Just Win, Baby

Interesting. I've got a few thoughts on that. On your first question, I think that the Democrats do play that game, but just not as often and not as well as the Republicans. (For example, they are totally trying to have it both ways now with the war. They could have cut off funding for the right after the 2006 midterms, but they would rather complain about Bush rather than take the heat for the consequences of ending the war now.) There is that book which was just written saying that the GOP wins because they understand that people make political decisions for emotional reasons, not rational ones, and I think there is a lot of truth to that. The Democrats too often think that just having the "best idea" and explaining it again and again is enough to win. The GOP is much more willing to play in the field of images, values and emotions.

BTW, I like Drum a lot and agree with his general point, but those examples are pretty weak. I haven't heard the GOP saying that Katrina shows that we don't need the federal gov't to be involved with our lives, and, as much as I don't like privatization, neither party can be particularly proud of its role in letting the Social Security (and Medicare) problems balloon over the past 25 years. At least the GOP put a solution on the table. The Dems seem to still be much more comfortable playing defense than putting anything out there that could be criticized or would alienate one of their core constituencies.

On your 2nd point, I think that the American people are tired of this "you're lying, no you're lying" era. I think the 2006 election was a referendum first on the war, and second on getting something accomplished in Washington. Bush is willing to play chicken on the war funding, so the Dems aren't willing to end the war at any cost. I think that the winning move for the Dems is to pass a series of popular "singles" and publicize them, minimum wage, student loans, limiting earmarks, and send some doubles and triples that will be hard for the GOP Senators to vote against, even if they get vetoed, like children's health coverage. Then they have a positive record to run on in 2008 -- some things they have actually accomplished and more that would have gotten done with a Dem in the White House. Right now only something like 20%-30% of the US thinks that Congress is doing a good job. You can't argue with 80% of the population, but you can try to get some things done. People think of this Congress for immigration and not ending the war. The Dems in Congress need to spend their time on something positive to change those perspectives.

On a related topic, what are your thoughts on the results of the debates? I had a crazy idea pass through my mind, which I guess the Clinton campaign is hoping will prevail. If you had never heard of or saw Hillary before, you'd think, "Boy, she seems smart, decisive, reasonable, very well informed. I think she'd make a pretty good President." If you can see past the baggage, she's a good candidate. Hmm, maybe if enough people try to just look at her instead of being blinded by everything they already have heard about her, maybe she could get 51% of the vote.
Am I crazy? I had been in the camp of "you can't win if 40%+ of the country already doesn't like you". Is my optimism and sheer psychological need to believe we'll end this 8 years of mismanagement outweighing my rationality?