Okay, the Republicans won big. Democrats are contemplating, "What went wrong?" That's easy - everything, some correctable, some not.
First, the uncorrectable: Arithmetic - Democrats running in all those red states hostile to the president - Montana, South Dakota, Arkansas, Kentucky, North Carolina, Louisiana. Uphill battles under any conditions.
History - even a giant of history, FDR, lost Senate seats in mid-term elections. Combine this with voter and media fatigue. Second-term Presidents lack the freshness that excites the media and bring out voters during midterm.
The correctable - candidates and strategy: Mary Burke was a strong candidate, but the odds and the money were against her. Locally, Ringhand, representing southeastern Green County was a strong candidate and won. Cates, running for the seat representing southwestern Green County was a strong candidate and came within a few votes of winning. Bomhack for the state senate seat? Wittwer would have been stronger. The State Democratic Office in Madison should learn from this and not try to hand-pick our candidates for us.
Nationally: Democrats never learned the lesson preached by Truman: "If voters have a choice between a Republican and a Republican, they will vote for the REAL Republican every time."
Alison Grimes, for example, running against McConnell in Kentucky - she tippy-toed around the Affordable Health Care Act, and would not even admit that she had voted for President Obama. How transparent and disingenuous is that? Ironically, Kentucky is reputed to have one of the nation's most efficient and successful exchanges for the ACA. Did it never occur to Ms. Grimes to remind voters that many thousands of low-income Kentuckians now have affordable health care, thanks to the very ACA that her opponent, Senator McConnell, pledges to eliminate?
Senator Udall of Colorado? For once, the conventional wisdom is probably right. He based his campaign on one issue - Republican war against women. Hey Senator, what are you for? What do you propose to help working stiffs who have seen no wage increases for three decades?
And that fiasco in Iowa? The brain-dead mainstream media were already gushing over the new heroine of the tea party who based her campaign on castrating hogs. Hey, why didn't I think of that back when I was running for office? I performed that minor surgery successfully many times when I was a teen-ager. Shucks, it probably wouldn't have done me any good. The three regional rags that endorsed my opponent never even credited me with my local farm kid background. But I digress.
In addition to castrating hogs, Ms. Ernst promised to arm herself against the federal government. Heck, that Utah rancher who still owes us taxpayers a fortune in federally subsidized grazing fees got away with actually waving guns at the feds when they came to collect. By comparison, Joni's promise to merely arm herself was mild.
So with the gushing press already making her into Iowa's Sarah Palin, the "seasoned politician" running against her reminded Iowans that he was not a farmer, but a lawyer. We all make mistakes and he surely had not intended to diss farmers. But the hapless sap never recovered from that gaffe.
Some facts: The economy tanked under the Bush administration. President Obama was handed a mess. Legislation, admittedly less than perfect, and actions by the Federal Reserve kept the American and world economies from total collapse. The number of jobs is up, millions of previously uninsured people now have access to affordable health care, financial markets are at all-time highs, and, though you wouldn't know it from the mainstream media, annual federal deficits have been cut in half. And, miracle of miracles, gas prices, long an indicator of consumer sentiment, are down.
Facts are important but they don't swing elections. It is the mood of voters that counts. The President, and every Democrat in the country, agrees that the typical working stiff and the middle class have not seen wage increases for several decades. It may not have been enough, but it was incumbent on Democrats to recognize this discontent, and propose what they would do for working Americans.
Readers will counter, "But the Republicans didn't either." Right, they absolutely did not. But they didn't have to. All they had to do was tap into the sour mood of the country. It doesn't matter if gridlock was caused in large measure by the Republicans themselves as deliberate strategy to discredit the president. Much in life and politics isn't fair - the president is the man people will hold responsible.
As one wag observed to illustrate the point, "The president didn't cure cancer fast enough, so I voted for cancer."
A responsible press would remind Boehner and McConnell, and voters, of the pledge made the day after the election of 2008 to block everything the new president would propose.
With their Republican sweep, Boehner and McConnell had the opportunity to allow room for a win/win situation. Instead, the gloating pair guaranteed it won't happen. If you truly want cooperation from an opponent, you don't push him into a corner, leaving him no option but to fight. They did that by "ordering" the president not to take executive action on immigration lest he "poison the well." So challenged by gloating opponents, any man competitive enough to attain the presidency will stand his ground and fight. Boehner and McConnell are savvy enough to understand that.
The president can be hated and despised for standing his ground. Or he can be hated and despised, plus scorned, for being weak, and cowering to demands of Boehner and McConnell. The president has nothing to lose by standing up to this pair.
So, advice for the Democrats: Don't argue about what went wrong - it was all of the above.
And for Republicans? No advice. But they err grievously if they interpret this election as the beginning of a glorious, passionate love affair between them and the electorate.
- John Waelti's column appears every Friday in the Times. He can be reached at jjwaelti1@tds.net.
First, the uncorrectable: Arithmetic - Democrats running in all those red states hostile to the president - Montana, South Dakota, Arkansas, Kentucky, North Carolina, Louisiana. Uphill battles under any conditions.
History - even a giant of history, FDR, lost Senate seats in mid-term elections. Combine this with voter and media fatigue. Second-term Presidents lack the freshness that excites the media and bring out voters during midterm.
The correctable - candidates and strategy: Mary Burke was a strong candidate, but the odds and the money were against her. Locally, Ringhand, representing southeastern Green County was a strong candidate and won. Cates, running for the seat representing southwestern Green County was a strong candidate and came within a few votes of winning. Bomhack for the state senate seat? Wittwer would have been stronger. The State Democratic Office in Madison should learn from this and not try to hand-pick our candidates for us.
Nationally: Democrats never learned the lesson preached by Truman: "If voters have a choice between a Republican and a Republican, they will vote for the REAL Republican every time."
Alison Grimes, for example, running against McConnell in Kentucky - she tippy-toed around the Affordable Health Care Act, and would not even admit that she had voted for President Obama. How transparent and disingenuous is that? Ironically, Kentucky is reputed to have one of the nation's most efficient and successful exchanges for the ACA. Did it never occur to Ms. Grimes to remind voters that many thousands of low-income Kentuckians now have affordable health care, thanks to the very ACA that her opponent, Senator McConnell, pledges to eliminate?
Senator Udall of Colorado? For once, the conventional wisdom is probably right. He based his campaign on one issue - Republican war against women. Hey Senator, what are you for? What do you propose to help working stiffs who have seen no wage increases for three decades?
And that fiasco in Iowa? The brain-dead mainstream media were already gushing over the new heroine of the tea party who based her campaign on castrating hogs. Hey, why didn't I think of that back when I was running for office? I performed that minor surgery successfully many times when I was a teen-ager. Shucks, it probably wouldn't have done me any good. The three regional rags that endorsed my opponent never even credited me with my local farm kid background. But I digress.
In addition to castrating hogs, Ms. Ernst promised to arm herself against the federal government. Heck, that Utah rancher who still owes us taxpayers a fortune in federally subsidized grazing fees got away with actually waving guns at the feds when they came to collect. By comparison, Joni's promise to merely arm herself was mild.
So with the gushing press already making her into Iowa's Sarah Palin, the "seasoned politician" running against her reminded Iowans that he was not a farmer, but a lawyer. We all make mistakes and he surely had not intended to diss farmers. But the hapless sap never recovered from that gaffe.
Some facts: The economy tanked under the Bush administration. President Obama was handed a mess. Legislation, admittedly less than perfect, and actions by the Federal Reserve kept the American and world economies from total collapse. The number of jobs is up, millions of previously uninsured people now have access to affordable health care, financial markets are at all-time highs, and, though you wouldn't know it from the mainstream media, annual federal deficits have been cut in half. And, miracle of miracles, gas prices, long an indicator of consumer sentiment, are down.
Facts are important but they don't swing elections. It is the mood of voters that counts. The President, and every Democrat in the country, agrees that the typical working stiff and the middle class have not seen wage increases for several decades. It may not have been enough, but it was incumbent on Democrats to recognize this discontent, and propose what they would do for working Americans.
Readers will counter, "But the Republicans didn't either." Right, they absolutely did not. But they didn't have to. All they had to do was tap into the sour mood of the country. It doesn't matter if gridlock was caused in large measure by the Republicans themselves as deliberate strategy to discredit the president. Much in life and politics isn't fair - the president is the man people will hold responsible.
As one wag observed to illustrate the point, "The president didn't cure cancer fast enough, so I voted for cancer."
A responsible press would remind Boehner and McConnell, and voters, of the pledge made the day after the election of 2008 to block everything the new president would propose.
With their Republican sweep, Boehner and McConnell had the opportunity to allow room for a win/win situation. Instead, the gloating pair guaranteed it won't happen. If you truly want cooperation from an opponent, you don't push him into a corner, leaving him no option but to fight. They did that by "ordering" the president not to take executive action on immigration lest he "poison the well." So challenged by gloating opponents, any man competitive enough to attain the presidency will stand his ground and fight. Boehner and McConnell are savvy enough to understand that.
The president can be hated and despised for standing his ground. Or he can be hated and despised, plus scorned, for being weak, and cowering to demands of Boehner and McConnell. The president has nothing to lose by standing up to this pair.
So, advice for the Democrats: Don't argue about what went wrong - it was all of the above.
And for Republicans? No advice. But they err grievously if they interpret this election as the beginning of a glorious, passionate love affair between them and the electorate.
- John Waelti's column appears every Friday in the Times. He can be reached at jjwaelti1@tds.net.
