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