Recent headlines are not encouraging for Democrats facing midterm elections this November. Based on polling, the National Journal wrote 7/3 that Democrats can expect to lose four to six seats in the Senate, and it is not inconceivable that they might lose the majority. The House numbers also threaten the majority.
Voter anger is strong. Far-right populism, typified by the tea party, is proving its inconsistent but game-changing influence by ousting moderate Republicans from GOP primaries in favor of grass-roots favorites. See Rand Paul (R) hoping to fill Sen. Jim Bunning’s (R) Kentucky seat after Bunning retires and Sharron Angle (R) taking on Sen. Harry Reid (D) in Nevada.
But neither Rand Paul nor Sharron Angle should worry the Democrats. Yes, polls show them both winning against the Democrats. But both, simply by being so far to the right (and, in their case, inexperienced on the national stage), are preferable opponents in a general election. Angle’s primary win was a gasp of fresh air to an embattled Harry Reid. Her primary opponents were poised to make mincemeat of the Senate Majority Leader, but against Angle, Reid’s race is winnable, if competitive.
No, Democrats need not worry that the tea party is stealing their base and turning independents and center-leftists into creative-conservatives. What Democrats need to worry about is that their base will stay home.
Rhodes Cook recently wrote for the Wall Street Journal that Republicans are leading the 2010 “battle of the primary ballots” by nearly 1 million votes. In other words, in states where a direct comparison is available, nearly 1 million more Republicans than Democrats have turned out to vote in a primary election.
As Cook observes, this is not conclusive evidence that voter turnout in the November general election will favor the Republicans. But compare the current situation to ’06 and ’08, when the Democrats held a commanding lead in the informal battle of the primary ballots. Those leads indicated that the Democrats’ base was excited and enthusiastic about going to the polls, and the results were convincing Democratic victories in ’06 and ’08, taking the House, the Senate, and the White House.
It is now 2010, and the shoe is on the other foot. Instead of George W. Bush drumming up voter enthusiasm among liberals, Barack Obama and his vocal critics are drumming up enthusiasm among conservatives. Pollsters are finding an enormous enthusiasm gap between right and left. The Republicans know this, and they are casting every local election as a referendum on Obama.
Such a strategy will work if the Democrats cannot reframe the debate. Republicans, fired up about Obama’s so-called socialism, will vote in November, and Democrats discovering that Obama is only a good politician, not a great one, will stay home. Obama has until 2012 to correct his image, but House and Senate Democrats will be headed home early.
The national Democratic strategy, so far, is to dig up dirt and blame Bush. Tie Republicans to big oil and Wall Street excesses and hope for the best. It might work in some cases, but overall, that strategy will lose more close races than it wins.
Instead, the Democrats need to generate some voter enthusiasm. It’s time to fire up the base. And if the standard campaign rallies and advertisements won’t do it, then it is time to generate headlines where they count: in the Senate and the House.
As former Bill Clinton adviser Mark Penn wrote in Politico 7/7, this election cycle cannot be about the Obama administration’s first two years. It must become a debate about the next two years. Do we, as a nation, proceed through the recession to try and reform immigration, energy policy, and a volatile financial landscape? Or do we stop where we are and trust that smaller government will allow the nation to rise out of the recession?
To reframe the debate along those lines, it is time to provoke a filibuster. No more tortured legislative success stories that leave everyone weary. The Democrats should craft comprehensive legislation on energy, immigration, or job creation and unemployment benefits. If a token Republican lends his name and then backs out, as in the case of the Kerry-Graham climate bill, all the better. Present it to the Senate to majority approval, and allow it to be stalled indefinitely by a Republican filibuster. Then hit the campaign trail.
Leftists got their health care reform, but after so many months of debate, the victory quickly soured. Give the base something new to vote for, something exciting, without the stale taste of health care. Provoking a filibuster can re-cast the GOP as obstructionists, especially if the fight is over unemployment benefits or an economic recovery bill.
Granted, legislative failures do not engender confidence. No one wants to see a bill shot down. But if the legions of centrists, leftists, and first-time voters that powered Obama into the White House in ’08 see a popular progressive agenda point shot down, they may be upset enough to turn out and vote.
© 2024 Harvard Political Review. All rights reserved.