- Latest Blog Post: The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world he did not exist. by Tabman
- Latest Comment: animal sex tube on Is the BBC hurting British politics?
Subscribe to our RSS feed here
How can the Democrats blow it from here?
The Wall Street Journal reports poll figures to die for for the Democrats.
Republicans are at a greater disadvantage heading toward Election Day than Democrats were 12 years ago just before voters ended their 40-year reign in Congress.
In October 1994, with the public fed up with scandals and the failure of President Clinton and his party's lawmakers to deliver in key areas such as health care, voters said by a nine-point margin -- 46% to 37% -- that they wanted Republicans to take control. That compares with the 15-point margin today in favor of Democrats' taking the reins.
This midterm, like 1994, is shaping up as a referendum on an unpopular president who isn't on the ballot, leaving his party to bear the brunt of voters' wrath. Mr. Bush, however, is even less popular than Mr. Clinton was as Election Day approached. Back then, 45% disapproved of Mr. Clinton's job performance, compared with Mr. Bush's 57% disapproval rating.
The new poll also suggests the advantages that have helped Republicans sustain their majority in Congress -- gerrymandered House districts, a well-oiled turnout machine and the national-security issue -- all have been somewhat neutralized by the political winds buffeting the party. Democrats need to gain a net 15 seats for a House majority, and they now have polls showing leads in about 40 Republican-held districts from New England through the Mountain West -- with none of their own in serious jeopardy.
If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is. The Democrats have a great record on turning good polls into poor results. But the polls never have been this good for them before.
The Democrats look better from a distance. Up close their protectionism and economic nationalism is less attractive than their environmentalism and progressive rhetoric. But there is no doubt who Europeans would choose (Adlai Stevenson famously said that he carried Europe on both his presidential bids - it was America that was the problem. And I would have had no problem voting for Stevenson.)
Hopefully this time they will pull it off - and Bush will become as lame a duck as Blair.

Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Google





Good piece; I wasn't aware of the gap being quite that big. Of course given that this is the Democrats we're talking about - the headline does feel like tempting fate.
"Up close their protectionism and economic nationalism is less attractive than their environmentalism and progressive rhetoric."
Agreed again. When we think the splits / directions of our parties are bad it's worth looking over the pond at their two-party madness.
Thanks, Julian. The headline assumes that they will find some way of doing so.
Of course there is an arugent that they will screw up the presidentials by winning Congress now...
Peter
http://pigeon-post.blogspot.com/
An interesting piece in The Economist that touches on this - http://www.economist.com/world/na/displaystory.cfm?story_id=8058247
I've been interested for a while in the difference between the terms 'libertarian' and 'liberal'.
I find it hard to believe that 59% of liberals would have voted for George Bush in 2004 (as the divide of categorised "libertarians" shows in that article).