When it comes to 2010, there’s list doubt that there’s a wind at Republicans’ backs. That doesn’t mean that all Republicans will benefit equally from the current wind at the Republicans’ backs. This observation from Dan Balz’s article is right on target:

There are aspects of this movement that could dampen the potential benefits for Republicans. One is the Perot-like quality to some protests, which is to say that some of the anger among these Americans is aimed at both parties and at Washington, rather than just at Obama. Republicans were skillful in 1993-94 in catering to the Perot voters. But Republican leaders today cannot automatically count on all the angry populists for enthusiastic support.

Some of the loudest voices on the right are virulently anti-Obama and see the world in starkly different terms than much of the rest of the electorate. The Democracy Corps, a liberal organization headed by Democrats Stan Greenberg and James Carville, sponsored focus groups among very conservative Republicans and concluded: “The Republican base voters are not part of the continuum leading to the center of the electorate; they truly stand apart.”

Milquetoast Republicans like Lindsey Graham, if he were running this year, wouldn’t benefit from the TEA Party Movement. Right now, people of most political stripes are looking for fiscal conservatives. I’ve seen nothing that translates into much support for candidates like Tarryl Clark.

In fact, Tarryl will have a difficult time with Michele Bachmann. Michele has a huge fundraising advantage but she’s a fiscal conservative at a time when people are worried sick about Washington’s out-of-control spending, Washington’s bailouts and the Democrats’ insistence to spend trillions of dollars on health care legislation that will raise insurance premiums, drive medical prices higher and that does nothing to solve the problem of insuring everyone.

In addition to Michele having $617,000 CoH heading into Q4, Michele has raised another $125,000 online to start this quarter.

Tad Devine sounds the right cautionary tone with this quote:

Possible disaffection among independent voters may be even more critical in shaping the 2010 political landscape. “Right now, I believe we as Democrats must be most concerned about disaffection in the middle,” said strategist Tad Devine. “Middle-class voters put their faith in our party and its leaders in the last two elections, and that faith needs to be vindicated by concrete results.”

Democrats are painting themselves into a corner with their spendaholic ways in DC. The thing that started the independents’ exodus was the pork-filled stimulus bill. People who had read the initial House legislation knew it was nothing but pork. When Pelosi and Reid passed the conference report without letting leegislators read it, independents got mightily upset.

When Democrats tried pushing their health care reform bills before the August recess, independents asked why the Democrats were rushing things. When the Democrats’ response was “People are losing their health care every day”, independents said that it was more important to get it right than getting something mediocre done quickly.

Simply put, independents are questioning the Democrats’ insistence on going fast because they’re thinking that the Democrats are rushing because they don’t want to know what’s in the bills they’re passing.

If Democrats keep insisting on pushing their agenda through without people knowing what’s in the bills, independents will rebel in larger numbers than they’re already revolting at.

Technorati: Elections, Michele Bachmann, Fiscal Restraint, Conservatism, Tarryl Clark, Pork, Tax Increases, Speaker Pelosi, Health Care, Stimulus, Deficits, Spending, Democrats

Cross-posted at California Conservative