I don’t agree with TPM Reader JB, but wanted to share JB‘s take with all our readers:
I am writing about the post titled “Inspires Confidence” on the TPM Editors Blog.
Fairly or unfairly, and for better or worse, the national narrative has been set. Most of the country believes that the Democrats have f%$#ed the country up and that the GOP, while not an angel itself, is now worthy of another chance, if for no other reason than there is no other choice out there. Other than in a select few parts of the country (where the Democrats are relatively safe anyway), nationalizing the elections works to the Democrats’ DISadvantage. Their best hope of mitigating their losses in November is to run localized campaigns where they paint that constituency’s GOP candidate, and only that one candidate, as extreme and too reactionary. That’s a big reason why the Democrats held John Murtha’s House seat in the Special Election in May.
My main point of disagreement is that it doesn’t have to be one or the other. It can be both. You can nationalize the election on key issues that are universally favorable to your side and still run local campaigns that capitalize on the weaknesses of your particular opponent. You can run against Washington even as the national party presents compelling reasons why it’s moving Washington in a new and better direction.
If you only focus on running local campaigns, then you miss big opportunities to change the playing field, which partly explains why Democrats were slow to use John Boehner’s remarks conceding he would vote for tax cuts for the middle class even if tax cuts for the rich weren’t included.
Your thoughts?
