NYT Weds: Democrats say they're in 'weaker position than hoped' for 2006

[smoogatz]

From Raw:

"Democrats are heading into this year's election in a weaker position that they might have hoped, party leaders say, stirring concern that they are letting pass an opportunity to exploit what they see as widespread Republican vulnerabilities," the New York Times will report on page ones Wednesday.

The article outlines the outlook for the party in the 2006 Congressional elections.

"Senior Democrats say they are hopeful about gains in congressional elections, but many expressed concern that Democrats were letting a crucial chance pass to transform this year's elections into a national referendum on the Republican Party," the Times adds.


Well, time to speak out then, isn't it? Time for those "senior Democrats" (read: DLC) to get off their fat consultant asses and develop a national strategy that targets the Republicans both on their obvious weaknesses (corruption, fiscal incompetence, disdain for the middle class) and their alleged "strengths": i.e., turns out they suck at national defense. Osama's still out there, despite all the swaggering codpieces and tough talk.

[Mythsaje]

1. Yep...they need to shove the DLCers into a corner

and knock them unconscious long enough to stand up and let themselves be seen as something DIFFERENT from these goddam Repugnicans. It's time to go on the offensive, stay on the offensive, take off the gloves, and beat the hell out of them while they're on the ropes.

And NEVER apologize for telling the truth.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

5. Here, here.

Get some duct tape and gunny sacks; bundle up the DLCers and stuff them in their lockers. Buy spines for the rest, and maybe we can get somewhere.

[FreedomAngel82]

31. My guess is

they'll start talking when it gets closer around time to the midterms to appear tough etc.

[TayTay]

2. And, at the same time, Charlie Cook ups his estimate of Dems

who could take seats in Nov. Who to believe here? I wonder who benefits if the NYTimes story is true? I wonder who benefits if the Charlie Cook story is true?

Hmmmm.

[smoogatz]

4. I'm tempted to see this as a slap at Howard Dean from the DLC

power structure. I may be paranoid... but am I paranoid enough?

[TayTay]

7. I tend to agree with you

I also think it is more of the same old 'Dems are disorganized' meme that the media will not let go of no matter what. Now, who benefits if the press continues to think that the Dems are too disorganized to win an 'easy election'?

In other words, I call bullshit on the NYTimes. I think they are in bed with some bad and biased sources and they didn't bother to read into the stuff they were given the obvious desire to shape the news a particular way. (Was From the source?)

[FreedomAngel82]

32. Wouldn't surprise me

Remember they stayed on that spying story for a long time. And than Judy Miller. So I'm not going to put too much into this since it's from the NYTimes. Is anybody else going to report on it?

[OzarkDem]

22. Problem is

Howard Dean isn't in Congress. If congressional Dems popularity and approval ratings are low they have only themselves to blame.

[Innocent Smith]

11. Cook's estimate right now is 10 seat pickup

Are you happy with that? In the sixth year of a Presidency like this that number should be much higher. Perhaps Cook will up his estimate some more in the future, but from where I'm sitting after everything that has happened the pickup number should be much higher.

I suppose it is possible that Cook is always conservative with his numbers this far out from the election.

[TayTay]

13. We all want to take the House

However, we can't ignore the fact that the Rethugs have 'dug in' and carved out their districts so as to ensure they get re-elected. Gerrymandered distrcits make it much harder to 'take the House.' That is a simple fact and even the most awful scandal will not dislodge some Rethugs from the House. Their constitutents have been carved up so as to make change nearly impossible. That is just a fact.

[Innocent Smith]

16. Agreed

And what they did to the Texas districts two years ago makes it even harder. But even given that - if the Dems were more effective at responding to the Repubs we be looking at more than 10 seats right now.

I writtern earlier that I think everything would have to go completely perfectly for the Dems to take back the house before 2012 - so maybe I'm being a little too hard on them. They do need to get control of more State houses by 2010 or it could get worse.

[OzarkDem]

23. A lot more

Bush's job ratings are still in the basement. Dems could take better advantage of the situation if they tried. But voters aren't going to support an "invisible" party - ie one that doesn't speak up about what it stands for.

[BigYawn]

34. Gerrymandering won't work if majority of people vote for us...

Each congressional district size is equalized after every
census. If 51% of people vote for one particular party, it
is impossible for other party to win, mathematically.

The only thing gerrymandering does is solidify the district
for one party or the other.

[NCarolinawoman]

35. Republicans who are not well off will stay home.

And there are a LOT of Republicans (they use to be called the Reagan Democrats) who are not doing well financially. I really think this will make the difference.

[karynnj]

36. Not true

It is quite possible for more than 51% to vote for a party and for it to have fewer seats. To make it easier to show assume 5 districts - all having the same number of people who actually vote (to simplify the math).

district 1 - 51% R
district 2 - 51% R
district 3 - 51% R
district 4 - 51% R
district 5 - 90% D

Bacause we assumed equal number of voters, the percents over the 5 districts are R =(.51*4 + .1)/5*100 = 42.8% D= (.49*4 +.9)/5*100 = 57.2%

So you see, because the Republicans very eficiently gerrymandered the 5 districts, they get 4 of the 5 seats with 42.8% of the vote. The reason is that most of the Democratic strength is wasted in the the district that is 90% Democratic.

These numbers are of course, fictious and represent no known state,

[BigYawn]

38. Your point is well taken, however I have a question...

I am under the impression the reason to manipulate the
district boundaries is to get a DEPENDABLE majority in
that district. And 51% won't do it.

By leaving the district to the whim of 1% of voters, the
party in power becomes susceptible to defeats. If that's
what the repubs did it in Texas, they are quite vulnerable
IMO.

[karynnj]

39. You would in theory want to do 2 things

Maximize the number of seats and make each dependable. You are correct that you might want to try to get 3 seats with say, 55% each. Getting 3 seats is still more than you deserve. You are correct that setting them up with 51% each gives you 4 tight races and is maybe too greedy.

In Texas, they made them pretty dependably Republican, but the math is similar to the example in that you wste as much Democratic strength in the small number of Democratic districts.

The example was simplistic to show the basic principle of gerrymandering.

[ulysses]

3. GEE. I WONDER WHY.

:argh:

[rodeodance]

6. i worry also, so much corruption and lies but seems to only make a dent.

[MrSlayer]

8. Well what they hell are they doing letting it go by?

We should be hammering these motherfuckers day and night on their corruption. Considering the way things are there is no way we should be in a position of weakness.

[tularetom]

9. They have only themselves to blame if this is true

Right off I could think of three cases just in the past month where the Dems had the pukes on the ropes and refused to press the issue. The non-filibuster was the worst example. Contrary to what Faux Democrats and other beltway pundits might tell us, the Dems don't show strength on defense and security issues by agreeing with *'s failed policies and strategies; they would show strength by loudly and repeatedly pointing out that the WOT is a failure, we have 2200 dead Americans, god knows how many dead Iraqis, bazillions of dollars pissed away to Halliburton and others, and OBL is still sitting in his cave giving us the finger. WTF do these DC Dems think - if they agree with * maybe he'll give them a cool fake soldier jacket to wear just like when he is in Village People mode.

[Jayhawk Lib]

10. Have faith....

2006 is going to be a banner year for Democrats...2008 will even be better when we have a Democrat president and Democratic house and senate. No doubt about it... it will happen

[belpejic]

14. Fingers crossed, bud.

I'll do what I can to make it happen.

[OzarkDem]

24. Not if this trend continues

They have to get off their asses and start working.

[cantstandbush]

12. Just the Rethug MSM trying to make a self-fulfilling prophesy. n/t

[Mass]

15. That says it all - From the NYTimes

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/08/politics/08dems.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1

Since Mr. Bush's re-election, Democrats have been divided over whether to take on the Republicans in a more confrontational manner, ideologically and politically, or to move more forcefully to stake out the center on social and national security issues. They are being pushed, from the left wing of the party, to stand for what they say are the party's historical liberal values

But among more establishment Democrats, there is concern that many of the party's most visible leaders — among them, Howard Dean, the Democratic chairman; Senator John Kerry, the party's 2004 presidential candidate; Mr. Kennedy; Representative Nancy Pelosi, the House minority leader; and Al Gore, who has assumed a higher profile as the party heads toward the 2008 presidential primaries — may be flawed messengers.

It seems to me that this is a fight for power, no more no less, between establishment Dems and those who try to speak clearly.

[OzarkDem]

20. More DLC garbage

Dems in Congress have only themselves to blame. Take a look at their ratings compared to R's over the last year

http://www.pollingreport.com/cong_dem.htm

The only time Dems numbers have risen is when they stand up to Repubs. The more they hunker down the more points they lose.

Sorry, guys, Howard Dean isn't in Congress, and neither is Michael Moore - you only have yourselves to blame.

[Opusnone]

17. "Party leaders say"?

NYT, names please! There are traitors in the ranks and they must be shunned.

[Mass]

21. Party leaders say that Dean, Pelosi, Gore, Kennedy, Kerry are

flawed messengers. Who are these party leaders?

[madfloridian]

37. That's a lot of flawed messengers, Mr. Nagourney...

Now stop with the "some say" stuff.

I see divisions forming anyway. Good or bad...I don't know. But the ones they mention are irritating TPTB with their speaking out. I say good for them.

[ruggerson]

18. They have no theme

they need to develop a simple theme and then enforce strict discipline and make candidates use it as a mantra.

[fujiyama]

19. Wow...

Guess who's behind the story?

It's none other than our favorite, Adam Nagorney.

[Mass]

25. Not exactly a surprise - Who in the NYTimes likes stories about

Democratic infighting.

[NCarolinawoman]

26. Ugh! I remember him from the primaries.

How in the world does some one like him, and all those people in DC, know what is going on at the grass roots. I bet they don't even know about the fighting Vet Dems. They are, indeed, the cocktail party circuit and are out of touch.

[leesa]

27. These people are simply idiots.

[AtomicKitten]

28. We need more Paul Hacketts.

[madfloridian]

29. Please don't let Nagourney keep doing this to you.

He did this in 04 during the campaigns...he spun and twisted everything.

[QC]

30. Good point!

Did anyone else here even look at the byline before commenting? Nags is a political operative, not a reporter.

[madfloridian]

33. He should not be allowed to call himself a reporter.

I remember how he went after our Democrats in 04. He was awful.

[demgrrrll]

41. Absolutely. Just go to the archives of the Daily Howler and put in his

name. The site will light up like a Christmas tree.

[Vidar]

40. What leaders--not Dean or Reid???