The two most important individual elections this cycle are races which test the long-term theories and strategies of both major political parties. In earlier Mistake In ’08 installments (see HERE, HERE, HERE, HERE, and HERE) we have outlined the massive historical mistake the Democratic establishment inflicted on the now dead party of FDR/Hillary Clinton by gifting Barack Obama the nomination. The Mistake in ’08 is coming home to roost this November.
The crackpot theories espoused by “strategists” such as Ruy Teixeira assured the Democratic establishment that if Barack Obama became the 2008 Democratic nominee there would be an endless vista of Democratic control of Congress and the White House for generations unto generations. What we call the Obama “situation comedy” demographic strategy was the future, according to these crackpot theories that have so destroyed the party of FDR/Hillary Clinton.
Instead of endless victories and a “cemented” and expanded Democratic majority in 2010, Obama has led the party to an electoral Waterloo. Not only will Republicans expand, if not cement their majority in 2010, they will do so in a post census redistricting year.
The obvious mistake that the massive “creative class” brains made when they created the Obama monster in a Chicago laboratory was that Republicans would remain static in their strategies and candidates. The stupidity was to think that Republicans would go to sleep and stick to an outdated playbook. Strategists such as Teixeira managed to persuade the gullible “leadership” that even though White Americans would remain a potent electoral force these White Americans could be ignored if they were “lunch bucket Joe and Jane”. In other words, the White Working Class would be ignored and instead wealthy white liberals and their kids would be the only ones invited to participate in the New America.
The additional stupidity from the “creative class” brains was that the Democratic base could be taken for granted. After all, reasoned these brains, by definition the base is the base. The base could be ignored and led by the nose. Sound familiar Democratic progressives? Instead of nurturing the base and courting the base in order to keep the base – arrogance ruled arrogantly.
So which races are the two most important races this election cycle? Think Russ Feingold in Wisconsin and Marco Rubio in Florida.
First Marco Rubio:
Marco Rubio poses the greatest threat to Obama Dimocrats in this and future election cycles. If current polling is to be believed Marco Rubio is well on his way to be the next senator from Florida. The only question unanswered regarding Rubio is when he will be part of a national Republican ticket. Will Rubio be the Republican presidential or vice presidential nominee in 2012 or in 2016, or later?
At 39 years of age, Marco Rubio already has more experience than Barack Obama when he inflicted himself on the nation. Rubio was elected to the Florida House of Representatives and eventually became the Speaker of the Florida House. If Obama Dimocrats want to play identity politics, Republicans will play with gusto and with a candidate who is actually qualified for higher office.
Latinos comprise a large minority and a rapidly growing minority – already larger than African-Americans in population. Marco Rubio can appeal, in Spanish if necessary, to Latino voters. To say that Obama Dimocrats lack a Latino superstar is an understatement. The last supposed Latino “superstar” was Bill Richardson who is a faded star at best. Other than Marco Rubio there is no Latino political superstar. [Representative Luis Gutierrez, a candidate along with Rahm Emanuel for Chicago mayor, cannot by any stretch be called a Latino “superstar” although he is the best known Obama Latino Dimocrat and a big annoyance for Rahm Emanuel.]
That Obama Dimocrats and Obama chose to make Latinos a marquee issue even though the only Latino superstar is a Republican speaks to a level of stupidity among the “creative class” hard to quantify. Politico states the obvious:
“The prospect of this ad on a national Republican campaign has to scare Democrats, who depended heavily on a Hispanic swing-vote in 2008.”
Unwritten by Politico is the prospect and impact of that advertisement broadcast on various Spanish language media in support of Presidential or Vice Presidential nominee Marco Rubio. How would Obama Dimocrats counter such a candidacy – with low level Latino functionaries at the OD DNC or with Latino movie or singing stars? Certainly Obama Dimocrats could not produce a powerhouse Latino Dimocrat to counter Rubio because there is no powerhouse Latino Dimocrat.
Latinos, though not included as legacy members in the Obama situation comedy Dimocratic Party, were still counted on to produce votes for Obama. But Latinos are, like every racial/ethnic group, comprised of dumb and smart people. And the smart Latinos are drifting away:
“Democrats have tried wooing Hispanic voters all year long, and thought they had a golden opportunity in April when Arizona passed a tough immigration-enforcement law. Barack Obama leaped at the chance to hammer Republicans on immigration reform, spending more time in April and May talking about Arizona’s law than he did about the Gulf oil-spill crisis. Handwringers in the GOP moaned that Arizona would make it more difficult to attract Hispanic voters whose inclination towards free market economics and pro-life sensibilities would make them a natural constituency for Republicans, or at the least a competitive one. [snip]
Republicans mainly held firm in their support for Arizona’s new law, and for good reason; it’s been tremendously popular in almost every state. Obama stopped talking about it during the summer after it became clear that he had lost his grip on the issue, and that people cared more about the economy than anything else. [snip]
Hispanic voters, like everyone else, have to make a living and pay their bills. While immigration reform might be more important to them as a bloc than it is to other voting blocs, it seems not to have crossed Gallup’s mind that immigration reform doesn’t impact them directly — since, as voters, they’re already here, most of them by birth. As the economy soured over the summer, the benefit of the doubt given by these voters dissipated at the same time. [snip]
If the disillusionment seen in these numbers resulted from a lack of attention to immigration reform, the erosion would have taken place in April or May, especially since Obama and Congressional Democrats had a perfect opportunity to launch the effort. And if they have moved away from Democrats on the basis of that failure, they certainly wouldn’t be moving towards Republicans, who want border and visa enforcement and a harder line on illegal immigrants.
The only explanation of the move towards the GOP is the economy and the Recovery Summer bust, which appears to have been the last straw with Hispanic voters. They want competence and fiscal responsibility, just like most other American voters.”
The “creative class” brains that scuttled the FDR/Hillary Clinton coalition for the “lean forward” (that’s MSNBC’s new slogan) hallucinations somehow did not conceive of the possibility that the Republicans would produce a Latino to lead the the socially conservative and fiscally conservative Latino population into the Republican tent. Even before Rubio is a Senator that is already happening:
“Hispanic voters’ support for Democratic candidates waned in August and September. As a result, Hispanics in September favored Democrats by a 13-point margin (51% to 38%), compared with 32-point margins in June and July. [snip]
Hispanics present a different problem for the president’s party. While they voted strongly for Obama in 2008 and were supposed to be one of the building blocks of Democratic victory in 2010, Gallup’s recent polling suggests their support for Democratic congressional candidates is slipping. This is in line with Hispanics’ dwindling approval of Obama as president, with the initial decline seen in May possibly linked to the Democrats’ failure to pass comprehensive immigration reform.”
Marco Rubio’s candidacy is the most important election this cycle because it repudiates the entire “demographic destiny” strategy of Obama and his Keystone Kops Dimocratic “strategists”.
In the same way that Marco Rubio represents a repudiation of Obama Dimocratic strategy for the future, Russ Feingold represents a refutation of Obama Dimocratic promises from the past. Feingold finds himself these days in a death spiral and the U.S. Senate according to Rasmussen is a “toss-up” when it comes to the question of who will control the chamber after the November elections.
Recall the same “creative class” blowhards declared that “progressives” would glide to reelection if they supported Obama and “Blue Dogs” would suffer defeat if they thwarted Obama. That’s not the way things have turned out:
“Loyalty to Obama Costs Democrats
DOYLESTOWN, Pa.—Rep. Patrick Murphy, a fresh-faced rising Democratic star and loyal backer of President Barack Obama’s agenda, is facing the fight of his life in a suburban Philadelphia district Mr. Obama won easily two years ago.
Across Pennsylvania, another Democrat, Rep. Jason Altmire, is competing in a district Republican John McCain took by a wide margin. Mr. Altmire is running away with it, by running away from the president.
In their contrasting fates lie broader lessons for the coming midterms: Live by the president and you could die by the president. Democrats who have been thorns in the president’s side are doing well in some of the toughest districts for their party, from Alabama to the steel belt of western Pennsylvania. But swing-district Democrats who have voted with the president in Congress are struggling, even if they’re now asserting their independence.
Mr. Altmire voted against the Obama health-care and climate-change bills. “My opponent is trying to tie me in with the speaker and with the leadership. That’s pretty difficult to do,” he said. He holds a double-digit lead.”
If Russ Feingold loses, this iconic “progressive” defeat will prove that indeed Obama is “dangerously radioactive”. If Russ Feingold loses, the idea that “Blue Dogs” who opposed Obama are endangered and will be wiped out – thereby moving the party to the left – is a bankrupt idea:
“If Democrats running against the White House prevail, the result could have a profound impact on the party’s ability to govern. More than 30 Democrats with proven records of independence are campaigning on this theme, and scores more have started trying to do so late in the game. Even if the party maintains control of the House, it almost certainly won’t have a functioning liberal majority, Democratic aides and lawmakers say. Conservative Democrats would be emboldened to go their own way, especially if many colleagues who stuck with the president lose.
Rep. Bobby Bright, an Alabama Democrat who calls himself a “fiercely independent” conservative, said the Democratic leadership largely let conservative House Democrats vote according to the dictates of their districts, a low-risk approach for a party with 77 more seats than Republicans. A loss of even a dozen would put Democratic conservatives in the catbird seat, assuming they return and remain united.”
In 2011 what will be clear is that Barack Obama is poison and destructive to those who follow him. In 2011 it will also be clear that Obama will remain a “leader” only to the suicidal and that fewer and fewer elected officials prefer suicide to survival:
“No matter what, the vote counts are going to be different,” said Mr. Altmire, who represents a district outside Pittsburgh. “You’re not going to be able to win these votes 219-212” in the House if dozens of centrists and conservatives are voting no.”
Russ Feingold will become an electoral victim of the lies of David Axelrod and Barack Obama and the delusions of the “creative class” nutroots who rejected reality for the soft pillows of their delusions:
“In Democratic caucus meetings throughout 2009 and this year, White House senior adviser David Axelrod repeatedly made the case that wavering Democrats would be tarred by Republicans with the president’s agenda whether they liked it or not. So, he argued, they might as well vote with the White House.
But resistance to the agenda is rewarding some House Democrats as the midterm elections approach. Mr. Bright from Alabama voted against the president on health care, climate change, the stimulus act and Wall Street regulation—and in one of the most conservative districts represented by any Democrat, he is strongly in the running.
Rep. Larry Kissell squeaked into office on the Obama wave in North Carolina with the backing of liberal Internet activists. Now, he is touting his votes against the health overhaul and the climate bill that would cap emissions of greenhouse gases, and is sporting a double-digit polling lead.
In a conservative Mississippi House district, Democratic Rep. Travis Childers stunned the GOP by winning a special election in May 2008. Republicans thought it was a fluke. But after opposing the Democratic health-care, climate-change and financial-regulation bills, Rep. Childers is running strongly again.
Those who oppose Obama survive and thrive. Those who support Obama lie then die:
“The pattern of opponents of the Obama agenda doing better than supporters in conservative and swing districts shows up mainly in races for the House, not the Senate. With Republicans uniformly opposing the president’s major initiatives, no Democratic senators were free to vote against them. In addition, Senate candidates face statewide constituencies whose political leanings are more diverse than those of some House districts.”
The importance of the Russ Feingold race is that he was not a particularly big supporter of Barack Obama. But he was enough of a supporter that he too will likely suffer.
Feingold might not have been a big Obama supporter but he did not separate himself from Barack Obama either. The strategy for Obama Dimocrats to win is to renounce Obama:
“Among the strongest Democratic resisters of the national party’s leadership is Rep. Walt Minnick in Idaho, who even has the backing of some tea-party activists. He is attacking his Republican opponent, Raul Labrador, as soft on illegal immigrants.
Mr. Minnick’s campaign manager, John Foster, said the congressman and his staff worked hard to establish his independent credentials early. “From Day One, we didn’t drink the Kool-Aid,” Mr. Foster said.”
David Axelrod’s promises and analysis were lies at the time he spoke them. Now the truth explodes from another Obama advisor:
“Mr. Plouffe said the president and Democratic leadership knew that issues such as health care and climate change would be “tough politics.” He added: “If there are short-term political costs to be paid, we need to pay them.”
For loyal Democrats such as Mr. Murphy, that may be an unwelcome message. He latched onto Mr. Obama early and became his 2008 Pennsylvania campaign chairman. Then he voted with the White House on all four of its highest-profile bills.
Now Mr. Murphy is in danger. [snip]
District voters “need to recognize Patrick Murphy was one of the first politicians in Pennsylvania to support Barack Obama. That may have worked out for Patrick Murphy [in 2008]. It didn’t work so well for the people of the district,” said Mr. Fitzpatrick, who narrowly lost an election to Mr. Murphy four years ago.”
In short Patrick Murphy was an Obama dupe and now he can easily be sacrificed by Barack Obama. Sucker!
It is emotionally satisfying when fools like Murphy, who drank the Kook-aid and sold the Kook-aid, lose electoral office as the voters catch on and throw them out. But the significant races are the ones that test the strategies and tactics of the two major parties.
In 2008 the Democratic Party committed suicide by cramming down the throats of the Democratic rank and file the unqualified flim-flam man from Chicago. Now the consequences of that cram down are coming home as the Republicans strategically and tactically react and the voters throw out Obama Dimocrats.