Bad News Bears

Related Post Roulette

12 Responses

  1. Jason Arvak says:

    So, your theory of what drives the Republican Party is that losing makes them go crazy but that winning makes them go MORE crazy?

    Such non-analysis seems pretty partisan and unhinged in and of itself.Report

    • Jamelle in reply to Jason Arvak says:

      Uh. I think this is pretty simple actually. Republicans went crazy for a reason – to win elections. If they win elections – but don’t flip either chamber – it stands to reason that they will go even more crazy, in an attempt to win more elections.Report

  2. I tend to think that the further out of power a party is, the crazier it will act in order to rally its base. It will be able to make electoral gains on that basis alone. It will also win votes from independents so long as the party in power screws up, which is pretty much what parties in power do, no matter how crazy the party out of power acts.Report

  3. I think the real story since Obama took office 9and really before if you look at the Democratic gains in 2006) is the rise of the Blue Dogs. They have an incredible amount of power right now and my sense of things from out here in middle America is that they are among the few elected officials in Washington that have positive approval from their voters. The Blue Dogs took gun control off the table for Obama’s first term and they are also the ones that are holding up healthcare reform (despite liberal claims to the contrary). The more that Democrats want the more power they give to these guys.

    They are also accomplishing a lot on the agriculture front. So much that some are starting to call them Agricrats.


  4. Trumwill says:

    If the Blue Dogs are as popular as Mike says, then the Democrats should do okay in 2010 since they are the ones in the most conservative districts and are thus the most vulnerable. As likely as not, though, it’s the Blue Dogs that are going to pay for the “sins of the masters”. I guess it all depends on whether applicable voters actually know if their local congressmen are, in fact, Blue Dogs.Report

    • Mark Thompson in reply to Trumwill says:

      Publius at ObWi ran the numbers on this a few weeks ago and found out that, yes, the Blue Dogs are on average far more vulnerable than the vast majority of Dem congressman. This doesn’t mean they’re unpopular, though, just more vulnerable. If they’re popular, they’re popular in much the same way that Linc Chafee was popular. If the party in power does stuff to sufficiently anger the other party’s base in those districts, then the personal popularity of the congressman/senator becomes a lot less important than the letter next to his name. And that’s true even if that congressman/senator opposed the action that created the anger in the first place.Report

  5. North says:

    Lord I hope Mike is wrong. Agricultural subsidies protected by democrats, the majority knocked into disarray by blue dogs and republicans being electorally rewarded for their frothing? Hopefully Obama has a plan and all of this is just August blues.Report

  6. A.R.Yngve says:

    I thought Nurglon was dead and buried after the 2008 election… but lo and behold, is the monster’s corpse stirring?

    God help us all.Report