From Carville, pre-suicidal hope

To the Democratic faithful who harbor an inscrutable confidence in the political status quo--no need to radically shake things up with evangelical hellfire, they insist--James Carville indulges in some heresy:

In early February this year, I wrote a column for The Hill in which I tried to talk Democrats off the cliff. I warned them against having such a gloomy outlook for November. To tell you the truth, though, when I saw the result from the Florida special election last Tuesday, I asked myself where my straight razor was because I thought I might need it.

Carville quickly recants, though--sort of. In the February column he references, "Go negative, early and often" was his singular positive advice; this time, Carville's depression has reduced him to hoping that the Obamacare "climate might be more favorable" by November, and "it is not unreasonable to assume economic conditions will be better."

It should go without saying that this is not a strategy. It's desperation squared. While the economy is, as always, unpredictable, the publication for which Carville writes is reporting today that "Health industry officials say ObamaCare-related premiums will double in some parts of the country ... [and] will be announced in the coming months amid an intense election year." It also goes without saying that whether or not insurance rates spike, Republicans will swear they have. Consequently Obamacare will remain an enormous Democratic problem.

Which brings us back to the only true hope that Dems possess: Carville's preceding recommendation to go negative, early and often.

From the disciples of calm I keep hearing that there's plenty of time, or at any rate now is too soon to launch an offensive. You may recall that was the conventional political wisdom going into the summer of the 2012 presidential campaign as well--until Team Obama blasted Mitt Romney in the dog days. Against virtually all accepted wisdom, they softened him up for the fall kill.

Yet that challenge was little compared to that of the midterm's. Romney, the most inept presidential nominee in modern political history, was always doomed. Not so with congressional Republicans, who are sitting quite pretty and therefore require a lot more softening up. Hence Carville's funk--and the absolute necessity of Democrats' taking his earlier advice: Go negative, early and often.  

Which they aren't doing. Why? Because conventional wisdom dictates that it's too early and that the White House's current political invisibility (hell, it's butt isn't on the line this time around) is actually a brilliant ploy.

And with thinking like that among the Democratic faithful, one can rather easily see where mere hope will take them.

 

Comments

[Charlieford]

Why is this even a topic, pray tell? Twice in the last 3/4 century has the party with the White House expanded its base in Congress: 1934, and 2002.

This is neither 1934 nor 2002.

[Peter G]

But the democrats have gone negative early and often. In fact they've been damn near relentless. Now if they'd only go after Republicans there might still be a chance.