Democrats can blow the 2018 election

Democrats are feeling confident. They know Trump will motivate their base. They are picturing a Big Blue Wave.

High hopes.

What could go wrong?

Here are some things.

1. Gun Control fears energizes the right.  

The young people are saying adults should do something. The youth are photogenic. They sound insistent: they want safe schools.  The crowds are massive. Anti-gun people are sensing an opportunity. They are wondering if this isn't the opportunity to go big.

Then along comes retired Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens, and he says it aloud: abolish the 2nd Amendment.  He has written on this before. He had suggested back in 2014 that the real meaning of the 2nd Amendment should have been expressed as: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms when serving in the Militia shall not be infringed."  

This isn't helpful. He kicked open a hornets' nest.

He put onto the table the great fear for the gun rights cohort, confiscation. The libs may try to do what Australia did. From time to time people bring it up.  Why can't we be like Great Britain?  Or Japan?

I have watched Democratic candidates struggle to figure out some sort of politically acceptable, moderate position on gun control as they hope to accommodate both the anti-gun energy and the gun rights advocates. Steven's announcement, and voices like his, will drown out nuance.  It will be like trying to carry on a conversation amidst a siren going off.  Gun owners are on the alert. 

The political impact of the young people marching could go both ways.  This could energize Republicans.  I can already imagine the TV ads.

Hiring people very correctly

2. Political correctness and micro-aggression talk can make Democrats look extreme.
  

Democrats have been led by their 2016 constituency groups--historically disadvantaged groups, academia, and plaintiffs' lawyers--to be exquisitely sensitive to coded signs of disrespect. Everything can be meant wrong or taken wrong, and defined as a micro-aggression because in fact humans are a cauldron of conscious and unconscious biases, and therefore every interaction between people contains an opportunity for assumptions and biases to be communicated. 

This creates a higher standard of correct thought and behavior than is comfortable for a great many people. Democrats are positioned irrevocably on the side of Correct Thought. Trump gave voters the "all clear," saying what a great many people believe, that the culture of offense-vigilance has gone too far.  

The popularity of the Rosanne revival reflects that the backlash against political correctness is ongoing in this era of Trump. Well educated people are not exempt from PC resentment; indeed,their work lives put them into situations in which the bar is set very, very high, with enforcement by a HR and fellow employees who feel entitled to have their sensitivities addressed and to file complaints. An awkward phrase can be sudden death to a career.  Incidents come to light every day of people caught up in the net of Correct Thought.

This is a dangerous issue for Democrats.

Click: Govtrack

3. The Progressive left may demand perfection.  

Democratic candidates understand they have a risk on the left. Conor Lamb had no Democratic primary opponent, a fact cited by Paul Ryan for why he was able to win in Pennsylvania.  I witness myself seven candidates running in a bright red Congressional District with a 20% margin for Trump, and all seven are Bernie compliant on every issue. Candidates understand that centrism means "sellout" among a great bloc of leftist activists, the people who show up at political events. Without the support of the left flank of Democrats no candidate can win a general election. 

Most Democratic activists are left of Ron Wyden, the 23rd most liberal member of the Senate.  So there is the bind.  In a competitive primary situation, the candidate is pushed to be Bernie-compliant in his or her politics, but is unlikely to have Bernie's own personal appeal to progressive voters nor to experience Bernie's crowdsourced money.   The primary process may create candidates who cannot win general elections--a situation analogous to the effect the Tea Party had on Republicans in 2010 and 2012, which allowed Democrats to win Senate seats in Indiana and North Dakota and Montana.

Click: Bureau of Labor Statistics

4. Democrats may keep forgetting it's the economy, stupid.  

Democrats persist in allowing Trump to take credit for the current jobless rate. Trump inherited a persistent trend. He did not create prosperity. Trump already has a theme in place: just look how great the economy is.  I did it.  

The trend line shown here is for ten years. The last hash mark denotes the beginning of the Trump presidency. This is a trend, not a reversal. 

There is a potential battle of messages. Democrats could be mocking Trump for taking credit for "Obama's economy" -- or they could let Trump claim credit for rescuing America from carnage while Democrats focus on attacking Trump. They are doing the latter.  American voters already know that Trump is a vulgarian whose White House is in turmoil amid rumors of past bad behavior.  Democrats care about that but a great many other people care very little.  They care about the economy.  As long as we are not in the midst of a nuclear war, the issue is the economy, and Democrats are blowing this.  

The economy feels pretty good and Trump is positioned as its cheerleader.  I consider this political malpractice by Democrats, but it is happening.   Again, I can imagine the TV ads: a busy factory, Help Wanted signs, upbeat music, and Trump saying he inherited carnage but look at America now, so Vote Republicans into Congress to keep America working.

Democrats could blow this election very, very easily.