New Jersey Democratic voters, for instance, did not respond enthusiastically to President Obama’s campaigning for Corzine. A Democratic Party that seems more interested in attracting the support of Republicans will not be a very galvanizing or inspiring political force.
The danger for Democrats from Tuesday’s results can be overstated. Polls from the contested states show that Obama’s approval ratings remain basically the same as compared to the 2008 election; the defeated Democrats were bad candidates or under-performers; and the Democrats managed to pick up a Congressional seat which they haven’t held for more than a century.
But there is clearly a rising dissatisfaction with the political class among voters, and the majority party typically bears the brunt of that backlash. Tuesday night may be the first sign of that process if Democrats do not remember who elected them and why.
To interpret the results from yesterday's election as proof the country is moving toward Republicanism is not borne out by the statistical data concerning those elections. The Democratic candidates did not fare well because the Democratic voters stayed home. Plain and simple.
It is true that the Democrats in power right now have done squat for their base, and last night was just a precursor as to what the majority party can expect to see in 2010. Already, many netroot contributors, who were responsible for putting the money in the many, many, many races across the country in 2008 that gave them the Democratic majority and put Obama into the White House on the claim he would change things, are now going to withhold their contributions to help re-elect those DINO members of congress. There is already momentum afoot to find progressives and liberals to challenge those DINO's.
First we don't show up to vote, next we give our money to someone else. Either the Democrats will figure it out, or they will be standing in the unemployment line in 2010.
UPDATE: This great rant from KOS:
There will be much number-crunching tomorrow, but preliminary numbers (at least in Virginia) show that GOP turnout remained the same as last year, but Democratic turnout collapsed. This is a base problem, and this is what Democrats better take from tonight:1. If you abandon Democratic principles in a bid for unnecessary "bipartisanship", you will lose votes.
2. If you water down reform in favor of Blue Dogs and their corporate benefactors, you will lose votes.
3. If you forget why you were elected -- health care, financial services, energy policy and immigration reform -- you will lose votes.
Tonight proved conclusively that we're not going to turn out just because you have a (D) next to your name, or because Obama tells us to. We'll turn out if we feel it's worth our time and effort to vote, and we'll work hard to make sure others turn out if you inspire us with bold and decisive action.
The choice is yours. Give us a reason to vote for you, or we sit home. And you aren't going to make up the margins with conservative voters. They already know exactly who they're voting for, and it ain't you.
Exactly!
UPDATE II: Seems a lot on the left view the "victories" by Republicans yesterday similarly, and not a whole lot are defining them as game changing events. Steve Benen writes:
REGIONAL TROUBLE.... As everyone now knows, Bill Owens will be the first Democrat to represent New York's 23rd since the mid-19th century, after defeating Doug Hoffman yesterday. This got me thinking about the representation of the region.
New York has 29 congressional districts. As of today, the state is represented by 27 Democrats. As recently as a few years ago, Dems had "only" 21 seats from New York.
What's more, New England, made up of six states, has 22 congressional districts. Currently, the region is represented by 22 Democrats.
So, north of the Pennsylvania border, there 51 congressional districts representing 34 million people. Republicans have a whopping two seats.
Just a random observation.
No comments:
Post a Comment