What If Recent Con Wins Were A Fluke?

[Me.]

I know this is counter-intuitive but last night I was struck by a story on the local news that said Christie's approval rating in NJ is 33%. I know it's early but shouldn't that be higher? In Va. & Mass. we had 2 candidates who ran terrible campaigns. I've heard all the pick-ups the Cons are counting on but what if they're misreading the electorate, even the anti-incumbent feeling. After all the Cons in Congress are still more unpopular than the dems. Is there a chance the CW could be wrong?

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

1. It's a fluke, alright.

[yurbud]

2. It wasn't that Cons were more popular but their base was more motivated

Rahm has been shitting on progressives from minute one and instead of repudiating GOP ideas, Obama is trying to co-opt them. That is not a recipe for getting us excited to organize, donate, and vote, and neither is Rahm (and probably Tim Kaine's) habit of tipping the scales toward corporatist candidates in primaries. Obama has to jettison the DLC albatrosses before they lead the Democrats to record losses.

[Warpy]

3. Off years always seem to favor the GOP because turnout is low

That wasn't the case in Mass. The case there was a piss poor Democratic candidate who didn't want to campaign and wasn't backed by party machinery opposed by a GOP who hadn't been all that bad in the state lege and who did want to campaign.

I'm nor surprised Christie's numbers are low. He'll be lucky to finish his term in double digits since he's only got that threadbare GOP dogma that tells him to cut taxes and services and let the poor and sick fend for themselves.

[Me.]

4. As To Party Machinery...

Has the DNC been disbanded? They and Kaine are all but invisible. Dean did such a monumental job and now it seems they are sliding back into the old ways.

[Posteritatis]

5. I imagine some were and some weren't; there's a *lot* of political ridings in the US, after all. nt

[jobycom]

6. All politics is local.

Politicians run campaigns in local districts, and whether they win or lose depends on factors ranging from the influence of the local paper to what suit they wore at the debate, and can even include personality factors completely removed from politics. From what I saw, Brown won in MA because he was a likable moderate and his opponent made people mad.

We always read too much into individual elections. That's the problem with having poll-watchers run the party. I don't agree with the Dean supporters who think Dean's absence is the reason we lost, and I believe he's one of the most overrated politicians in recent memory, but one thing he did I really loved. He didn't worry about whether the polls said we were winning or losing, he still went right after the opponents with his best weaponry. He didn't try to explain why we weren't really all that different than the other guys in the hopes that we would trick a couple of extra votes out of people, he drew the lines and said "This is who we are, and we don't apologize for that, and THIS is WHY you should vote for us." If we had more people with that message, we would win a lot more.

Instead we have leaders who abandon our positions and surrender our arguments based on polls and a couple of elections with factors so complex that no one could draw up exactly why we lost them.

Elections are decided by a few percentage points, and most of the time those are based on personality as much as ideology. A slight shift in attitude can change an election. The best way to win is to fight for what you believe in and convince the voters that you are right. You only have to sway a few of them to make all the difference. Instead, we have too many candidates who try to move towards the swing voters (in the middle, because that's why they are swing voters), instead of trying to move the swing voters to them.

Our party would do better by leading instead of following. Tell voters "This is what we are doing," and then do it, and they will be a lot more likely to swing to your side than if you say "I'll do anything you want if you'll just vote for me."

[Me.]

7. I Agree With Much You Said

Though I think Dean's absence hurt us. Given his aggressive stance in defending dem candidates, I don't think he would've waited until 'invited' to engage in the Mass. election.

[Blue Owl]

8. Lying. Cheating. Stealing.

It's what Republicans do.

It's the only way Republicans can "win" these days.

It's unpopular to talk about even in a forum like DU -- but as long as GOP-owned private companies are designing the software and electronic machines we use in our elections, I don't trust them one bit.

[Broke In Jersey]

9. Hard to tell...

We will have our answer after the elections in Nov.....