Monday, September 27, 2010

UK: Democratic party is in meltdown

The meltdown

First, all winning presidential candidates see their popularity drop upon election. Only a catastrophic event mitigates this.

Second, the 2012 election is miles away.

Third, well, I should have a third caveat but I don't. Sorry.

That said, from Bill Kristol: "It would be unbecoming for us at The Weekly Standard​ — we do have to uphold standards, after all! — to chortle with glee as the Democratic party melts down. It would be unkind to whoop at the top of our lungs as Obama White House big shots quit or get fired, and to cheer with gusto as the GOP leadership behaves sensibly, the Tea Party goes from strength to strength, and momentum builds towards a huge Election Day repudiation of big government liberalism.

"So, instead, we'll simply point out, calmly and quietly, that the Democratic party is in meltdown, the Obama White House is in disarray, and the voters are in rebellion against both of them."

Now why would he write that? Sure, the polls all point to a Speaker of the House John Boehner in January and at least a 7-seat loss in the Senate. Sure, if the 2008 election were held today, Public Policy Polling finds that Obama would lose 2, 3 or 4 of the six Big Ten states that he won in 2008. Sure, Obamacare is a dirty word on the campaign trail.

But go by the actions of the politicians, not the poll numbers.

And we see the White House's economic team headed for the door and David Axelrod headed home and Rahm Emanuel will follow him to Chicago to run for mayor.

Barney Frank brought in Bill Clinton — not Barack Obama — to stump for him. Say, why does Barney Frank feel the need to bring anyone in this close to the election?

From Bill Kristol: "It looks as if 2010 will be a bigger electoral landslide than 1994, and more significant as well. But the true significance of 2010 will be to lay the groundwork for an even bigger victory in 2012—a victory that would allow President Obama to follow the example of so many of his senior staff, and depart the White House sooner than he once expected."

I have been saying there is a possibility that this could turn into 1894 — when Republicans took 125 seats in the House.

There are parallels. Democrats took over Congress because of wild spending by a Republican president. Two years later a Democrat became president. The economy tanked and the people turned to the Republicans.

And in 1896, Republican William McKinley became president. Grover Cleveland did not adapt to the situation and Barack Obama is even less savvy.

We are still more than a month out. Imagine a snowball on top of a hill. It may melt but it looks like it is about to roll.

UPDATE: Linked by Glenn Reynolds. Thanks.


Post a Comment

<< Home