This election shows the center of American politics.

[spindler]

Many of the far right posters on this board have claimed that they and George Bush are not really far right, but representative of the American people. And they have claimed that any moderate views are really far left liberal.

So from this election, let's get a picture out what really does matter to average Americans and what really is far right and far left.

You'll notice that most of the Republicans that won are in the most Republican states. The Republicans that lost were actually the moderate ones, which shows that only the most far right states like Bush.

Here is what is most important to mainstream Americans based on this vote:
- A war plan that makes sense
- Fiscal responsibility, rather than tax cuts for anybody no matter what happens
- Some reasonable kind of national health plan

Here is what is not really representative of mainstream Americans:
- The idea that taxes should be cut no matter what
- The idea that gay marriage is a pivotal issue, in either direction
- The idea that mainstream Americans really care about flag burning
- The idea that Americans are to police the world in never ending wars, even if there are no immediate gains.

The far right posters claims to represent mainstream Americans have proven wrong. I'm a far left liberal, but it is obvious to me that the people in Seattle or Philadelphia are not really representative of the mainstream. But you guys don't seem to realize that likewise, the far right people in Idaho or Nebraska are not representative of the mainstream either.

[SDW2001]

Not it's not. The Democrats still don't stand for anything other than We're Not George Bush. The country is still right of center. A lot of the races they won were with conservative Democrats. An example is Joe Sestak in PA defeating Curt Weldon. Democrats didn't win by being more liberal. Secondly, Bush is no conservative. He's a big government new Republican.

[trumptman]

I'll tell you what represents the "center" of American politics because this is what won last night for Democrats.

Virginia - A former Republican
Pennsylvania - A pro-life candidate
Connecticut - A pro-war independent

You can draw whatever conclusions you want, but if you think candidates like that prove universal health care of something of that nature, you'd be wrong. The DLC wing of the Democratic party is what got this thing pulled out.

Nick

[jimmac]

Not it's not. The Democrats still don't stand for anything other than We're Not George Bush. The country is still right of center. A lot of the races they won were with conservative Democrats. An example is Joe Sestak in PA defeating Curt Weldon. Democrats didn't win by being more liberal. Secondly, Bush is no conservative. He's a big government new Republican.


You wish!:lol:

[jimmac]

I'll tell you what represents the "center" of American politics because this is what won last night for Democrats.

Virginia - A former Republican
Pennsylvania - A pro-life candidate
Connecticut - A pro-war independent

You can draw whatever conclusions you want, but if you think candidates like that prove universal health care of something of that nature, you'd be wrong. The DLC wing of the Democratic party is what got this thing pulled out.

Nick


Actually you can thank Bush himself for this!:lol:

[dmz]

I don't think any Democrat really ran on a traditional 'raise taxes' platform -- also -- someone like Ford really puts a crimp in the traditional picture of a leftist Democrat. But at the same time, the tax-and-spend Republicans lead me to think that the country is running barely right of center.

If it weren't for Iraq, the economy being what it is would had ensured continued Republican majorities, so as far as domestic issues are concerned, it would seem that Democrats want in that space.

It's just a shame they had to demagogue Iraq to get there.

[MacRR]

I don't think any Democrat really ran on a traditional 'raise taxes' platform -- also -- someone like Ford really puts a crimp in the traditional picture of a leftist Democrat. But at the same time, the tax-and-spend Republicans lead me to think that the country is running barely right of center.

If it weren't for Iraq, the economy being what it is would had ensured continued Republican majorities, so as far as domestic issues are concerned, it would seem that Democrats want in that space.

It's just a shame they had to demagogue Iraq to get there.
Well, apparently republican corruption had a lot to do with voter sentiment in this election.

[SDW2001]

I don't think any Democrat really ran on a traditional 'raise taxes' platform -- also -- someone like Ford really puts a crimp in the traditional picture of a leftist Democrat. But at the same time, the tax-and-spend Republicans lead me to think that the country is running barely right of center.

If it weren't for Iraq, the economy being what it is would had ensured continued Republican majorities, so as far as domestic issues are concerned, it would seem that Democrats want in that space.

It's just a shame they had to demagogue Iraq to get there.


They didn't run as that because they never run as tax raising liberals, unless they're in Massachussetts or California! ;) Liberals can't get elected nationally and everyone knows it. Just watch who they nominate for President. No matter who it is, he/she won't run as a lib.

[SDW2001]

Well, apparently republican corruption had a lot to do with voter sentiment in this election.

I agree with that. It was the corruption and Iraq and anger by conservatives voters in general. Evangelicals likely stayed home as well. Really, a combination of factors led to a big win for Dems.

[MacRR]

I agree with that. It was the corruption and Iraq and anger by conservatives voters in general. Evangelicals likely stayed home as well. Really, a combination of factors led to a big win for Dems.
That's not to say Dems haven't had their own corruption issues- it's just that republicans were the majority, and had the power to let greed take the helm. Dems, were they in the same position, may have fell into that trap as well. But thankfully, it seems to be a lesson learned, and we shouldn't have to worry about either party being quite as audacious about it. Prison sentences go a long was as well. I am eager to see Tom Delay in stripes.

[Hassan i Sabbah]

It's just a shame they had to demagogue Iraq to get there.
'Demagogue' is not a verb.

And for goodness' sake, Iraq is a fucking disaster. When will you people just admit it? It's a fucking disaster, the Republican administration's absolutely, 100% responsible and the American electorate have worked it out.

[hardeeharhar]

Indeed, Hassan, indeed.

I also don't believe the economy is as good as trumpt wants to make it out to be... If you look at the exit polls the first thing cited is the economy... that would only make sense if the economy was percieved to be bad...

[addabox]

Demagogue Iraq. Failed to run on the "traditional" we'll-raise-your-taxes platform. Only won by fielding "conservative" candidates. Can't win a national election (and everybody knows it!).

:lol: :lol: :lol:

Is there something about losing that makes wingers get extra stupid?

[addabox]

Indeed, Hassan, indeed.

I also don't believe the economy is as good as trumpt wants to make it out to be... If you look at the exit polls the first thing cited is the economy... that would only make sense if the economy was percieved to be bad...

Right, but remember, pace Trumptman, the only people who don't think the economy is great are either stupid or a Democrat. Republicans are doing very nicely, thank you.

I guess there are a lot of stupid independents out there.

Maybe it's time the elitist Republican party stop alienating ordinary working people?

[dmz]

'Demagogue' is not a verb.
Main Entry: demagogue Pronunciation Guide
Function: verb
transitive verb : to treat (as an issue) in a demagogic manner

Citation format for this entry:

"demagogue." Webster's Third New International Dictionary, Unabridged. Merriam-Webster, 2002. http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com (8 Nov. 2006).

And for goodness' sake, Iraq is a fucking disaster. When will you people just admit it? It's a fucking disaster, the Republican administration's absolutely, 100% responsible and the American electorate have worked it out.

It's demagoguery to stroke an injury you're not able/willing to offer(ing) a solution to --- and it's painfully clear when the obvious repercussions of leaving Iraq prematurely/ineffectively are ignored, in toto.

Let me demonstrate how/why the issue is clouded by demagoguery -- I'll ask you a question you wont answer:

"Does this [Iraq disaster] now make coddling the House of Saud alright? Is it now ethical to jump into bed with any Tom, Dick, or Hussein that happens to help our interests in that region -- and then starve them if they don't behave?"

[SDW2001]

Indeed, Hassan, indeed.

I also don't believe the economy is as good as trumpt wants to make it out to be... If you look at the exit polls the first thing cited is the economy... that would only make sense if the economy was percieved to be bad...

The lack of confidence in the economy defies logic. Nearly all indicator point to a robust economy. Growth slowed last quarter but is expected to rebound signifiantly. The weak spot remains the housing market and domestic auto sales.

I have to either hand it to the Dems or assail the Republicans for having the electorate give Dems more credit on managing the economy. By all objective measures the economy is in great shape. I really think Iraq was THE issue that trumped all others.

[Gilsch]

It's demagoguery to stroke an injury you're not able/willing to offer(ing) a solution to --- and it's painfully clear when the obvious repercussions of leaving Iraq prematurely/ineffectively are ignored, in toto. :lol: You make the claim that the Dems aren't offering a "solution" but you are mentioning leaving Iraq "prematurely"as something they have proposed as one? Coming from someone who blindly supports the "stay the course" proponents...the irony is sweet.
[I]"Does this [Iraq disaster] now make coddling the House of Saud alright? Is it now ethical to jump into bed with any Tom, Dick, or Hussein that happens to help our interests in that region -- and then starve them if they don't behave?" Ask your buddies...the neo con wingers. They might be able to help you.

I see a quote from a book, or a lame song, and then a bland reference to a movie coming. :D

[addabox]

Here's my take on what the election "means".

"Dems won by running conservative candidates" is a predictable right wing caveat, completely untrue. The Dems ran some conservative candidates, they always do, in conservative districts. Some people just don't realize it because they've got that barrel over their head with "Democrats are crazy liberal extremists" printed on the inside.

They also ran a lot of real progressives and populists, who won.

The real story is that the Republicans lost on governance, which is a resounding repudiation of Roveism.

Under Rove the Republicans have been all about attitude. Bluster. Wedge issues. Photo ops. All designed to "energize the base" and scratch out wins with razor thins margins.

Problem being that the "base" strategy relies not on good governance, which is the kind of thing a party does to build a stable majority, but on inflamed passions, scary stories, righteous indignation and a constant evocation of "the enemy", both foreign and domestic.

Guess what? The American people are, first before all things, pragmatists. They like to see things get done. They like results.

So what does the Republican party give them?

Broken Medicare "reform". Yes, the voters noticed, and a lot of ranting about socialized medicine didn't persuade them that the Democrats weren't a better bet to improve things.

Katrina, wherein it appeared to most people that the federal government couldn't execute on one of its most basic functions, nicely matched with the Terry Schiavo circus, wherein it appeared that the Republicans could move heaven and earth is they smelled an opportunity for political theater. Classic Rove. Who cares if FEMA is functional if you can "control the message" about "the culture of life"?

Iraq. Forget the "Dems are soft on national defense and heart terror" line, Iraq is a great big huge throbbing billboard for incompetence. As in "spend all the money, don't get the job done". Americans hate that.

The economy. The Republicans wanted to talk about gas prices, the stock market, unemployment figures and tax cuts. Middle class voters noticed that their wages are stagnant, their costs are rising, their jobs are insecure and their share of those giant tax cuts is modest to slight. Simply denouncing observation as "liberal propaganda" suggests how divorced Republican rule has become from basic pragmatism.

By the way, it bears noting that a number of states passed referenda raising the state minimum wage. Republicans think that costs jobs, the data says otherwise. People notice.

Scandal and corruption. Exit polling showed "corruption" as being high on voters lists of important issues. The Republicans wanted you believe that "everybody does it". That's not a winning hand when you have all the power. Americans do not like corruption, and Republicans are up to their necks in it.

Notice how little all that has to do with a lot of windy gassbagging about "fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them here", or gays in the woodpile, or teaching creationism in the public schools, or "the war against Christmas", or abortion, or "costal elites".

Notice how all of that is designed to shore up "the base" by getting folks riled up about how their "way of life" is "under siege".

Notice how Americans aren't buying it. The fact is, Rove's strategy barely eked out a (contested) win for his man, and 9/11 completely distorted the playing filed on 02 and 04.

The base strategy coupled with some highly unusual wins have convinced the hard right that America looks like them. That "centrist democrat" equals "extremist liberal", and that "everybody" thinks so, because that's the kind of talk that "wins elections", i.e. turns out just enough of the most right-wing elements in the country.

They gaze into the cul-de-sac that Rove has crafted for their party and see a bright future.

But at the end of the day, Americans like a government that works. The party of "government is the problem" have shown they have no interest in that. Government is to line their coffers and to use as a weapon against their enemies. They don't care about "getting things done", they care about "consolidating power". Oh, and hey, guess what? People noticed.

[Hassan i Sabbah]

It's demagoguery to stroke an injury you're not able/willing to offer(ing) a solution to --- and it's painfully clear when the obvious repercussions of leaving Iraq prematurely/ineffectively are ignored, in toto.

Let me demonstrate how/why the issue is clouded by demagoguery -- I'll ask you a question you wont answer:

"Does this [Iraq disaster] now make coddling the House of Saud alright? Is it now ethical to jump into bed with any Tom, Dick, or Hussein that happens to help our interests in that region -- and then starve them if they don't behave?"
Ugh. A transitive verb: aka 'misapplied use of a noun'. Never heard it used that way in my life and according to my two volume OED it's noun all the way. :)

But this is beside the point.

I would love to answer your question, but I genuinely don't understand it. Who's 'coddling' the Sauds? Who is threatening 'starvation'? I'm not kidding, I really don't understand your point.

If it's any help to your forthcoming explanation, the Democrats didn't demagogueificateanise the electorate about the Iraq war. No, what happened is this: the war is a total fucking disaster, the current administration's responsible for it and the electorate have worked it out.

[Gilsch]

the Democrats didn't demagogueificateanise the electorate about the Iraq war. further demagogueificateanisezation of the issue is not recommended. ;)

[dmz]

I would love to answer your question, but I genuinely don't understand it. Who's 'coddling' the Sauds? Who is threatening 'starvation'? I'm not kidding, I really don't understand your point.

Well, before the Iraq adventure, it wasn't okay to back Saddam over Iran, but it was okay to starve the Iraqis when they misbehaved. It was okay to ignore Mubarak's shenanigans, but it's not okay to hold hands at photo ops, or ignore Saudis' exporting of wahhabism, etc.

If it's not alright to genuinely [attempt to] help that region, then it's alright to play them for useful fools? Or which faction is it ethical to prop up? Is 'draining the swamps' now off the table?

[BRussell]

Here's my take on what the election "means". I agree with what you've said, and I'll offer mine: I hope - and maybe it's only a hope - that this election represents a relatively long-term realignment. I hope that, as a result of the Rovian strategy of 2000-present, social conservatism has become a regional oddity, relegated to the old south. I of course prefer it if Democrats win over Republicans, but I don't care if Republicans win as long as this tumor of political Christian conservatism is finally excised from both parties. I don't care if Hillary Clinton wants to talk about reducing abortions, but this anti-science, anti-gay, anti-evolution philosophy has got to go.

[Hassan i Sabbah]

Actually, the more I think about it, it's a pretty desperate, callous notion that the Republicans are less responsible for their defeat because they've run such a bloody fiasco in Iraq than the Democrats are for pointing it out.

[Hassan i Sabbah]

Well, before the Iraq adventure, it wasn't okay to back Saddam over Iran, but it was okay to starve the Iraqis when they misbehaved. It was okay to ignore Mubarak's shenanigans, but it's not okay to hold hands at photo ops, or ignore Saudis' exporting of wahhabism, etc.

If it's not alright to genuinely [attempt to] help that region, then it's alright to play them for useful fools? Or which faction is it ethical to prop up? Is 'draining the swamps' now off the table?
I have absolutely no idea what you're trying to prove or how your question has anything at all to do with Democratic 'demagoguery' about Iraq.

If you're trying to suggest something about Democrat policy on Saudi Arabia, I'd ask you, in the principles of fair and balanced discourse, to discuss George Bush Sr's business ties with the royal family there first.

[spindler]

You guys are trying to pretend that mainstream Americans are with you, and not Democrats. Let's get some definitions here, and tell me if you disagree:

Health care:
far left - want full socialized medicine
far right - wants no government intervention whatsoever
mainstream Americans - not sure what they want or how to get it. Don't want full socialized medicine, but they are expecting the government to play some role in the solution, even though they don't like government solutions in general

Iraq war:
far left - against it from day one
mainstream - some were against it from day one, but right now they see no results and are tired of it
far right - with it until the end, will never be against it, if we leave before we win "the terrorists have won"

gay marriage:
far left - for full rights of gays
mainstream Americans - apathetic, may be strongly against it, against it, or for it depending on the person, but no mainstreram Americans consider it a major issue
far right - think it's an extremely important issue, a defining characteristic of America

taxes
far left - don't want higher taxes except to pay for reasonable social programs that deliver
mainstream - generally against taxes unless it delivers results, like Social Security
far right - fully against virtually all taxes

wealth distribution
far left - want lots of it
mainstream - want less of it but a decent minimum wage and the megarich to not get richer at the expense of the middle class
- far right - no wealth distribution whatsoever


Face it, you guys are far right and mainstream Americans don't identify with your extremes any more than the extremese of liberals.

[dmz]

I have absolutely no idea what you're trying to prove or how your question has anything at all to do with Democratic 'demagoguery' about Iraq.

If you're trying to suggest something about Democrat policy on Saudi Arabia, I'd ask you, in the principles of fair and balanced discourse, to discuss George Bush Sr's business ties with the royal family there first.
(This concludes my demonstration.)

[Hassan i Sabbah]

I have absolutely no idea where your demonstration even is, so I can't argue the point.

[Frank777]

"Dems won by running conservative candidates" is a predictable right wing caveat, completely untrue. The Dems ran some conservative candidates, they always do, in conservative districts.

Um, if that's true, why has Howard Dean been running around saying he was now moving the Dems to a "50 State Strategy" that included running candidates who "speak the local langauge" in the American Heartland?

If nothing's really changed, what's Dean been talking about?

[SDW2001]

You guys are trying to pretend that mainstream Americans are with you, and not Democrats. Let's get some definitions here, and tell me if you disagree:

Health care:
far left - want full socialized medicine
far right - wants no government intervention whatsoever
mainstream Americans - not sure what they want or how to get it. Don't want full socialized medicine, but they are expecting the government to play some role in the solution, even though they don't like government solutions in general

Iraq war:
far left - against it from day one
mainstream - some were against it from day one, but right now they see no results and are tired of it
far right - with it until the end, will never be against it, if we leave before we win "the terrorists have won"

gay marriage:
far left - for full rights of gays
mainstream Americans - apathetic, may be strongly against it, against it, or for it depending on the person, but no mainstreram Americans consider it a major issue
far right - think it's an extremely important issue, a defining characteristic of America

taxes
far left - don't want higher taxes except to pay for reasonable social programs that deliver
mainstream - generally against taxes unless it delivers results, like Social Security
far right - fully against virtually all taxes

wealth distribution
far left - want lots of it
mainstream - want less of it but a decent minimum wage and the megarich to not get richer at the expense of the middle class
- far right - no wealth distribution whatsoever


Face it, you guys are far right and mainstream Americans don't identify with your extremes any more than the extremese of liberals.

I disagree with your definitions to a point.

Health care:
far left - want full socialized medicine
far right - wants no government intervention whatsoever
mainstream Americans - not sure what they want or how to get it. Don't want full socialized medicine, but they are expecting the government to play some role in the solution, even though they don't like government solutions in general

Iraq war:
far left - against it from day one
mainstream - some were against it from day one, but right now they see no results and are tired of it. They want a timetable for withdrawal
far right - With it until the end or calling for a longer timetable.

gay marriage:
far left - for full rights of gays
mainstream Americans - Against it in general, don't support a federal amendment.
far right - think it's an extremely important issue, a defining characteristic of America

taxes
far left - Want higher taxes for anyone making more than 75,000 a year or so. Disagree that tax cuts bring in more revenue, not less
mainstream - Feel their paying too much, but are addicted to social programs
far right - Want total tax reform in the form of a flat tax and national sales tax. Want to completely overhaul welfare and social programs to be ability rather than need based


wealth distribution
far left - ant lots of it
mainstream - Against it in general, don't resent the rich as Dems claim. They don't work for minimum wage anyway. Resent our punish the successful tax system, but they live with it. They really just want their tax cuts to remain in place
- far right - no wealth distribution whatsoever.


They're not too far off though.

[Gilsch]

Um, if that's true, why has Howard Dean been running around saying he was now moving the Dems to a "50 State Strategy" that included running candidates who "speak the local langauge" in the American Heartland? Enlighten us as what you think "speaking the local language" means? And then maybe you could give us some names and how they are "conservative candidates"?

About the 50 State Strategy. You don't win the way the Dems won by just running "Conservative" candidates.

You don't take the House, win the Senate, gain convincingly at the state legislative levels, and not lose a single seat in the Senate, the House and governorships by choosing "conservative candidates". Give me a break. :???:

[addabox]

Um, if that's true, why has Howard Dean been running around saying he was now moving the Dems to a "50 State Strategy" that included running candidates who "speak the local langauge" in the American Heartland?

If nothing's really changed, what's Dean been talking about?

He's talking about how populist and progressive ideas actually resonate with the American electorate, assuming they are being espoused by someone they "trust".

In the West, for instance, that generally means someone with long term ties to the area who understands the regional economic issues. Doesn't hurt to "look" like a local.

[Frank777]

But that doesn't make any sense Adda. The Democrats have generally fielded local candidates in all elections.

AFAIK, the party hasn't routinely parachuted in blue staters into red territories just for elections.

So what's changed?

[addabox]

I have absolutely no idea where your demonstration even is, so I can't argue the point.

Holy mackerel. DMZ is outdoing himself in the obscurely convoluted point sweepstakes.

I'm guessing this one has something to do with "the Republicans have clearly made a hideous botch of Iraq, so I'm going to demand that the Democrats make sense of the long term history, compromised relationship to the US, ever shifting alliances, and massively entangled politics of the entire region, and offer a 'plan' that takes into account and resolves all of those, so that I can pretend 'hideous botch' is the default status of all comers."

Sort of like, "Chernobyl, huh? So what do you intend to do about global energy consumption and the inefficient mechanisms of energy futures markets? Huh? Huh?"

[addabox]

But that doesn't make any sense Adda. The Democrats have generally fielded local candidates in all elections.

AFAIK, the party hasn't routinely parachuted in blue staters into red territories just for elections.

So what's changed?

More attention paid to the recruitment phase of the campaign, which is a function of national party support for candidates in previously "write off" districts. Hence: 50 state strategy.

Enough money to get the message out that Tester, for instance, isn't a cartoon tax and spend liberal, and some effort to get a guy like Tester to run in the first place.

In the past a lot of the pick-ups wouldn't even have been on the party radar, meaning whoever the Democratic candidate would probably run a lack-luster campaign, if there was a candidate at all.

[Gilsch]

Sigh.

How Democrats can and will win in every state, every county, and every precinct.

The Democratic Party is committed to winning elections at every level in every region of the country, and we're getting started right now with a massive effort to fund organizers on the ground in every state.

The ultimate goal? An active, effective group of Democrats organized in every single precinct in the country. Here's what we're doing to get there:

The Democratic Party is hiring organizers chosen by the state parties in every state -- experienced local activists who know their communities.
We bring those organizers together for summits where they can learn from each other the best practices for getting organized to win elections.
Armed with the knowledge they've shared with each other, Democratic organizers return to the states and recruit and train leaders at the local level.
Those local leaders recruit more leaders and volunteers until every single precinct in their area has a trained, effective organization of Democrats dedicated to winning votes for Democrats.

[Frank777]

Enlighten us as what you think "speaking the local language" means? And then maybe you could give us some names and how they are "conservative candidates"?

About the 50 State Strategy. You don't win the way the Dems won by just running "Conservative" candidates.

You don't take the House, win the Senate, gain convincingly at the state legislative levels, and not lose a single seat in the Senate, the House and governorships by choosing "conservative candidates". Give me a break. :???:

Trumpt has already shown how some candidates have what would be called conservative leanings.

And I did not say the Dems gained victory solely because of conservative candidates. I believe it was a mixture of anti-Iraq sentiment, Republican scandals and candidates many conservatives could either vote for or did not see as a huge threat. I think most Canadian media have dissected this as more of an anti-Republican vote than a pro-Democratic one.

The Democrats' challenge is to build on this chance by showing pragmatism and good governance.

[midwinter]

They didn't run as that because they never run as tax raising liberals, unless they're in Massachussetts or California! ;) Liberals can't get elected nationally and everyone knows it. Just watch who they nominate for President. No matter who it is, he/she won't run as a lib.

I seem to remember some Democratic Presidential candidate...somewhere around 1992 or so. Seems to me he talked a lot about universal health care....

Maybe not. Maybe my memory is foggy.

[midwinter]

I agree with that. It was the corruption and Iraq and anger by conservatives voters in general. Evangelicals likely stayed home as well. Really, a combination of factors led to a big win for Dems.

AP reported that 1/3 of evangelical voters voted Democrat.

[midwinter]

Trumpt has already shown how some candidates have what would be called conservative leanings.

If they're so conservative, then, their republican opponents who spent millions painting them as too liberal must be sorely out of touch with the mainstream.

[southside grabowski]

This election was a victory for conservatism. With the few exceptions, Democrats won by being conservative. The RINOs were run out. Conservative agendas won across the nation. Gay-marriage propositions were defeated. Property-owner rights initiatives were passed. The California proposition to tax oil companies was defeated.

[Frank777]

AP reported that 1/3 of evangelical voters voted Democrat.

Want to know why? Here's CT's take (http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2006/novemberweb-only/145-32.0.html) on the election results.

Edit: Sorry. An Evangelical take on the results published by CT.

[Hassan i Sabbah]

This election was a victory for conservatism. With the few exceptions, Democrats won by being conservative. The RINOs were run out. Conservative agendas won across the nation. Gay-marriage propositions were defeated. Property-owner rights initiatives were passed. The California proposition to tax oil companies was defeated.
I love you, Moe.

[addabox]

Maybe we should start a separate thread for "Excuses for the massive Democratic wins".

So far we have: single issue (the war) anomaly, actually a vote against Republicans, only possible by running conservative candidates, and a basic misunderstanding of the issues amongst the populace, especially an inexplicable refusal to celebrate the excellent economy by voting for Republicans.

Anything else?

[BRussell]

I like "conservatives weren't conservative enough."

[Hassan i Sabbah]

I like 'the Democrats didn't play fair by pointing out that the Iraq war wasn't going very well.'

[Fellowship]

Here's my take on what the election "means".

"Dems won by running conservative candidates" is a predictable right wing caveat, completely untrue. The Dems ran some conservative candidates, they always do, in conservative districts. Some people just don't realize it because they've got that barrel over their head with "Democrats are crazy liberal extremists" printed on the inside.

They also ran a lot of real progressives and populists, who won.

The real story is that the Republicans lost on governance, which is a resounding repudiation of Roveism.

Under Rove the Republicans have been all about attitude. Bluster. Wedge issues. Photo ops. All designed to "energize the base" and scratch out wins with razor thins margins.

Problem being that the "base" strategy relies not on good governance, which is the kind of thing a party does to build a stable majority, but on inflamed passions, scary stories, righteous indignation and a constant evocation of "the enemy", both foreign and domestic.

Guess what? The American people are, first before all things, pragmatists. They like to see things get done. They like results.

So what does the Republican party give them?

Broken Medicare "reform". Yes, the voters noticed, and a lot of ranting about socialized medicine didn't persuade them that the Democrats weren't a better bet to improve things.

Katrina, wherein it appeared to most people that the federal government couldn't execute on one of its most basic functions, nicely matched with the Terry Schiavo circus, wherein it appeared that the Republicans could move heaven and earth is they smelled an opportunity for political theater. Classic Rove. Who cares if FEMA is functional if you can "control the message" about "the culture of life"?

Iraq. Forget the "Dems are soft on national defense and heart terror" line, Iraq is a great big huge throbbing billboard for incompetence. As in "spend all the money, don't get the job done". Americans hate that.

The economy. The Republicans wanted to talk about gas prices, the stock market, unemployment figures and tax cuts. Middle class voters noticed that their wages are stagnant, their costs are rising, their jobs are insecure and their share of those giant tax cuts is modest to slight. Simply denouncing observation as "liberal propaganda" suggests how divorced Republican rule has become from basic pragmatism.

By the way, it bears noting that a number of states passed referenda raising the state minimum wage. Republicans think that costs jobs, the data says otherwise. People notice.

Scandal and corruption. Exit polling showed "corruption" as being high on voters lists of important issues. The Republicans wanted you believe that "everybody does it". That's not a winning hand when you have all the power. Americans do not like corruption, and Republicans are up to their necks in it.

Notice how little all that has to do with a lot of windy gassbagging about "fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them here", or gays in the woodpile, or teaching creationism in the public schools, or "the war against Christmas", or abortion, or "costal elites".

Notice how all of that is designed to shore up "the base" by getting folks riled up about how their "way of life" is "under siege".

Notice how Americans aren't buying it. The fact is, Rove's strategy barely eked out a (contested) win for his man, and 9/11 completely distorted the playing filed on 02 and 04.

The base strategy coupled with some highly unusual wins have convinced the hard right that America looks like them. That "centrist democrat" equals "extremist liberal", and that "everybody" thinks so, because that's the kind of talk that "wins elections", i.e. turns out just enough of the most right-wing elements in the country.

They gaze into the cul-de-sac that Rove has crafted for their party and see a bright future.

But at the end of the day, Americans like a government that works. The party of "government is the problem" have shown they have no interest in that. Government is to line their coffers and to use as a weapon against their enemies. They don't care about "getting things done", they care about "consolidating power". Oh, and hey, guess what? People noticed.

Another world class post that nails it from my friend addabox.

Well said addabox.

Fellows

[Gilsch]

I think most Canadian media have dissected this as more of an anti-Republican vote than a pro-Democratic one. Well, that's not what most Tongan media are saying. Seriously. Candidates win elections. Especially against incumbents. The general discontent generated by one of the worst -if not the worst- administrations in our history has caused people to look at the alternatives, especially in "red states". The Reps tried painting Dems with the broad brush of liberals, tax raisers, soft on national security etc etc. The garbage rhetoric can only take you so far when people can see the reality of things with their own eyes. "The war effort is going great", "the insurgency is in it's last throes", etc etc. Riiiight. A little too much Baghdad Bob. It's what happened with me. I used to be a Republican. Although I am not a Democrat per se, I can relate to them more these days and I also enjoy not being married to any one particular party. Midwinter has a good point..

If they're so conservative, then, their republican opponents who spent millions painting them as too liberal must be sorely out of touch with the mainstream.

I think Howard Dean deserves a ton of credit for yesterday.

[midwinter]

I called this election wrongly. I thought this was an anti-incumbent election. It wasn't. It was thoroughly anti-Republican. Indeed, an outright repudiation of them.

Don't believe me? Chafee in RI. One of, if not the, most liberal Republicans in the Senate. He had a 65% approval rating and lost.

[BRussell]

I called this election wrongly. I thought this was an anti-incumbent election. It wasn't. It was thoroughly anti-Republican. Indeed, an outright repudiation of them.

Don't believe me? Chafee in RI. One of, if not the, most liberal Republicans in the Senate. He had a 65% approval rating and lost. I don't think any incumbent Democrats lost, did they?

[SDW2001]

Enlighten us as what you think "speaking the local language" means? And then maybe you could give us some names and how they are "conservative candidates"?

About the 50 State Strategy. You don't win the way the Dems won by just running "Conservative" candidates.

You don't take the House, win the Senate, gain convincingly at the state legislative levels, and not lose a single seat in the Senate, the House and governorships by choosing "conservative candidates". Give me a break. :???:

You obviously are just making crap up now. The Dems ran MANY conservative candidates. Examples in my state include Joe Sestak (defeated Weldon) and Bob Casey (Santorum). Casey is pro-life. Rendell isn't my cup of tea, but he's not liberal by most standards. Then take Webb in VA...he's no liberal either. Tester? Those are just a few examples. The midwest was filled with conservative dems too.

[SDW2001]

Maybe we should start a separate thread for "Excuses for the massive Democratic wins".

So far we have: single issue (the war) anomaly, actually a vote against Republicans, only possible by running conservative candidates, and a basic misunderstanding of the issues amongst the populace, especially an inexplicable refusal to celebrate the excellent economy by voting for Republicans.

Anything else?

Seriously though...aren't those the reasons rather than excuses? I would also of course throw in corruption.

I mean, you don't really think that suddenly the country became more blue do you? You don't really think that the country magically embraced the Democrats brave new vision of the future, do you?

Please tell me you don't.

[SDW2001]

I like "conservatives weren't conservative enough."

If you mean that Republicans strayed from their values, you're right. I don't know that I would phrase it like you did, but yeah.

[SDW2001]

Another world class post that nails it from my friend addabox.

Well said addabox.

Fellows

I won't get into all of that, as clearly those issues greatly affected the outcome of the election. That said, I take issue with this:

The economy. The Republicans wanted to talk about gas prices, the stock market, unemployment figures and tax cuts. Middle class voters noticed that their wages are stagnant, their costs are rising, their jobs are insecure and their share of those giant tax cuts is modest to slight. Simply denouncing observation as "liberal propaganda" suggests how divorced Republican rule has become from basic pragmatism.


The economy is strong in nearly all sectors, save housing (arguably a good thing after inflated prices cool off) and domestic autos. Wages are NOT stagnant.

http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/employment/2006-10-31-eic-confidence_x.htm

Private sector workers saw their compensation costs go up 0.9% while state and local government workers saw an increase of 1.4%, which analysts attributed to the tight labor market and revenue gains for state and local governments.

The tax cuts have unquestionably helped the economy, and as a middle class person I can assure you I get real and substantial benefits from them. My tax burden is about $1500-2000 less than it would have been without them. It's not just the brackets...it's changes to things like depreciation and changes to capital gains taxes as well. Then add all the things you mentioned...unemployment is extremely low, the market is up, gas prices are back down.

What do you mean "their costs are up?" What costs? Inflation is relatively low. Energy is pretty stagnant. Housing is coming down. Let me guess, you're going to go off on a healthcare rant?

Bottom line is you're way off base here.

[Gilsch]

You obviously are just making crap up now. The Dems ran MANY conservative candidates. Examples in my state include Joe Sestak (defeated Weldon) and Bob Casey (Santorum). Casey is pro-life. Rendell isn't my cup of tea, but he's not liberal by most standards. Then take Webb in VA...he's no liberal either. Tester? Those are just a few examples. The midwest was filled with conservative dems too.

It's funny how you have such a short fuse. It's hilarious. Nobody on here makes up as much crap as you do, so STFU. Just because candidates have a thing or two that may be considered "conservative" does not make them one. I could contest all of your BS examples there, but I won't.

Funny how many on here that you have retardedly referred to as "libuhrals" in the past may share one or more of those beliefs you just posted. I guess the massive gains the Dems made at the local level nationwide were due to "conservative" candidates aswell? :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

[SDW2001]

It's funny how you have such a short fuse. It's hilarious. Nobody on here makes up as much crap as you do, so STFU. Just because candidates have a thing or two that may be considered "conservative" does not make them one. I could contest all of your BS examples there, but I won't.

Funny how many on here that you have retardedly referred to as "libuhrals" in the past may share one or more of those beliefs you just posted. I guess the massive gains the Dems made at the local level nationwide were due to "conservative" candidates aswell? :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Seriously, I've met some assholes in my time, but you take the prize. Go ahead and contest my examples. I would love to see it. And what were these "massive" gains at the local level? Why don't you post some examples?

I can't believe you're actually claiming the Dems didn't run more conservatives than they have in the past. That fact has been all over the airwaves for weeks. It was part of their national strategy.

But let's put that aside. I say this election was about Iraq, lack of Republican action, Republicans getting away from their base on immigration, spending and tax reform and corruption. I also attribute some of it to more conservative Dem candidates. I'm assuming you think all of that is crap, so then what's left? Do you really believe that all of a sudden the country became more liberal?

[Gilsch]

Here's a little tidbit about SDW's big bad conservative Tester: against amendment banning gay marriage, against the patriot act, against the war, against flag burning amendment, pro-choice, and an organic farmer.

Speaking of making crap up. :lol:

[SDW2001]

Here's a little tidbit about SDW's big bad conservative Tester: against amendment banning gay marriage, against the patriot act, against the war, against flag burning amendment, pro-choice, and an organic farmer.

Speaking of making crap up. :lol:

I made a mistake on that one. I just realized that when you posted it. See my other examples and my subsequent post.

[addabox]

I don't think any incumbent Democrats lost, did they?

Not a one.

They also made strong gains in the statehouses-- Dems now control 23 state legislatures, Reps 19 and the rest are divided.

[addabox]

Seriously, I've met some assholes in my time, but you take the prize. Go ahead and contest my examples. I would love to see it. And what were these "massive" gains at the local level? Why don't you post some examples? ...


Uhhh.....Democrats see surge in power at state level http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/08/us/politics/09statehousecnd.html?_r=1&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&adxnnlx=1163035900-rBVTfTyilt/WPzjl+hEENg

Democratic gains in Congress and among the nation’s governors were matched on Tuesday by a huge surge closer to the grass roots — in the state legislatures, where more than 275 seats and nine legislative chambers from Iowa to Oregon switched overnight from Republican to Democratic hands.

Probably hundreds of conservative candidates that the Dems cheated by using.

[Gilsch]

Boohoo. Calling names again. Grow some balls already. Want more?

Webb is a Tester clone. Economic populist, against the war aswell. I think the burden is on you to prove what you just took out of your posterior is true.

Local level: for you to stop making "stuff" up. I'm backing my words with facts, something you can't. Democrats won approximately 275 more state legislative seats, adding up to new majorities in nine chambers across the nation: the Iowa House and Senate, the Indiana House, the Minnesota House, the Michigan House, the New Hampshire House and Senate, the Oregon House and the Wisconsin Senate. (The Iowa Senate was previously tied.)

Republicans gained a few seats in the Oklahoma Senate to tie that chamber, but Democrats will likely control it because the lieutenant governor, who casts deciding votes, is a Democrat.

"The voters expressed a real desire for change, and all in one direction," said NCSL's elections expert Tim Storey. "The Democrats have put some light between the two parties. This isn't parity anymore."

Both parties have been at or near even in terms of the number of states controlled since '94. http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=75930

[MarcUK]

***Democrats take the Senate! Democtats take the Senate! Democrats take the Senate!

[Gilsch]

Probably hundreds of conservative candidates that the Dems cheated by using. .......:D

[Gilsch]

See ya Macaca.

[addabox]

See ya Macaca.

And to think this guy was considered a legitimate contender for the R 08 nomination.

[Gilsch]

That's unbelievable. :\

[rageous]

I'm not entirely sure the original post is accurate, because there's been some numbers thrown around that a lot of declared republicans voted for democrats. This is not meant to take anything away from the dems, because I think they ran very strong candidates. But it sure looks like there was a large protest vote, which personally I was very happy to see.

A lot of the newly elected democrats ran with more center leaning messages. And that's really all people want. They want elected officials who can relate to some conservative issues and some liberal issues. They want people to get shit done, and they really don't completely care which letter they staple after their surname.

[FormerLurker]

They want people to get shit done

Exactly.

See addabox's brilliant post on the first page of this thread.

Seriously, adda... why aren't you blogging?

[addabox]

I'm not entirely sure the original post is accurate, because there's been some numbers thrown around that a lot of declared republicans voted for democrats. This is not meant to take anything away from the dems, because I think they ran very strong candidates. But it sure looks like there was a large protest vote, which personally I was very happy to see.

A lot of the newly elected democrats ran with more center leaning messages. And that's really all people want. They want elected officials who can relate to some conservative issues and some liberal issues. They want people to get shit done, and they really don't completely care which letter they staple after their surname.

I don't think that's actually true.

I think that as long as Democrats were "losers" they could be characterized anyway the right wanted, and the way the right wanted was "too liberal".

Now that they are very obviously "winners", pundits and apologists are scrambling to account for how the formally "too liberal" could have won so many elections by being voted for by the Americans they were "out of touch with".

Could it be that they are not "too liberal" after all? Could it be that they are actually in touch with most Americans? That, sans the hysteria of 9/11 and a convenient liberal scapegoat, people find "leftist" positions to be commonsensical and appealing?

Of course not. Everybody knows not because everybody has been saying different for a long time now. If there's one thing we know for sure, it's that Democrats are "too liberal" to win elections. It must be that the candidates got "more conservative".

Do some of you imagine that, prior to this elections, Dems were in the habit of campaigning on a platform of abortions and tax increases and they just now figured it out?

It's as if you never actually paid any attention to real Democratic candidates (I mean, who needed to, they were losers) and now that you must, and notice they aren't wearing Mao jackets and waving torches and calling for nationalizing the banks you conclude they must have changed their ways.

It's ridiculous. The punditry sagely concludes that the election was won by "moving right" because this crop of new senators and congressmen don't appear to be the crazy loons that the punditry made up in the first place.

The punditry always wins, I guess.

[jimmac]

I called this election wrongly. I thought this was an anti-incumbent election. It wasn't. It was thoroughly anti-Republican. Indeed, an outright repudiation of them.

Don't believe me? Chafee in RI. One of, if not the, most liberal Republicans in the Senate. He had a 65% approval rating and lost.

I seem to recall trying to tell you that. And to have more faith!:)

[rageous]

I don't think that's actually true.

I think that as long as Democrats were "losers" they could be characterized anyway the right wanted, and the way the right wanted was "too liberal".

Now that they are very obviously "winners", pundits and apologists are scrambling to account for how the formally "too liberal" could have won so many elections by being voted for by the Americans they were "out of touch with".

Could it be that they are not "too liberal" after all? Could it be that they are actually in touch with most Americans? That, sans the hysteria of 9/11 and a convenient liberal scapegoat, people find "leftist" positions to be commonsensical and appealing?

Of course not. Everybody knows not because everybody has been saying different for a long time now. If there's one thing we know for sure, it's that Democrats are "too liberal" to win elections. It must be that the candidates got "more conservative".

Do some of you imagine that, prior to this elections, Dems were in the habit of campaigning on a platform of abortions and tax increases and they just now figured it out?

It's as if you never actually paid any attention to real Democratic candidates (I mean, who needed to, they were losers) and now that you must, and notice they aren't wearing Mao jackets and waving torches and calling for nationalizing the banks you conclude they must have changed their ways.

It's ridiculous. The punditry sagely concludes that the election was won by "moving right" because this crop of new senators and congressmen don't appear to be the crazy loons that the punditry made up in the first place.

The punditry always wins, I guess.


Of course you don't think it's true, because I said I somewhat disagreed with your original assertion. And clearly yesterday's results show that no, most people didn't feel that the Dems were all about the things you just chose to rant on them being stereotyped for. If your assertion that those beliefs were held true was correct, they wouldn't have won such a huge victory.

Just because the mouths hollar all kinds of bad things about them, doesn't mean that most people aren't open minded enough to rexamine who it is they've been electing. In fact, if recent history indicates anything, it's that when scandal breaks out; change is coming in the next election. That speaks very well of the voting population.

[Frank777]

Probably hundreds of conservative candidates that the Dems cheated by using.

It's certainly not cheating. I have been saying the Democrats needed to run more conservative candidates for years on this board, and that if they did so Evangelicals would consider switching their vote.

[rageous]

It's certainly not cheating. I have been saying the Democrats needed to run more conservative candidates for years on this board, and that if they did so Evangelicals would consider switching their vote.

It's also been something Clinton has been lobbying for for years and years, and rightfully so. Clinton understands the value of bringing in a wide range of viewpoints to make a solid party. A narrow minded left party is no better than the narrow minded right party that has just been broken up. I think the leadership of the Democrats finally have had this pay off by looking at the type of people that will now make up their majority party, and they should be commended for their very hard work, and IMO work done the right way.

Here's hoping we actually see some work done behind closed door instead of behind podiums and microphones!

[SDW2001]

adda:

Could it be that they are not "too liberal" after all? Could it be that they are actually in touch with most Americans?

Keep thinking that.

[SDW2001]

Boohoo. Calling names again. Grow some balls already. Want more?

Webb is a Tester clone. Economic populist, against the war aswell. I think the burden is on you to prove what you just took out of your posterior is true.

Local level: for you to stop making "stuff" up. I'm backing my words with facts, something you can't. http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=75930

OK, at least you have facts now. Webb is no leftist though. Your claim that the Dems didn't run conservative candidates is absurd. It was a factor in this election.

[jimmac]

OK, at least you have facts now. Webb is no leftist though. Your claim that the Dems didn't run conservative candidates is absurd. It was a factor in this election.


The only factor that counts in this election is that people are tired of putting up with the republican B.S.

So they fired them!;)

[SDW2001]

The only factor that counts in this election is that people are tired of putting up with the republican B.S.

So they fired them!;)

I don't disagree that was a major factor, but it wasn't the "only" factor to be sure.

[FormerLurker]

Keep thinking that.Keep denying that.

Really.

It's quite amusing.

[Gilsch]

OK, at least you have facts now. Webb is no leftist though. Your claim that the Dems didn't run conservative candidates is absurd. It was a factor in this election.:D

Conservative candidates compared to?? Kucinich? I wasn't the only one who poked a hole the size of the margin the Dems won by through that argument. Just because a candidate doesn't fit with your idea of a "libuhral" doesn't make him/her a conservative.

You need to work on your concept of "leftist". The liberal/leftist boogeyman and the with us or against us™ memes wore thin a long time ago. So did the "9/11 changed everything" which you appear to like still. :lol:

You asked for facts and you got them. From others aswell. You were clueless about the gains the Dems made across the board. That didn't happen just because they fielded "conservatives" (which you have yet to convince anyone of). But keep thinking that. Maybe the Malkins and the Coulters, and the Humes and the Limbaughs will agree with you out of convenience.

[BRussell]

I think any conservatism in these candidates is largely cosmetic. But those superficial factors are sometimes significant.

The candidate in my state, Jon Tester, is about as liberal as they come. OK, he's pro-gun, but on every other issue he's about where Nancy Pelosi the communist is. But this guy is no John Kerry. He has a crew cut, he's a bona fide farmer, he only has two fingers on his left hand, and he's got a big beer belly.

Jim Webb similarly seems to be a liberal - he sounds like John Edwards in his talk about economic fairness. But again, he's no prissy elitist; but that's exactly what George Allen is.

In my view, elections are much less about issues, and more about emotional connections. If you're in Montana, can you relate to John Kerry? It's not his political ideology, it's his whole look and feel that makes relating to him difficult, and I think that "look and feel" is what helped Democrats this time more than any shift in political ideology.

[SDW2001]

I think you're letting hyperbole get in the way of things again. It's not an absurdity that Democratic politicians aren't clear-cut conservatives. That's why they're Democrats. Some of the fresh faces recently elected might have a few socially conservative views, but those are more than counteracted by their populist economic views. The thing is, with Democrats in charge, you're not going to see those conservative views because they aren't going to introduce that kind of red-meat, hot-button, divisive legislation.


It depends what you mean by "conservative." It's a relative term. I mean conservative in a fiscal sense mostly, with moderate social views. I'm not talking about Rick Santorum or Bill Frist conservative.

[SDW2001]

:D

Conservative candidates compared to?? Kucinich? I wasn't the only one who poked a hole the size of the margin the Dems won by through that argument. Just because a candidate doesn't fit with your idea of a "libuhral" doesn't make him/her a conservative.

You need to work on your concept of "leftist". The liberal/leftist boogeyman and the with us or against us™ memes wore thin a long time ago. So did the "9/11 changed everything" which you appear to like still. :lol:

You asked for facts and you got them. From others aswell. You were clueless about the gains the Dems made across the board. That didn't happen just because they fielded "conservatives" (which you have yet to convince anyone of). But keep thinking that. Maybe the Malkins and the Coulters, and the Humes and the Limbaughs will agree with you out of convenience.

I asked for links and you provided them. Thank you. I wasn't "clueless", I just wanted you to prove it. :lol: Sorry.

See my above post. People like kucinich are basically what I'm referring to. They didn't run a lot of those folks. When I say conservative I'm talking Blue Dog democrat conservative. As I said, it's a subjective and relative term.

[SDW2001]

I think any conservatism in these candidates is largely cosmetic. But those superficial factors are sometimes significant.

The candidate in my state, Jon Tester, is about as liberal as they come. OK, he's pro-gun, but on every other issue he's about where Nancy Pelosi the communist is. But this guy is no John Kerry. He has a crew cut, he's a bona fide farmer, he only has two fingers on his left hand, and he's got a big beer belly.

Jim Webb similarly seems to be a liberal - he sounds like John Edwards in his talk about economic fairness. But again, he's no prissy elitist; but that's exactly what George Allen is.

In my view, elections are much less about issues, and more about emotional connections. If you're in Montana, can you relate to John Kerry? It's not his political ideology, it's his whole look and feel that makes relating to him difficult, and I think that "look and feel" is what helped Democrats this time more than any shift in political ideology.

That might be true. Tester is kind of midle of the road though if you look at his positions. He doesn't support the PATRIOT Act though, so you're right there.

[Flounder]

I think any conservatism in these candidates is largely cosmetic. But those superficial factors are sometimes significant.

The candidate in my state, Jon Tester, is about as liberal as they come. OK, he's pro-gun, but on every other issue he's about where Nancy Pelosi the communist is. But this guy is no John Kerry. He has a crew cut, he's a bona fide farmer, he only has two fingers on his left hand, and he's got a big beer belly.

Jim Webb similarly seems to be a liberal - he sounds like John Edwards in his talk about economic fairness. But again, he's no prissy elitist; but that's exactly what George Allen is.

In my view, elections are much less about issues, and more about emotional connections. If you're in Montana, can you relate to John Kerry? It's not his political ideology, it's his whole look and feel that makes relating to him difficult, and I think that "look and feel" is what helped Democrats this time more than any shift in political ideology.
and that was the whole point of Dean's 50 state, relating at the local level etc. strategy, yes?

[rageous]

OK, at least you have facts now. Webb is no leftist though. Your claim that the Dems didn't run conservative candidates is absurd. It was a factor in this election.

Maybe it's time people stopped equating conservative with republicans then? because the vast majority of those candidates, while conservative, are blue bloods all the way.

[Frank777]

This blog (http://ezraklein.typepad.com/blog/2006/11/the_morning_aft.html) by Ezra Klein helps destroy the myth that these candidates are necessarily "conservative."

Shawn, nobody (well almost nobody) is debating the fact that the Democratic team elected this year includes a range of those with liberal, moderate and conservative positions.

In fact, many of the old guard that will inherit the committee chairs and such are outright liberals. No argument there.

But what many of us are pointing out is that this is the first election in a long time where people who hold pro-life and religious conservative views were sought out by Democrats to run in areas where the party was previously not competitive.

You had candidates going on TV to proclaim "I love Jesus" and who were upfront about their opposition to abortion. These people were not acting. This is really who they are.

It was very good strategy by Dean and it allowed the Dems to become competitive again.
The division of power is good for all involved. Nobody wants to live in a one-party state.

[SDW2001]

Oh- I agree with you, Frank.

I was just responding to the unfounded claim that the "vast majority of these candidates" are conservative. That's not necessarily the case as Ezra points out.

I don't think I used that term...vast majority...did I? Did someone else? If I did, I take it back, because it's not what I meant. I meant what Frank was alluding to.

On a side note, I think it would be a HUGE mistake on your part (and by your party) to assume that some sort of Neolib wave has come sweeping through the country. I kind of get that impression after speaking to you here. That will be the first way you can lose thevery next election and every one thereafter for 100 years. OK, I'm exaggerating, but the point remains. This election, once again, was about:

1. Iraq
2. Corruption
3. Lack of Republican action, specifically immigration
4. Lack of Republican message of the economy
5. Plenty of New Dems running...or at least people pretending to be "new dems"

That's all. Please don't delude yourself into thinking this is some kind of revolution, as ABC seemed to imply it was on election night. I have too much respect for you to see you get bitch slapped next time around....and that's what will happen.

[jimmac]

I don't think I used that term...vast majority...did I? Did someone else? If I did, I take it back, because it's not what I meant. I meant what Frank was alluding to.

On a side note, I think it would be a HUGE mistake on your part (and by your party) to assume that some sort of Neolib wave has come sweeping through the country. I kind of get that impression after speaking to you here. That will be the first way you can lose thevery next election and every one thereafter for 100 years. OK, I'm exaggerating, but the point remains. This election, once again, was about:

1. Iraq
2. Corruption
3. Lack of Republican action, specifically immigration
4. Lack of Republican message of the economy
5. Plenty of New Dems running...or at least people pretending to be "new dems"

That's all. Please don't delude yourself into thinking this is some kind of revolution, as ABC seemed to imply it was on election night. I have too much respect for you to see you get bitch slapped next time around....and that's what will happen.


You till don't get it do you? As far the republican's control block and their smoke and mirrors spin machine ( which is now broken ) time's up.


From another thread where I posted this. Here is what the experts say the election was about.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/11/08/election.why/index.html

[SDW2001]

You till don't get it do you? As far the republican's control block and their smoke and mirrors spin machine ( which is now broken ) time's up.


From another thread where I posted this. Here is what the experts say the election was about.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/11/08/election.why/index.html

Well, apparently I DO get it, as the article you posted confirms nearly every assertion I just made:

According to CNN senior political analyst Bill Schneider, voters were angry and wanted change -- and the old adage that all politics is local did not apply this year.

Schneider said as he interviewed voters across the country, "a lot of voters said, 'I'm going to vote Democratic.' They didn't even know the name of the Democrat, but they said, 'I'm going to vote Democratic because I don't like Bush, I don't like the war, I want to make a statement'." (Watch Bill Schneider discuss the national exit polls -- 2:19 Video)

According to exit polls, 57 percent of all voters disapprove of the war in Iraq and 58 percent disapprove of Bush's job performance.

Most voters cast their ballots on national rather than local issues, with 60 percent saying national issues mattered most to their vote, while 34 percent said local issues mattered most.

That's just a small sample of the article. I say again, this was about:

1. Iraq
2. Corruption
3. Lack of Republican action, specifically immigration
4. Lack of Republican message on the economy
5. Plenty of New Dems running...or at least people pretending to be "new dems"

I'll go a step further: Not only are those the reasons, they're even in order of importance.

[addabox]

It's all about the framing.

Democrats won, so the Democrats must be about whatever it is that the beholder thinks "should" be happening in America politically.

Hunter at KOS (http://www.dailykos.com/main/2)puts it very well:

So, the new and Very Serious talking points going around America today include:

1) The notion among "analyst" pundits that this sweeping Democratic victory was the result of the Democrats appealing to the middle. Well, no freakin' kidding. That used to be common knowledge, and lesson-one-page-one of political game theory -- you win elections by appealing to more folks than the other guy. Well, there you go, I'm glad after ten or fifteen years of "screw everyone but the base", you all flipped open your textbooks and figured that one out again. But here's a thought, coming off the fiasco of this campaign season -- maybe next year, you could "analyze" what the positions of the candidates are in advance of the elections, so Americans wouldn't have to decipher those positions via the Internet, political mailings, and voodoo. Just, you know, as a change of pace from the last half-dozen or so election seasons.

2) The notion among supposedly moderate pundits that the Democratic victory was a great victory for moderate pundits, because moderate pundits are so moderate. You know what? I'm willing to buy that the Democrats were the "moderate" ones -- we've been saying that for a long while, now. But I do have a question -- if "not being indicted", "not screwing up every single strategic aspect of an unpopular war", "not creating deficits that could block out the sun", "not botching basic functions of government", "not being linked to yet another indicted guy" -- if those are the winning, moderate positions, what, exactly, does that make you, who have been shilling vigorously for the past few years on the supposed moderation of these other folks who just got their asses kicked roundly over all those issues?

3) The notion among DLC Democrats that this sweeping Democratic victory was a great victory for the DLC Democrats, because they really showed those uncivilized Democratic voters and their own Democratic grassroots what-for. Never mind that they had to be dragged kicking and screaming into even a semblence of support for the 50-state strategy. Never mind that against candidates like the execrable Richard Pombo, the grassroots had to fight tooth and nail to get their now-victorious candidates the slightest specks of support from parts of the Democratic infrastructure that initially wanted nothing to do with them, and mocked their very candidacies.

4) The notion among hardcore, far-right conservatives that this sweeping Democratic victory was a great victory for hardcore, far-right conservatives because the Democrats who won are really conservatives too. Not that there's the slightest bit of evidence of conservatism, for all but a handful of these people -- no, it's just that "conservative" means whatever the hell hardcore far-right conservatives consider popular, at the moment. There's no actual tenets involved, mind you, which is a lucky thing, because the same conservatives just spent months declaring that these same Democrats were hopelessly, unimaginably liberal, and were going to make you marry your dog or something.

5) The completely contradictory notion among other hardcore, far-right conservatives that this sweeping Democratic victory was a great victory for hardcore, far-right conservatives, because all the folks in power right now aren't real conservatives, real conservatives would have made it all work. And just you wait, America, we'll be back with real conservatism next time, and you'll see, it'll really work! Yeah, that's it!



Susan G., also at KOS makes the same point from a different direction:


I woke up Wednesday morning and found out I was a conservative. See, a whole slew of candidates I supported were elected - enough to form a majority that will work to pass legislation of which I wholeheartedly approve - and I discovered from pundits that this is evidence of how conservative America really is. Since the outcome is precisely what I hoped for, I must be a "conservative Democrat" too.

They've been beating the drums for 72 hours now - "conservative Democrats, conservative Democrats, conservative Democrats." Both Hunter and Markos tried to set the punditocracy straight, but I suspect this probably does as much good as spitting in the wind. So I'm ready to go all contrarian and Zen on right-wing blowhards and embrace the label.

Yes, I'm a "conservative Democrat" and I agree with the upcoming agenda I've seen floating around here and there: oversight hearings on Iraq and spending, raising the minimum wage, nationalizing health insurance for everyone under 25 as Howard Dean suggested on The Daily Show, using skillful diplomacy as a first resort and military force as a last one, restoring the checks and balances of the Constitution, outlawing torture, re-legalizing habeas corpus.

These are "conservative" ideas? Cool. I'm hinky with it. Call them what you like, just implement them.

I'm good with that. Call it whatever you want. Just don't freak out when a bunch of positions and policies that the far right "base" strategy of Rove era Republicanism had framed as being absolutely anathema to "real" Americans turn out to be perfectly fine with the "new real" Americans once the "liberal demon" bullshit loses the cultural positioning that gave it any credence.