Senate Democrats surrender fight against GOP Leader McConnell

William Haskins · Oct 14, 2014

Senate Democrats announced Tuesday they won’t spend any more money on television in Kentucky, throwing in the towel on their fight to oust Senate GOP Leader Mitch McConnell.

Most polls have shown the race slipping away from nominee Alison Lundergan Grimes (D) for weeks in a contest long considered a top pickup opportunity for Democrats. But with the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee’s (DSCC) decision, the party is shifting almost solely to defense in hopes of protecting its fragile six-seat majority.

“It’s ominous for the Grimes campaign,” said Al Cross, a longtime political commentator and journalism professor at the University of Kentucky. “This race has been slipping away from Democrats very slowly for about two months.”

The DSCC made its withdrawal after Grimes repeatedly stumbled over the question of whether she voted for President Obama. Her dodge last week drew sharp criticism, yet she doubled down during a debate Monday by declaring the “sanctity of the ballot box” a “matter of principle.”

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/senate-races/220697-dems-pull-plug-on-kentucky-ads

robeiae · Oct 15, 2014

I don't understand why they wasted so much money and time there. McConnell is a lot of things, and one of those things is an effective campaigner and fund-raiser for himself. Everyone knew this.

CassandraW · Oct 15, 2014

robeiae said:
I don't understand why they wasted so much money and time there. McConnell is a lot of things, and one of those things is an effective campaigner and fund-raiser for himself. Everyone knew this.

peddle your pessimistic bathtime musings elsewhere, Ernie.

raburrell · Oct 15, 2014

Eh, McConnell was eminently beatable. Democrats are just particularly good at beating themselves.

robeiae · Oct 15, 2014

raburrell said:
Democrats are just particularly good at beating themselves.

I'm pretty sure you're confusing Democrats with Republicans...

(setting aside Anthony Weiner, to be sure)

raburrell · Oct 15, 2014

robeiae said:
I'm pretty sure you're confusing Democrats with Republicans...

(setting aside Anthony Weiner, to be sure)

I'm sure both sides would like to believe they'd win if only X, but at least IMO, the main success of Republicans is their ability to craft a simple, consistent message. It's capital-W wrong in a lot of cases, but voters dislike grey areas and will pick something they can easily understand versus something more complex they can't. Democrats, simply, suck at distilling their narrative into something digestible. (Eg - it's hard to explain the nuances of Obamacare. It's easy to scream 'socialism' until you're hoarse)

The above is MO only - and it's not to suggest there are no smart conservative positions or no dumb liberal ones, just that on balance, Republicans do better at simple, forceful messaging.

There was an article I read recently that explained it better than I'm doing (insert ironic pause) - will see if I can find it.

William Haskins · Oct 15, 2014

she was screwed from the moment she started the repeated refusals to admit she voted for obama.

Haggis · Oct 15, 2014

raburrell said:
I'm sure both sides would like to believe they'd win if only X, but at least IMO, the main success of Republicans is their ability to craft a simple, consistent message. It's capital-W wrong in a lot of cases, but voters dislike grey areas and will pick something they can easily understand versus something more complex they can't. Democrats, simply, suck at distilling their narrative into something digestible. (Eg - it's hard to explain the nuances of Obamacare. It's easy to scream 'socialism' until you're hoarse)

The above is MO only - and it's not to suggest there are no smart conservative positions or no dumb liberal ones, just that on balance, Republicans do better at simple, forceful messaging.

There was an article I read recently that explained it better than I'm doing (insert ironic pause) - will see if I can find it.

I dunno. Phrases like "the party of no" and "Republican war on women" are pretty simple yet effective.

CassandraW · Oct 15, 2014

Don't forget "Change we can believe in" and "Yes we can."

robeiae · Oct 15, 2014

raburrell said:
The above is MO only - and it's not to suggest there are no smart conservative positions or no dumb liberal ones, just that on balance, Republicans do better at simple, forceful messaging.

There was an article I read recently that explained it better than I'm doing (insert ironic pause) - will see if I can find it.

Strange. I see it exactly the opposite. I'd be interested to see the article, as I have a hunch in that regard...

But back to McConnell. He's always been able to dig out victories like this. Like or not, it's something he's good at. I don't think he was all that beatable in the least. It would take something special to oust him right now, imo.

Haggis · Oct 15, 2014

CassandraW said:
Don't forget "Change we can believe in" and "Yes we can."

Stop clinging to your guns and bibles, Cass.

raburrell · Oct 15, 2014

I'd point at Cantor as an example. Right now the electorate is in a pretty foul mood towards both parties. It wouldn't have taken much to convince people to vote him out. Grimes just wasn't going to do it with the kind of campaign she ran.

I'm still looking for that article-not currently having any luck. Which is annoying me because if I remember correctly it was cowritten by a prominent Republican and a prominent Democrat, and should not be that hard to find.

Failing that though, I will leave you with the Will Rogers quote - I belong to know organized political party-I'm a Democrat.

robeiae · Oct 15, 2014

*puts in motion legislation to end Social Security*

I got your back, Cass.

CassandraW · Oct 15, 2014

Haggis said:
Stop clinging to your guns and bibles, Cass.

But I'm fired up and ready to go! Forward, I say!

raburrell · Oct 15, 2014

CassandraW said:
Don't forget "Change we can believe in" and "Yes we can."

Yes 2004 Obama was an exception. Though to be fair when you were running against George Bush's presidency, what more did you need?

Since then though, A fairly consistent critique of his presidency has been that he just cannot sell his ideas to people get buy-in from the public. (Choose your own reason)

CassandraW · Oct 15, 2014

Bill Clinton was no slump -- "it's the economy, stupid," "building a bridge to the 21st century." Or, if we go back a bit, Kennedy -- "We can do better," "a time for greatness."

raburrell · Oct 15, 2014

I think you're conflating soundbites with broader messaging - any successful politician has a collection of zingers. I'm arguing in 'what do you stand for' terms

Haggis · Oct 15, 2014

CassandraW said:
Bill Clinton was no slump -- "it's the economy, stupid," "building a bridge to the 21st century." Or, if we go back a bit, Kennedy -- "We can do better," "a time for greatness."

"Rarely is the question asked: Is our children learning?"

CassandraW · Oct 15, 2014

Haggis said:
"Rarely is the question asked: Is our children learning?"

We mustn't misunderestimate them.

robeiae · Oct 15, 2014

raburrell said:
I think you're conflating soundbites with broader messaging - any successful politician has a collection of zingers. I'm arguing in 'what do you stand for' terms

True. I'm following you. But again, I think it's exactly the opposite. Republicans have been catching heat since before Obama for having no coherent ideas, for lacking any real message apart from saying "no."

The hunch I had--with regard to the article you read--is that it will read exactly like a Limbaugh screed, with the R's and D's reversed. Because this has been a common theme from him--going back a decade or more--in criticizing most Republicans: they suck at explaining their positions/ideas.

raburrell · Oct 15, 2014

I mentioned above, but I'm pretty sure it was a bipartisan team effort - definitely wasn't a screed.

As an example of what I mean, take the case of so called partial birth abortion. Like most surgical procedures, the description of it is a bit grisly, and in the right hands is easily turned into something near demonic. Yet doctors will tell you that it can be the best choice for certain circumstances, namely in that it may give the mother a chance to say goodbye to the fetus (in the case of a wanted, but medically I advisable pregnancy, say)

Which side would you rather argue?

robeiae · Oct 15, 2014

raburrell said:
I mentioned above, but I'm pretty sure it was a bipartisan team effort - definitely wasn't a screed.

As an example of what I mean, take the case of so called partial birth abortion. Like most surgical procedures, the description of it is a bit grisly, and in the right hands is easily turned into something near demonic. Yet doctors will tell you that it can be the best choice for certain circumstances, namely in that it may give the mother a chance to say goodbye to the fetus (in the case of a wanted, but medically I advisable pregnancy, say)

Which side would you rather argue?

Neither.

But look at big picture stuff, like the Stimulus. It was a plan to achieve a result, correct? The argument for it is easy enough to make: the government will get the economy going by priming the pump. Plus, all kinds of jobs will be saved and created by using federal dollars.

The argument against it? There was one there, to be sure, but it's far more difficult to present in a way most people can understand and imo very few Republicans--in office--proved themselves capable in this regard.

Or how about Obamacare? It was sold as a means of delivering healthcare to people who weren't getting any. A response to any Republican criticism was always "well, what's your plan?" What Republican did a decent job in responding to that?

raburrell · Oct 15, 2014

robeiae said:
Neither.

Nice dodge :tongue

But look at big picture stuff, like the Stimulus. It was a plan to achieve a result, correct? The argument for it is easy enough to make: the government will get the economy going by priming the pump. Plus, all kinds of jobs will be saved and created by using federal dollars.

The argument against it? There was one there, to be sure, but it's far more difficult to present in a way most people can understand and imo very few Republicans--in office--proved themselves capable in this regard.

Most of it was about spending money we didn't have, comparing the federal budget to a household budget, etc - simple, but wrong, as I postulated above

Or how about Obamacare? It was sold as a means of delivering healthcare to people who weren't getting any. A response to any Republican criticism was always "well, what's your plan?" What Republican did a decent job in responding to that?

This is different - Obamacare essentially *was* the Republican plan, so it's hard to come up with a cogent argument against something you were for until the guy from the other party decided it was the best he was going to get.

Very few people argue well when they're more or less throwing a strop.

blacbird · Oct 15, 2014

McConnell was vulnerable, by the evidence of polls, and this campaign has remained close. But Grimes did manage to mess it up with bumbling, vague statements.

She also has raised a lot of money outside the confines of the Senate Democratic leadership, so she will still have plenty of ads running. But I think she shot herself in the foot here, and McConnell should cruise. His campaign, by the way, benefitted from immense amounts of outside cash, courtesy of the Koch Brothers, I believe, among others.

caw

robeiae · Oct 15, 2014

raburrell said:
Most of it was about spending money we didn't have, comparing the federal budget to a household budget, etc - simple, but wrong, as I postulated above

Which was easily countered with equally wrong claims about unemployment and the like. You're missing the point and slipping into arguing a point of view, imo.

Like here:

This is different - Obamacare essentially *was* the Republican plan, so it's hard to come up with a cogent argument against something you were for until the guy from the other party decided it was the best he was going to get.

I mean, that's just another partisan line and skips over the central issue. Yeah, I know all about the Heritage study from 1993. But that doesn't make Obamacare a Republican plan anymore than cutting taxes on the wealthy is made a Democrat plan by JFK's ideas.

But I digress...

The point is, one can easily argue that Republicans in Congress have failed to present their ideas very clearly. The seem inconsistent in this regard because they waffle from sound bites to just saying "no" to Democrat ideas.

Senate Democrats surrender fight against GOP Leader McConnell

poet

Touch and go

Treguna Makoidees Trecorum SadisDee

Touch and go

Treguna Makoidees Trecorum SadisDee

poet

Evil, undead Chihuahua

Touch and go

Evil, undead Chihuahua

Treguna Makoidees Trecorum SadisDee

Touch and go

Treguna Makoidees Trecorum SadisDee

Treguna Makoidees Trecorum SadisDee

Evil, undead Chihuahua

Touch and go

Treguna Makoidees Trecorum SadisDee

Touch and go

Treguna Makoidees Trecorum SadisDee

Touch and go