Bloodless Coup

Dude, happy doctorization!

There's a congratulatory package coming your way -- expect it midweek.

Cool. I have tests to grade, but somehow my heart really isn't in it. Some sort of diversion will be fine.

Nice to have you back Baltar. I agree with most of what you wrote (and does THAT ever make for a sad world) but I strongly disagree on one point.

I find the idea of party political platforms silly at a national convention. I find them utterly ludicrous when you are talking about a group of people who hold no power whatsoever in DC, and are the much more "big tent" party to begin with. Say some party mandarins do make a "plan"? Do they represent the party? And who the hell will care? Democratic candidates aren't obligated to back it. And should the Dems miraculously win some power, there's no reason to think they'll successfully implement it (heck, the GOP has ruled the House for 12 years and their contract - which was certainly not the key reason behind their '94 victories - hasn't been fully implemented). Plus I think people who are advocating a consistent plan or message are missing (or not paying enough attention to) two fundamental things that shape US elections:

#1 - We are saddled with an individual candidate-based electoral system. So what you need to do is find inspiring, competent candidates - not write a raft of vacuous position papers that won't make a damn bit of substantive difference.
Well, that or rewrite the constitution to make us ruled like the Brits are ruled. THEN party platforms would matter. But now, not so much.

#2 - This presumes people actually vote on the basis of words and message. For that small group that actually varies their vote (between one party and the other) depending on the election cycle - a lot of that variation is driven by emotional variables that message papers either can't address, or do so only in tangential ways.

So, weel, there are millions of Democrats out there - so I don't see why you can't also see a lot of variation in the messages they put forward.

[All that said, if I was running this year I'd be playing up the "Culture of Corruption" and "For the people, not the powerful" cards - given the offenses of this administration, the ads write themselves, and they hit all the right emotional buttons to push voters toward favoring change.]

Oh, and no Iraq doesn't have a government - yet. They've got a prime minister selected, but the rest of the jobs haven't been assigned yet and might not be for a couple more weeks.

Armand, that may be true of the system, but that doesn't change the realities on the ground. While the "race" to take back the House/Senate is (in fact) just a bunch of individual races in districts/states, a genuine party platform can help (or lack of one can hurt) canidates: see GOP in 1994 with the Contract. They had a unified message, and it worked to their advantage. I'm convinced that a unified Democratic message - one as simple as "Culture of Corruption", if you want - would help rally people across the country. As it stands, there isn't a unified oppositional message. Remember - Iraq is (likely) the big issue, and until the people know what the Dems plan is (or some sort of vague ideas that resemble a plan), how can they know what they are voting for? Is it wholesale withdrawl? Negotiated settlements? Phased withdrawl? That lack of clarity will translate to Republican votes (at least you know what they stand for).

OK, we are just going to disagree here. I think more than anything else the Democrats just need to get out of the way and let the Republicans implode. Big sea-change swing elections (and that's what the Dem's have to have to win back even one house of Congress) are won on the basis of the failures of incumbents, not on the basis of policy position papers by the challenger: 1974 - anti-Nixon, 1978 and 1980 - Carter's failures, 1986 - Iran-Contra, 1994 - gays in the military and Hillary. I don't think the literature shows that the Contract With America actually moved all that many votes - though it's existence allowed Gingrich to claim he'd won a mandate for big changes. The Paradox of Mass Politics's data clearly shows that even in the 1980 landslide, on the policy issues themselves the public preferred Carter's views to Reagan's - but their loss of confidence in Carter and in his ability to manage the government sunk him and his party.

So if the goal is ousting a disliked or reviled incumbent (or incumbent party) I think you're much more likely to win if you focus on that disliked incumbent's failures instead of trying to make the race about yourself. You are on winning ground there b/c the incumbent is already disliked.

Focus on publicizing your own policies after you've won and actually have the ability to change a thing or two.

And I think it's an especially bad idea for the Democrats to try to "solve" Iraq and make that the centerpiece of their campaign. Unfortunately Bush is in power for almost 3 more years, and as long as he's there, their ability to shape Iraq policy will be extremely limited. If you're going to focus on policy changes, it's a better idea to focus on one you might actually be able to deliver on prior to the 2008 election (like addressing the Culture of Corruption).

Bro,
I think you're ignoring more recent history. The most consistent attack thrown at Kerry in his (losing) bid for the Presidency was that he was a flip flopper, that he didn't stand for anything. The attack strategy you're suggesting didn't work in 2004. I think elements of it can work if another alternative was offered at the time, such as Powell coming out saying how he wanted more troops on the ground in Iraq. He's stating what he would have done differently to avoid the current political unrest in Iraq, distancing himself from what are perceived to be Bush's failures, probably in a bid to set himself up for an 08 run.
But for them to run against Bush is pointless, because as you often say about Clinton, Bush isn't running. And the least productive alternative is to elect a Congress with a mandate to gridlock the President and nothing else. Plus there's also the devil you know thing, that people are more comfortable with even a President of whom they don't approve than a party that's distinctly afraid to say what it stands for. If the Democrats believe in what they're doing and they believe the country will support what they will do, why hold back on it? If they can't get organized even enough to outline a few things on which they agree, what will that mean when they come to power? Gridlock.

I don't see how 2004 proves anything - the idea is to do what it takes to get a party out of power, to affect change, and in 2004 they failed to do that.

Much of the poli sci lit shows that at least when it comes to presidential elections, who the challengers are WHEN THERE IS AN INCUMBENT, makes only marginal difference. Most people vote on the basis of the current face they know (voting up or down on their job performance). What challenger X says or believes doesn't make much of a difference (this is one of the reasons I think I reasonable case can be made for having only single-term presidents, though you might want to change how long they serve - re-election elections are rarely about the same kind of substantive exchange of ideas that open-seat races are).

And of course Bush isn't on the ballot - but he's still the incumbent and in this year's race's the elections will still largely (if the usual trend hold) be determined by whether or not the voters are satisfied with the incumbent's job performance. In fact, this is likely all the more true this year since the Republicans control every branch of government - they can't (you'd think) not be found responsible for DC's actions or inactions. And since Congress's Republians have generally been controled by the White House, running a campaign against Bush (though also against DeLay, Frist, and whoever is in district X) will be rather effective.

If voters generally decide on the basis of their evaluation of the incumbent - and their evaluation is already highly negative - why on Earth should challengers take the focus off the unpopular incumbent? Elections are about winning and politics - not about white papers. No one reads those (well, maybe C-SPAN fans, but they don't determine who wins).

As to your last comments - why does the existence of these plans or their absence have anything to do with "gridlock"? 1) In many cases that's what you've got now with an all-GOP DC. 2) Gridlock's not always a bad thing. 3)Just b/c Dems agree on a policy in May 2006 doesn't mean they'll agree on it in January 2007 (b/c you know key events might happen in the interim, especially on Iraq). 4) And no matter what the Dems want, and the public supports - Bush has all kinds of levers to block that until January 2009.

I say let the voters in Missouri vote on the issues raised by the candidates in their races. Same thing in Rhode Island. And Montana. B/c different issues matter to different voters and places. That said, I still think "Culture of Corruption" is the way to go for the overall theme if the DC Democrats insist on having a theme.

I'm happy to agree to disagree. A party platform isn't necessary, but in "systemic" changes in Congress have generally coincided with both a failing party in power as well as a general public perception that the other party offers a positive vision for change. I'll grant that policy platforms and specific proposals won't change people's minds, but without them the party has no driving vision (and so can't offer a resolute alternative to the flailing/failing party in power). Or, look at it as without the alternative vision the party in power doesn't seem to be failing as much. Thus, the crisis is really generated when the out-of-power-party can mount the sustained, consistent challenge to the party in power. Whatever else Gingrich's faults, the "Contract with America" did get votes in 1994, and did help move the Republcans into a position to run their vision.

Morris, I'd pay seriously good money to get gridlock in DC these days. Letting the Republicans pass whatever they have wanted for five years has been pretty bad; preventing Congress from doing anything is likely to improve policy.

Baltar speaks like a true libertarian (or John McLaughlin) - "preventing Congress from doing anything is likely to improve policy".

And sure, we'll just disagee, but when I look at the big 6th-year swings against a president and his party (1986, 1974, 1958, to some extent 1966) I think those swings were much more about tossing the bums out that pro whatever the out-party's message was. And it could be that the out-party's insistence on highlighting themselves and their policies in 1998 played a part in why you didn't see the same kind of incumbent party losses in 1998 (as once the people had really looked at Gingrich and impeachment and everything they really weren't all that impressed).