House of Eratosthenes

In state after state, the races that were once marginal are now solidly Republican, those that were possible takeaways are now likely GOP wins and the impossible seats are now fully in play.

Colorado offers a good example. Betsey Markey was supposed to be a marginal new Democratic member. But Cory Gardner, her Republican opponent, is now more than 20 points ahead. John Salazar, the brother of the Interior Secretary and a well-established Democratic incumbent in a largely Republican district, is now almost 10 points behind his GOP challenger Scott Tipton. And Ed Perlmutter, a solidly entrenched Democrat in a supposedly nearly-safe district, is running one point behind his GOP opponent, the unusually articulate Ryan Frazier (a black Republican with Obama-esque charisma). The Republicans will probably win all three seats.

Or take Arkansas. Blanche Lincoln is clinically dead, trailing John Boozman 65-27 in the latest Rasmussen poll. In the race that was supposed to be close for the open seat in AR-2, Republican Tim Griffin is massacring Democrat Joyce Elliott by 52-35. In the race that was thought to be a likely Democratic win – AR-1, the East Arkansas district – Republican Rick Crawford is running seven points ahead of Democrat Chad Causey. And, in the district that was considered a safe Democratic seat, the home of Blue Dog leader Mike Ross, Republican Beth Anne Rankin is showing surprising strength and may topple her opponent.

In the Senate, Republicans are solidly ahead in Delaware, North Dakota, Indiana and Arkansas. They have good leads in Colorado, Pennsylvania and Washington. The Democratic incumbents are perpetually below fifty and basically tied with their Republican challengers in Nevada, California and Wisconsin. Illinois is tied. Connecticut and New York (after the primary) are in play. That’s a gain of up to 13 seats!

The difference between this and 1994 is the difference between 2008 and 1992. Back when Clinton was elected, there was a sharp uptick in interest in politics whereas before, people looked at elections as just another activity, like serving on a jury or maybe doing a crossword puzzle. Prior to 2008, of course, things were not that way. And so the 2008 elections had this undertone that the 1992 elections did not have: TAKE THAT, you special interests! Take that, Rupert Murdoch, Dick Cheney, Diebold! The people are taking their government back!

So Bill Clinton shot himself in the foot with a healthcare plan; Barack Obama did the same thing. They both earned the same first-term mid-term smack-down. Difference is, though, 1994 was more of a lesson to be learned about a new energy source. Whoah! Gotta keep an eye on these people! Like a new student driver finding out gasoline is flammable. The People had to become educated, after they became interested.

Obama is more about one class of people, who had already been interested in the process for awhile, beating another class of people. Trouncing them. Winning. Obama said it Himself: “I won.” Just got an e-mail from Tim Kaine, DNC Chairman, yesterday. Subject line? “We can beat them‏“.

So in the months and years after Clinton won, the average Clinton supporter figured Clinton was a symbol of The People taking an interest in their government, which in turn would start caring about people. Obama fans, on the other hand, acknowledge the presence and influence of “other” people who disagree. They see the struggle in much more militant terms.

Not that there wasn’t nasty stuff being said against the Revolution of 1994. There was. But it was still understood to be a correction against an unchecked extremist liberal White House gone wild. The spirit of “us versus them” was just getting started. Even after that, it wasn’t anything like what we saw in the Florida debacle.

Now, there’s this notion that “real” people should be supporting Barack Obama, whose policies are exactly what we need, they just have to be given a little bit more time because hey, He inherited such a “mess” it will take Him awhile to clean it up. In other words, because of the militant attitude, support for Obama is felt by the Obama-faithful to be a staple quality of a properly enlightened populace.

Conclusion: It’s going to be particularly jarring to them when this support doesn’t materialize. They’ll be confronted by that age-old question, in much more stark terms than it was presented to the Clinton fans in 1994: If left-wing polices are so plainly and evidently the proper course for a government that cares about the people, and so helpful, and so wise, and so beneficial, and a properly enlightened electorate will insist upon them…then how come we don’t just put them in place and stick with them? How come we keep shelving them after a brief learning period?

It’s still one-man-one-vote — can’t blame it all on “special interests.”

It looks like learning. Smells that way too…walks like learning, quacks like learning…

I think what’s being learned is, in an economy in which it doesn’t make any economic sense to risk capital and hire people into jobs, nobody is going to bother. People are looking for work, watching politicians in snappy suits give fancy speeches, and they’re getting restless.

Dick Morris says it will be a bloodbath? Uh oh. This might mean trouble. Morris has great political instincts, but his record as an election prognosticator is horrible. Now I’m actually worried.
- Physics Geek | 09/09/2010 @ 07:54
The Geek beat me to it. Dick Morris has been horribly wrong about everything since he got busted with that hooker. He even wrote a book about how Hillary was absolutely assured to be President unless Condi Rice ran against her.

Don’t.

Get.

Cocky.

Campaign hard, get voters to the polls and keep plugging away until November 3rd.
- Duffy | 09/09/2010 @ 13:17
Karl Rove is saying the same thing, you two.

Agree about not getting cocky. I’m still having dinner catered on Nov. 2. Elections hinge on turnout, and the motivation for turning-out is more skewed than it was even in ’94. Nobody’s punching a chad to install our First Black President, or to end war for all time, or to spreadthewealtharounditsgoodforeverybody.

What we really need to do is start thinking past this, to when the next charismatic young empty-suit shows up to try to shoehorn America into some more soft-socialism. How to throw some cold water on that idea. Stop the next Obama-like-brain-fart before it happens.
- mkfreeberg | 09/09/2010 @ 14:18
“They’ll be confronted by that age-old question…: If left-wing polices are so plainly and evidently the proper course for a government that cares about the people, and so helpful, and so wise, and so beneficial, and a properly enlightened electorate will insist upon them…then how come we don’t just put them in place and stick with them?”

Never underestimate the ability of the crusading zealot to blame the failure of his ideas on anything, anything, other than the possibility that the ideas themselves just might not be any good.

Usually he blames the audience. The younger, less embittered ones may go through a (short) period of blaming themselves, if not the ideas (“We just didn’t teach it well enough! The right people weren’t in charge!”), but this never lasts. The true fanatic would rather think the rest of the world is mad, evil or stupid than that he himself might be wrong.

Personally I blame Obama’s election on two things: 1) The perfect storm of general Bush-rejection aligning with internal Democrat Clinton-rejection, and 2) the character of David Palmer, on 24.

Yeah, I know, that’s simple and reductionist and unfair to the many voters who really did want, and think they were getting, a new and superior breed of elected official, but I honestly think the vast majority of Obama voters were half-convinced subconsciously that Dennis Haysbert’s performance was what they would get with The First Black President — and that the incredibly partisan MSM were consciously convinced that’s what they’d get. I think that particular confluence of factors is sufficiently unique and rare that I don’t see it happening again soon.
- Stephen J. | 09/09/2010 @ 18:43
If anyone is cocky it is not the conservative voter, who is not enthusiastic with what he is being offered in exchange. This is strictly a fumigation, an execution.
- jamzw | 09/10/2010 @ 22:51
You know why unsavory politicians say to never waste a crisis?

It is because they can push their completely unrelated agenda through with some spin in the name of “doing something”, and when the crisis resolves (itself, as is always the case in economic crises) they can point and say “See, it worked!” — or, if the crisis doesn’t resolve itself in a timely enough manner, they can play the “but it would have been worse if not for us!” card for cover.

Only I think the part of America that was awake smelled a decomposing rat even during the summer of ’08. And the stench has gotten, ahem, “progressively” worse. Which is why the numbers have completely flipped.
- philmon | 09/13/2010 @ 13:13

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent

Items of Interest

Monthly Archives

What They Say

Links

Heading Into the Bloodba– Er, I Mean, Elections…Thursday, September 9th, 2010

Heading Into the Bloodba– Er, I Mean, Elections…
Thursday, September 9th, 2010