Well said,Jeff. The beltway boyz and girlz are nothing more than overpaid sportscasters who are stunningly stupid in their analysis and predictions, and care little about policy.

That said unless the Dems really screw up and pass nothing for Health Care it is likely they will hold on to the majority they have with some losses. I am banking on the fact Dems have enough sense of self preservation they will pass some interim "reform" that will be an improvement but not an answer.

Dr. Tim Johnson on ABC GMA this morning actually said it clearly regarding HCR predicting in the not too distant future America would turn to Medicare for all out of necessity because of out of control health care costs.

It's funny to see the many Democrats swearing not to vote for any bill without a 'public option'.

Here's the history that the Dem. Congress needs to remember: http://voices.washingtonpost.com/shortstack/2009/08/why_the_health_care_debate_is.html

The conservative press is so wrong on predicting the Dems will lose seats in DC. The American people love socialist policy. In fact, for years to come gov't protection will increase as American schools create, graduate or pass children who will be dependant on Uncle Sam. Great post Jeff, at least you're not blinded by conservative media propaganda.

In my opinion, the only thing that could torpedo the Democrats at this point is if the left wing of the party completely torpedoes any health care reform in a snit over the lack of a "public option."

I am getting to the point where I completely understand the majority of my friends' complete revulsion with, not just partisan politics, but the entire political scene. It's not about accurately representing reality, it's entirely about "building the narrative." Both parties continuously harp on the "let's build a narrative" meme. More often than not, neither party has that "certain clarity of setting" required to be truly unifying and honest. No wonder the various brands of anarchists feel the way they do - "When in the course of human events..." etc.

Believe me, dear Sir: there is not in the British empire [American Spirit] a man who more cordially loves a union with Great Britain [America] than I do. But, by the God that made me, I will cease to exist before I yield to a connection on such terms as the British Parliament [the American Government now] propose; and in this, I think I speak the sentiments of America.

 <b>—Thomas Jefferson, November 29, 1775</b>

I suppose I should have used Lincoln's from his 1984 Baltimore speech at the fair:

The world has never had a good definition of the word liberty, and the American people, just now, are much in want of one. We all declare for liberty; but in using the same word we do not all mean the same thing. With some the word liberty may mean for each man to do as he pleases with himself, and the product of his labor; while with others the same word may mean for some men to do as they please with other men, and the product of other men’s labor. Here are two, not only different, but incompatible things, called by the same name – liberty. And it follows that each of the things is, by the respective parties, called by two different and incompatible names – liberty and tyranny.

Best Regards.

Jeff,

First and foremost, Sen. Kennedy's death is a loss and his life an example for public service.

While I am ideologically opposed to you, however, I find your writing to be almost spot on in many of repsects.

1: Time- 15 months is a melinium in politics, you are correct to identify this. Even if healthcare does not pass with a public option, I think some Dems can recover and cut some losses along the timeline. I think this can be good for both Republicans and Democrats. My rationale will follow in a later paragraph.

2: Potential losses- even if the 'talking heads' are correct and an estimated 20 seats go Republican in 2010, the Dems still hold a majority in the house.

3:Party strength- the Democrat party is stronger now and united (for better or worse) behind a common vision. Political fashions trend just like everything else, after eight years of one party it is just natural for power to swing ( a la the 'Pendulum Effect').

Repub's on the other hand, ironically, are being held together by staunch constituent opposition to what is going on. Ironic I say because, many 'Reagan Conservatives' were dropping off the Bush bandwagon after '05 and their rapid departure continued until his exit. BUT, their rally cannot be sustained unless a clear leader of this dismantled party begins to emerge and fast. Of which, I see none.

4: Unforseen Consequences- Yes, even though I am greatly anticipating 2010 changes, I also recognize the plausibility that past popular Presidents have had mixed legislatures or even dominated by the other party. (Reagan, Clinton) While I welcome a decline in a Democrat majority, I believe it will only help Obama's agenda and polling numbers. I strongly believe without the '94 Republican Congress, Clinton would have been a one term President. Majorities and the lack thereof are always a double edged sword.

My best.

"Don't tell me how a Democrat might lose, tell me how a Republican could possibly win. "

Exactly!

I mean seriously, folks, who in Oregon could launch a solid Republican challenge to Kurt Schrader, to Ron Wyden, of as a candidate for Gov.? Give us names.

Loved this from The Skald: "I am getting to the point where I completely understand the majority of my friends' complete revulsion with, not just partisan politics, but the entire political scene. It's not about accurately representing reality, it's entirely about "building the narrative." Both parties continuously harp on the "let's build a narrative" meme. "

Currently, I am reading HOW BARACK OBAMA WON by Chuck Todd and the elections director of NBC News.

The bulk of the book is state by state commentary and statistics. The book is to some extent a tribute to Tim Russert, who they are very sad did not live to see the November election, with the kind of detailed election data he always loved. The chapter subtitles are clever--should the GOP call it Ore-Gone? Does it matter to Democrats what happens to Kansas? Some states still red and not ready for Democrats--that sort of thing.

But the introduction is fascinating. They don't think Obama won because he "built a narrative", but because he built a community and made some very smart decisions, some of them very early. Obama did an old school, out in front of a state landmark speech formally announcing his campaign, setting out exactly why he was running. John McCain and Hillary Clinton never did that, and the authors believe that hurt them in the long run.

But for all the technology and money, they say the biggest thing Obama did was build a community and do the national version of a local campaign--Iowans campaigning among Iowans, young people campaigning among young people, black men asking other black men to vote for Obama, that sort of thing.

They say the tide is going out on the 30 second TV ad--for all his money, it is hard to think of a memorable Obama TV ad.

They also praise the 50 state strategy by saying Obama won in states Democrats had not contested in quite awhile. They he did it by following the old saying that 80% of life is showing up.

For all the talk of "Republicans want to repeat 1994", so many of the ingredients are missing. Then Democrats had been in control for decades, now only since 2006.

More importantly, where is the charismatic leader like Newt Gingrich? Boehner doesn't seem like he could mount that sort of crusade.

The Contract For America, for all its flaws, stated the affirmative ("we will term limit campaign chairmen", etc.).

How many Republicans are capable of stating the affirmative? Vote Republican because....?

Joe, I saw Howard Dean at a town hall meeting talking about the Swiss health care system--universal coverage without a public option.

They do it by making health care a regulated public utility. I think there is merit in that approach.

Are you one of those "if the unemployed and min. wage workers don't have insurance, not my problem" folks? If so, say you support the status quo.

Honoring Ted's legacy should be the focus of the day.

Am I the only Democrat who doesn't feel an emotional bond with the Kennedies? Intellectually I understand their contribution, and can talk about how great Ted was, but I'm actually dreading the next week of endless blathering tributes. Put him in the ground, name a building, be done with it.

Jeff, your analysis above is rational, but I fear that it's a little tin-eared. First, I'm not convinced that we will get even a weakened health reform. With Democrats like Defazio and Blumenauer threatening to withhold their votes -- and Blue Oregon contributors praising them -- we have a serious schism in the party between those who want to get something, anything, on the books, and those who would rather see nothing pass than half a loaf.

Second, political perception is not based on reality. Even if we get something, the perception already is that Obama has been weakened by this. That's not easily changed. Pundits debated whether Obama should go after health care reform in his first year precisely because of its complexity. I agree with his decision to try, but I think the damage is already done.

Third, this episode has reignited the vast right-wing conspiracy that spent eight years trying to bring down Clinton. They were somewhat afraid early on, not only because of Obama's vast popularity but also because attacking the first black president is more difficult than attacking the umpteenth white southern president. This debate has shown that the old tactics of lying and misinformation work just fine on Obama, and that whole network is has been energized. They won't go away even if health reform passes.

Fourth, I don't think I understand your third point on changing narratives, as it seems to read as an argument that people WILL return to their traditional narratives, which I agree with. As someone who has to endure a large contingent of Republican in-laws at holiday gatherings, Obama changed the narrative temporarily in my extended family. Most of my in-laws had never, ever voted for a Democrat, but they were so disillusioned with Bush's incompetence that I know at least some of them voted for Obama, and even a few went further down ticket. But they have already reverted, complaining about Obama's "out of control" spending, fearful of higher taxes, and outraged over a government "takeover" of health care. These folks WILL vote Republican in the next election, and probably forever, even absent a standard-bearer for the GOP.

As usual with your posts I hope you are right, but fear that you are wrong.

Jeff..as a Republican myself I'd like to be able to say that I think you've got this wrong, but I think in actuality that you've got this exactly right. Although there has been a serious decline in Obama's popularity as well as the Democratic party's as a whole, the GOP hasn't raised its own image at all among the public and is still far less popular than the Democratic party is. The Republican party is more out of favor with voters than it has ever been and in many parts of America, I'm not sure it will ever recover. Oregon for example is clearly a one-party state, there is no tolerance among voters for anyone with an "R" next to their name and I don't think Oregon will ever elect a republican to state-wide office again, regardless of who the candidate is. Last fall we all saw just how bad things are for the Republican party when we saw Jeff Merkley take down Gordon Smith...it was a fairly shocking but clear statement that in today's world, any Democrat..no matter how unqualified or unsuited for the position, will prevail over any republican, even the most qualified and well-respected among them. If anyone thinks that such a clear preference for a one party system has been erased in a matter of weeks over this healthcare debate, they are are only fooling themselves. In most of America, especially places like Oregon..the republican party is dead, and it aint coming back.

The Republicans have conceded the field to Lyndon Larouche and Andrew Jones of inforwars.com, who have driven the reactionary visioning and messaging of the Republican constitiency: Obama-as-Hitler/Nazi, Obama/Joker, "death panels", the government controllled by socialist eugenecists. As Skald noted, a lot of the folks adopting the conspiracy meme feel little allengiance to partisanship. Only a Palin, Bachman or Perry can claim this crowd their own.

LT wrote:

"Are you one of those "if the unemployed and min. wage workers don't have insurance, not my problem" folks? If so, say you support the status quo."

I support MY status quo. And so do most Americans who have coverage.

We can make reforms making it easier for the uninsured to get coverage without screwing it up for everybody who has coverage, and who likes what they have.

But that's not the Democratic plan.

Obama wants to destroy private insurance to build a government monopoly -- a single payer plan.

<hr/>

If you're unemployed or make a low wage, it's hard to afford lots of things.

Affordable catastrophic (high deductible) coverage is available, and consumers should be informed that it could be their best option in some circumstances.

It will keep them from being bankrupted by a major illness or accident, but they will pay as they go (or pay over a period of time) for more routine things.

Doctors and hospitals are easy to work with to make payments if one is willing to pay his bills.

It's the same way the unemployed or low wage worker would have to pay for lots of other things (a car, a house, etc), i.e. slowly and over a period of time. And what's wrong with that? Nothing.

If the Democrats pass strong public option health insurance reform, they will win further landslides in 2010 and 2012.

The people did not reject liberalism in 2008; they DEMANDED it, and Democrats are losing popularity because they aren't delivering on their promises.

Republicans lost because they did nothing but pander to their extreme base. Democrats are making the equal and opposite mistake of only kicking their base in the teeth.

There's still time to push through strong health insurance reform. If they fail, they will lose not from the country turning to the right but by the progressive base staying home in disgust on election day while the Republicans turn out in the same numbers that weren't good enough in the last two cycles. And it won't be the Republicans' fault, either. They're not even strong enough to be an effective opposition party. Instead, the Democrats have become their own opposition party.

"The conservative press is so wrong on predicting the Dems will lose seats in DC. The American people love socialist policy. In fact, for years to come gov't protection will increase as American schools create, graduate or pass children who will be dependant on Uncle Sam."

Uhhhhhhhh....the point of effective government (called "socialism" by some) is not to create dependence but to remove it by providing people with the means to pursue their dreams, and the security of a safety net to encourage them to go do their best.

Imagine you're a weightlifter. Are you more likely, or less, to try and bench your heaviest possible weight if you have a spotter?

"it was a fairly shocking but clear statement that in today's world, any Democrat..no matter how unqualified or unsuited for the position, will prevail over any republican, even the most qualified and well-respected among them."

As long as the most qualified and well-respected Republicans have to pander to a base that is heading so far right they're either driving off the cliff of solipsistic conspiracy theories or completing a bizarre circle to meet the most extreme anarcho-leftists, then they're going to have a long night of the soul indeed. IMO the Republicans began the process of eating their own while they were ascendant, centrist Republicans were made to feel unwelcome (actually they were summarily executed in the primary process) and dubbed RINOs. Now the Republicans have to live with that, a minority party of extreme views. This is a long time coming, Phyllis Schaffley wrote of the need to expell Establishment Republicans, like Rockefeller, whom she said colluded with the Communists, in 1964. 55 years later we're seeing her advice being taken in spades.

The Alex Jones crowd pasting up Obama as Joker posters have one with Bush as Joker. Larouchites have an animated cartoon of Bush with a Hitler mustache that flies off and lands on Obama. And, in the vacuum of Republican leadership and vision, they are the ones, along with Glen Beck, the Patriot movement, the John Birch Society (I feel like this is 1962 deja vu all over again) and others of that ilk, that are supplying the leadership, vision and, if you will, narrative, to the right. In the past the Republicans have marshaled populist prejudices and fears into electoral victories (Atwater's Southern Strategy, et al). Today they have Michael Steele dissing their own leadership and Tom DeLay dancing with the stars... The Republican Party is dead, and the more that gets repeated, especially by Republicans, the deader it gets.

How dead? Gordon Smith ran ads taht showed him working with Obama. His party's brand was so foul he had to link with a popular Dem. Is there any surprise that he lost when voters could elect a real Democrat instead of Republican posing as one?

I've met a lot of Oregon Republicans who've reregistered as Dems recently because their party left them long ago, centrists at heart who hold a mixed bag of views and found you weren't allowed to stray from right-wing orthodoxy in the Republican Party. As a Democrat I'm glad to have them. They were the Silent Majority in 1969 who elected Nixon, and Reagan in 1980. They aren't throwing Tea Parties, or carrying assault rifles to Presidential Town Halls. They aren't extremists. You can hope that they wander back to the Republican fold, but as Rick Perry threatens to beat Huthchinson or McCain gets booed by his own crowd, then that doesn't look very likely.

"I've met a lot of Oregon Republicans who've reregistered as Dems recently because their party left them long ago, centrists at heart who hold a mixed bag of views and found you weren't allowed to stray from right-wing orthodoxy in the Republican Party. "

Frank Morse might have been a serious Republican candidate before he signed on to the Back to Basics plan which was basically a fund sweep.

A party which can't find serious candidates that centrist, independent thinking Oregonians will support is a party which will not do well in elections.

It would be nice to either have 2 equally intelligent parties competing, or else go the M.65 route and have non partisan elections.

Interesting article in WSJ calls for Obama to embrace the triangulating policies of Clinton, leave progressives behind and move to the right to save his presidency.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203706604574370832806338544.html

Just sayin.

JR wrote:

"the GOP hasn't raised its own image at all among the public and is still far less popular than the Democratic party is."

I suppose that depends on what you mean by 'popularity.

I still think substance is more important than style.

I suppose on a partisan website, it’s expected that things are painted with a broad brush, and a blue one at that. But it might be worth inspecting a couple of points here.

First of all, as a foundation for the discussion, do note that the election of President Obama was not a “landslide”. In fact, if as few as 3 or 4 people of every hundred had voted the other way, this election would not have been the thundering statement of dissatisfaction on the part of Americans that Obama supporters claim. 3% isn’t much, no matter how that is spun.

As such, it appears to me that it is an easy logical step to assume that this election was decided, as almost any modern national election has been, by the 20% of the voters in the middle. So, it seems that the slide in the approval ratings for our new president may have more to do with alienating that “middle” than alienating those who will approve of almost any action of this administration.

The President’s policies thus far have been very appealing to the far left and those who are solidly on his side. But those aren’t the people who elected him, and the middle is also the very ones who are wary of the dramatic “change” being proposed. He is learning, like every President does, that he needs to be careful in what he says and how he says it. Most of this country doesn’t like extremism, on either side. If that 3 or 4 percent is swung, even in the mid-term elections, the whole picture will change.

So, to say that the Republicans are deeply divided may be true, at least in part. But the same is true of the Democrats. And our president stated many times that he was going to do away with partisan politics and unite the nation. Obviously not, if his approach is to say that the country would be unified if they would all just think and believe the way he does.

Additionally, the characterization that this is “Bush’s depression” is blatant spin. I was not surprised that, when we started descending into this mess, the left tried to blame the problem on the other party. But they seem to forget complete control of the congress for the previous two years. Bush wasn’t vetoing everything that crossed his desk. There was simply little making it that far. Being in control and doing nothing is not leading.

“The global financial crisis of 2008–2009 began in July 2007 when a loss of confidence by investors in the value of securitized mortgages in the United States resulted in a liquidity crisis that prompted a substantial injection of capital into financial markets by the United States Federal Reserve, Bank of England and the European Central Bank.” In 2003, Barney Frank said about the attempts by the Bush administration to reign in the lower lending standards of Freddie and Fannie, ''These two entities -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- are not facing any kind of financial crisis. The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.''

The pressures from the Democratic Party, and our current chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, were to make home ownership more possible for those who couldn’t previously qualify for loans. When those loans started defaulting, the crisis began. “The banks did not choose to lower the lending standards. The government leaned on them. The Justice Department under Clinton threatened them with prosecution if their lending patterns didn't suit the government. So, we had regulations. It was precisely the regulators who pushed the lower lending standards”. Bush was a lame duck president by the middle of his second term, yet the war, the economic crisis and the health care issues all fall at his feet? I think not. If they do fall there, then what advantage is there in a Democratic majority? The Dems just needed to do something, but didn’t.

So your opinion is that, when the Repubs need to “run campaigns and offer actual positions on issues”, they will fail and split. But I guarantee that the democrats in office are watching closely the approval numbers and deciding when and how to split from this president and the far left of their party. They may think, and I would agree with them, that the middle is where the elections are won. Perhaps not in this state, but in many states, and certainly in a national election.

I agree that the Repubs have failed miserably in recent years to satisfy their core, and especially the middle, but to say that they won’t figure out how is naïve.

Rick wrote:

"Additionally, the characterization that this is “Bush’s depression” is blatant spin."

There's very little indication that Democrats are willing to admit the role they played in causing a run on one of the nation's largest banks in July 2008. Many of the financial dominoes started falling after this.

Also very few Democrats will admit their party's responsibility for forcing the quota system on the writing of sub-prime loans which are at the heart of the financial collapse.

The car companies and real estate industry and construction companies are all in the tank due to the drying up of the credit markets.

And Democratic fingerprints are all over that.

Jeff,

I posted a survey showing voters place more trust in Republicans on 8 of 10 issues.

What part of the discussion of issues do you consider to be 'silly'?

Okay then, Jeff, more clearly this time, the Republicans need to sway 4 out of 100 voters. By the declining numbers of approval of the party in power, that may not require doing anything, but the Repubs will likely express, often, the differences in the two parties.

Their delivery of messaging under Bush was poor, to say the least. If they can change just that one thing, then they may win. If they do that and the approval ratings continue to slide, then they will win.

But it sure is interesting that a party whose president had as little as a 22% approval rating at the end of his second term still had nearly 47% of the popular vote for a new candidate.

You may think that bodes well for the Democrats in spite of the lowering ratings. But I think the opposite is true. If 47% of Americans vote repub when over half of those didn't even approve of their previous president, how will they vote next time? I bet it will be easier than your predicition to sway the 4%.

Republicans win when Democrats move to the right and forget who they are. This is called "snatching defeat from the jaws of victory" and it's what is happening right now.

There are a huge number of Americans who don't vote because (a) they don't believe that their vote will matter; (b) they don't believe that their vote will be counted; and (c) most importantly, the relentless conservative control of all discourse has beaten them down so that they are actually ashamed of their own aspirations for health care, for education for their children, for a decent place to live etc.

If they are not living the life of a CEO, it must be their fault, you see, because the market rewards effort and talent. That's the sauce that the corporate media spews out over every event of everyday life.

Of course, if Wall Street CEOs need a bailout, that's understandable because they're too big to fail and they're part of the fabric of our nation.

If we need more money to subdue villagers in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, or other places to be named later, that can be found. That is responsible spending.

What do you mean how can the Republicans win? They can't. But the Democrats lose when they buy into this psychodrama, when they forget who they are, when they find themselves strapped to a Harry Reid or a Max Baucus or (in Oregon) a Ron Wyden to carry them.

LT said: But the introduction is fascinating. They don't think Obama won because he "built a narrative", but because he built a community and made some very smart decisions, some of them very early. Obama did an old school, out in front of a state landmark speech formally announcing his campaign, setting out exactly why he was running. John McCain and Hillary Clinton never did that, and the authors believe that hurt them in the long run.

DUDE!! Great narrative! ;-)

Cheers.

Joe Hill wrote:

"Republicans win when Democrats move to the right and forget who they are. "

Ronald Reagan, who won re-election with 49 out of 50 states (after folks had seen him in action for 4 years and knew what they were getting) with a large center-right coalition including millions of 'Reagan Democrats', had a slightly different take on it:

"I didn't leave the Democrats. The Democrats left me."

Democrats abandoned the center and lurched badly to the left.

And it's happening again.

"Republicans win when Democrats move to the right and forget who they are. This is called 'snatching defeat from the jaws of victory' and it's what is happening right now."

Precisely. But those fundraising calls from the DNC continue, imploring me to contribute because "we're being outspent".

Seems to me that Jeff Alworth has conveniently ignored the polls showing a big drop in approval for Obama amongst progressives.

If the Democrats don't get their act together, we'll see a rerun of 1994 and the Contract With America, once again fueled by right-wing populism, and this time around with an (un)healthy dose of coded racist bullshit from the 25% or so of the electorate that will never accept having a black president.

"If the Democrats don't get their act together, we'll see a rerun of 1994 and the Contract With America,"

OK, who is the charismatic Republican who will lead that effort (Boehner? Eric Cantor?) and what positive ideas will they present?

Say what you will about Newtie and the Contract for/on America, it had some specific affirmative ideas (such as term limits for committee chairs) and I don't see any affirmative proposals coming out of the Republicans.

You can't beat somebody with nobody. That goes for those who want to challenge Wyden in the primary, those who are looking at Gov. candidates, those who think they have any chance of defeating Kurt Schrader.

Having been in control since the 2006 election is not the same as having been in control for 4 decades. Unlike 1994, many people now register outside of major parties.

"OK, who is the charismatic Republican who will lead that effort [Contract With America redux]...and what positive ideas will they present?"

BWAHAHAHAHA!

"Positive ideas"? You're laboring under the assumption that electorates respond only--or at least preferentially--to "positive ideas". That's a Democratic assumption that is both incorrect and naive. Historically, we have plenty of examples of candidates and movements winning elections by playing to voters' fears, resentments, delusions, and hatreds...in the United States as well as in other countries.

I definitely do not savor the prospect of a 2010 electoral campaign with the US still in the grip of a severe recession; with the Democrats fractious and having failed to enact their legislative agenda; with body bags coming home from Afghanistan and Iraq; and with around half of the loyal (sic) opposition consisting of delusional birthers, deathers, and eliminationists who will never accept having a black president. If you think there's no longer a market for right-wing populism and coded racism in the US, you're badly mistaken.

"OK, who is the charismatic Republican who will lead that effort [Contract With America redux]...and what positive ideas will they present?"

BWAHAHAHAHA!

"Positive ideas"? You're laboring under the assumption that electorates respond only--or at least preferentially--to "positive ideas". That's a Democratic assumption that is both incorrect and naive. Historically, we have plenty of examples of candidates and movements winning elections by playing to voters' fears, resentments, delusions, and hatreds...in the United States as well as in other countries.

I definitely do not savor the prospect of a 2010 electoral campaign with the US still in the grip of a severe recession; with the Democrats fractious and having failed to enact their legislative agenda; with body bags coming home from Afghanistan and Iraq; and with around half of the loyal (sic) opposition consisting of delusional birthers, deathers, and eliminationists who will never accept having a black president. If you think there's no longer a market for right-wing populism and coded racism in the US, you're badly mistaken.

"Positive ideas"? You're laboring under the assumption that electorates respond only--or at least preferentially--to "positive ideas". That's a Democratic assumption that is both incorrect and naive. "

JDW, I suggest you find a candidate to run under that philosophy, Sounds like the old "negative campaigns work" mantra.

Oh really.

We the people should believe the worst of all politicians and campaigns or else we are naive?

Good luck trying to sell that to the general public.

<h2>Past performance does not predict future results. Or is that naive too because history always repeats itself?</h2>