"Had Enough?"

[Rob]

imo, the situation in America and the world at large will still be atrocious when the 2010 midterms roll through. With that in mind, I think the Democratic Party would be very unwise to abandon the "change" theme next year. Sure, the Democrats have the White House and Congress; but the Republicans can easily prevent reform from being enacted. The GOP is virtually certain to campaign on some kind of "change/reform" platform in 2010, but we should steal their issue from them.

The Democratic slogan in 2010 should be "Had Enough?" A simply effective classic, and the target would be Republican obstructionism. Obama's personality would be kept out of the campaign at this level; he would, however, make solemn (and very public) pleas for bipartisanship, implying there are "good" Republicans who want to rise above party lines for the good of their country. Around this time, Democratic pundits should begin to drop the term "Obama Republican" at any given opportunity- the more public attention (even "legitimacy") given to these voters, more of them will be "created."

Finally, and most importantly, the Democrats need to pick one single, tangible issue with heavy public support to advance... and contrive to lose the fight. The vote, of course, will be mostly party-line. After that, they can flood the airwaves- especially in states and districts that voted for Obama- with "Had Enough?"

Think it could work?

[Lunar]

Considering that some of the most competitive seats (MO, OH, NH, FL, maybe KS, prospectively IA) will be open seats where I'm sure the Republican candidate will pledge bipartisanship... Another big seat, PA, will be with Specter who is not an obstructivist.  Another big one will be KY where Obama is not that popular.

What does that leave us?  I guess North Carolina.

[Senator North Carolina Yankee]

No it won't work. Obstructionism doesn't really work as a national theme its only worked in local races like SD 2004. Obama now has the Presidency and huge majorities in Congress so any such campaign would be taken as whinning, or an attempt to disquise your own ineffectiveness. What the hell are you guys going to bring up the Olympia Snowe won't vote for? Once the sideshow in MN is completed all you need is one vote and Snowe will likely be persuaded.

If the midterm is nationalised which I doubt it will and "Had Enough" is the compaign theme then it would most likely be the theme for the GOP. People don't understand what a filibuster is and how many votes you need. Your best bet would be to leave well enough alone and try to localise this election. Nationalising it would hurt your chances in Kentucky and maybe North Carolina and Missouri if Turnout is at 2006 levels. You got some very good candidates like Carnahan, Hodes, Mongiardo, Ryan etc. Let them run there own campaigns as they see fit.

[Sam Spade]

The success of that argument depends on how the economy is, most likely.

[N.i.K.]

It is hard to say. I think the GOP will gain seats in the senate and house in 2010, but it may be an effective slogan.

[Lunar]

It is hard to say. I think the GOP will gain seats in the senate and house in 2010, but it may be an effective slogan.

But as of now there's only vulnerable GOP seat, out of, what, seven, with an incumbent Republican who can be accused of being an obstructionist in the Senate. 

I suppose that House GOP members are the favorites to win in many of those states, in retrospect...

[President Marokai]

It is hard to say. I think the GOP will gain seats in the senate and house in 2010, but it may be an effective slogan.

I'm not quite sure how you expect the Republicans to gain seats in the Senate. They're most likely going to gain in the House because Democrats racked up such massive margins, but virtually everything I've seen so far illustrates that all the toss-ups are Republican incumbents.

[N.i.K.]

It is hard to say. I think the GOP will gain seats in the senate and house in 2010, but it may be an effective slogan.

I'm not quite sure how you expect the Republicans to gain seats in the Senate. They're most likely going to gain in the House because Democrats racked up such massive margins, but virtually everything I've seen so far illustrates that all the toss-ups are Republican incumbents.

I agree; they are more likely to gain in the house. But if all depends on Obama's approval.

[ilikeverin]

I agree the economy won't be recovered by then; as such, we are likely in for a less-than-stellar election.  (thankfully, the economy will probably recover by 2012, and with the typical "are you better off than you were four years ago?" argument, Obama should be re-elected fairly comfortably)

[Keystone Phil]

Uh..."Had Enough?" is what the GOP will use and people would be more likely to understand why they'd be using it.

[President Marokai]

Uh..."Had Enough?" is what the GOP will use and people would be more likely to understand why they'd be using it.

It depends on how things go, but I'm generally in agreement with you. I'm not sure how the Dems can say "had enough" when they're the ones in power.

Of course, Republicans can't use "Had enough?" if things are improving. But we'll see.

[Rob]

Uh..."Had Enough?" is what the GOP will use

That's kind of the point. The idea is to spin the GOP's best potential argument and turn it against them. You might say the "audacity" of such a move is what appeals to me.

[pbrower2a]

Even a stabilization of the economy at a lower level than that associated with the corrupt Dubya-era, credit-fed boom could seem an improvement... or at least the right direction. There are likely to be fewer jobs in 2010 as lots of kids get pushed out of the job market as retail stores close due to reduced consumer spending and public policy encourages the hiring of 'family breadwinners' even in menial jobs but for living wages. The good side of that is that the menial jobs will probably be better paid than when kids who used the jobs to support cars, clothes, and electronic goodies are in school or are doing homework instead.

We absolutely cannot return to the Dubya-era economy of illusory prosperity -- a false prosperity based upon people consuming assets or going into debt just to keep up appearances as real pay shrinks for most people. That is no more possible than expecting heat waves to reverse the cooling of December in January.

The American economy stank when FDR was President from 1934 to 1940... but such was tolerable because people saw a pattern of improvement and saw no chance for a return to the economy of the 1920's. FDR won landslide victories in 1936 and 1940. After Dubya, Obama has much leeway with results.

Some Republicans seem to act as if the wise course is to obstruct the efforts of Barack Obama and the Democratic majority so that the Democrats can fail and the Republicans can offer their own alternative -- essentially their own agenda of Profits First, People Never. It is a huge gamble, one that can fail badly politically and weaken their political position in elections of 2010 and 2012 at the least, or one that can succeed politically but make things worse -- and leave some Hard Right Republican with an economic situation even direr than that that we now have -- and an opportunity to establish a plutocrat's paradise/worker's hell. (That system: no unions, no corporate taxes but instead highly-regressive sales taxes and capitations, no minimum wage, no welfare, 70-hour workweeks, plenty of child labor, the vote limited to the rich, working people generally being wrecks in their middle 30s... )

That is a gamble -- a huge gamble, one that depends upon the catastrophic failure of the Other Side as well as the society as a whole. That is a revolutionary stance that only extremists can support, Right or Left. If we are lucky, then the consequences are the failure of the Hard Right as it is further discredited. Conservatism will have to re-emerge slowly as cautious conservatives develop within the Democratic party and eventually split from it. We might have a split around 2020 between Christian Democrats and Social Democrats, the Republican Party having gone the way of the Federalists and Whigs. If we are not so lucky, then we might get Karl Rove's system on steroids.

It's a bad gamble for everyone, one to be avoided. My suggestion to the Republicans: whittle away a little on the edges and do what is necessary for survival in a time of Obama's success and a recovering economy. Political success isn't worth the ruin of society.

[Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Even a stabilization of the economy at a lower level than that associated with the corrupt Dubya-era, credit-fed boom could seem an improvement... or at least the right direction. There are likely to be fewer jobs in 2010 as lots of kids get pushed out of the job market as retail stores close due to reduced consumer spending and public policy encourages the hiring of 'family breadwinners' even in menial jobs but for living wages. The good side of that is that the menial jobs will probably be better paid than when kids who used the jobs to support cars, clothes, and electronic goodies are in school or are doing homework instead.

We absolutely cannot return to the Dubya-era economy of illusory prosperity -- a false prosperity based upon people consuming assets or going into debt just to keep up appearances as real pay shrinks for most people. That is no more possible than expecting heat waves to reverse the cooling of December in January.

The American economy stank when FDR was President from 1934 to 1940... but such was tolerable because people saw a pattern of improvement and saw no chance for a return to the economy of the 1920's. FDR won landslide victories in 1936 and 1940. After Dubya, Obama has much leeway with results.

FDR only got reelected in 1940 becasue of the start of WW2 in Europe. Republicans won the issue of the economy in 1940 but lost on NAtional Security concerns.

Some Republicans seem to act as if the wise course is to obstruct the efforts of Barack Obama and the Democratic majority so that the Democrats can fail and the Republicans can offer their own alternative -- essentially their own agenda of Profits First, People Never. It is a huge gamble, one that can fail badly politically and weaken their political position in elections of 2010 and 2012 at the least, or one that can succeed politically but make things worse -- and leave some Hard Right Republican with an economic situation even direr than that that we now have -- and an opportunity to establish a plutocrat's paradise/worker's hell. (That system: no unions, no corporate taxes but instead highly-regressive sales taxes and capitations, no minimum wage, no welfare, 70-hour workweeks, plenty of child labor, the vote limited to the rich, working people generally being wrecks in their middle 30s... )

That is a gamble -- a huge gamble, one that depends upon the catastrophic failure of the Other Side as well as the society as a whole. That is a revolutionary stance that only extremists can support, Right or Left. If we are lucky, then the consequences are the failure of the Hard Right as it is further discredited. Conservatism will have to re-emerge slowly as cautious conservatives develop within the Democratic party and eventually split from it. We might have a split around 2020 between Christian Democrats and Social Democrats, the Republican Party having gone the way of the Federalists and Whigs. If we are not so lucky, then we might get Karl Rove's system on steroids.

It's a bad gamble for everyone, one to be avoided. My suggestion to the Republicans: whittle away a little on the edges and do what is necessary for survival in a time of Obama's success and a recovering economy. Political success isn't worth the ruin of society.

Republicans do not want to return to the Bush economy.  They are opposing the stimulus package cause it is too big and has become to much of a giant thank you note to Special Interest Groups who help purchase this last election for Obama. They also believe that people are now starting to save more of there money instead of just spending and borrowing and Obama and the Dems wants them to be irresponsible again. The savings rate needs to be 10% or higher not 3.6%. Obama and the Dems seem they are goign to act as a substitute for the irresponsible spending of consumers and having the Fed Gov't do it instead. Well as Sam Spade and others have been saying what happens when people quit buying Gov't bonds. The Gov't funds there spending by selling bonds and if they can't sell them anymore like CA can't what happens? It won't be a 1930's Depression, it will be a 1920's German Hyper Inflation.

[Inks.LWC Supports Chuck Hagel]

No.  It worked in 2006 and 2008.  It won't work again.

[N.i.K.]

No.  It worked in 2006 and 2008.  It won't work again.

I'd actually agree with that. The thought of the Dems gaining more seats in the house is impossible.

[Prez Duke]

LOL

Why on earth would a party with 250 house seats and 59 senate seats run on the platform of "Had Enough!"?

Had enough of what? Themselves? If they run on a whiny "oh it's the Republicans fault that this isn't working" will, hopefully, ruin them although I'm sure NBC/CBS/NYTimes will push the Democrats narrative as hard as they can. The CHANGE theme will be dated come 2010 when the Democrats have been in power for 2-4 years if nothing has improved. It would be hilarious if they try.

[Senator Ben]

Not a chance.  No Party that has 59 seats in the Senate, and 250+ in the House, along with the Presidency, can complain about this.  If they try, it will backfire in a major way.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

The Democrats should try to pass a good bill. And force the Republicans to fillibuster, making them read from a freaking phone book.

[Mr.Phips]

I agree the economy won't be recovered by then; as such, we are likely in for a less-than-stellar election.  (thankfully, the economy will probably recover by 2012, and with the typical "are you better off than you were four years ago?" argument, Obama should be re-elected fairly comfortably)

Many are now saying that the economy will not be back to normal until 2015.

[Inks.LWC Supports Chuck Hagel]

I agree the economy won't be recovered by then; as such, we are likely in for a less-than-stellar election.  (thankfully, the economy will probably recover by 2012, and with the typical "are you better off than you were four years ago?" argument, Obama should be re-elected fairly comfortably)

Many are now saying that the economy will not be back to normal until 2015.

Who does that help though?  Or I gues who does it hurt more?

[InsaneTrollLogic]

2015? Selling pot never sounded better...

[N.i.K.]

2015!?!?!?!?!

I'm going back in time and fixing the ballots for Al Smith in 1932, so we can stop this New Dealism. (I'm kidding of course, FDR was a great president, I just disagree with some New Deal Policies)

[Mr.Phips]

I agree the economy won't be recovered by then; as such, we are likely in for a less-than-stellar election.  (thankfully, the economy will probably recover by 2012, and with the typical "are you better off than you were four years ago?" argument, Obama should be re-elected fairly comfortably)

Many are now saying that the economy will not be back to normal until 2015.

Who does that help though?  Or I gues who does it hurt more?

It would probably hurt both parties.  Democrats in 2012 and Republicans in 2014. 

[Inks.LWC Supports Chuck Hagel]

I agree the economy won't be recovered by then; as such, we are likely in for a less-than-stellar election.  (thankfully, the economy will probably recover by 2012, and with the typical "are you better off than you were four years ago?" argument, Obama should be re-elected fairly comfortably)

Many are now saying that the economy will not be back to normal until 2015.

Who does that help though?  Or I gues who does it hurt more?

It would probably hurt both parties.  Democrats in 2012 and Republicans in 2014. 

So you're predicting Repubs take back the Senate (and maybe the House in 2012) and get blamed again in 2014?  Fair enough prediction, I guess.