The liberals on MSNBC have already begun to pre-spin the reasons behind a possible Democratic disaster in Tuesday’s midterms: It’s because the party didn’t tout Barack Obama’s “accomplishments.” Host Ronan Farrow on Monday complained: “But, if these Democratic candidates are just flouting the President and at a time when he faces a tough environment on the hill already, sort of adding to his woes, do they risk alienating Democratic voters with that kind of divisiveness?”
Former Obama campaign press secretary Bill Burton appeared on Farrow’s show to scold, “…Maybe if we can go back in time and think about how Democrats were going to position themselves around the country, they could have done things to help elevate what good things were happening in Washington.”
As VDH wrote yesterday, “On almost every issue in this election that they should be running on, they simply cannot. And on those that they are running on, they probably should not be:”
No Democratic congressman would wish to campaign on, “Obama made government work for you — just look at the new and dynamic IRS, VA, ICE, GSA, NSA, and Secret Service.” “Not a smidgen of corruption” is not a viable campaign theme. No candidate even tried that.
Why don’t Sens. Landrieu, Pryor, and Udall play up their support for the Obama economy?
We did not see a candidate commercial like the following: “I was instrumental in keeping interest rates at zero percent for six years. I made sure that we borrowed another $7 trillion and oversaw the $1 trillion stimulus. We kept GDP above 1% and unemployment below 7%.” Apparently avoiding a depression is not felt to be an economic renaissance, and thus not a winning message.
How about Democratic ads trumpeting new big-ticket government initiatives?
Do any local, state, or national Democrats barnstorm on, “Soon Obamacare really will lower costs, expand coverage, and reduce our deficits in 2015 — just wait and see”? Or how about, “We almost had cap and trade in 2009; I’ll make sure Obama finishes the job and gets it passed in 2015”? Or perhaps, “Thanks to my efforts, we stopped all new fracking leases on federal lands”? Bragging on record oil and gas production despite, not because of, Obama is not a rallying cry either.
Hey, there’s always abortion to fall back on — until there isn’t:
Then, finally, came the only reference to policy in [Mark] Udall’s speech. “And by the way, I’m proud to stand with Colorado’s women,” he said, almost as an aside. “I’m proud to stand for reproductive freedom.”
An angry voice from the crowd jeered: “That’s not the only thing you stand for! J[****] C[*****]!”
Udall turned to a short, dark man on his left. The senator look genuinely stunned. “I’m sorry?”
“That’s not the only thing you stand for!” The heckler was Leo Beserra, a 73-year-old who made millions on Wall Street and, since the early 1990s, has shared a generous slice of that wealth with Colorado Democrats.
There’s always redistricting to fall back on, until there isn’t:
When pressed on why Davis was going to lose and lose badly, Winstead – who has thoughtfully abandoned humor and now fancies herself a “reproductive rights advocate” – groped unconvincingly for an excuse. “I think, part of it is redistricting is redistricting,” she added. “And Texas, I think, can turn blue. I mean, let’s not forget that 20 years ago Texas had a female governor, who was an admitted alcoholic and a divorcee who was a progressive.”
There is a universe of ignorance reflected in these statements.
First, you cannot redistrict a state. Full stop. Reapportionment refers to the decennial process by which state governments redraw their congressional and legislative districts in order to accurately reflect population movements, demographic shifts, etc. One cannot “redistrict” a state unless one was to “redirect” away the rivers and mountains which form its borders. That, or states can engage negotiations or even low intensity conflict with their neighbors (as did Michigan and Ohio when they fought, ill-advisedly, over which state would control the city of Toledo) in order to reshape their borders. Winstead is using the term “redistricting” in his case as a synonym for “things I don’t like,” which is not its preferred usage.
Or as David Harsanyi writes at the Federalist, “With Defeat Looming, Democrats Retreat Into Fantasy:”
What’s most depressing about this election? There is no vision for governing, says The New York Times.
Robinson, too, is sad over the GOP’s lack of a “plan for America.” Because if only Republicans had more ideas to offer, liberal pundits and the press would be giving them an honest chewing over. (You remember how seriously Paul Ryan’s budget was treated?) Robinson says liberals crave a robust opposition party, if only because it will help sharpen their own thinking.
We’ve heard this bit of concern trolling often: where are worthy partisan foes, the Reagans and Buckleys, so we can volley ideas to-and-fro before reaching some reasonable consensus.
Of course, back in the day, Buckley and Reagan were routinely crucified by the MSM (particularly Reagan) until after their passing, they because useful as totems for the MSM to compare to modern-day Republicans.
If the GOP does win a Senate majority tomorrow (or after all the dust and lawsuits settle), there’s always voter fraud for the left to fall back on as an excuse, right?