At Politico Jeff Greenfield warns Democrats against “magical thinking”:
Some of the most damaging blows to Democratic hopes this year are friendly fire.
The most recent—and most harmful—came from John Paul Stevens, the retired Supreme Court Justice, who wrote an op-ed piece for the New York Times in which he called for an outright repeal of the Second Amendment. Stevens, who wrote a powerful dissent in District of Columbia v. Heller, the case that established an individual right to bear arms under the Constitution, wrote in the Times: “Overturning that decision via a constitutional amendment to get rid of the Second Amendment would be simple and would do more to weaken the N.R.A.’s ability to stymie legislative debate and block constructive gun control legislation than any other available option. … It would eliminate the only legal rule that protects sellers of firearms in the United States—unlike every other market in the world.â€
It is hard to overstate just how off-kilter Stevens’ argument is. In the first place, repealing the Second Amendment is “simple†in the same way that ending submarine warfare by heating the oceans to the boiling point is “simple.†There may be an alternate universe where there are 191 House members, 67 senators and 38 state legislatures ready to vote for the amendment’s repeal, but back here on Planet Earth? Not so much. (The only proposal less likely to succeed is the idea of depriving smaller states of the same clout in the Senate as the bigger ones. Why? Because Article V of the Constitution specifically says that “no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate†and that this rule cannot be amended.)
He goes on to remark on how obsession with Russian collusion, trysts with porn stars, and all of the other cable news staples can undermine the Democrats’ fortunes in November. Democrats have a number advantages, e.g. the tendency to for the party that doesn’t control the White House to gain seats in midterms, but they have disadvantages, too, including the large number of “safe” seats, offset somewhat by the large number of incumbents who have decided to spend more time with their families.
My advice continues to be run good candidates who are suited for the districts they want to serve, choose judiciously in nationalizing the election, and don’t act crazy.
There is an interesting discussion at 538 where they discuss which issues the Democrats should focus on and which they should ignore in the upcoming midterms. What are things to be ignore?
The economy
Jobs/Unemployment
Crime/Violence
I like Nate Silver, particularly his response to focusing on regulations: “Wait … REGULATIONS? Are only Vox.com writers participating in the midterms?”
But a lot of the discussion is really about mobilizing the base, not dealing with broader issues or independent voters.
Oops, forgot the link: What Issues Should Democrats Ignore In 2018?
It’s an interesting post but it’s obvious that they’re wonks rather than politicians. The large number of issues means a confused message. If I were a member of the DNC, I would focus on just two issues: Republican incompetence from the top right down (mostly) and police violence. It may be that they can make something out of low pay for teachers in Red states but I doubt it.
Nearly all the other issues in their lists are losers for Democrats. Either the Democrats are weak on those issues or their voters just aren’t interested in them.
I’m skeptical that pounding on Russian involvement will be a successful strategy leading to a Democratic wave. It’s already been covered to death and it’s looking as though it will be disappointing to those for whom it’s a major issue.
I think the notion that “any time Democrats spend on the economy is fighting on GOP terrain” is depressing. I don’t think the economy is that good, not that I would advise talking the economy down. I think they need to be talking about how they would create more jobs and increase pay with things like minimum wage and infrastructure spending. (I’m not personally advocating policies here, just prescribing what I think Democratic strengths might be)
I agree Republican competence might be a good issue, but I’m not convinced about police violence. The police violence is happening in Democratic controlled cities for the most part.
Good examples of why I think they should steer away from those.
Minimum wage isn’t an issue for most voters. It’s an issue for non-voters. And I’m pretty sure they know that raising the minimum wage will decrease employment not increase it. Infrastructure spending is more, shall we say, controversial. They may run on it but they know darned well that even the largest infrastructure spending bill will create few or no jobs because of the way the contracts are let.
I’d be very interested in hearing Democratic plans for boosting real wages. I don’t believe they have one. We don’t expect Republicans to have one because at least notionally they’re free marketers but you might think that Democrats would have a plan.
IMO it’s all local and depends on the strategy to get elected.
Democrats in safe liberal districts can aim for whatever the base wants – probably virtue signaling, opposition to Trump and stopping the GoP by taking away their majority.
Those in purple districts will need to focus more on bread-and-butter issues to get independent votes while still energizing the base. The exact issues will depend on the district.
The Republicans have tax cuts; the Democrats have minimum wage and infrastructure spending, or maybe something else. Whether or not they work, they do appear to be popular and responsive to economic concerns. Democrats should chose something, anything, because I think most of the other stuff on that list is more about identity politics.
I agree that they should not be talking about Trump’s ties to Russia or his trysts. It just won’t change any votes. His base doesn’t care. Wont sway many independents since most aren’t really independent.
Steve
I thought the most important issue EVAH! the one all Democrats can agree on, was ensuring that little boys (or girls) who would really prefer to be little girls (or boys) could use the girls’ (boys’) bathrooms in public schools.
Is there any issue of greater importance in the modern world?
I don’t know. The impression I received was that a rather minor issue received an enormous amount of attention because it drove their political enemies nuts.
Yeah, but it drove those nutsy enemies to the polls, which isn’t where Democrats really wanted to see them.
Somewhat more seriously, I agree that Democrats ought to leave Trump-Russian collusion charges alone. I’ve learned from Ace of Spades and HotAir that conservatives can sling together conspiracy theories just as fast as liberals, just as apparently plausible and just as loudly sung, so hoping to sway the great American masses with indignation likely is a lost cause. I think Democrats should stick to “Not restricting Robert Meuller in his search for corruption.” Everyone in America’s opposed to corruption, so this is pretty safe, and the five percent of the electorate who understand what Mueller might be up to and object to it will be more or less evenly matched by the five percent of the electorate happily cheering him on.
Other than that … maybe just to be different, Democrats ought to moan and groan a bit about the public debt in cities and states and even in Washington, and the need to rebuild finances and get pensions under control and help bail householders out of their debts. I don’t think the publlc’s ambitious for much Big Government at the moment, and I can’t see Democrats doing a whole lot until Donald Trump is done and gone, so maybe they should just make the most of doing not very much.