Thursday, January 21, 2010

More cruising the web

Larry Sabato delivers some sobering predictions to the Democrats. He estimates that, if the election were held today, the Democrats would lose seven more seats. He predicts that, in the wake of Massachusetts' election, some previously thought safe, could be endangered if there is a wave election against the Democrats.
Among the senators who could be endangered by a new wave of Republican entries are Evan Bayh (Indiana), Kirsten Gillibrand (New York), Patty Murray (Washington), and Russ Feingold (Wisconsin).
I'd add in Barbara Boxer in California.

Victor Davis Hanson gives his analysis to explain the backlash against Obama and the Democrats. Apparently, Obama still hasn't learned the lesson that he should stop trying to blame everything on Bush.
No one likes a serial whiner. It has been a year now — and Obama still blames George W. Bush ad nauseam. He did it in Massachusetts again — and on the eve of the election, no less. Blaming the past for the mistakes of the present gets old quickly. And when one adds in the constant What’s the Matter With Kansas? brand of condescension about na├»ve yokels not knowing what’s good for them, it gets even worse.
And Obama is going exactly the other way when it comes to bashing Wall Street and entrepreneurs.
Elite liberals are not good class warriors. Factor in multi-millionaire Nancy Pelosi’s government mega-jet or Barack Obama’s various overseas junkets or the big Wall Street money that went into Obama’s near billion-dollar campaign coffers, and it is hard to take seriously Obama’s constant war against “them.” The voters have figured out that their president likes the elite plutocracy and the lower middle classes, but not so much the wannabe rich who aspire to cross his hated $250,000 income threshold — at which point suddenly they become unpatriotic, unwilling to pay their fair shares, and reluctant to spread the wealth around.

It is not particularly smart to constantly demonize the entrepreneurial classes, promise to raise income, payroll, health-care, and inheritance taxes on them, and expand government regulations — and then wonder why they are not creating more jobs.
Read the rest.

The White House and Obama seem to think that the Democrats wouldn't be facing all this skepticism from the American people if Obama could just explain things better to everyone. Oh, please! You can barely turn on your TV or pass a magazine rack without hearing or seeing Barack Obama. As Jim Geraghty writes,
Really? This guy’s been on the television more than the Geico lizard, morning, noon and night, and the only time he stopped talking to the American people was the three days or so that we really wanted to hear from him, when somebody tried to blow up a flight to Detroit on Christmas. It’s not the lack of talk, Mr. President, it’s what you’re doing.
Geraghty then follows Drudge's link to this tally of how much we've been hearing from the President.
• Includes 52 addresses or statements specifically on his health care proposals.
• He used a TelePrompTer at least 178 times.
Go over to CBS to see the contrast with Bush's numbers from the first year.

And now we're going to hear from him more this year?! What fun. He's going to be the new Billy Mays on our television sets all year long.

Robert Costa writes about the importance of a politician having a good temperament. That was one of the big pluses for Scott Brown. He seemed like a good-natured guy that you might want to hang out with. He didn't betray bitterness, anger, or cynicism. That was appealing to voters. Republicans need to look for other politicians who have strong personal appeal. It's a rare quality in anyone, especially politicians.

William Jacobson has a serious warning for future Republican candidates based on what the left will have learned from their failure in bringing down Scott Brown. Never expect your opponents not to learn from earlier mistakes. Just as in war, the losers go to school and change their tactics and the winners remain complacent and vulnerable in the next war, so it is with political campaigns. One of Jacobson's warnings really seems on target. The left tried to make a big deal of someone screaming out at a Brown rally that someone "shove a curling up HER butt." Everyone was making noise and shouting out and Brown doesn't seem to have heard that particular scream out and he continues on with his speech. But Keith Olbermann and the left made a big deal about this. It didn't work because it happened so close to the election and didn't make it into the bloodstream of the campaign. But we can expect to see activists showing up at political rallies earlier in campaigns this Fall to see if they can scream out something damaging and then ream out the candidate who doesn't reach to what he didn't hear. I'm not sure how candidates protect themselves against that sort of action, but they need to think about it. Maybe have a taping done close to the candidate to make it clear that such shout-outs from the middle of a crowd are very hard to hear at such events. And be sure to respond and chastise any such statements that they do hear and encourage supporters to avoid dirty attacks on their opponents.