If Democrats Agree to Social Security Cuts, We'll Lose the Presidency and the Senate

[jtown1123]

I'm not sure how many polls need to come out before Democrats are convinced that cutting Social Security in any form (raising the retirement age, means testing, reducing COLA)is political suicide. Or even talking about it for that matter.

Many high profile Senate Dems (Kent Conrad, Dick Durbin, Mark Pryor)as well as Steny Hoyer in the House, have said they are willing to raise the retirement age...this is disastrous. Even President Obama hasn't ruled out cuts to Social Security as proposed in the Fiscal Commission. Also, very bad.

Here is some sobering info:

A post-election poll by Celinda Lake's Lake Research Partners found that, by a margin of 3 percentage points, Americans now trust Republicans in Congress more than Democrats when it comes to Social Security -- surely the first time since the program became a signature issue for the Democratic Party in the 1930s.

The poll found confidence in Democrats on the issue dropping 14 points just since January 2007, accompanied by a 13-point increase for Republicans.

The public favors congressional Republicans over Obama on Social Security by an even larger 6-point margin. Obama's 26-percent rating is not only less than half Bill Clinton's (53 percent), it's even lower than that of George W. Bush (37 percent), whose proposal to privatize the program went down in flames.

That the public would trust Republicans more on this issue was, until recently, inconceivable.

The pollsters had no doubt that the turnaround stems from statements by Obama and other Democratic leaders expressing their openness to cuts in Social Security. "It's the rhetoric that says things like, 'Everything is on the table,'" said Lake. "That's not how the public feels. This isn't a policy debate in the public's mind, this is a core value."

The Rest: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/19/obama-social-security-talk-polling_n_811209.html

If the Democratic party has a prayer, it's Social Security. It is so ridiculously popular across party lines that if Obama truly wants to woo the independents, just come out and say "I will never, ever consider cuts to Social Security for deficit reduction, OFF THE TABLE." It's really that simple. Hope all the Dems get united on this position. If they don't and vote for cuts, we all know very well the Republicans (the snakes that they are) will campaign on "Dems cut Social Security! Trust us!"

Good day.

[notesdev]

1. Hate to break it to you

but we will lose the Presidency due to changing electoral math (try to put together a winning Democratic set of EVs without OH, FL, MI - can't be done), and the Senate is likely lost through reversion to the mean, since the great majority of Senate seats up for re-election are held by us and quite a few are "blue dog" scenarios. Throw in planned retirements and we'll be lucky to keep 45 after the 2012 election.

[jtown1123]

2. I'm pretty realistic. I am just hoping this kind of talk wakes up Dems into sticking to

our principles. I tend to believe so many Independents voted for Republicans because Dems aren't vocal enough about sticking up for the little guy and too many of these blue dogs water down our effectiveness.

[whathehell]

9. I agree completely....Democrats have to start standing for something again. n/t

[katnapped]

3. Good luck with(out) Pennsylvania as well n/t

[Bigmack]

14. I hate to agree with your assessment...

but I do.

How about this question.... if the Dems lose the WH in 2012, which Repub will win?

That's the question that has my bladder quivering.

[Capitalocracy]

34. Whoever wins the primary.

:scared:

[BzaDem]

16. Actually, the EV change due to the census barely affects Obama at all. He can still win without

OH/FL/VA (just take Kerry states + Colorado/Iowa/New Mexico, which gets him to exactly 270). But he likely won't have that problem -- even in the immediate aftermath of 2010, Obama was at minimum 5 points ahead of any potential nominee in a poll of Virginia.

Though you are correct that we will be lucky to keep a majority in the Senate after 2012. It is possible if there is a Democratic wave like 2008, but we will probably lose our majority.

[notesdev]

26. I don't see him winning that many

and I'm looking at Michigan as a near-certain loss at this point. If the 2010 trends hold, we'll be lucky to hold onto Illinois.

Virginia you can forget about, this state elected a hard-right GOP governor by a 30-point margin. New Jersey is also going to be a tossup as well, and we could find a number of newly vulnerable states in the Kerry set.

A lot of Obama's 2008 success came from three factors:

#1 - an electorate determined to reject the party of George Bush as mercilessly and thoroughly as it could
#2 - zero negative information about our candidate
#3 - terrible campaign by the opposing candidate

While we may get #3, the first two, more important, points give us a radically different outlook on 2012. Obama is no longer "hope and change", he's a known quantity, and many people are going to be asking exactly where the hope and change is. He's not going to be able to motivate people as in 2008 (and it's his own damn fault).

This country will continue to seek change until it finds a leader with policies it is reasonably comfortable with. Bush wasn't it, and Obama isn't it either. The GOP really has to pick a terrible, terrible candidate - terrible enough that they get a massive sit-home effect from core voters like in 2006/08 - in order to lose this next election. More likely it will be our side that again feels the sit-home effect as we did in 2010.

[Arkana]

36. Got any polling data to back this up or are you just blowing smoke?

[bluestate10]

42. I vote for blowing smoke. nt

[notesdev]

44. You mean, the actual 2010 election results?

That's the polling I'm referring to, the only one that really matters - the actual election.

With other polls, it's too easy for people to discard the ones that don't fit their prejudices.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

18. Lose the Presidency in 2012?

To who? Will just ANY Republican candidate for POTUS work?

:shrug:

[jtown1123]

28. Mitt Romney.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

29. What do you think the odds are

that he will win in the GE (let alone make it through the primary)?

[Arkana]

37. The day Mittens wins the nomination will be a cold one in hell.

[bluestate10]

43. The powerful religious right in his party hates Romney. The religious right controls

republican primary results. The religious right, the fundamentalists that dominate the republican party, don't think that mormonism is a bonafide religion.

[Capitalocracy]

33. Obama hasn't done much to energize the base.

The only real card we have is if the Republican candidate is so out there we gain enthusiasm for keeping them out. But the lesser of two evils, especially if he won't even stand for things like SS, is going to be a tough ticket to win.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

35. The base will be plenty energized in 2012 IMHO

unless they decide that they care more about President Obama's real and/or perceived shortcomings than the direction the Republicans are going to take us (again) starting in 2013, particularly when we finally know who their candidate is going to be.

[robcon]

4. The Senate is at risk, but the presidency is a lock, IMO.

Obama has the Democrats, and a good majority of independents. That's all he needs in 2012.

[jtown1123]

7. I'm not so sure. If he does some major deficit cutting at the expense of the lower and middle

income classes, we might see a lot of Democrats get pissed and not vote.

[robcon]

20. You mean that if Congress cuts some programs, and he signs the bills, he's at risk???

I think his speech/actions during the Tucson tragedy, and the work of the lame duck Congress, sealed his re-election... unless something weird happens from now on.

[Bluenorthwest]

11. See. you can not have a lock on independents two years out

prior to seeing the alternative. If such voters are a lock for a Party so far out, they are not independents, just non declared Democrats. And that makes for a term of art that just takes up space in the minds of consultants.

[bluethruandthru]

5. Whether you believe Obama will start the erosion of Social Security or not, what's

so troubling about the poll is that it shows how truly misled and/or ignorant Americans are about issues. Anyone with half a brain knows that Democrats...ANY Democrat would be more likely to protect Social Security than a Republican!

[jtown1123]

6. But they aren't hearing it. This reversal happened overnight. What are we doing wrong?

If people are so dumb, surely we can manipulate them just as well as the Republicans?

[Dhalgren]

8. Well, that is just talk. We will have to wait and see.

A couple of years ago you could have said the same thing about war escalation or rendition, or torture, or tax cuts for the wealthy or any number of issues that turned out not to be such a lock. It makes no difference what the excuses are or what the arguments for doing these things are, the simple fact is that Democrats cannot be trusted any more to act as Democrats have historically. It is a wait and see kind of thing. Expedience and corporate support are more important to either political party than either party's base - or the "independents"...

[Laelth]

10. Off to the greatest page with this thread.

This is a discussion worth having.

-Laelth

[leveymg]

12. The WH and many others have been lulled into complacency by the false blip in Obama's favorability

The sudden spike in the President's popularity polls is being taken as confirmation the American people want bipartisan cooperation, regardless of the outcome.

What did Mark Twain say? Lies, damn lies, and statistics.

[jtown1123]

13. I think the spike has to do with how well he handled the Arizona shooting.

He was eloquent, warm and never said anything negative about Palin or the conservatives. Once the warm fuzzies fade from his wonderful speech, people will remember that they or a member of their family is unemployed, mortgage underwater, retirement savings gone...we need a strong economic leader now. This talk of deficit reduction and tax cuts for corporations isn't helping the middle class.

[StarsInHerHair]

41. yeah but, who was his speechwriter for that? That's my thoughts on it

cause the Pres. own actions have spoken differently than his speeches.

[Arkana]

38. How do you know how they're taking it? Are you part of the White House

senior staff?

If not then you're talking out of your ass.

[treestar]

15. What would be wrong with means testing, that is cutting benefits of the rich

They have other resources.

[jtown1123]

17. Because so few seniors are wealthy, the means testing proposals start cutting at pple who made low

40s. This is really bad. Also consider the fact that the program need the extra revenue from wealthier seniors. The program is meant to be universal, which is why it is so widely supported. It's insurance against old age, disability and death. Insurance doesn't factor in how wealthy you are.

[elocs]

19. If Democrats are complicit in cutting SS, then things will not go well for them.

Apparently unlike our elected officials, many Democratic voters do have a line in the sand and clearly and loudly proclaim they are against cuts in Social Security. Unfortunately many of our elected Democratic officials have difficulty in proclaiming their support for that same line in the sand.

As far as the Senate goes, that is likely gone due to the sheer numbers of more than twice as many Democratic seats up for election compared to Republicans.

[robcon]

21. Huh?? It would be good for Repugs - the sponsors of the bills??

I don't get the logic of that.

If cutting programs is popular, he'll win for signing them. If cutting programs is unpopular, the Repugs will pay as much as the president.

[elocs]

22. Republicans will vote for Republicans no matter what.

Democrats tend to have principles which they will not compromise, the proverbial line in the sand, and Social Security is a line in the sand for many of us. We will not support any Democrat who goes along with cutting SS.

We're really only talking about the presidency here since the Senate will likely be lost in 2012.

[BzaDem]

23. Oh yeah. Just the presidency. Just the difference between Republicans passing whatever laws they

want, and the difference between them not passing anything.

You are basically saying that if Obama proposes (say) means-testing the program (which is already means-tested somewhat, since the benefit index is progressive), you will knowingly and admittedly enable a Republican's victory, after which they can pass into law:

a voucherization of Medicare
a privatization of SS
a flat tax
a gradual end to Medicaid

all because you have "principles" (a.k.a. spite). Hope it works out well for you.

[elocs]

24. Not spite, just a line in the sand. Sorry you don't have one.

They can be inconvenient though.

[BzaDem]

31. If your strategy results in a far more right country than my strategy

isn't your strategy wrong by definition, if you actually claim you want leftist policies?
I can see how a Republican would want a further right country. But a Democrat?

[BzaDem]

32. If your strategy results in a far more right country than my strategy

isn't your strategy wrong by definition, if you actually claim you want leftist policies?
I can see how a Republican would want a further right country. But a Democrat?

[jtown1123]

27. Nope. Did you see how the Republicans convinced seniors that Dems cut Medicare?

during the HCR debates? In reality, the cuts were for wasteful subsidies to private insurers yet Repubs screamed that they were "cuts to Medicare." Republicans lie, it's what they are good at. All they need to say is that the President cut Social Security and people will turn on Democrats. People are stupid.

[dajoki]

25. And they will deserve it...

Never in my life would I have thought that repubs would be more trusted on Social Security, its a sad situation.

[Better Believe It]

30. But many of those who "lose" in the 2012 election will cash in their Wall Street chips.

[Capitalocracy]

40. No such thing as lose in a game like that

Good point, sadly.

[earth mom]

39. If Obama cuts Social Security Dems will see it for the MAJOR BETRAYAL it is. nt

[senseandsensibility]

45. k an r

EOM