| Two of the pillars of the progressive online community -- Markos Moulitsas and Chris Bowers -- wrote very similar pieces today about why Democrats are expected to lose in Virginia, New York, and possibly New Jersey. Their thesis, in a nutshell: Democrats didn't act like Democrats. First, from a piece that started on FireDogLake, we learn that the number of Democrats who said they would come out and vote in Virginia dropped seven perecentage points as the Democrat in the race -- moderate/Blue Dog Creigh Deeds -- continued to shift more and more to the center/right as opposed to running as a progressive: Instead of attempting to energize more young and minority voters to the polls to make the electorate more representative of Virginia–[the Deeds campaign] began running a campaign targeted to the people already planning to vote. Creigh began bashing federal Democratic priorities like “Cap and Trade” and health care reform to appeal to the conservatives that were headed to the polls.And every time he did it, polls indicated turnout shriveled even further among Democrats and progressive voters–making the electorate even older, whiter, and more conservative. To which Creigh responded to by bashing federal Democrats more–which resulted in even more progressives becoming disengaged. Over and over, the cycle continued. Over the last six weeks, PPP polls indicated the share of the electorate that identified as Democrats declined from 38% to 31%. I'll then point to key points from both Markos and Chris: Markos, from Daily Kos: 2010 will be a base election. The party best able to turn out its core voters has the best chance of winning. If Democrats want to see a repeat of Virginia at the national level next year, then they should cave to Blue Dogs and the media nabobs and water down reform efforts (whether in energy, health care, financial services, or immigration). The further Right Deeds moved, the further his poll numbers collapsed. The correlation is clear, even if the Blue Dogs argue the opposite.
Chris, from Open Left: The message here is that Blue Dog losses are a sign that more Democrats should be like Blue Dogs. Presuming that Blue Dog victories would also, in the eyes of Blue Dogs, be a sign that Democrats as a whole should be more like Blue Dogs, then really there is nothing that can happen at the ballot box that would not be a sign Democrats should be more like Blue Dogs.
In a way, this is actually perfect thinking for our current system of government. Wall Street crashes the economy, so give more money to Wall Street. Health insurance costs too much, so give them more customers with little competition. Energy and agriculture conglomerates are the largest polluters in America, so construct a climate change bill that gives those conglomerates tens of billions of dollars.
Blue Dog Democrats lose, so Democrats should be more like Blue Dogs. It all makes perfect sense, as long as your goal isn't actually for Democrats to win elections.
Something to think about today, one year away from the 2010 elections. |
