NY Times Wonders If Their Democrat Comrades Can Survive Their Crummy Economic Record

In fairness, the NY Times’ Jonathan Weisman and Neil Vigdor aren’t really working all that to carry Democrats water, probably not seeing a lot of point with so few days left, just going through the motions

Democrats Can’t Ignore the Economy. But Can They Survive It?

Democratic candidates, facing what increasingly looks like a reckoning in two weeks, are struggling to find a closing message on the economy that acknowledges the deep uncertainty troubling the electorate while making the case that they, not the Republicans, hold the solutions.

For some time, the party’s candidates and strategists have debated whether to hit inflation head on or to heed warnings that any shift toward an economic message would be ending the campaign on the strongest possible Republican ground. Since midsummer, when the Supreme Court repealed Roe v. Wade, Democrats had hoped that preserving the 50-year-old constitutional right to an abortion and castigating Republican extremism could get them past the worst inflation in 40 years.

That is looking increasingly like wishful thinking.

Hey, they dug that grave, but, come on, what actual record do they have?

On Monday, Democrats unveiled new messages that appeared to switch tacks, incorporating achievements of the past two years with expressions of sympathy on the economy and dire warnings for what Republicans might bring.

Former Rep. Steve Israel, who headed the House Democrats’ campaign arm in a strong cycle of 2012 and weak one in 2014, said the dispute over how to address voters’ economic distress was essentially being resolved in favor of trying to accomplish a political feat that he said would be the trickiest he has ever seen: Democrats would continue to hammer Republicans on abortion and their ties to former President Donald Trump to boost turnout among their core supporters, while simultaneously trying to win over undecided voters whose biggest concerns are inflation and crime.

Good luck with that. Even Democrats do not trust Democrats on the economy and crime.

Lake, in an interview Saturday, said Democratic strategists were “extremely concerned” that the wave of support the party saw over the summer was evaporating at the worst possible time. But she insisted there was time, with barely two weeks to go, to correct course.

“A lot of candidates aren’t really clear about what the economic message is,” she said. “What we need to do is set up a more vivid contrast. People are getting more pessimistic about the economy.”

Getting? They’ve been pessimistic for well over a year. And, under Democratic Party ownership of the Congress and White House, none of their concerns have been addressed.

In two years, the party has passed a trillion-dollar infrastructure bill, a generous tax credit for parents that brought child poverty to historic lows, legislation that made good on the popular, long-standing promise to allow Medicare to negotiate lower drug prices, and the biggest investment in clean energy in history — all achievements that could be framed as helping people cope with rising prices.

None of those address inflation, rising cost of food and goods.

On Friday, four veteran Democratic strategists published a piece in The American Prospect, the liberal magazine, that pleaded with Democrats to find a new message that acknowledges the pain of rising prices and answers voter concerns. To do that, they argued, candidates need to convey their legislative successes while setting up culprits other than themselves: Republicans who voted against popular measures such as capping the price of insulin, and wealthy corporations that are jacking up prices and reaping more profits.

Voters “want to know you understand what is going on in their lives,” the strategists wrote. “They want to know you are helping with their No. 1 problem and have a plan. They want to know the difference between Democrats and Republicans when they cast their votes.” The piece was written by Patrick Gaspard, president of the liberal Center for American Politics; Stanley Greenberg and Celinda Lake, veteran Democratic pollsters; and Mike Lux, a senior White House aide under former President Bill Clinton.

I read that one, and almost blogged it. Because, really, Democrats do not understand and do not care what’s happening to the working and middle classes. If they did, they wouldn’t be telling people they could save money on energy by spending $20K+ on solar panels and $56K (average cost of an EV) on an EV. Biden going to Delaware or Camp David almost every weekend. Wouldn’t be opening up the border, wanting more low wage workers when the wages of Americans aren’t keeping up with inflation.

(Newsweek)…In a bit of loose-lipped candor, Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg, testifying this week before the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, let slip his belief that “the more pain” Americans feel at the pump, “the more benefit” there is for electric vehicle owners.

Such astounding disdain and haughtiness from a Cabinet official, if it were to come under a Republican administration, would make headline-grabbing fodder for weeks. It would dominate the late-night shows, as Jimmy Kimmel poked fun at those nasty, “Gordon Gekko”-esque robber baron Republicans.

Americans, especially Independents and wishy washy Democrats, see this. Those wishy washy Dems may not vote Republican, they might just sit it out.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

9 Responses to “NY Times Wonders If Their Democrat Comrades Can Survive Their Crummy Economic Record”

  1. Doom and Gloom says:


    The FBI has found scant evidence that the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol was the result of an organized plot to overturn the presidential election result, according to four current and former law enforcement officials.

    “Ninety to ninety-five percent of these are one-off cases,” said a former senior law enforcement official with knowledge of the investigation. “Then you have five percent, maybe, of these militia groups that were more closely organized. But there was no grand scheme with Roger Stone and Alex Jones and all of these people to storm the Capitol and take hostages.”
    This report is a devastating blow to President Joe Biden and Democrats, who have attempted to make the existence of an “insurrection” on Jan. 6 a key issue in the 2022 midterm elections. Reuters does note that some “cells of protesters,” including members of the Oath Keepers and Proud Boys, did coordinate to “break into the Capitol,” but the FBI found “no evidence that the groups had serious plans about what to do if they made it inside.”

    None of this excuses the violent riot that happened on Jan. 6. The FBI has arrested 570 rioters and each and every one of them should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

    But that is what the event was: a riot, just like so many other riots. Trying to politicize it and turn it into something it wasn’t won’t make the Capitol any safer.

    Remember this report everytime you hear the MSM and the DEMOCRATS CALLING IT AN INSURRECTION.

    • Doom and Gloom says:

      This follows an Aug. 20 report by Reuters, already generating fierce political controversy, that a long-running FBI investigation has concluded the events in the Capitol were not “the result of an organized plot to overthrow the presidential election result.”

      Remember that when you hear them saying INSURECTION.

      Also remember when I call for the top heads of the departments and not boots-on-the-ground agents.

      As FBI probed Jan. 6, many agents sympathized with insurrection, according to newly released email
      Will Carless, USA TODAY

      FROM YAHOO NEWS DATED 2022 after the FBI SAID NO INSURRECTION we find this: A “sizable percentage” of FBI employees felt sympathy towards ********the Jan. 6 insurrectionists,******* and considered the riot at the U.S. Capitol “no different than the BLM protests,” according to a warning email sent to a top FBI official by someone with apparent connections to the bureau.

      THERE WAS NO INSURRECTION. But then hey, if your a democrat who just stole the election with voter fraud you have to have something to run on after destroying the country for two years.

  2. Dana says:

    Our distinguished host quoted Newsweek:

    In a bit of loose-lipped candor, Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg, testifying this week before the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, let slip his belief that “the more pain” Americans feel at the pump, “the more benefit” there is for electric vehicle owners.

    Of course, electric vehicle owners are disproportionately the well-to-do, the people who can afford to buy new cars rather than used vehicles, and the people who can afford a ‘spare’ car, rather than only one, because Chevy Dolts are far more useful for tooling around town than longer trips.

    People like Mr Buttigieg are not like you! The Secretary was the son of two Notre Dame professors, so he grew up in at least affluent, if perhaps not wealthy, circumstances. He never knew being in a family where life was paycheck-to-paycheck, never knew parents who had to worry whether they could afford to put food on the table and a roof over their heads. He never knew, and certainly does not understand, how the working class in America live today.

    • Elwood P. Dowd says:

      Secretary Buttigieg was just stating a fact not a desire. Neither the Secretary nor the President sets the price of gasoline, global markets do, mostly OPEC+.

      His upbringing is irrelevant.

      • alanstorm says:

        Neither the Secretary nor the President sets the price of gasoline, global markets do, mostly OPEC+.

        Technically true – and completely misleading.

        Idiotic actions like Joey-boy’s actions re: oil and gas certainly have an effect on prices, i.e. to make them worse…

        …and OPEC was not a huge influence until January ’21.

        His upbringing is irrelevant.

        …like Hunter’s? You are to naïve to vote or breed.

      • Dana says:

        The esteemed Mr Dowd wrote:

        His upbringing is irrelevant.

        Actually, it is extremely relevant, because it explains to us just why he has no sympathy for the working class, for people who live from paycheck-to-paycheck; their lives, how they must live, what they have to do to survive is simply outside his paradigm, beyond his understanding. His mindset is like that (falsely) attributed to Marie Antoinette, “Let them eat cake.”

        Someone who grew up as did Mr Buttigieg could understand those less well off than he is and who grew up with lesser means than his parents had, but in the specific case, Mr Buttigieg is one of those who don’t. Heck, Donald Trump understands more about the poor than do most of the Democratic Party leadership!

  3. alanstorm says:

    Democrats Can’t Ignore the Economy.

    Really? They’ve been studiously ignoring it so far.

  4. Dana says:

    Some people knew what would happen after Joe Biden won the election:

  5. Professor Hale says:

    Isn’t mayor Pete the same guy who, as transportation sec, was caught using his SUV caravan to get his bike closer to the office and then arriving at his office on the bike for the assembled cameras? And then taking a months long paid vacation for “maternity leave”?

Pirate's Cove