A Preview of November 8th

What is the significance of November 8th? That's the day after the '06 midterm election, and the day the Dems will begin their self-beating as they try to figure out what went wrong and how they managed to lose to a president and Republican party which just months earlier had abyssmal poll numbers.

How could this happen? Dan Balz writes today in the Washington Post that "the Democrats have become too good at losing":

Even now, with the Republicans looking bruised and beatable as the midterm elections approach, the first signs of another period of Democratic discontent are emerging. Memories of past disappointments remain fresh, heightened by last week's Republican victory in a special House election in California. Public squabbles about strategy underscore internal unease. Nervous whispers follow brave talk about November.

All that is nothing compared with what could come if the worst happens in this fall's congressional elections: The Democrats will be plunged into another round of recriminations bordering on therapy. If you doubt any of this, if you believe this time will be different, take a look at what happened after 1984. And 1988. 1994. 2000. 2002. 2004.

[...]

Democrats are experienced at assembling learned conferences to debate their future (while spending most of their time looking longingly at their past). They are experts at commissioning papers analyzing their weaknesses. ("Why we can't win with______." Fill in the blank with "white men," "married women," "rural voters," "people of faith," "more Latinos," "the middle class," or whatever group is considered the party's latest demographic debacle.)

Democrats also have a minute understanding of the fault lines in their own coalition (hawks vs. doves; free traders vs. globalization skeptics; establishment vs. netroots) and the competing arguments for winning (base vs. swing; maximize strengths vs. neutralize weaknesses). They even know whom to blame (the last candidate for president; all consultants; the nasty and dishonorable Republicans; voters who ignore their self interest; Howard Dean; Rahm Emanuel).

You could see the beginning of this uniquely Dem self-loathing earlier this week when CA-50 failed to go Dem as they had so dearly hoped. Although Dem candidate Francine Busby performed better than she had previously in that district, she still lost and the total Dem vote didn't vary that much from Kerry's numbers in 2004. The tide of public outrage toward Republicans turned out to be a trickle.

And the message I heard from the left after the election Tuesday portends more trouble for the Dems this fall. One prominent Dem advisor suggested that the party did not make gains because they weren't "progressive" enough. Yeah, right. When have the voters ever flocked to the most "progressive" candidate? Was it in 1984 when Mondale promised to raise everyone's taxes? No, he lost 49 states. How about 1988 when a Northeastern card-carrying ACLU member ran for president? No, he got trounced too.

In fact, the only Dem successes since 1980 came when Clinton ran to the middle and at least pretended to be a centrist. The Republican, who promised no new taxes and then raised them anyway, got the boot. That wasn't a victory of liberalism.

One big problem the Dems will continue to have is the wacky left rhetoric of their top figureheads. Balz points out this problem with an example of a time when Teddy *hiccup* Kennedy actually tried to sound centrist:

Some things have changed. Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.) long ago gave up trying to sound like a centrist. But although few people remember it, Kennedy gave a move-to-the-middle speech in March 1985 that would have brought a smile to the face of Al From, founder of the centrist Democratic Leadership Council.

"We cannot and should not depend on higher tax revenues to roll in and redeem every costly program," Kennedy said. "Those of us who care about domestic progress must do more with less." And he added: "The mere existence of a program is no excuse for its perpetuation, whether it is a welfare plan or a weapons system."

That is still useful advice, and Kennedy no doubt stands by every word. But no matter what happens this November, Kennedy will remain the party's standard-bearer on the left, the yardstick by which the liberalism of any Democrat is inevitably measured -- usually by an opponent.

You sure won't hear Teddy talk like that today, and everytime he goes off on another incoherant rant, the voters slip away. He's a wonderful whipping boy for the GOP and probably delivers a lot more votes to the Republicans than does John McCain.

So what is Balz predicting for "the day after":

Democrats would be delighted to see Republicans go through their own public agony. But there are good reasons for party leaders and rank-and-file activists to fret. Maybe Bush will have rebounded significantly by November and will once again spoil their celebration. Maybe there really aren't enough good competitive House districts or attractive challengers to retake control. Maybe the Bush-Rove magic will work again. Or maybe the Democrats will find just one more way to blow it themselves.

If that happens and the Democrats fall short on Nov. 7, they will ask, "If we can't win under these conditions, when can we?" The first panel will convene at 9 a.m. on Nov. 8 at the Press Club. Live on C-SPAN. The topic: "Paradise Lost: How the GOP's Midterm Victories Demonstrate the Enduring Power of the Democratic Message."

Sounds about right to me.