I'm not one to think that one night's election results portends some dramatic shift in the electorate. But in light of the dramatic thumping of anti-union legislation in Ohio, or the rejection of a personhood amendment in socially conservative Mississippi, or the defeat in Arizona of anti-immigration crusader Russell Pearce in a special election by a Republican candidate with more moderate opinions on the issue, it's hard not to ask some questions.
I don't know that last night means that people are eager to suddenly embrace Democrats. The American populace has had electoral PMS since 2006. It's crabby, it's irrational, it cries a lot, it feels bad for itself. It hates Republicans, so it votes for Democrats. Then it decides it hates Democrats, so it votes for Republicans. There's a real lack of clear-minded consistency out there among voters.
However, I do wonder if some of what we saw last night isn't a sign that, just as Democrats did in 2009, Republicans also made the mistake of viewing their big win the year before as some kind of mandate for change as opposed to taking it as merely a sign of frustration with the other party.
(Also, I don't buy that what happened in Ohio necessary translates to bad news for Scott Walker. In the end, you can't beat the incumbent with the often-polled generic candidate. The Democrats still need to find a willing and competent body to carry the torch, and until that happens I think speculation is pointless. If the Democrats are dumb enough to think they've got so much momentum that they can win with someone like Dave Obey, I think they're nuts.)
3 comments:
I think this is an indication that voters would like things to swing back to the sensible center, and I agree that both parties overreach when they dominate an election. They see it as a mandate instead of voter frustration. Agree too that if a recall occurs, the Dems will have to run a decent candidate to win, and not some rematch vs. Tom Barrett.
I think this is an indication that voters would like things to swing back to the sensible center
Problem is voters are too stupid to understand that flipping back & forth between right and left to cancel each other out is not the same thing as voting for decent moderate candidates (assuming such creatures actually exist).
I still say strip the party identifier off the ballots. Better yet make every race write-in. Gotta actually know the names to cast your vote.
Walker's biggest problem is that he is the prickly, arrogant, always partsian, never smiling Scott Walker- the voters thought he was the nice, common sense, working together Scott Walker. When 45-47 percent of the electorate says they have a strong dislike of you as a person, then you need to change. However, Walker is in a vacuum with no advisors to tell him no or that is really dumb. Walker will lose by 65 percent if he keeps up with the stupid message of its working- when month after month after month the job losses go up and up and up. Walker is doomed to failure with his merry band of morons if there is no change.
Post a Comment