy of the Republicans, and (in the Senate) of Mitch McConnell.
Just as with the financial-industry legislation enacted during the first two years of the Obama administration, virtually no one even knows about the student-loan interest-rate bill, much less why it won’t be enacted. The clarity and passion with which Warren spoke, about that bill and, more broadly, about the situation in Congress is something to behold. A simple playing of that videotape as an ad, especially in Kentucky, but also in the other states that have pivotal senate races, would matter critically, I believe—especially if Warren would cut a follow-up ad explaining the filibuster situation.
What political pundits and Dem politicians and consultants don’t get about Warren’s popularity is that her issues are not presented as “women’s issues” but instead as hugely important financial issues that make a difference to men as well as women.
As regular readers of my posts know, I usually pepper my posts with attempts at humorous sarcasm. But there’s nothing at all funny about so many Democratic candidates’ and officeholders’ consistent failure to educate the public about non-gender-based economic-populist legislation—legislation that has already been enacted, and legislation that has been proposed but languishes. Off-hand, the only two Dem senate candidates who have done that are the two who are doing well in the polls: Gary Peters in Michigan, and Kay Hagan in North Carolina.
AB is just a little blog, with only a couple thousand views each day, so unless my point is picked up by other, more-widely-read blogs, my comments here will go unnoticed. I’m certainly no political consultant, but the ones the Dems use apparently think it’s still 1992. (They’ve all been around since then as consultants—many of them since before then—haven’t they?) This is so painful for me to watch.
Sorry but I think Bogama has already nationalized the election. With another stupid war (and this one he and Madame Secretary own). The congressional leaders managed to avoid voting against it so…
Sorry, there is no war. ISIS has had a ugly retreat over the last 10 days, so ugly they may lose Mosul in the coming days and removal from Iraq. Even the media can’t ignore it and people will yawn. Nobody cares.
Democrats white part of the vote(which represents 40% total) isn’t in recession anymore. I am sorry, but reality sucks on this one for people. Most of them have been rehired and are getting raises. Most of whats left is regional issues such as Republican state neglect or activist based issues such as climate change. The farthest they can go is some quality of life issues for the underemployed, which generally doesn’t do well in a mid-term.
Hagan is not doing well in the polls, imo others are doing better.
The incompetence of the DC-based Democratic consultants is impossible to exaggerate. Candidates throughout the country are facing difficulties from being associated with the ACA, and yet the DNC, DSCC and DCCC have not even tried to give them cover by explaining the facts about the law and exposing (and proving) the lies.
In particular, they have done nothing to remind the majority of voters who were not immediately affected because they have insurance through an employer that now, for the first time ever, they can be sure they will be able to get insurance if they lose the job. That assurance is a very present benefit, and it connects with the majority of voters rather than the minority who have adult children who aren’t working or have no-benefit jobs, or who have been unlucky and uninsured (disproportionately non-voters).
Democratic candidates stuck between wanting to be associated with the good parts of the ACA and needing to be independent of Obama have had a way out: proposing that we reconsider putting a low-cost, non-profit public option into the exchanges, and specifically proposing that people 50 and over unable to get insurance through employment should be permitted to buy into Medicare. The latter without question would be enormously popular and would signal that the candidate has good ideas of his or her own. But because Obama opposed the public option in the end, I’m sure the brainless DC-consultants will not allow candidates getting Democratic Party funds to do either of these.
What was the quote I saw the other day? “Look, the guy in the $1000 dollar suit says he will fight for us.”
And yes, you are dead right that if ever there were a mid-term election ripe for nationalization, this is the one. There are so many Republican disconnects with the majority on economic issues in particular — the minimum wage, direct job-creating infrastructure spending and unfair tax loopholes for starters — that Democrats as a party could mount a strong national campaign. It would carry the basic premise that because all Republicans have vowed fealty to the Tea Party and to a corporate lobbyist, they are all, every one of them, afraid not to vote to block any legislation that would actually help the economy grow or make the tax system more fair.
In other words, the message would be a bold one: that regardless of what an individual Republican may say he or she believes, there is simply no such thing today as a good Republican. if you want a Congress that will actually try to help Americans, as many of them as possible need to be retired.
A national campaign on those lines, along with an educational campaign on ACA that should have been run in 2010 and 2012 as well, would be a lot of help to candidates in their local races. I don’t think we’ll see it. A bold campaign? Heaven forbid.
It’s not happening as you would like Bev because the consultants have not figure out how to pull a republican. That is, being for the people while doing for the economic elite.
I think the problem why the dems have not pulled this off since Clinton is because people actually expect dem policy to be for the people. The people for the repubs are only concerned with what ever singular issue tickles their butt. String enough butt ticklers together and you can get elected.
IOW, the dem have not learned that the oxymoron in this situation is them.
I think the Dems are not picking up on Warren’s appeal because they just wish she would go away.
Neither party gives a damn about the people and they like the economy just the way it is. And the politics of “gender” “race” “patriotism” what have you are just what they need to keep the people from thinking about what actually matters.
Don’t imagine the elections are about real issues. They are poker games among gentlemen at the country club. Sure they like to beat each other and pocket their winnings, but don’t imagine that any of them give a damn about the wait staff: give em a big tip if they mind their manners but keep their wages low.
Nobody cares about the ACA. This thread just isn’t getting that.
Nobody cares about ISIS or Obama’s reaction to it. Republican pollsters don’t understand that.
The Media doesn’t get it. Neither does people on this site. You can’t run a national campaign when nobody wants to run one. Republicans will take several losses in regional states and I gotta big surprise coming in the Midwest. This is as lame a midterm as I have seen since 2002. Boring, boring, boring.
Democrats will revert to the mean in terms of Senate holdings while probably getting them back in 2016.
First we could tell the people that as soon as the Dems are in power all the banksters who created the financial mess will be prosecuted to the fullest.
Then we could promise that the very next step will be to bail out the middle class/main street instead of Wall Street, like the Repubs did the last 5-6 years -eh?
If only Obama knew?
It’s a problem when the only seemly progress is Warren. Then we have Bush III (Obama), and a democratic leadership which servers no useful purpose aside from helping the republicans destroy the Nation.
Remember when Obama can into office had both houses and did nothing. Except continue Bush II policies and expand them.