"Serious doubts" = serious trouble for GOP

Scant and too-early evidence, for sure, but Jamelle Bouie points to a new Democracy Corps poll, which "suggests that the landscape for Democrats is better than it looks":

In its survey of the 24 most competitive Republican congressional districts, the GOP holds just a one-point advantage over a generic Democrat, 43 percent to 42 percent. What’s more, a large number of voters in these districts (54 percent) want Republicans to do more to work with President Obama. Overall, the Republican brand has taken a serious hit over the last six months--GOP opposition to universal background checks and the Violence Against Women Act, among other things, has raised "serious doubts" about the performance of Republican incumbents in competitive areas....

Another 12 months of this, and the GOP could find itself in a worrisome position next November.

Which is why denying them (probably unnecessary; they'll deny themselves) any political points on immigration reform is so vital. Aside from the plain, undeniable fact that they deserve no points, a "denial strategy" goes far beyond the rough and tumble of mere partisan politics.

In my view, not only is there nothing cold-hearted about such a strategy, it is, rather, of the highest ethical order. The GOP is a party that must be killed, before it kills again ... and again. The party's obstructionism is well known, but it has turned treacherous, too. Its past actions and current threats regarding the debt ceiling alone are enough to convict and condemn; the GOP is, again, promising national devastation and global waste--odds are, it ain't kidding. 

Voters can't do much to avert the GOP's next self-imposed debt crisis, this fall, but they can gut the party for good, in November '14.

Give it another chance--which an immigration notch might ensure--after that November? The nation would only be asking for more partisan squalor, and more treachery, and of course the coup de grace against Obama's second term. I'd prefer to see the president go out on high notes of success, rather than surrender perforce to yet another two years of Republican betrayal.

No thanks. A more humane, less costly immigration bill would emerge from the first year of new Democratic majorities--and after all these years of waiting, another 18 months are but a pause. No, if there's a chance to retake the House and protect the Senate, Democrats would be recklessly cold-hearted only in not taking that chance--and that means denying Republicans any success on immigration (if necessary, which, again, it probably won't be).  

Comments

[Peter G]

This is certainly a more persuasive argument. I think you are right in that all observers can rely on the Republicans to screw this up. And I hope you are right that the ground is better than many realize. The Republican's relentless efforts at vagina management certainly aren't helping them with women. Still a little voice inside my head keeps warning me that the far left of the Democrats will be of little assistance and perhaps even toxic to these efforts. If it is theirs to lose they'll find a way. The most likely scenario would come from pushing unelectable candidates in primaries.

[AnneJ]

I think this week in Texas may have been the shot heard around the world in the fight for women's rights over their own bodies. That condescending jerk governor made it c clear who he thinks is boss in the vagina department and it ain't women. Clearly the women of Texas think differently. Really bad move on his part and hopefully he'll pay dearly for it.

[Chris Andersen]

"A more humane, less costly immigration bill would emerge from the first year of new Democratic majorities--and after all these years of waiting, another 18 months are but a pause."

You're starting to sound like the "kill the bill" crowd who were convinced that killing Obamcare would result in a better bill being produced. What evidence is there for this, even if we take as a given that a failed bill would result in Republican losses in 2014?

And I'd like you tell Dreamers and others to their face that they should just wait another 18 months. I'm sure they won't mind you characterizing it as "just a pause" in their decade long effort to establish their rights.

[Robert Lipscomb]

Beat the GOP by aping them?

[shsavage]

By any means necessary, Robert. This is not a gentleman's disagreement. It's a knife fight. In a cellar. At midnight. In a thunderstorm.

[Tom]

I'm a guy who likes a good metaphor, shsavage, but like all rhetorical devices, they have limitations. Use 'em to highlight important aspects of (or critical relationships affecting) political realities. But please don't reduce complex social, technological and political dynamics into bumper sticker sized similes to be used as the basis for a political strategy.

If this is a stormy midnight basement knife fight, we're having it with our paranoid schizo brother, and our parents and siblings are chained to the floor in rising flood waters (you know, from the thunderstorm and all) and they need both of us to get them unchained and upstairs because the crazy brother has the combination on half of the locks. Oh, and brother's anti-psychotic meds are in the drawer next to the knife rack up in the kitchen. Poor planning, I know.

Ain't analogies fun when you try and overextend them?