Democrats Are Daring to Believe

[The_Professor]

October 22, 2006
Political Memo
Guardedly, Democrats Are Daring to Believe
By ADAM NAGOURNEY and ROBIN TONER
WASHINGTON, Oct. 21 — There is something unusual bubbling in Democratic political waters these days: optimism.

With each new delivery of bad news for Republicans — another Republican congressman under investigation, another Republican district conceded, another poll showing support for the Republican-controlled Congress collapsing — a party that has become so used to losing is considering, disbelievingly and with the requisite worry, the possibility that it could actually win in November.

“I’ve moved from optimistic to giddy,” said Gordon R. Fischer, a former chairman of the Iowa Democratic Party. “I really have.”

Representative Barney Frank, Democrat of Massachusetts, who is in line to become chairman of the Financial Services Committee in a Democratic House, offered wry evidence of the changing perception of the race. His office, Mr. Frank said, has been contacted by a portrait-painting firm offering to talk about possibilities for the traditional committee chairman’s painting, one of those perks of power long absent from the lives of House Democrats.

“I’ve acquired a lot of new friends this year,” Mr. Frank said. “And I haven’t gotten any nicer.”

For Democrats these days, life is one measure glee, one measure dread and one measure hubris. If they are as confident as they have been in a decade about regaining at least one house of Congress — and they are — it is a confidence tempered by the searing memories of being outmaneuvered, for three elections straight, by superior Republican organizing and financial strength, and by continued wariness about the political skills of President Bush’s senior adviser, Karl Rove.

Mr. Rove has made it clear that he considers Democratic optimism unjustified, predicting that his party’s cash advantage and get-out-the-vote expertise will dash Democratic dreams yet again. And Democrats say they welcome every passing dawn with relief, fearful that the next one will bring a development that could fundamentally alter the nature of the race, like the re-emergence of Osama bin Laden on election eve, which is what happened in 2004.

“I know a lot of people are in somersault land,” Representative Rahm Emanuel, Democrat of Illinois and chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, said reproachfully of fellow Democrats. “I just don’t have the liberty and freedom to do that.”

Still, Democratic ebullience could be found in all corners of Washington over the past few days. It was palpable at social and work gatherings, where Democrats traded gossip about how big a Democratic majority in the House could be; in Capitol Hill conference rooms, where Democrats were preparing transition plans (under orders to keep them quiet); and in offices of Democratic strategists and pollsters, who were drawing up growing lists of Republicans who might be vulnerable.

“I feel better than I ever have,” said Representative Louise M. Slaughter, a Democrat from upstate New York. “I think we have the best chance to take over simply because of the pileup of disasters.”

Stanley B. Greenberg, who was the White House pollster for President Bill Clinton in 1994 when Republicans shocked Democrats by capturing the House, commissioned a poll recently and e-mailed it around town with a single-word headline: “Meltdown.” In an interview, Mr. Greenberg said, “I don’t see how we can lose the House; I don’t think it’s even close.”

Ellen R. Malcolm, president of Emily’s List, a Democratic women’s network, and a longtime Democratic fund-raiser, said Democratic trepidations were beginning to melt away with each passing news cycle. “People are getting more encouraged by the day,” Ms. Malcolm said. “Every poll that comes in seems to be better than the one before.”

Representative Nancy Pelosi, Democrat of California, who is in line to become speaker if her party wins the House, has put out the word that no one should be talking with too much certainty or detail about the days after Nov. 7. But even Ms. Pelosi has slipped on occasion. In a recent interview with The Associated Press, when asked which suite of offices she would use as speaker, she said with a laugh, “I’ll have any suite I want.”

The change in mood, and evidence of Democratic strength in the polls and in fund-raising, is feeding some crucial deliberations by Democratic leaders as the discussion in some quarters goes from whether Democrats can win to how large a margin the party can gain.

Democratic candidates in districts that had been considered long shots are now pleading with Mr. Emanuel’s committee to send money their way. And some leading Democrats, among them Mr. Greenberg, are urging Mr. Emanuel to seize the moment by expanding the field in which Democrats are competing, saying the party has a chance to cement a big lead in the House in November.

This argument has worried some Democratic strategists, who warn that overconfidence could press party leaders into making decisions that may siphon resources from closely fought races and risk the Democrats’ advantage. “On the House side, it makes sense to be focusing on 25 seats to win 14, not 50,” said Steve Rosenthal, a political and labor consultant with close ties to the party, who described many Democrats as “overenthused.”

“If we had unlimited resources it would be different,” Mr. Rosenthal said. “But we have to be careful.”

Mr. Emanuel said he was polling to see where the party might move next. But he said that barring some last-minute infusion of money, he was considering a relatively limited increase in the number of seats where Democrats would spend. In the past week, Democrats have expanded their field to just over 40 races from about 35, running advertisements against Republicans they consider newly vulnerable in Florida, Minnesota, Nevada, upstate New York and Washington State.

Some Democrats have expressed apprehension that this exuberance may be irrational, or at least premature, and are counseling restraint. Part of that is tactical: Democrats are trying not to help the Republican Party as it works to turn out its conservative base by presenting apocalyptic visions of a Congress led by liberals like Mr. Frank, Ms. Pelosi and Representative Charles B. Rangel of New York.

Part of the Democrats’ queasiness stems from painful familiarity with Mr. Rove’s record of success, and from their own recognition that they hold only slim leads in many races and could yet fall victim to an assertive and sophisticated Republican turnout operation.

“I’m a little concerned that we are spending all our time talking about what our agenda will be in January rather than how we are going to get our votes out in early November,” said Chris Redfern, chairman of the Ohio Democratic Party.

Some of that concern is about the long-term psychic damage the party’s rank-and-file may suffer if Democrats collapse at the finish line again. “We’ve all had these disappointments that contain our enthusiasm as we look to the last few weeks of this race,” said Tom Daschle, the Senate Democratic leader defeated in 2004.

Steve Elmendorf, a Democratic strategist who advised the presidential campaign of Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts, said: “We all sat around in 2004 and looked at exit polls that said John Kerry was going to be president. And that was wrong. We’ve been up this hill before.”

To win the House, Democrats must capture 15 seats. Of the 40 or so they see in play, at most 5 are held by Democrats, strategists for both sides say.

The prospects for a Democratic takeover in the Senate, where the party needs six seats, are tougher. Republicans say four of their incumbents are in serious danger of losing — in Montana, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Rhode Island — and are trying to build a firewall by pouring most of their resources into Senate races in Missouri, Tennessee and Virginia, where polls show the contests even.

Senator Charles E. Schumer of New York, chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, said his committee, which has consistently out-raised its Republican counterpart this year, had more than enough money to compete with the Republicans in those states. Mr. Schumer said he was holding back some resources in case Republicans made an unexpected move in the final days of the campaign.

“They keep trying to pull rabbits out of the hat, but none of them come out,” he said. “But we are holding some money in abeyance for some kind of October surprise.”

While there may be a price to overconfidence, in a sense of complacency at some campaign headquarters, there are advantages at the grass-roots level, where it can fuel the excitement that Democrats hope will result in significant gains on Nov. 7. Republicans face the flip side of this problem, with the prospect that their voters, discouraged by the party’s travails, will stay home.

All this has put Democrats in an unfamiliar place, but one they seem to be enjoying. “I’m a congenital pessimist,” said Howard Wolfson, a consultant advising Democrats in several competitive contests in upstate New York. “But I’m as bullish on our chances as I have been at any time over the last 12 years.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/22/us/politics/22dems.html?ei=5065&en=283877a50b27f315&ex=1162094400&partner=MYWAY&pagewanted=print

[Plane]

Perhaps it is time now to make a plan of action?

[The_Professor]

way past time, I would say.

[Plane]

If they can win with no plan at all , they will have no promises to be accused of breaking once in.



It is an American tradition to periodically throw the rascals out , I do wish that there was something other than rascals available to let back in.