Its Boehner or Pelosi, that's the contest, a far less photogenic one, and so the press covers a contest that is not there. I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.
When people were sick of Bush in 2006 they voted in the Dems for change - not because the Dems were saying or doing anything interesting, but because Bush wasn't.
Elections are mostly lost, not won.
Obama's lack of interest in setting any kind of agenda beyond a rhetorical meeja one is doing huge damage to the Dem brand.
Gut punching people who point this out - like Izzy is trying to do - is just shooting the messenger.
'But Palin would be worse' isn't an argument for anything much, except failure.
Obama's lack of interest in setting any kind of agenda beyond a rhetorical meeja one is doing huge damage to the Dem brand. Gut punching people who point this out - like Izzy is trying to do - is just shooting the messenger. 'But Palin would be worse' isn't an argument for anything much, except failure.
And likewise in the Democrat's interest to make it a referendum on the leadership of the Do-Nothing Republicans in the Senate versus the Do-Something Democrats in the House. I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.
If people get what they wanted from a leader they're happy, and a warm halo of approval envelops his (her) lucky party.
If not - they're angry and they want revenge.
This isn't a very sophisticated world view, but it's how voting seems to work empirically.
Selling Senate/House issues is always harder than picking on the leader.
The percentage of voters who have never heard of Boehner isn't going to be small. The percentage who have any idea what his record isn't going to be much smaller.
Most people know who the president is, and have an opinion on the president.
But minority leaders? Not so much, I think.
