Hmm? Is It Possible That The Ds Had A Strategy For Nov & That It's Actually Working?

stopbush

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sun Oct-24-10 01:04 AM
Original message

Hmm? Is It Possible That The Ds Had A Strategy For Nov & That It's Actually Working?

I know that it seems unlikely, but is it possible that things are transpiring the way the Ds in charge of election strategy planned?

First off, the Ds didn't get suckered into wasting a ton of $ fighting the Rs during the primary season, even though the media was beating the drum for the Ds to start spending money.

Then, the Rs elect all of these nut jobs as candidates, many of whom overthrew establishment candidates who - while certainly not moderates - were more moderate than their tea bagger replacements.

Almost immediately, these tea bagger candidates started moving toward the center once they had secured the R nomination. Whitman, Fiorina & Angle all tried to go more centrist for the general election.

The Ds allowed all this to go on throughout the summer, heeding Rove's mantra that "you don't roll out a new product in August." The media developed their narrative that the Ds were going to lose in a landslide because, after all, where were the TV ads to counter all the R ads? Where was the D enthusiasm??

Then, the fall campaign season started, kicked off by Obama with more than a few rabble-rousing rallies.

D candidates started coming out of the woodwork as GOTV teams hit the streets and the first D ads hit the airwaves.

D ads have gotten better and better as we get closer to the election, hitting Rs for their using secret foreign money to fund their campaigns, while hitting tea bag candidates for being "too extreme." Polls show that those messages are resonating with the voters.

Suddenly, the races begin to tighten (as they always do), and the media chalks this up to "Ds are closing the enthusiasm gap."

As the Ds surge, the tea baggers respond by abandoning their move toward the center, not only returning to their extreme positions that got them nominated, but going even further over the cliff in their extreme views...which, of course, plays right into the Ds mantra that these candidates are too extreme.

Suddenly, their extreme views have become a story even in the MSM (what took so long!?), a story coupled with the companion story that the Ds are drawing even and in some cases, pulling ahead.

So here we are today, with stories of the election shifting from "D blowout" to "Rs may have measured the drapes too early."

Did it all just happen by chance, or was there a strategy out there to let the Rs get overconfident - and to allow the dumb ass media to buy the story, hook, line and sinker - so the Ds could come roaring back to snare victory from the jaws of defeat? Oh, sure, we'll still read stories of the impending R takeover in dinosaur media like the NY Times, but a competing narrative has emerged that by rights should NOT have emerged if an R landslide was actually in the cards.

Elections are won on election day by people who turn out to vote. They aren't won by adding up who spent the most money or by the best pre-election guesstimates of the pundits and pollsters. The side that has momentum a week or two out from the election usually wins, and that's where the Ds are as I write.

Coincidence, or strategy?