The PCTC Blog

Swing Voters DO Exist -- Why Progressives Lose at Politics

I had another post planned for today, but I just saw something in my Facebook feed that made me do a double take. It’s from a post at Down With Tyranny, a blog run by my friend Howie Klein. This post is not his, however; it’s written by Ken, whose last name I won’t share, because he doesn’t share it on the blog.

To repeat: Dems and R's don't "swing" a lump of voters back and forth; they compete for different "independents"

Ken apparently takes issue with the very concept of the swing voter, and asserts the following, in a rehash of one of his previous posts on the same blog:

(I disagree with the assumption) that the same voters, not to be confused with the same percentages, flipped D to R. Some did, no doubt. But to a large extent, it wasn't the same independents in the D column in 2008 and the R column in 2010. An awful lot of the "D independents" from 2008 stayed home in 2010, and "R independents" who hadn't shown up in 2008 returned to the polls in 2010.

Though the above is extremely misguided, Ken then asserts the following:

10 Truths Every "Progressive" Had Better Learn for 2012 and Beyond

Albert Einstein once defined “insanity” as “doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.”

He also said, “Man should look for what is, and not for what he thinks should be.”

I think everyone will agree that Einstein was a smart guy about most things, not just relativity. It is in that vein that I pose some simple questions for left wingers.

When did the political junkies on the left – unfortunately, the loudest of our ideology – become so goddamned stupid, politically speaking?

Why are so many people with little or no expertise – just a goddamn blog or a radio show – looked upon as icons by so many of these idiots?

Given that the left has been on the outside looking in, politically speaking, for forty goddamned years, at what point do we reassess our “strategy,” (and yes, I use the term loosely), because it’s obviously not working?

Lastly, when in God’s name will this loud and very stupid segment of the far left EVER figure out that we live in a democracy, that we are not the majority, and that the reason why we almost never win elections is because no one likes the far left very much?

So, we have a deal

Certainly less than perfect, but not as bad as it could have been (or was rumored to be).

 

And if you're on unemployment, I would imagine this looks pretty good.

 

Frankly, I was pretty ambivalent about things.  Krugman wrote this morning (I believe, correctly) that we can't afford the Bush tax cuts if they're extended permanently, and that keeping them in place will bankrupt the government (probably as part of a deliberate effort to kill major government programs like Social Security).  At the same time, he acknowledged that now is a bad time to increase taxes.  So, it seems to me that a temporary extension isn't a bad choice.  Combined with a temporary reduction in payroll taxes and an extension of unemployment insurance, you're talking some economic stimulus.

 

Yes, we'll be fighting this fight all over again in two years.  In the meantime, the economy should continue to improve, the job situation will hopefully do likewise, and it will be harder to argue in favor of continuing the tax cuts.

 

What's more, with the GOP fighting for tax cuts now, it's hard to argue that we need to deal with the deficit as an urgent matter, which should make spending cuts tougher to sell.

 

Does that mean I have great faith that the Democrats will be able to kill the tax cuts in two years?  Nope.  I agree that the current crop of Dems are not bare-knuckle types.  On the other hand, the current crop of GOP'ers are, quite simply, batshit insane and more concerned about hurting Obama and Democrats than with the good of the country.

 

So, we'll see what will happen.  But in my opinion, the current deal, in and of itself, is not a terrible thing.

Tired of the hysterics

As someone who is involved with negotiations for a living, I'm pretty familiar with all that goes into it -- all the compromises, the deals, and the limitations.

 

So, it's become more and more frustrating to see much of the commentary coming from the left over the last couple of years.

 

The latest freak-out, of course, is over tax cuts: the GOP is betting that the Dems don't want to blow up the economy, and is betting the Dems think they'll be blamed if taxes go up.  Both bets, in this media environment, are good ones.  But to hear many on the left tell it, if Dems don't hold the line on this, the left will give up on Democrats en masse (the latest of such "tests" the left has thrown up).

 

I've frequented blog communities on the left for years.  But it's sure becoming difficult to spend time on many of them, where attacking Obama and the Democrats has become the new black.  It's a sure-fire ticket to the "recommended diary list" on Daily Kos, and a great way to increase readership in many places.

 

In my opinion, this is simply the latest example of the left cutting off its nose to spite its face.  Instead of addressing the real problem (the media and political zeitgeist in which we find ourselves) and holding the line elsewhere, liberals would instead prefer to attack Democrats for not having solved all the world's problems, and anyone who defends them as sell-outs.

 

Liberals simply have to start thinking long-term.  And no, we don't have to sell out our principles to do it.  This is a matter of strategy and patience, not ideology.  Someday, liberals will get that -- and on that day, we'll start winning.

 

 

Political reality

Here's a good read from Nate Silver on where things stand ini the tax cut debate, and why Democrats may not have a lot of options open to them.

And here's an interesting idea that might provide Democrats another path.