The RIght's Year of Magical Misconception

On April 5, Jeff Greenfield, a write at Political, published a piece that opens up with the following hypothetical situation: "It's Wednesday, November 7, 2018, and the Democrats have awakened to the taste of ashes in their mouths. Despite the poll numbers and the pattern of history, Republicans have somehow managed to keep their losses small enough to retain control of the House. They've even picked up a seat or two in the Senate." In The Left's Year of Magical Thinking, Greenfield later describes how this Democratic nightmare situation comes to pass, and references "friendly fire," as a major reason. Greenfield makes three arguments in this article, all of which are either irrelevant, or simply untrue. While I disagree with the points he makes, and while I'm not 100% sure what it is that he is trying to do, I agree with his sentiment that democrats should avoid campaigning against Trump, and campaign for something. As we reviewed in last week's post, some of the biggest upsets in U.S. congressional history have occurred within the last year. When Conor Lamb and Doug Jones became the first Democrats to hold their positions (Representative from a red Pennsylvania district and Senator from Alabama, respectively), they did so by discussing issues relevant to their voters. Lamb and Jones certainly did not agree with every elected Democrat on every single point; Lamb even went as far as to say he didn't necessarily support the idea of long-time Democratic Congresswoman, becoming Speaker once again, if Democrats were able to win back the House. The point is, as evident by Lamb and Jones' victories, that Democrats don't have to all run on the same agenda. There is a major push from Democrats, According to Crooked Media (a media company formed by a team of Obama White House staffers), there is a push happening to run Democratic candidates in every race, in every district. In order for them to be successful, there can't be a singular agenda. The Democrat running in California is going to sound different than the Democrat running in Idaho. Their constituents face different issues. Greenfield ignores the success of recent special elections, and evokes this fantasy that Democrats are still running how they did in races immediately following the election; as "Anti-Trump." While some current candidates are guilty of this, not all are, and those who have been successful certainly did not follow this path. Greenfield illustrates this point by describing what he calls "magical cable news thinking." This is an admittedly shaking point, "My anecdotal sense is that countless liberals are drawn to the never-ending, numbing procession of TV panel after TV panel, all focused on the Mueller investigations and what they might yield." His argument here is anecdotal, and though that alone does not make it invalid, it is certainly not scientific. Prior to bringing up his magical cable news thinking idea, he describes two irrelevant issues in great depth. He describes how difficult it will be for Democrats to overcome comments made by a former Supreme Court justice regarding the Second Amendment (he suggests that it be repealed). Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer has already come out and said this idea is ridiculous, and now Democrat has shown signs of wanting to run on this absurd agenda. Greenfield doesn't take this into account, and believes this will become an optimal tool for Republicans. While they most certainly will try and use it, his argument completely disregards the fact that prominent Democrats have spoken out against a Second Amendment repeal. Maybe he is just unaware. His other point deserves no time in any review or response such as this. A local Planned Parenthood chapter sent a controversial tweet claiming "We need a princess who's had an abortion... who's pro choice...who's undocumented...who's actually a union worker...who's trans," and apparently Fox News picked this up. While this would excite the viewers of Fox News, this tweet isn't going to be relevant in November. Hopefully, Greenfield's take is shared by many conservative voters and elected officials. If Democrats catch them by surprise, they could win back the Congress with effective, localized campaigning. This mistaken view of what is actually happening can be taken advantage of, but the way to do that is to campaign like the winners have. In terms of how this effects our local race, Nate McMurray's team should let the Chris Collins and his team believe what they want. When the McMurray team focuses on issues relevant to voters in the area (like his recent appearance at a gun-safety townhall), they are taking steps toward victory.