The Dems dirty political secret
The political layout for 2008 looks to be this: The political shape of the Iraq debate (Republicans want Iraq, Dems don't) is likely to carry the Dems to larger majorities in the House and Senate and likely will win them the presidency.
No shocker there. But ask yourself what 2008 might look like if they actually took some steps to end the war?
Right now, the Dems find themselves with a winning constituency of antiwar Dems and a big majority of antiwar independents, and, although that constituency might favor ending the war, to actually do so would be a political risk.
The cold truth is that within this political mood the Dems are at far more risk of losing the independents than the antiwar Dems. The antiwar Dems will stick with their party and vote for Dem candidates because they have nowhere else to go, but the independents could easily shift their perceptions if the Dems forced a drawdown and things go badly.
I don't believe that the Dems are intentionally tanking Iraq legislation to maintain this situation, but frankly, there's nowhere for the Dems to go but down on the Iraq issue.
Right now they've staked out the middle on the dominating issue of our day, it's not really in their interests to take steps to resolve it.
It's interesting to watch the Dem presidential candidates play this game. It is utterly key that they continue the perception that they would end the war, but, at the same time, avoid any vote losing explanations of how they would actually do it.
The cold reality is that the Dems are far better off with the perception that they will end the war than if they actually ended the war.
If only you voted out a few more Republicans......
(And maybe I should mention the Republican Iraq quagmire. I'll do that later or tomorrow.)
(Spawned by the combination of the WaPo frontpager Most in Poll Want War Funding Cut: Bush's Approval Rating Ties All-Time Low and its associated polling graphs, and the AP, Senate approves $150 billion in war funding 92-3.)
No shocker there. But ask yourself what 2008 might look like if they actually took some steps to end the war?
Right now, the Dems find themselves with a winning constituency of antiwar Dems and a big majority of antiwar independents, and, although that constituency might favor ending the war, to actually do so would be a political risk.
The cold truth is that within this political mood the Dems are at far more risk of losing the independents than the antiwar Dems. The antiwar Dems will stick with their party and vote for Dem candidates because they have nowhere else to go, but the independents could easily shift their perceptions if the Dems forced a drawdown and things go badly.
I don't believe that the Dems are intentionally tanking Iraq legislation to maintain this situation, but frankly, there's nowhere for the Dems to go but down on the Iraq issue.
Right now they've staked out the middle on the dominating issue of our day, it's not really in their interests to take steps to resolve it.
It's interesting to watch the Dem presidential candidates play this game. It is utterly key that they continue the perception that they would end the war, but, at the same time, avoid any vote losing explanations of how they would actually do it.
The cold reality is that the Dems are far better off with the perception that they will end the war than if they actually ended the war.
If only you voted out a few more Republicans......
(And maybe I should mention the Republican Iraq quagmire. I'll do that later or tomorrow.)
(Spawned by the combination of the WaPo frontpager Most in Poll Want War Funding Cut: Bush's Approval Rating Ties All-Time Low and its associated polling graphs, and the AP, Senate approves $150 billion in war funding 92-3.)
posted by mikevotes at
7:52 AM
4 Comments:
I agree with your assessment in pragmatic terms. By setting up vote after vote, and having the Republicans shoot it down, Iraq becomes the Republican's war completely. What a gift to the Democrats! I was really worried that the Republicans would back away from Iraq (and Bush) to steal the independents, but they are going down with the ship instead.
The GOP is more terrified of losing their base than they are of losing the White House. They have built up an artificial reality that tells them the public supports the Iraq occupation, just as Bush lives in his own delusional world.
We can expect widespread voter caging and other dirty tricks to keep people from voting, however.
By
Todd Dugdale , at 8:58 AM
I didn't want to go on too long, so I thought I'd break out the Republicans for another time, but the Republicans find themselves trapped by the politics of Iraq.
A clear majority of Republican party voters still support the war, so individual republican candidates are trapped between angering republicans or angering independents. They're in a now in. The districts need to be about 65/35 for a prowar stance to get a majority.
And the Republican presidential candidates are even worse off because they have to win primaries of the most Republican of Republican voters, and then pivot to face a general election where that position is poison.
(And, dirty is all they've got left.)
By
mikevotes, at 9:07 AM
It will be interesting to see what the Dems do about the war AFTER they get elected. My guess is not much but the pressure may increase.
By
Anonymous, at 9:30 AM
I would guess alot of language about a "change of mission."
It's really hard to predict too much because 15 months is a long, long time in Iraq and the conditions will be different.
By
mikevotes, at 11:31 AM
Post a Comment
<< Home