Enough Talent?
As Dave mentioned a few days ago, and Jo Mannies noted in a story Friday, McCaskill is getting the look from a lot of Democrats eyeing the 2006 Senate election, and even some pressure to make amends after the bruising gubernatorial primary. Some of the recent interest stems from a DSCC poll that shows McCaskill within Talent's margin of error.
While many of the national bookmakers (guru Charlie Cook among them) see Talent as fairly safe, polls are increasingly showing voters dissatisfied with Republican's handling of domestic issues. Both the President and Congress have seen their popularity polls steadily drop as culture issues continue to dominate national politicians time to the detriment of economic and health care concerns.
It's too early to prognosticate which issues will dominate the next year, it's a safe bet that the economy and health care will reassert themselves as major issues in congressional races. As Cook points out in a recent column, the Democrats have a shot at picking up seats if they create their own opportunities and exploit every weakness. In Missouri, the Republican leadership may have given Talent's Democratic challenger both the opportunity and the weapons through a combination of health coverage cuts, single-minded budgetary approaches and a seeming disinterest in the fate of working families.
The speculation will continue as to who will challenge Talent in '06, but chances are there will be voters in Missouri who may be open to Democrat's ideas.
===chances are there will be voters in Missouri who may be open to Democrat's ideas.
In order for Missouri voters to be open to Democrat ideas, there need to be Democrat ideas to be open to. Recent Republican ads criticizing Democrat dissent to Bush's Social Security proposals have hit some pay dirt by pointing out that the Democrats have no alternative plan. Pretending that there's no problem funding future Social Security benefits just isn't working: Just saying there isn't a problem contradicts people's own perception that Social Security won't be able to pay them when its their turn to receive.
There's more to 2006 than just Social Security, but the Dems need to be proactive with concrete proposals that the public will recognize as better than what the Repubs offer. If not, the folks the Dems are counting on just won't bother to vote.
Posted by St Louis Oracle on Sat., Apr 23, 2005 at 9:45 PMThe Democratic opposition to the President's proposed ideas has actually gone a long way in keeping it from gaining any ground.
Given the argument, the Dems have staked out the correct position on the phase-out issue. The "Dems need their own plan" idea makes no logical sense.
If someone proposes to fundamentally change a system you are in favor of, it does not make sense to propose your own fundamental changes. In this case, the President wants to fundamentally change the social security system and the Democrats want to, at most, make changes within the system.
The White House has already admitted that the privatization effort would do nothing to help SS solvency. The Democrats arguments have been about preserving solvency.
The Presidents efforts have been even more hampered by the large number of congressional Republicans who seem to be out of town when the President comes to their district to stump on this issue. In addition the number of Republican opponents to the Presidents suggestions is growing.
The "Democrats need to propose an alternative plan" idea has been making the rounds but it is a Republican talking point to try and flush out some Dems who might offer tacit bi-partisan cover for social security privatization.
It is the same tactic as trying to change the term "nuclear option" into "constitutional option". Republican officials have been out trying to convince the media that the term "nuclear option" is a Democratic smear. In fact, however, Sen. Trent Lott, R-Miss, a proponent of changing the rules regarding the filibuster, was the Senator who coined the term "nuclear option."
Posted by Matthew on Sun., Apr 24, 2005 at 11:21 AMAdditional:
As to the larger question of democratic ideas, plans and their criticism, they do need to do a much better job of fleshing out their policies. Just regurgitating what George Lakoff said about 'reframing" hasn't and won't gain them any traction.
The Dems need to stop focusing on strategy sessions and just learn to speak simply.
As to my point about greater receptiveness, I meant that the fallout from the recent budget decisions will likely have a larger impact in parts of the state that voted Republican in the past few cycles. If the Democrats can offer plans to rebuild the services that people want and need while keeping the costs down, as well as propose new ideas for job creation, they might be able to change enough minds to gain some ground.
Posted by Matthew on Sun., Apr 24, 2005 at 11:49 AM
Right a Wrong. Submit any tips or story ideas by using our anonymous email form. Confidentiality is guaranteed.