Apr 12 2010
NY Times: 2010 Dems Can Be Saved By Dollars & Disinformation
The NY Times is out spinning madly today trying to explain why the Democrats are not going to suffer massive and historic losses this election cycle. With between 8-10 senate seats in serious trouble, the NY Times is clearly in deep denial – as is their partner the Democrat Party. I especially loved this line:
“It is no shock that this is going to be a hard cycle,†said Jon Vogel, the executive director of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. “People didn’t know that until late 1994; they ended their campaigns with money in the bank.â€
In 1994, Mr. Gaylord said, “there weren’t four people in America who thought we were going to win control of the House on Election Day.†He added: “Now we’ve been talking about this since last November. What this does is allows incumbents to build up lots of dough and try to reposition themselves.â€
Whoever “Mr Gaylord” is, he is pretty naive. You cannot buy respect or support. You cannot spend out someone’s anger. And if your reputation is already tarnished by being seen as someone who says one thing, then does another against the wishes of We The People, what moron thinks you will win respect and support by ‘repositioning’?
Dollars and disinformation will not save the Democrats. There is a reason Barbara Boxer is in deep, deep trouble in blue CA, or why Harry Reid has seen his last Senate term. And it is not a lack of spin or dollars.
One thing very different between 1994 and 2010 is the economy. When Clinton over reached and America slapped down the Democrats he was awash in a booming economy. Which is the only factor which worked in the Democrats favor. This time the economy is horrible, and the liberal stimulus bill with all its exaggerated, false promises has failed (as was ordained because of its lunatic liberal assumptions about government spending stimulating the economy). Now we have record deficits and rising under employment. Now we have generations of economic drudgery to work off.
And we have nothing to show for the health care madness – nothing.
When 2010 is over and the American people have spoken, the Dems are going to wish it was 1994.
[…] This post was mentioned on Twitter by eddiebear, AJ Strata. AJ Strata said: new: NY Times: 2010 Dems Can Be Saved By Dollars & Disinformation http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/13207 […]
AJ,
Of course the NY TIMES is in denial.
The bar chart from the leftist pollster you blogged upon gave a 90% chance of the House flipping in Nov 2010 and about a 10% chance of the Senate flipping Republican based on today’s poll numbers.
And that was simply based on today’s data.
We are in for another seven months of 9%(+) unemployment, with further decrease in both small business/private enterprise jobs and state/local government jobs, between now and then.
The Democratic Party is in for a historic electoral collapse.
AJ,
Chris Stirewalt over at the Washington Examiner has a good one-liner describing the effect of the Health care Reform Vote on Democratic party chances in Nov 2010.
Obama’s “Great Health Care Bounce” is instead the Great “Health Care Swoon.”
See:
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics/Obamacare-backlash-sends-Democrats-to-the-foxholes-90598559.html
See also
Robert Reich on the reality of “The Great Recession” and jobs creation:
The U.S. economy added 162,000 jobs in March. That sounds impressive until you look more closely. At least a third of them were temporary government hires to take the census—better than no job but hardly worth writing home about. The 112,000 real new jobs were fewer than the 150,000 needed to keep up with the growth of the U.S. population. It’s far better than it was—we’re not hemorrhaging jobs as we did in 2008 and 2009—but the bleeding hasn’t stopped.
Since the start of the Great Recession in December 2007, the economy has shed 8.4 million jobs and failed to create another 2.7 million required by an ever-larger pool of potential workers. That leaves us more than 11 million jobs behind. (The number is worse if you include everyone working part-time who’d rather it be full-time, those working full-time at fewer hours, and people who are overqualified for the jobs they’re in.) This means even if we enjoy a vigorous recovery that produces, say, 300,000 net new jobs a month, we could be looking at five to eight years before catching up to where we were before the recession began.
Given how many Americans are unemployed or underemployed, it’s hard to see where we get sufficient demand to support a vigorous recovery. Outlays from the federal stimulus have already passed their peak, and the Federal Reserve won’t keep interest rates near zero for very long. Although consumers are beginning to come out of their holes, it will be many years before they can return to their pre-recession levels of spending. Most households rely on two wage earners, of whom at least one is now likely to be unemployed, underemployed or in danger of losing a job. And even households whose incomes have returned are likely to be residing in houses whose values haven’t—which means they can’t turn their homes into cash machines as they did before the recession.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304222504575173780671015468.html
A few other problems for the unemployed and underemployed going forward…….top earners will be taxed more including tax on capital gains income. It is good that the poorer spend money they get to keep, but the other side of the equation, is that the better off among us create the jobs that employ the lessor among us. I think we have seen over and over again this left leaning economic philosophy DOES NOT WORK.
The four people referenced should have said, no one believed the AW ban was going to cause electoral defeat. And the crime bill AW ban would be good for Democrats ..
The delusional NYTimes was wrong in 1994, and will be wrong now. BJ Clinton was even quoted as having said the AW ban cost him 60 seats …
All you need do is look at the latest Gallup, and compare 1994 with today’s dropping off a cliff.