Danger looms for leaderless Democrats

chrisdoidge Tue Nov 07, 2006 at 01:04:19 PM GMT Print-friendly version Facebook

The United States goes to the polls today to elect a new House of Representatives and one-third of the Senate. It's a make-or-break moment for both parties, but could yield greater dangers for the Democrats if they fail to make the most of their opportunity.



They're expected to take the House of Representatives, and have an outside chance of grabbing the Senate too. But such high expectations mean that anything less will be seen as a victory for George Bush's party. And the potential pitfalls don't end late tonight.

If the Democrats gain the House, they'll surely use their position - which as Adam Brookes points out isn't that powerful - to initiate inquries into everything that took place over the last 6 years under George Bush. So we'll see inquiries into Iraq, Afghanistan, global warming and anything else Bush has cocked up (a potentially long list).

But they risk being so righteous that they make themselves unelectable. Come 2008, with a Presidential election and a real chance to take the Senate - and the Democrats might have squandered their chances by appearing to be universally negative and leaving little time to invent ideas of their own.

They won't win an election by posturing and screaming at the Republicans. They need ideas - on Iraq, Afghanistan, and of course global warming - they need leadership (as Martin Kettle also argues) and they need to start thinking on their feet. (From www.chrisdoidge.co.uk)



tags: , (all tags)

Display: Sort:
Danger looms for leaderless Democrats | 10 comments (10 topical)

Re: Danger looms for leaderless Democrats (#1)

by swatantra on Tue Nov 07, 2006 at 05:09:30 PM GMT

A good night for the DEMS?


Re: Danger looms for leaderless Democrats (#2)

by pauldburgin on Wed Nov 08, 2006 at 08:27:07 AM GMT

No danger that I can see, Looks like the Republicans have been Bushwacked! ;)


[ Parent ]

Re: Danger looms for leaderless Democrats (#3)

by Mark Wadsworth on Wed Nov 08, 2006 at 10:32:05 AM GMT

A good night for the Dem's = a bad night for a party that has been in power too long and is getting bogged down in all sorts of corruption and scandals and affairs and collossal mismanagement (for example Iraq).

And these very Republicans slagged off Clinton (by default the best president ever, maybe he was just lucky) for being sleazy.

Should I bother drawing parallels with Labour vs Tories?


Re: Danger looms for leaderless Democrats (#4)

by swatantra on Wed Nov 08, 2006 at 11:58:04 AM GMT

Leaderless? Its one of the consequences of their presidential system, that there is no one recognised leader to rally behind, until after the Democratic Primaries and the Convention, about a year before the election itself. So who can they turn to? God knows. Hillary or Obahma?
We have it much easier and can slag off Cameron and his second rate front bench team.


[ Parent ]

Re: Danger looms for leaderless Democrats (#5)

by Jag Singh on Wed Nov 08, 2006 at 03:05:04 PM GMT

I have to disagree. Congressman Emanuel and Senator Schumer ran a brilliant nationalised election, and did what leaders are supposed to do: take helm of a boat and make it sail all the way.

The Democrats strategy was to run a 50-state game with a sense of shrewd authority. You don't need to run a high-profile leader when all that person would do is take the spotlight off the President.

And they didn't need any new ideas - the ideas were already there: It wasn't about moving to the left, or pandering to an unusually loud base (bloggers, evangelicals, et al) - it was about winning the 15 seats that are necessary to better position the party for a successfully 2008 Presidential bid. For example, Jim Webb (Virginia senate seat probable) actually worked for President Reagan. A bold move, but also a brilliant move when you think about the strategic implications of putting up a winnable candidate and supporting 'em all the way through.


Re: Danger looms for leaderless Democrats (#6)

by AJScobbie on Wed Nov 08, 2006 at 06:52:32 PM GMT

Why is it that the media is awash with commentary about the Dems not over stepping the mark with oversight of Bush?

Has everyone forgotten what happened between 1994-2000 with the hunting of Clinton? Its clear that they should not go as OTT as the Republicans did back then but they are quite within their right to launch investigations into the illegal wiretapping, Iraq and other debacles.


[ Parent ]

Re: Danger looms for leaderless Democrats (#7)

by Loz on Wed Nov 08, 2006 at 08:10:31 PM GMT

I'll probably be the only one to express dissapointment with these election.

No, not because I'm a 'republican' as such, but really because of my position on the war on terror where I see vast differences between the two approaches.

And I wouldn't align myself too much with the democrats either.

You might slam me for siding with the american conservative party, but the democratic party is far from being a labour like party.

For example they have fielded dozens of successful candidates in this campaign that are anti abortion, anti gay marriage and just as hawkish as the neo cons, only they dissaprove of the iraq war.

The dems have one by stealth and whether rightly or wrongly ridden the backs of a few corrupt republicans.

Its easy to see the gop as the source of dirty campaigning but the democrats fought fire with fire this campaign.

Hopefully they can move forward for the worlds saks and fix iraq for the better.

Bush appears to have 'pushed' rumsfeld and reports suggest bolton at the UN could be next.

If we are all so well intentioned, then SURELY we can all hope they work together for the better of the world.

If it was the elections of say poland, we might not be so bothered, but this america and it affects us all.


Re: Danger looms for leaderless Democrats (#8)

by davidfloyd on Thu Nov 09, 2006 at 02:49:20 PM GMT

"For example they have fielded dozens of successful candidates in this campaign that are anti abortion, anti gay marriage and just as hawkish as the neo cons, only they dissaprove of the iraq war."

Well that's unavoidable when you have a country of over 200 million people - with a huge range of different political positions - representated by only two political parties.

Both Republicans and Democrats are very loose coalitions of political interest groups, many of whom disagree with each other over most things.

Of course, that's true to a fair extent in the UK but we've got ten political parties + indepedents representated in the House of Commons.  

Bush won in 2004 by holding his coalition together primarily on the issue of national security, this time the Democrats have done a similar thing with Iraq - it was the only logical course of action in the circumstances.


[ Parent ]

Re: Danger looms for leaderless Democrats (#9)

by Graham on Fri Nov 10, 2006 at 01:09:46 PM GMT

Just up on the daily is an interesting story about the key role played by the US labour movement in mobilising voters. It seems like the US unions really got their act together this time and made a real difference in the key seats that counted.


Re: Danger looms for leaderless Democrats (#10)

by Graham on Fri Nov 10, 2006 at 01:11:46 PM GMT

Sorry, wrong link. correct one here: http://thedaily.wordpress.com/2006/11/10/how-labor-delivered-for-the-democrats/


[ Parent ]

Danger looms for leaderless Democrats | 10 comments (10 topical)