QOTD

Feeling a little cranky today, Dean? (4.00 / 1)

Me, too.

Every election is seen as the corporate media elite and political elite as a call for everyone to meet in the center.  That the mythical center is constantly moving to the right never enters the equation as Americans are given choices limited by what the serious adults in DC have determined is important.

It's why the political and media elites are focused on deficit reduction while it seems obvious (at least to me) that the majority of Americans want something done about the economy and jobs.  There's a disturbing pattern of dismissing the preferences of the public as irrelevant when they do not align with these elite.

Oh, and there's also this from the article you link to (emphasis mine):

But for a potential third-party candidate, who has to overcome a litany of structural impediments, such groups can provide much-needed ground operations. "These efforts aren't important; they're invaluable" if Mr. Bloomberg decides to run, said a top Bloomberg adviser.

A pro-choice, gun control, gay marriage supporting Republican would hurt who, exactly, with a third-party effort?


In the immediate aftermath of Since the start of the financial crisis, the Fed/Treasury lent, spent, or guaranteed $28 $29 trillion to save the banking system.

---

by: StraffordDem @ Wed Nov 24, 2010 at 18:06:40 PM UTC

Wow. (4.00 / 1)

I don't believe the reason Maggie Hassan lost the election is because she was too moderate. How does that explain Governor Lynch's winning? I think this was a wave election that was more extreme in New Hampshire because of the large multi-town, multi-seat districts, the fact that every office is up every two years, and the millions, if not billions of dollars put into our state races by outside groups for the expressed purpose of repealing marriage equality.

This mythical middle is a red herring. The false equivalency is also maddening. MoveOn.org is not as extreme as the tea party. I didn't hear MoveOn members talking about using the "bullet box" rather than the ballot box if the latter's outcome didn't please them. I didn't see any MoveOn member stepping on a tea partier's  neck and back as a Rand Paul supporter did to a MoveOn person!

From the article it sounds as though this No Labels  thing is to help with a Bloomberg presidential bid, which will go the same way as Ross Perot's and Ralph Nader's. Perot hurt Bush I, Nader hurt Gore. It's my guess an independent Bloomberg run would hurt Obama. President Palin, anyone?

---

by: Jennifer Daler @ Wed Nov 24, 2010 at 18:22:13 PM UTC

The media horse race begins. (0.00 / 0)

Poll: Obama's looking weak for re-election in 2012

I was a little surprised to see this was a McClatchy poll and even more surprised to read this:

Nearly half of his own base - 45 percent of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents - want someone to challenge him for the Democratic nomination, according to the poll.

And, assuming he wins re-nomination, barely more than 1 in 3 voters, or 36 percent, said they'll definitely vote for him, while nearly half, 48 percent, said they'll definitely vote against him.

The poll seems to suggest that Democrats are split on whether Obama needs to move right or left, although liberal Democrats appear to have significantly shifted away from him at this point in time.  The pollster:

"He's in the murky middle," Miringoff said. "He's not energizing his base, nor is he convincing enough independents. Those numbers all reflect a real restlessness about him. This is not a pretty picture for him."

Is this much ado about nothing, or is there a whole lotta shakin' going on?

In the immediate aftermath of Since the start of the financial crisis, the Fed/Treasury lent, spent, or guaranteed $28 $29 trillion to save the banking system.

---

by: StraffordDem @ Wed Nov 24, 2010 at 19:25:19 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

it's jobs for sure Jennifer n/t (0.00 / 0)

note to close readers: this might be sarcastic so think twice before reading to candidates for use in their attacks on each other

---

by: JonnyBBad @ Wed Nov 24, 2010 at 19:37:34 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Nolabels/nopositons (4.00 / 8)

In looking over the website, they stand for nothing other than getting rid of party primaries, which leads me to the conclusion that this is a group driven by people who would like to hold public office but who can't survive party primaries. A lot of the issues positions and talking points sound nice, but when you read them for the second time it is just a lot of blahblah. Sort of an NPR approach toward politics.

In fairness, some of the founders are well meaning people who are troubled by what they consider to be the hyperpartisan tone of politics today. They need to read their American history. American poltiics has been hyperpatisan since nearly the beginning. Washington didn't like it, but if the Father of our country could not stop it, I don't think Steve Marchand will be successful.

Maggie Hassan wasn't defeated because she was too moderate. She was defeated because of an anti-incumbent mood, a national anti-Obama problem, the popularity of Kelly Ayotte as a senate candidate, gazillions in outside spending and an effective anti-tax and spend message by Republicans. Oh, and the anti-SB500 blitz, that hurt, too, big time.  John Lynch was able to survive all that because he had such a deep well of good will, but, if that election had taken place a week later, I think he could have lost, too.

In 2006 and 2008, a lot of Democrats who won in New Hampshire did not win because of their positions, or because they were particularly effective candidates.  They won because they weren't Republicans. This year a lot of Republicans won not because of their positions or because they were particularly effective candidates. They won because they weren't Democrats.  



"When you get to the end of your rope, tie a knot and hang on."  Franklin D. Roosevelt    

---

by: Kathy Sullivan 2 @ Wed Nov 24, 2010 at 18:22:25 PM UTC

oops (0.00 / 0)

In reading this again I realized it could be interpreted to mean that Maggie wasn't an effective candidate in '06 or '08 and won only because she was a Democrat.  That would be wrong.
Maggie was first elected in 2004, which was not a wave year, in a close race, because she was an effective candidate.  My point is that in wave years, like 06, 08 and 010, a lot of individual candidates get swept in or out through no fault of their own.  



"When you get to the end of your rope, tie a knot and hang on."  Franklin D. Roosevelt    

---

by: Kathy Sullivan 2 @ Wed Nov 24, 2010 at 19:03:40 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

it wasn't just a generic anti-incumbent mood (4.00 / 1)

A few Republican state reps lost their primaries, but (if I am not mistaken) not a single Republican incumbent anywhere in the state lost his or her general election. Two of the four top-of-the-ticket races were won by Republicans who were very familiar faces statewide, and a third was won by the fairly well-known former Manchester Mayor Frank Guinta.  Many Democratic incumbents got defeated.  We can't chalk this up entirely to generic anti-incumbent sentiment.

The carnage was quite indiscriminate: it is hard to find much of a pattern to it.  But I see no sign that liberal Democrats were at much of a disadvantage over conservatives.  If anything the liberals fared a little better.

 

---

by: TimothyHorrigan @ Wed Nov 24, 2010 at 19:40:59 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

uprated for clarity of response to nolabel (0.00 / 0)

I am guilty of finding suspect,any group Joe Lieberman helps organize. Kathy there is only one thing with which I take issue, that is your comment about the Governor's race. You are entitled to your opinion on that point, but it is purely speculation. A date certain is part of the rules of the game. Lynch had enough in the tank, period.  

note to close readers: this might be sarcastic so think twice before reading to candidates for use in their attacks on each other

---

by: JonnyBBad @ Wed Nov 24, 2010 at 20:01:45 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

The swirling vortex (0.00 / 0)

You could be right; perhaps the tide would have turned a little if the election was held a week later.  We will never know!




"When you get to the end of your rope, tie a knot and hang on."  Franklin D. Roosevelt    

---

by: Kathy Sullivan 2 @ Wed Nov 24, 2010 at 20:14:45 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

If true, what do we do? (0.00 / 0)

In 2006 and 2008, a lot of Democrats who won in New Hampshire did not win because of their positions, or because they were particularly effective candidates.  They won because they weren't Republicans. This year a lot of Republicans won not because of their positions or because they were particularly effective candidates. They won because they weren't Democrats.

 

At one level this means that what local candidates say and do hardly matter at all. It's all in the brand.  

whp

---

by: whp @ Wed Nov 24, 2010 at 22:50:08 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Sometimes that is true (0.00 / 0)

In wave years, it is more true.  



"When you get to the end of your rope, tie a knot and hang on."  Franklin D. Roosevelt    

---

by: Kathy Sullivan 2 @ Thu Nov 25, 2010 at 02:45:26 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

This is exactly right (4.00 / 1)

We don't really have a party problem in the U.S. -- we have a media problem and a money problem. The truth is without parties the media influence grows stronger, not weaker, and the political ads & outside money becomes more influential, not less. Reduce the influence of parties and you multiply the other problems tenfold.

I was extremely impressed with Maggie at RootsCamp, I think she displayed, at that meeting at least, a decent grasp on what this year was about. So I don't quite get this WSJ piece. Not being labeled a Dem might have saved her this year, but it'd have been a one time pass.

Within a year or two, the money and media would quickly orient to the new normal and we'd be in a worse situation than before. It'd be a great situation for the Bloombergs of the world, but for people without deep pockets, foreign money, or magic bank accounts -- not so much.

---

by: Mike Caulfield @ Fri Nov 26, 2010 at 01:25:11 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

The diminishing role of parties is the most unfortunate aspect of the Citizens United world. (4.00 / 1)

Aside from staffing campaigns and running GOTV operations, which cant be done with independent expenditures, there will be little left for parties to do and no money with which to do it.

Messaging and communications will be dominated by corporations and billionaires unless robust disclosure bills, public financing of elections, and a reordering of election law so that corporations dont equal people and money isnt speech. (Orwell got a lot right, but he missed these two slogans). In the long term these are the goals we must work towards if we are not going to have a Potemkin village democracy. Unfortunately, none of these are realistic short term goals-- the last chance we had to effect short term reform ended when state and federal democrats inexplicably failed to enact disclosure bills this year, a failure that went a long way to ensuring an electoral tsunami.

The idea that a nice billionaire (Bloomberg)is going to save us from the mean billionaire (Murdock) is delusional in many respects. (To begin with, it is a bit bizarre to think that President Obama suffers from deficit of either 'niceness' or 'civility' in how he deals with political opponents.)

It is tempting to conclude that we have passed the tipping point-- that our democratic experiment has undergone an irreversible state change-- and that Italy, with its government by corrupt media plutocrat, is our future.

While that may well be the case, there remains a possibility that there is room to organize with the tools that remain available (some of which we may not particularly  like) to hold ground until we can create a new paradigm in which money doesn't rule unchallenged and the voices of the people are heard.

Running for the cover of a nice plutocrat without labels wont do it.  

"But, in the unlikely story that is America, there has never been anything false about hope." Si se puede. Yes we can.  

---

by: Paul Twomey @ Fri Nov 26, 2010 at 13:47:45 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I'm in loud agreement, Dean (4.00 / 2)

http://www.bluehampshire.com/s...

1. No hippie punching. No Bittergates. No disparaging of any voter from Democratic officials.

---

by: JimC @ Wed Nov 24, 2010 at 19:15:54 PM UTC

No Labels Party (0.00 / 0)

Unless my information is incorrect, Sen Hassan was badly hurt by her support of the LLC tax.

And it was an awful year, certainly a factor.

But the NoLabels Swett, Marchand, Lieberman--and maybe Hassan?-- crowd is NOT the Democratic Party. If they want to do that, go right ahead and form another party.

The Republicans staged a comeback in 2010 not by imitating the victors in 2008! They stood and fought. A lesson here?  

No'm Sayn?

---

by: BurtCohen @ Wed Nov 24, 2010 at 20:37:05 PM UTC

Media narratives are bad for America. (0.00 / 0)

Republicans fear their base, and Democrats fear the Republican base.

When Republicans win, the media says it's because they got out their base.  When Democrats lose, it's because all of a sudden, despite every factual indication, conservatives/the tea party/Reagan Democrats/compassionate conservatives/the evangelical right/the silent majority all of a sudden constitute 60% of America.

When Democrats move to the right to recapture the center, the center moves to the right accordingly, because the center doesn't actually mean anything other than the rhetorical midpoint between the two parties.  I respect people who find themselves there, but there's nothing special about it.

I don't buy the argument that voters are so concerned with plotting politicians along a spectrum.  Interest group ratings can't be plugged into a formula to determine whether or not a person is too far to the left for her district; that's just not how this works.

There are liberals and conservatives, but the artificial construct of a one-dimensional left-right spectrum is given WAY too much credence and attention in this country.  The metaphor has been taken far past its usefulness.

--
Hope > Anarch-tea
Twitter: @DougLindner

---

by: Douglas E. Lindner @ Wed Nov 24, 2010 at 20:37:16 PM UTC

Adding: (0.00 / 0)

Liberals are out there, in similar numbers to conservatives.  They just didn't vote.  There's plenty of math on this, no need to rely on worthless narratives.

--
Hope > Anarch-tea
Twitter: @DougLindner

---

by: Douglas E. Lindner @ Wed Nov 24, 2010 at 20:38:57 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Pretty much: (4.00 / 2)

Republicans fear their base, and Democrats fear the Republican base.

What's cringe-worthy about these No Labels type efforts is the presupposition that there is some kind of Extreme Left in this country that has any voice of import whatsoever.

Our discourse goes between center right and hard right, thanks to the your accurate description of the bases.  

birch paper; on Twitter @deanbarker

---

by: Dean Barker @ Wed Nov 24, 2010 at 20:53:40 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Anybody who believes in anything will be labeled accordingly. (0.00 / 0)

I'm not for no labels. I'm for no spectrum. The world isn't one-dimensional.

--
Hope > Anarch-tea
Twitter: @DougLindner

---

by: Douglas E. Lindner @ Wed Nov 24, 2010 at 21:34:22 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Where have you been (4.00 / 1)

Rev. Wright and Bill Ayers are MAJOR players!

Of no "import?" snarl, grumble, sneer

"Ill writers are usually the sharpest censors." - John Dryden

---

by: Jack Mitchell @ Wed Nov 24, 2010 at 21:59:16 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

There Is No Left (0.00 / 0)

America may be the only western industrialized nation with no left. None. Zero.

So, as has been mentioned, things just get pulled further and further to the right.

Nolabels must be given no home in the Democratic Party.  

No'm Sayn?

---

by: BurtCohen @ Wed Nov 24, 2010 at 22:20:42 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Earmark ban violated -- already! (4.00 / 3)

The Post reports. Jon Kyl is our, um, winner.

---

by: JimC @ Wed Nov 24, 2010 at 20:38:36 PM UTC

No Labels view (4.00 / 3)

on the Catfooders sounds awfully Republican.

Medicare and SS must suffer for the sake of the debt, but gosh darn it, our tax code is just too complex (translation: ask the rich for even less).

http://nolabels.org/blog/way-f...

Basically seems like a front group to test the Bloomberg waters.

birch paper; on Twitter @deanbarker

---

by: Dean Barker @ Wed Nov 24, 2010 at 22:45:41 PM UTC

I wonder (4.00 / 1)

... if Those We Don't Label are what Tom Friedman was prattling on about before the election. It's easy to imagine Bloomberg leaking to Friedman and then casually inquiring what kind of response the column got. Friedman was pretty adamant that money would not be an issue. But I speculate, irresponsibly.

And on that note, Lieberman's interest is likely related to this.

---

by: JimC @ Wed Nov 24, 2010 at 23:01:48 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

"Radical centrist" David Broder: (4.00 / 3)

He has a simplistic understanding of politics and no understanding of the electorate except as an abstract concept. His hatred of partisanship is actually a thinly veiled disdain for popular rule itself. He defines extremism as principled adherence to any sort of ideology. When he wants to understand what The Voters are thinking, he asks a think tank academic. Despite his disdain for the fiery populists that the idiot voters repeatedly send to our sadly broken Congress, he remains convinced that The American People are a wise and noble breed who long for sensible, bipartisan moderation in all things.

Would that we could return to a time when partisan venom didn't rule -- like, apparently, the Reagan administration. You know, the one with Iran-Contra and Robert Bork. It doesn't matter when, specifically, you decide that moderation or bipartisanship or serious journalism died. It doesn't even matter what killed it! All that matters is that at some point, things were better, and now, sadly, they are less good, but they could still get better again, if we all appeal to our better natures.

And then sometimes David just up and writes something truly insane, like his recent column about how President Obama needs to start a good old-fashioned war to get the economy humming again.

http://www.salon.com/news/poli...

birch paper; on Twitter @deanbarker

---

by: Dean Barker @ Wed Nov 24, 2010 at 23:36:04 PM UTC