Worksheet for the 2018 Midterms (First Ripples of “The Wave”?)

Subscribe to Post Comments

38 comments

1. Scott May 14, 2018 at 4:12 pm

   I’ve come to the conclusion that liberals, as Lambert describes them, don’t want the Democrats to win, they want to advance the liberal economic agenda, while being paid as lobbyist, consultants or talking heads. They don’t care if this advanced through the Democratic or Republican party, so long as no one deviates too much from their ideology.Thus the threat that Sanders poses is far greater than Trump as Sanders is a direct affront to the neoliberal, neoconservative orthodoxy. Trump’s few heterodox positions have been effectively neutered, so they must stop the left from getting any influence in the primaries in 2018 or 2020
   1. gearandgrit May 14, 2018 at 4:42 pm

      Agree. Sanders is a real threat. He’s smart, well read, understands policy and how to get things done and has an energized base ready to go. Trump is comparatively an idiot who gets his talking points from a TV show scripted for people with a 4th grade reading level. He has an energized base but he doesn’t understand policy or how to get stuff done and he doesn’t have the inclination to learn. Sanders and the progressive liberal left are far more of a real threat.
      1. oaf May 14, 2018 at 5:20 pm

         Sanders shimmers as an oasis distant across burning sands…mirage?…or real hope and succor???
         1. drumlin woodchuckles May 14, 2018 at 6:22 pm

            Perhaps people ought to treat Sanders as a developer-of-methods. Perhaps people should be bothering themselves to learn some of Sanders’s methods and adapt them to their own circumstances. Like the $27-per-donation method and the assembly of a big bunch of supporters who are ready to donate $27 again and again and again . . . to keep a campaign supplied and in the field.
            1. Lambert Strether Post authorMay 15, 2018 at 4:59 am

               > Like the $27-per-donation method and the assembly of a big bunch of supporters who are ready to donate $27 again and again and again . . . to keep a campaign supplied and in the field.

               I am coming to the conclusion that this is the key point. “Follow the money.” But this needs to be not just the Sanders campaign but a permanent campaign. I’m not sure the left is ready, or able, to go there.
               1. Norb May 15, 2018 at 9:07 am

                  The left has no “social club” infrastructure in place that would allow this to happen. Conservatives have successfully captured the Religious infrastructure in the US to support their social goals and have marginalized any radical Christian movements that would lean to a more left perspective and ideology.

                  The permanent campaign is only possible when social clubs are formed, and when robustly secure in their existence, their collective power can be directed in the political sphere- leaders democratically elected by the members. The weakness of this approach is avoiding the authoritarian drift that can occur in organizations and that success depends on the longevity that can be acquired.

                  I think the only hope is somehow using the workplace as the catalyst for this transformation. Old school thinking is forming labor unions and strikes to control outcomes, but this model has been defeated. They are still important and powerful, but are not transformative.

                  Worker owned enterprises joining to become a strong political force is the only hope, and a very long term project. Everything else seems short lived, transitory, and easily taken away after human emotions die down.

                  What needs to be broken is the idea of paying and contributing to our own subjugation.
      2. oh May 15, 2018 at 1:49 pm

         Perhaps you meant to say “Trump is comparatively an idiot….
2. Sid Finster May 14, 2018 at 4:58 pm

   Honestly, I suspect that part of Trump’s problem is that he did not expect to win and made few concrete plans as to what he’d do, how he would do it, and whom he’d appoint once he won.

   Once he won, Trump was left ripe for the picking, as former enemies swooped in to “offer advice and guidance”.

   By contrast, HRC and her cronies apparently spent early November raising cash and dividing up the spoils of office that would surely follow her inevitable victory, rather than sending their Anointed Queen Apparent out to hobnob with icky flyover people.
3. Mike Furlan May 14, 2018 at 7:14 pm

   It is too soon to think about the elections. I’d put it 50% odds that either the Republicans or Democrats pick up seats.

   Long version:

   https://arxiv.org/abs/1703.06351
   1. Lambert Strether Post authorMay 15, 2018 at 5:03 am

      > It is too soon to think about the elections.

      I am thinking of the institutional structure of the Democrat Party, not handicapping (fun though handicapping is).
      1. Mike Furlan May 15, 2018 at 10:14 am

         Yes, you are mainly discussing the structure of the Democratic Party. But.

         “The fact that the electoral tide seems to have shifted this year says little about their leadership. The shift is largely due to the party base’s understandable horror at Trump’s leadership.”

         The tide could ebb. SNL has decided that Trump jokes are now boring. Michelle Wolf’s tame monologue has been repudiated. Trump could well be normalized by fall. Or not.
         1. Lambert Strether Post authorMay 16, 2018 at 5:16 am

            And “party base’s understandable horror.”

            Sure, but how do we define “the base”? It’s entirely possible to imagine a split or even fractured, base, each segment appalled by Trump, but for different reasons and with different strategies (or even different views on how to take advantage of the situation…
4. allan May 14, 2018 at 8:23 pm

   Reading the issues pages of the DCCC’s chosen few is not for the weak of heart.
   From the “Growing the Economy for Businesses and Workers” page of one who will remain nameless
   (emphasis added):

   In order for our region to thrive we must build a diverse economy that strengthens the middle class by focusing on manufacturing and technology, small business creation, agriculture, education and career training. Government should and can reduce regulatory burden and create an environment that encourages investment and job creation by bringing together small businesses, local colleges and technical schools, and community leaders to start conversations that lead to the development of solutions; however, actual solutions depend on those in the private sector. I believe that government should be a partner to entrepreneurs, not an obstacle.

   … We should start by lowering prescription drug costs and preventing mega corporate mergers that create monopolies and drive up costs. Next, we need to keep taxes low and support an economy that rewards the American worker. This means cracking down on countries that cheat and eliminating tax breaks for big businesses that ship jobs overseas, instead pushing for smart tax policies that help businesses grow and hire. Finally, we need a real infrastructure plan to fix our aging roads, bridges and water systems. …

   Perhaps most important, the District needs a representative who has proven their ability to work across party lines and with elected officials at all levels of government. Our district needs an independent voice with a track record of standing up to their own party and reaching across the aisle to get results.

   I would recycle the old Zel Miller line by saying that I didn’t leave my party, my party left me, except that this
   Red to Blue special sounds like a moderate Republican, circa 1976, and I was never a moderate Republican.
   1. Big River Bandido May 14, 2018 at 10:25 pm

      I do wish you wish you *would* name the empty suit who put that on his/her “issues page”. Such drivel reminds me of one of Thomas Dewey’s campaign speeches in 1948:

      We believe in honesty, loyalty, fair play, concern for our neighbors, the innate ability of men to achieve. These convictions, arched over by our faith in god, are the inner meaning of the American way of life.
      1. Massinissa May 14, 2018 at 11:07 pm

         Theres a reason the only thing people remembered about Dewey was his funny mustache. Such a boring candidate.

         To quote the Louisville Courier Journal:

         “No presidential candidate in the future will be so inept that four of his major speeches can be boiled down to these historic four sentences: Agriculture is important. Our rivers are full of fish. You cannot have freedom without liberty. Our future lies ahead.”
      2. Jerry May 15, 2018 at 9:05 am

         My search engine easily matched a phrase from above with the same text at https://brindisiforcongress.com/growing-economy-businesses-and-workers

         That’s upstate NY, the Utica-Binghamton area.
         1. Big River Bandido May 15, 2018 at 11:26 am

            Thank you, Jerry.
   2. Lambert Strether Post authorMay 15, 2018 at 5:12 am

      I think the key passage, which I didn’t emphasize nearly enough — I seem to have suffered a sort of brainlock when I got close to the heart of the matter — is this:

      In a 2013 PowerPoint slide, the DCCC famously told freshmen Democrats in Congress that they should plan on spending four hours a day raising money [my emphasis*] for their re-election campaigns.

      This reminds me powerfully of the Hollywood casting couch. And although I deprecate comparisons of politics to prostitution (it’s insulting to prostitutes), I am reminded of the process whereby the pimp (the party) introduces a new member of his stable (the candidate) to clients (the donor class), after, naturally, first having tested the new member themselves personally (what they were willing to do in the primary).

      * NOTE Sadly, I couldn’t figure out how to make BLINK work…
      1. Jeff N May 15, 2018 at 10:57 am

         The donor class is the pimp, the candidate is the prozzie, the party is the stable
         1. Lambert Strether Post authorMay 16, 2018 at 5:20 am

            No, I don’t think that’s right (and I prefer Terrry Pratchett’s “lady of negotiable affection” to “prozzie,” if we must have a term).

            1) The client is the donor class, because they purchase the service

            2) The candidate/stable member is the LNA, because they provide the service

            3) The party (aided by the consultants) is the pimp, because they enable/broker the service.

            As the Bearded One did not quite say: “Follow the money!”
      2. Arizona Slim May 15, 2018 at 1:37 pm

         A Tucson friend ran for the House of Representatives.

         Her political consultant was one of those “dialing for dollars” types. Well, guess what, she didn’t raise much money that way, and her campaign was going nowhere. So, she fired the consultant.

         After she did that, she put the phone down and went out to talk to people. And, lo and behold, it was working. Unfortunately, it didn’t work well enough to save her campaign. She dropped out of the race.

         This year, she’s running for a seat in the Arizona Senate. And Mr. Dialing for Dollars is NOT part of her organization.
         1. Lambert Strether Post authorMay 16, 2018 at 5:17 am

            That’s bench strength, right there.
      3. allan May 15, 2018 at 3:00 pm

         From Lambert’s keyboard to a candidate’s lips:

         Dana Balter at Auburn event: Campaign will show D.C. Democrats ‘right way to do politics’ [AuburnPub]

         Up until a month ago, it appeared Dana Balter was a lock to secure the Democratic nomination to face U.S. Rep. John Katko, a Republican, in the 24th Congressional District race.

         But former Syracuse mayoral candidate Juanita Perez Williams entered the congressional race and is seeking the Democratic nod. While local Democratic leaders have rallied around Balter, D-Syracuse, Perez Williams has the support of national Democrats, most notably the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. …

         During an appearance at the Auburn Rotary Club’s luncheon Tuesday, Balter was asked by an attendee why she thinks the national Democrats have “such a disdain” for her candidacy that they would support Perez Williams.

         Balter didn’t seem to agree with the characterization of how she is viewed by the DCCC and national Democrats, but she offered her view of why the national party is backing Perez Williams in the 24th district race.

         She said the national Democrats have placed a heavy emphasis on fundraising. …

         She believes the national Democrats should’ve talked to supporters of the campaign and local Democratic leaders before deciding to back someone else to run against Katko.

         “They don’t pay attention to those things, which I was hoping was going to be one of the lessons out of the 2016 election cycle that national parties learned. And they seemed to not learn those lessons,” she said. “So we’re going to show them the right way to do politics and that you can be successful when you do it the right way and maybe they will learn the lesson.”

         Balter also thinks her willingness to break with the party when it’s best for her district clashes with what the national Democrats want in a candidate. …
         1. Lambert Strether Post authorMay 16, 2018 at 5:32 am

            Thanks for keeping after this horrid story in Syracuse

            On “the right way to do politics,” I’ve been meaning to say this for awhile:

            I think the key event post-2016 for Democrats was the DNC meeting, where the liberal Democrats punched the left right in the mouth. That was the very first thing they did, as soon as they had the chance. Obama stood up Perez, and the DNC defenestrated Ellison. Then the DNC threw all the Sanders supporters off the Rules and Bylaws Committee, and now they’re thinking of backtracking on superdelegates.

            The liberal Democrats punched the left right in the mouth, and the left didn’t respond. The closest thing to response was Nina Turner trying to present a petition to the DNC and being rejected, and that resulted on “donut Twitter” but not much else. At the time, I thought, well, Sanders has the list, and Sanders has a forum, so OK. And maybe primary results will validate that approach.

            One alternative would have been a sitdown. Another would be to occupy the DNC headquarters and publish everything there, including whatever was on the servers. If it was possible for Republicans to stage a bourgeois riot in Florida 2000, and it’s possible for anyone. The results of taking the one punch is more punches: Another Democrat tentacle or entity, the DCCC, doing the election-rigging thing all over again, Pelosi planning 2006 all over again — House control + Blue Dogs = no governamce — and squandering another wave. The left needs to get really clear that the Democrat Party is a terrain to be won, and nothing more.
5. flora May 14, 2018 at 8:31 pm

   Don’t forget about the KS-04 Congressional race. 2017 had a special KS-04 election to fill Rep. Mike Pompeo’s seat when he was moved to the CIA by Trump. This year there’s another KS-04 election for a full term.

   https://ballotpedia.org/Kansas%27_4th_Congressional_District_election,_2018
6. Big River Bandido May 14, 2018 at 8:32 pm

   Lambert: I thoroughly agree that a candidate’s willingness to reject corporate, PAC and union contributions is the key to the entire puzzle, because in the end, those are what feed the monster. (Union contributions should also be rejected on principle. The strike-breaking efforts of Randi Weingarten and the national AFT are the clearest possible indication that union leaders are just part of the problem.)

   I do hope for divided government, but that doesn’t mean divided between Republicans and Democrats, but divided rather between those two nearly-identical groups and the left.

   I am not at all convinced that there will be a wave this fall. If the DCCC successfully shuts out Sanders-inspired candidates, they won’t have jack to run on in November. It’s not 2006, and that strategy simply will not bring out enough of the base to win this time. It’s not 2016, either, yet Democrats are yet again expecting demographics to win for them what they can’t win by actually inspiring and turning out voters.

   From what I’ve been able to tell, it appears the DCCC has been successful in shutting down challenges from the left. But there’s been a dearth of substantive reporting (lack of coverage, conflation of “Democrats”, “liberals”, “progressives” and “the left”) and I’ve not been able to follow through with how the candidates you’ve reported on have actually done. Do you suppose after the primaries are done you could do a rundown? It would certainly give us a better sense of whether the left has actually been able to make inroads, and it would also help us target our efforts toward a few authentic candidates, rather than waste time, effort and resources on fake progressives who will simply squander any gains the Democrats might make.
   1. Lambert Strether Post authorMay 15, 2018 at 5:28 am

      > I am not at all convinced that there will be a wave this fall.

      I’m not convinced either. I think we’ll know by the end of June at the latest, but if in two weeks (the next time I do on of these things) we don’t see significant movement toward the Democrats, they will have blown their opportunity. Remember the Pelosi quote I found the other day:

      “Pelosi Says Democrats Have Cash and Environment to Win House” [RealClearPolitics]. ” House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi said Sunday that House Democrats have the fundraising, the issues and the political atmosphere on their side to win back the majority in November. These factors, and an activated party base that’s helped Democrats win in special elections across the country this year are the ‘small droplets of water’ that create a wave, Pelosi said headlining a county Democratic Party banquet in Des Moines. ‘This is not going to be big margins,’ she said. ‘It is going to be small margins in many places.’” Yes. If the Democrats got big margins, they’d have to govern. Can’t have that.

      A small enough margin to avoid governing, but a big enough margin to keep the grift going while holding off the left. A delicate dance!

      > it appears the DCCC has been successful in shutting down challenges from the left.

      So far, I agree. I think the PA results (much later today) will give the first real indication. However, I also think the real challenges are happening way farther down the ticket, at the state and local level. The left has to walk before it can run! I picture the left in terms of political power as a sort of hour-glass, with Sanders (wide) at the top and a base (also wide) but an extremely narrow “waist” of people skilled in the arts of politics, especially retail politics, skilled in the art of doing more than protesting, but getting elected, doing policy, etc., etc., etc. The waist is only going to fill out with time and experience, and will also be under constant assault by liberals (which — back to the original point of the post — is why the Sandes funding model needs to be national, and not particular to the Sanders campaign).
      1. Big River Bandido May 15, 2018 at 10:39 am

         Thanks! I’ve been on the road more than at home the last 2-3 weeks, and even reading NC (much less commenting) on my phone is a drag…somehow I missed the RealClearPolitics link the first time. You’re right about the down-ticket races and the effects that will have on the future. Guess I’m just impatient.
      2. sharonsj May 15, 2018 at 11:13 am

         I’m in northeast PA. There has been little or no coverage for many local races. Local media is pretty terrible when it comes to information; I had to search the internet just to find out the candidates (only one of whom seems able to afford some TV ads) and their positions. My old district (was #10 now #12) was re-gerrymandered so it is bigger than ever (something like 15 counties lumped together). The incumbent hardly held any physical town halls previously and I expect the new size will make them impossible.

         I have seen no TV ads from the Democratic contenders. Nor have I heard them on radio (local radio is 100% conservative). Focus seems to be on senatorial and gubernatorial races. And the conservatives are trying to out-conservative each other. It’s all very depressing.
         1. crittermom May 15, 2018 at 2:10 pm

            Here in New Mexico, the TV has been flooded with ads for candidates, with all but one I’ve seen for Dems. Most are mimicking Bernie in wanting $15 min wage, denying any corporate money, Medicare for all, & other policies.
            There’s one Native American woman running for Congress I currently like (more research to be done), as well as someone running for another position that’s even backed by Our Revolution.
            I have much research to do yet before voting.

            Too bad NM doesn’t exist politically, but it’s encouraging to hear these candidates.
7. Webstir May 15, 2018 at 12:57 am

   The only dangerous minority is the rich.

   These days, a democrat is just a republican in sheep’s clothing. They both prostrate themselves before the spiders in Italian clothing.
   (Wilco shout-out): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yc5BgR8Cz5A

   Tell everyone you know …

   The only dangerous minority is the rich.
8. Odysseus May 15, 2018 at 3:14 am

   3) “Wouldn’t it be better if all political campaigns were funded by people, and only by people, who can only afford to pay $27? Sanders proved it can be done, so why aren’t you doing it?”

   It’s not clear that this can be done at the Congressional level. President is a special race in a number of ways. Downballot races see a significant drop-off in voting.

   It seems sane that that also translates into a funding enthusiasm gap. If the star power isn’t there, the funding will not follow.

   For one example, New Jersey Presidential and Senate elections in 2012.
   3.6M total votes for President
   https://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/state.php?year=2012&fips=34&off=0&f=1
   3.3M total votes for Senator
   https://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/state.php?year=2012&fips=34&off=3&class=1&f=1

   Damned near 10% of the people who walked into the voting booth couldn’t be bothered to make a second check mark. And notice that the drop-off isn’t partisan.

   You see the same issue in midterms. Roughly 30% of voters don’t vote unless the President is on the ballot. Governor and Senator elections simply do not draw the same number of voters.
   1. Lambert Strether Post authorMay 15, 2018 at 5:30 am

      >It’s not clear that this can be done at the Congressional level.

      “We must do it whether it can be done or not.” –Catullus
   2. Auntienene May 15, 2018 at 8:41 am

      NJ-11 here. It wasn’t that I couldn’t be bothered to vote for senator, it was that I had no good choices (voted third party for president). Since then I changed my registration to Unaffiliated.

      Looking at the district candidates today, I still don’t have any good choices. Medicare for all, social liberal, fiscal centrist, hopes to appeal to conservatives, blah, blah, blah. Or healthcare is a right so strengthen Obamacare, affordable, blah, blah, blah. I don’t feel any desire to re-register as a democrat to vote for any of these people in the primary.
   3. Big River Bandido May 15, 2018 at 10:52 am

      There’s too much emphasis on money in political races to begin with.

      Plus, the more “downticket” you go, the less important money becomes. What good are consultants in a school board race? (And what high-powered consultant would even bother?) And when your “district” covers only a few square miles, you don’t need expensive advertising or a travel budget. At that point, it really does become all about issues, reaching out to neighbors, and getting them to vote. Such a small percentage of eligible voters even come out for local elections, making the threshold for election quite small.

      A candidate in a local race needs very little money to do all the hard work of organization — and in fact, not even a toilet full of money is much help in those circumstances because “infrastructure” that is *purchased* to run a local campaign cannot replicate the genuine enthusiasm of *inspired* volunteers. The latter counts much more in local races.
      1. Lambert Strether Post authorMay 16, 2018 at 5:38 am

         Thinking more about this, there are two sides:

         1) Need to raise on small donations. This needs to be nationalized and separated from liberals

         2) Rhetorically, start calling out the big money for what it is: The donor class purchasing a service from the electeds. In debates (or in YouTubes of debates with empty chairs)

         Left: “[Ms./Mr] Liberal candidate, you have taken money from the DCCC’s Red-to-Blue program. That means you’ve committed to spending four hours a day on the phone servicing high-dollar donors as a candidate and if elected. Do you intend to honor that commitment?” (And a follow-up….)

         Liberal: “Ah, um…”

         I don’t think policy alone makes it, very sadly.
9. skippy May 15, 2018 at 4:37 am

   I’m always reminded of Bush Jr first tour of duty after stealing Gores climate and environmental platform, seemed even somewhat ready to follow through – initially. At least until the wise men gave him the Presidential level briefing and we know what followed – no kid left behind, clean [tm] air and water act and a plethora of other goodies like forgoing the FBI warning on mortgage fraud – priorities’ precluded action.

   I hope all can forgive me, but until the wise men are sorted be it the apparition of others desires or some other similar construct the political avenue will have spastic results [Lambert is going to kill me].

   BTW I love your formatting Lambert, Kudos.
10. ObjectiveFunction May 15, 2018 at 6:49 am

    To quote our reverend Archdruid from some time ago:

    “Democracy is one of the few systems of government in which the rich aren’t automatically the ones who make collective decisions. In a hereditary aristocracy, say, the people who have the political authority also have most of the national wealth, and thus can afford the disdain for the merely rich that aristocrats so often affect.

    “In a democracy, by contrast, there are always people who have wealth but want influence, and people who have power but want money, and the law of supply and demand takes it from there.

    “Those who claim that the existence of political corruption in America shows that it’s no longer a democracy thus have the matter exactly backwards; it’s precisely because American national, state and local governments are more or less democratic that corruption flourishes here, as it has in nearly every other democracy on record.”

    http://www.resilience.org/stories/2011-04-20/alternatives-nihilism-part-two-lead-us-away-here/

Comments are closed.