If This Was a Football Game ...

The calendar says there are 378 days remaining until the midterm elections of 2010. That's 54 weeks. Many Democrats will tell you there is still plenty of time before the next election.

But there isn't as much time as they want to believe.

As you have probably noticed, politicians like to use sports analogies. You will often hear them say things that suggest a struggling campaign is at halftime or gaining momentum for a fourth–quarter comeback. A candidate who forces a heavily favored opponent into a runoff may say that the race has gone into overtime.

Continuing with such an analogy, most Democrats who must face the voters in 2010 will tell you that, if this was a football game, we haven't even had the opening kick yet. But this game's farther along than they would like to think. And they're losing. Big time.

A political rule of thumb is that voters' attitudes about the party in power and its handling of the economy and foreign affairs and, well, everything harden about six months before the election. After that, very little — short of the Second Coming — will alter those perceptions.

I resisted that nugget of wisdom when I studied political science in college, but my observations since then have convinced me it is true.

So, for Barack Obama and the Democrats, the window of opportunity is not the 54 weeks that remain until the midterm elections of 2010. It is roughly 28 weeks.

If unemployment isn't going down by May 4 ...

If real health care reform — not the watered–down kind that Obama, in his wishy–washy appeasing way, is willing to accept — isn't enacted by May 4 ...

If it isn't clear that America is removing its troops from Iraq and Afghanistan by May 4 ...

And if all the other promises that were made have not been kept by May 4 ...

Democrats can kiss their huge majorities in Congress goodbye.

Do I think they will lose their majorities? At this point, it is hard to say. But I do believe they will be dramatically reduced.

In the Senate, it will be possible to derail Obama's proposals with filibusters. All it will take is the loss of a single seat.

Don't think it can happen? Three Democratic senators who represent states that voted for John McCain in 2008 will be up for re–election in 2010 — and that doesn't consider Democratic incumbents who are facing electorates that have been hit especially hard by unemployment (i.e., Barbara Boxer in California) or who are unpopular for other reasons (i.e., Harry Reid in Nevada and Chris Dodd in Connecticut).

Now, before I proceed with this, let me say that I don't think Boxer is in serious trouble right now. A recent poll suggests that she is "comfortably ahead of her Republican opponents," writes Joe Garofoli in the San Francisco Chronicle.

"But Boxer, who was viewed unfavorably by 70 percent of the Republicans in the survey ... does not have an easy path to victory," he writes. "The support of barely half the voters 'is not great' for an incumbent, Field Poll director Mark DiCamillo said."

I can almost hear the protests from Democrats: But this is California we're talking about — the state that hasn't voted for a Republican candidate for president since 1988. That's true. But a recent poll showed that only 34% of Californians approve of the job House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has done.

California is the largest state in the nation. It has huge employment and budget problems. Pelosi's job performance may only be of concern to people in her district, but the poll results imply the serious problems many incumbents will face in California next year. If the speaker of the House — a left–leaning Democrat from left–leaning San Francisco — gets a thumb's up from slightly more than one–third of the state's voters, how will they vote when Boxer's name is on the statewide ballot?

If things don't get better, the unemployed across the nation will be very unhappy in 2010. Unhappy voters are not stupid. They know that the bad things began when George W. Bush and the Republicans were in charge. But they already punished the Republicans last year. They will be unhappy if they see no evidence that the people who were elected to clean up the mess have done so.

And they will take out their frustrations on the incumbents.

---

"Remember the fierce urgency of now, the audacity of hope and change we can believe in? Even passing unemployment benefits became a life crisis for politicians in a town that gets little done.

"There is pain and suffering in the heartland but little urgency, audacity or change in Washington. Democrats move from being rolled to giving in.

"Do–nothing Republicans, acting like they are bought and paid for by the status quo, are joined by a handful of Democrats who negate the 2008 election.

"The public burns, Washington fiddles, the president campaigns, Congress dithers, Democrats waver, Republicans obstruct, business as usual continues.

"The result is a Golden Age for Wall Street bonuses, a Gilded Age for insurance profits and a Grapes of Wrath for American workers."

Brent Budowsky
The Hill

---

It's "showtime for Democrats," Brent Budowsky writes in The Hill. "If the president fights as he promised to fight, and Democrats stand as they promised to stand, we will make some history. Nobody will ask whether the president is tough enough for the job."

Right now, there are a lot of questions. Obama and the Democrats have until May to provide satisfactory answers.

Mr. Deeds

Fast becoming one of my favorite writers on the political scene is a fellow named Brent Budowsky, who writes for The Hill.

A few days ago, in The Hill, Budowsky wrote about the gap between "the idea" of Obama and his actual accomplishments.

Many of Obama's adoring supporters see no gap. But Budowsky does. And he is right. And he is unflinching in his assessment.

"Voters may vote for an idea," Budowsky writes. "Prizes may be awarded for an idea. But war and peace, prosperity and joblessness, legislation and treaties, illness and health, are not decided by the idea of the candidate but the actions of the president who is elected."

Budowsky makes an observation that could so easily have been made about Jimmy Carter in the first — or maybe the second — year of his presidency:

---

"It is time to worry when 'Saturday Night Live' makes fun of the president for achieving so little. It is time for alarm when so many power players believe this president can be rolled. Even a Senate where Democrats have 60 votes shows an almost daily disrespect for the president."

---

Budowsky believes he has identified the cause.

"The reason so many power centers, at home and internationally, say no to the president is that they do not know his bottom line," Budowsky writes. "They believe he may shift with the winds. They know he accepts a tiny loaf while claiming a big victory. They believe he can be rolled."

And he makes an observation that shows an understanding of the presidency that transcends the times.

---

"The history of successful presidents is clear: They fight for major change. They battle complacency and resistance. They risk losing tactical battles for greater victories. They challenge and inspire supporters to fight great battles for great deeds and inspire fear in opponents who resist."

---

Think of any great president you admire. You will see many parallels between that president's record in office and Budowsky's words.

It is clear in the presidency of Abraham Lincoln, whose "team of rivals" approach Obama has tried to emulate. But comparing a 19th century presidency to a 21st century one can be awkward.

So Budowsky spells out a few 20th century examples. "Compare the way Johnson fought for Medicare with the way Obama equivocates on the public option. Compare Roosevelt's 100 days with the lack of financial reform under Obama. Compare Reagan pushing through huge economic policies early in his term with Obama delivering little more than a stimulus written by others."

Obama's supporters can continue to occupy the fantasy world in which they currently live. From now until Election Day 2010, they can protest, to their hearts' content, that all the bad economic news, the escalating jobless rate, the two foreign wars, is the fault of others — and not internal shortcomings.

But history suggests that voters will be unimpressed.

Still Waiting for Change We Can Believe In

I have watched, with increasing dismay, as Barack Obama has been traveling a path that other Democratic presidents have traveled in my lifetime.

He's been trying to do everything when what he absolutely, positively needed to be doing was focus on a couple of essential things in his first year in office.

Perhaps he believed that was the way to satisfy everyone. And, yet, it hasn't. In fact, it may very well turn out that he has satisfied no one by trying to be all things to all people.

As I say, it is a mistake I have seen other presidents make. Jimmy Carter made the same mistake and didn't manage to turn things around by the time he sought a second term. Bill Clinton's party lost control of Congress, but he revived his personal political fortunes and won re–election. It took his party another decade to reclaim Congress.

Maybe the temptation to try to do everything at once is too great to resist, even though there is ample evidence of what can happen when a president treats governing like an all–you–can–eat lunch buffet. It's better — for many reasons — to have lunch where you have to choose a single entree instead of nibbling some of everything.

And that's what it feels like Obama has been doing. Sure, he has narrowed his focus lately to health care reform — the same issue that tripped up Clinton in his first year in office — but in the first six or seven months of his presidency, Obama was all over the place. His diehard supporters will tell you that he had no choice, that issues that had been neglected for years needed immediate attention.

I won't argue the point. When Obama took office, there was a veritable laundry list of things that needed to be dealt with. But, even after the passage of the massive stimulus package, people still have advice for him on a whole range of issues.

All those issues are important. But job creation was the most important issue and, because it has been largely neglected, it remains the most important issue. Now, however, there is a certain sense of urgency that didn't exist before.

Maybe that is because unemployment is closing in on 10% nationally. Maybe it is because many of America's unemployed are on the verge of losing their benefits. Both can be embarrassing for a president who just won the Nobel Peace Prize and has enough votes in Congress to do anything he wants without consulting the opposition.

I think it is safe to say that many Americans voted for Obama last November in part because they believed that his message of "change we can believe in" included a more enlightened approach to governing, a departure from the finger pointing and the mud slinging that characterized American politics.

If that was the motivating factor, many Americans have been disappointed, which may account for the steady movement we've seen in recent months of independent voters toward the political center away from Obama and his left–leaning supporters.

It is possible, I suppose, that many of those supporters have been influenced by Democratic strategists who think it is still a good idea to blame the Republicans, even though they haven't been in charge of anything since January.

But rather than remaining stuck in the early days of 2009, many people have their feet firmly planted in the quicksand of today, and they don't exactly see the rosy future that some Democrats continue to take for granted.

In The Hill, Brent Budowsky speaks for many when he writes, "I am fed up with those Democratic strategists who parade to cable–news shows and pollute the pages of newspapers with the pap that the way for Democrats to win in 2010 is to throw mud at Republicans."

He refers to what he calls John Harwood's recent account of the "dumbed–down view of American politics" in the New York Times.

"As James Carville might say: It's the jobs, stupid," Budowsky writes. "Many Democratic strategists don't care much about policy, but for anxious Americans who elected Democrats, it's all about policy.

"Democrats will do more to win in 2010 by creating 2 million new jobs than by spending $20 million to pay Democratic strategists to produce dirt–caked television ads."

Budowsky proceeds to reel off a list of things Democrats need to be doing to promote job creation, then concludes with a paragraph that ought to hit lackadaisical Democrats right between the eyes:

"Democratic strategists must realize that Americans are not stupid people to be manipulated by cheap–shot attacks. They are a good, fair and generous people with mortgages, frustrations, ambitions and dreams who elected Democrats to stand up for them."

I couldn't have said it better myself.

The 'R Word' Isn't What You Think it Is

While those on the left insist on fanning the flames of racism and those on the right are equally insistent that race is not a factor in their opposition to Obama administration policies, a few people do seem to grasp what is really at stake — the future of the political realignment that left–leaning Americans believed had begun in 2006 and 2008.

Last week, Brent Budowsky pondered the prospects for realignment in The Hill. With more than 40% of Americans identifying themselves as independents, Budowsky writes, "Realignment is dead. President Barack Obama and Democrats blew it. Dealignment has arrived. Republicans blew it, and are now so repellent that Americans increasingly reject both political parties."

That supports something I have heard frequently — that neither party is really interested in the problems of ordinary Americans, that what politicians on both ends of the spectrum really care about is being re–elected, and a new party is needed.

But that isn't an original theme in American politics. Didn't we hear much the same thing when Ross Perot ran for president in 1992? Wasn't that a big part of George Wallace's message when, as an independent candidate for president in 1968, he carried five states after arguing that there wasn't "a dime's worth of difference" between the two parties and nearly sent the presidential selection to the House of Representatives?

In fact, these cries for a new political party have been amplified from time to time since the Democrats and Republicans emerged as the major parties in the mid–19th century. The cries seem to be louder when circumstances are bad — and most people appear to agree that things haven't been this bad — economically, anyway — since the Great Depression.

Those who have studied the history of political trends in America aren't surprised by periodic calls for a new party. But neither should they be surprised by the re–emergence of established trends — nor should they conclude that those trends have any special significance.

Which is why I was bemused to read Fred Barnes' piece in the Wall Street Journal the other day.

"Virginia has been kind to Democrats as of late," Barnes wrote, "[b]ut now the Democratic tide is ebbing in Virginia. In January Mr. Obama's approval rating was 62%, according to a Survey USA. By August it had fallen to 42%."

Barnes, a conservative commentator, observed that the Republican candidate leads the Democratic candidate in polls regarding this year's gubernatorial campaign. He wrote hopefully about the possibility that a Republican triumph in November "will demonstrate that 2008 may have been an aberration." But that, to me, is like comparing apples and oranges.

I don't know what the vote in Virginia will say about attitudes toward Obama and his policies. At the moment, I'm not inclined to think there are any conclusions to be drawn — unless either side wins by a landslide.

If the Republican wins in Virginia, I don't think it will necessarily suggest that Obama's coalition has crumbled. I think it is more likely to confirm what I wrote about four months ago — that the party that loses the presidency wins the governor's office in Virginia the next year.

Admittedly, Obama accomplished something unusual for Democratic presidential nominees when he carried Virginia last year. He was the first Democrat to do so since 1964 — and he was the first non–incumbent Democrat to carry the state since Franklin Roosevelt in 1932.

But the gubernatorial trend seems to function independently of the state's preference in presidential politics. Nominees of both parties have won the governor's office in the last 32 years — including Doug Wilder, the first black elected governor in any state — even though Virginia voted for Republican presidential candidates in 10 straight elections before voting for Obama last year.

If Democrat Creigh Deeds wins the election in six weeks, that may be a tangible sign that a realignment is taking place. But if Republican Bob McDonnell wins, it would be wrong to assume that it indicates anything more than business as usual.

And if the theory of realignment is dealt a setback in next year's midterm elections, it would be a serious mistake for Democrats to assume it is due to racism. It will be an indication that another political trend is alive and well, one I wrote about last month.

A president's party almost always takes it on the chin in the midterms. Obama knows what will minimize those losses — job creation — and claims he asks his economic advisers about job creation regularly. But promises he made on the campaign trail appear to have been abandoned in favor of political expedience.

Well, the nation is fast approaching a 10% unemployment rate — something with which more than a dozen states already are dealing. Unless there is clear improvement in the next six months, Obama's party is likely to lose ground in Congress in 2010.

Talk of a realignment will fade — and racism will have little, if anything, to do with it, regardless of how each side chooses to spin it.