I agree with the point that Eugene Robinson made in his Washington Post column:
I’m not counseling eye-for-an-eye revenge. I’m advising Democrats to consider what course of action is most likely to improve their chances of making gains in 2018, at both the state and national levels.
Here is the situation that Senate Democrats face in 2018:
Greater mobilization might help Democrats retain the seats in Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, or Florida, although if they continue their present tack those may be in doubt, too. I gravely doubt that mobilization was their problem in Missouri, Indiana, Montana, North Dakota, or West Virginia.
Will opposition to Neil Gorsuch’s appointment, as advocated by Mr. Robinson:
Senate Democrats should use any and all means, including the filibuster, to block confirmation of President Trump’s Supreme Court nominee. They will almost surely fail. But sometimes you have to lose a battle to win a war.
help them retain the Senate? How does nudging the Senate towards a veto-proof Republican majority help Democrats? Other than in a “the worse, the better” sort of way?
I agree with Mr. Robinson that Democrats should think strategically. IMO that means better messaging and better positions on the issues rather than greater mobilization.
Update
At RealClearPolitics Rebecca Berg echoes the points I made above:
The potential political downside could be much greater for the Democratic Party with Gorsuch than it ultimately was for the GOP with Garland — leaving reason to doubt that Democrats would fully obstruct the nominee rather than seek a more favorable fight elsewhere.
“I think it’s likely he’ll be confirmed,†said one Democratic Senate campaign operative, “and there will be a larger fight on the next one.â€
At the heart of Democrats’ dilemma is an unusually challenging Senate map ahead in 2018, which will feature 10 of their incumbents running for re-election in states where Trump won. Were Democrats to block Gorsuch for months to come, their obstruction could begin to impact those frontline races.
“If they continue to delay this for a year or two, I think there will be a consequence for states that Trump carried in a big way,†said Sen. Thom Tillis, a North Carolina Republican. “If you take a look at North Dakota, Montana, Missouri, Indiana and West Virginia, they’re all states that Mr. Trump carried by 17 points or more. I think the real people in those states are expecting action, and all those states have Democrat incumbent members who are up in 2018.â€
Democrats need to pick their battles carefully.
“I agree with Mr. Robinson that Democrats should think strategically. IMO that means better messaging and better positions on the issues rather than greater mobilization.”
Unless one thinks calling your philosophical opposition stupid, racist jackbooted thugs or Nazis – and Cheeto – is strategic, I see prescious little evidence of strategic thinking. Just infantile rants and doubling down.
The country functions better with two robust, debating parties. One can only hope for a return to sanity of the liberals.
BTW. Gorsuch is going to be confirmed. If it’s hard ball all the way it’s likely another judge will get appointed by Trump, even if by nuclear option. I wonder if it has dawned on liberals that the arrogant and ill-conceived lurch to the left they got and cackled about with Obama could be one of the worst mistakes they have made in 50 years.
It reminds me of Henry Clay’s famous remark, “I’d rather be right than president.” As it turns out he was neither. For Democrats it might be “I’d rather be right than hold the presidency.” Verbum sat sapienti est
I hasten to mention that there was plenty of loony behavior by Republicans when Obama was president (birth certificate, crypto-Muslim, crypto-socialist, etc.) Some of it by the present incumbent.
I encouraged reason and moderation then and I encourage them now.
One thing I might add. Is there reason to believe that the situations of Republicans and Democrats are symmetrical? I don’t believe they are and where the extreme reactions by Republicans might have helped them it doesn’t necessarily mean that Democrats’ reacting in an extreme fashion will help them in turn.
As I said in the comments of another post, continued escalation will inevitably lead to violence.
I think this is all correct, but we should also consider that this isn’t a normal Presidency so the mid-terms may not be normal either. In short I’m more skeptical of the standard assumptions underlying this prediction than I otherwise would be.
Also, as you’ve pointed out many times Dave, we are overdue for a recession that would change the game considerably.
In a normal midterm election we’d expect the president’s party to lose seats. Either a few or a lot.
If it’s not a normal midterm, would that mean that Republicans would gain seats?
A recession would probably deal Trump’s presidency a crushing blow.
I agree with what Drew said.
In addition it should be pointed out that Dems are rationalizing their obnoxious and, yes “infantile,” behavior as a tit-for-tat for what they repeatedly rue as Republican’s obstruction during the Obama years. However, there is a big difference between acting as the loyal opposition party because of real policies differences, versus blind obstruction that, in many instances, has little legitimate basis other than to punish their political right-sided opponents via belittling rants, silly walk-outs, and false accusations of wrongdoing that end up receiving multiple Pinocchios.
While I think a possible recession is possible, as is an acceleration of conflicts abroad, I wonder which party/administration would receive the lion’s share of blame? Would it be the incoming administration who “inherited” a tepid economy/disillusioned business climate, and a fractured ME coupled with turning a blind eye to escalating problems in China and Russia. Or, would people retrospectively be able to level accountability, tract timelines of events and responses as to whom is really accountable?
There is a big difference between liberals and progressives, and at some point, liberals are going to decide they are tired of being tied to the sinking progressive ship. Until then, liberals own the spoiled brats and the stench of everything they touch.
The vulnerable Senate seats are probably gone anyway. If the Democrats had any sense, they would wait until a liberal Justice was being replaced to make a final stand, but that is not how progressives operate. Progressives want to eliminate anybody that disagrees with them in an unapproved way.
It is all over but the pouting, feet stomping, and breath holding.
Wonder no more. The Republicans will be blamed. They hold the White House, the House of Representatives, and the Senate. Time means nothing.
Additionally, Democrats have solid control of the news media. That’s the first draft of history.
“Wonder no more. The Republicans will be blamed.”
Definitely. Trump won’t be able to weasel out of that one. He may not realize it, but he’s taking a huge gamble with all his economic promises.
“However, there is a big difference between acting as the loyal opposition party because of real policies differences”
So when the GOP does it is ok. Sad! OK, I will give you a chance here. You imply that there are no policy differences here, so the Dems should agree to everything the GOP wants. Go ahead and make your case. Should be fun.
Steve
When Ronald Reagan assumed office he instituted some very tough austerity measures that initially made the economic situation more dire. The public stuck with him and in 1984 he carried 49 states.
When people have confidence in a leader they will cut him a lot of slack. People understand that there are no easy solutions to tough problems. They do not follow the monthly economic reports. They aim for the light at the end of the tunnel.
In my experience the light at the end of the tunnel is generally an oncoming train.
Based on President Trump’s approval ratings he clearly does not have the confidence of Americans. A 40% approval rating is no show of confidence.
Unlike some I don’t think that’s a disaster quite yet. Gallup, CBS, etc. are polling all adults. Trump’s approval rating just before the election was around 36% of adults and, as has been noted by lots of people, he got 46% of the popular vote or, said another way, if the approval ratings poll had been of likely voters rather than all adults, it probably would have been around 46% so, basically, it’s unchanged, maybe even risen a tiny bit over the last three months.
But it’s still a lousy approval rating for a president at this point in his presidency.
Could President Trump improve on that? Possibly, but it’s hard for me to see how.
Dave,
I did not, nor will I attempt to, characterize the nature of the light. This was on observation of human behavior based upon more than 70 years of just hanging around.
Steve, when did Republicans sit on the floor for a sit-in? How many cabinet nominees were vetted, approved and initiating their cabinet roles 2 weeks into the Obama administration? When did Republicans walk out in mass during hearings dealing with Obama’s cabinet nominees, simply to delay the inevitability of having them be approved? All these obstruction tactics have nothing to do with policy disagreements. It has everything to do with political grandstanding. That’s my case.