Something to think about.The results have clearly lifted the Democratic ticket. Mr. Obama’s lead over Mr. McCain in polls consistently exceeds the margin for error. Surveys have shown Mr. Obama leading in “red” battlegrounds like Florida, New Mexico and Ohio, while Mr. McCain has pulled back his effort to take the 17 “blue” electoral votes in Michigan.
Mr. McCain’s campaign has responded by stepping up attacks on Mr. Obama’s background, with Mr. McCain’s running mate, Gov. Sarah Palin, asserting that the Democrat’s relationship with Bill Ayers, the onetime Weather Underground figure, constitutes “palling around with terrorists.” Mr. Obama has answered by criticizing Mr. McCain as “erratic” during the financial crisis and “radical” in pressing a market-based health care approach resembling Mr. Bush’s.
Strategists in both parties see similar effects on Congressional races. Mr. Cook rates just one Democratic Senate seat at risk, compared with 10 for Republicans.
House Democrats once considered the padding of their 235-seat majority by 10 optimistic. Now House Republicans say they would consider losing only 10 a success.
Nor do they fear Mr. McCain’s defeat. His “maverick” stance has long left Republican regulars ambivalent. As Republicans in Congress learned under Bill Clinton, and Democrats under Mr. Bush, opposing a president of the other party can help legislative minorities refocus message and agenda.
“They are resigned to a probable Obama victory,” observed Jim L. Brulte, a prominent California Republican who once led his party’s caucus in both the state Assembly and Senate. Republicans, he added, “understand that that is a necessity in order to set the stage to retake the majority.”[emphasis added]
October 8, 2008
Some Notes
I won't spend much time on last night's debate (here's the gist of it: early polling says Obama won) but I found this curious tidbit in the Times:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
Expectations for Obama are quite high. We all remember the expectations for Clinton in 1992, with a democratic majority in House and Senate (as I remember) and following 12 years of Republican Presidents. Well, I sort of remember, anyway. But universal health care was a bust and the nation decided it wanted divided government.
When Obama comes in, if he comes in, he will have to walk the thin line between doing some things, enough things, and scaling back his ambitions because of the economy. I don’t think the Democrats are going to get 60 seats in the Senate, so although they might win over a few Republicans on particularly appealing measures like children’s healthcare or limited aid and/or action in Darfur, I think we may see Republicans force the issue I an attempt to make the majority party look bad. I hope Obama, once out of the Senate and in the Oval Office, uses every opportunity to highlight about how the Republicans are blocking vital legislation. If the Democrats are not too greedy, if they are patient, they might be able to establish a long standing majority. Till the next time the worm turns (so to speak).
Did FDR scale back his ambitions because of the economy in 1932? Did that hurt the ability of the Democratic party to hold onto a strong majority in both houses of Congress?
No.
"My own party can succeed at the polls only so long as it continues to be the party of militant liberalism." --Franklin D Roosevelt
Agreeing with Justin. I long to hear Obama respond to McCain's "all this new spending" lectures with something like, "Senator McCain dismisses everything as spending, but I view it as investments, and I expect a return on these investments. When you're talking about health care, energy initiatives and education, these are investments we can't afford not to make. Senator McCain would rather spend the money on tax cuts for the upper income brackets. THAT'S what I would call 'spending', and as we've seen since the 80's on down the line, it's not the kind of spending that gives the average American any kind of return. It's the kind of spending only a hard-line conservative can love."
And here you can see the reason that some liberals have the galling temerity to be enthusiastic about their candidate. After 30 years in the wilderness, we finally have a leader and are in an environment where we can take back liberalism as cool, rational, and effective, and some of us feel justifiably optimistic. Sorry if that's too uncouth for some of you out there.
You know, it doesn't matter what I say, things in Washington are going to happen the way they are going to happen. I thought I would remind people about what's been happening in Congress this year, and extrapolate based on the notion that the Democrats might not get ten seats in the Senate. You know the failures to get cloture and the personal holds on legislation (the Senate really is a nutty place). But if you say that Obama will be able to use the force of his personal will to power to cow the Republicans in the Senate, more power to you. If you say I am being a downer, that I should not see optimism as uncouth, that we have the best leader since the time the movie “Dazed and Confused” tried to capture, far be it from me to act like some kind of Edward Heath.
Not at all, Ed ... as I was riffing upon your and Justin's thoughts, my reproach was intended toward certain segments of the dreary, cynical commentariat which believe all expressions of partisanship to be necessarily tribal, reactionary and unreasonable -- your Peggy Noonans and the such. I happen to believe the two parties do represent two strikingly different governing and geopolitical strategies, and there isn't much that EXISTS in the middle, period -- let alone "truth." So let's at least get some oscillation already, and thereby some much-needed locomotion.
Though I will say the long-term benefits of salvaging liberalism as a proud American ideology could be more important than short-term win-loss percentages in terms of legislation over the next two years.
And and AND -- 60 votes in the Senate isn't entirely out of reach. Particularly if Obama takes his inevitability to heart and starts campaigning on behalf of Al Franken and a couple others. Get out the brooms!
Ed, I wasn't necessarily disagreeing with you in those respects. Caution in expectations is warranted, as we saw what lack of caution in that arena has gained us in the last two years--lots of hurt feelings and a sometimes single-digit approval rating for Congress.
So, Ed, you're right. I hope that Obama, if he were to become President, can somehow transcend typical barriers similar to the ways he already has, and get done what needs to get done whether it looks "greedy" or not. I want someone who'll push for what's right, not what's politically expedient.
Post a Comment