FRIST!

My spouse, a Pentecostal big box nondenominational sometime zombie, exclaimed it was the war that cost Bush and the Republicans on Wednesday. Even she could see through the homosexual hate the conservatives were trying to use to keep political power.

She still thinks Priest Ted was possessed by Satan though.

Democracy Now's Friday morning show interview four advocacy groups representatives who analyzed the poll numbers for their constituencies (Latino, African American, and two others I forget). The numbers are very interesting especially with respect to those two groups which KD mentions here.

Also interesting is - as Kevin mentions - the independent vote which largely switched from one "side" to the other. Independents do not necessarily have loyalty to Dems or Repubs though. It appears they are voting issues and candidates, and not party.

Could Independents be the vaunted "third party" that has found it so hard to get traction and get organized in this country. Could this be a sort of open source democracy? A democracy at the grass roots that thinks about the issues and votes intelligently, and by not being part of an organized third party that can be extinguished by the organized major parties thus has the ability to swing a vote?

I think you also have to remember that not only did the Democrats do better with Hispanics but that Hispanics, blacks, muslims, and Asian are all a growing as percentages of the population that that all of those groups vote overwhelmingly Democratic.

If you have to bet, it is much more likely that the Democratic Party will be the only nationally viable party in 2020 than to believe that the Republicans can make a comeback.

The question for the future should be: How will the US function as a one party state with the Democrats being in control.

I'd -love- to see a post, Kevin, explaining what you think 'the center' is.

All right, if you'd done it once I could have ignored it, but now you're just being goofy.

With the exception of Latinos, who were obviously driven by a specific issue...

I haven't looked at the exit poll data myself, so maybe it says that Latinos overwhelmingly went to vote against draconian immigration policies ahead of all other issues. But come on.

The Latinos I know voted Democratic because they believe in greater access to health care, a higher minimum wage, a significant change in the way we're fighting in Iraq, a need to stop corruption, and just about every other reason that I, a very white male, voted Democratic.

Like I said, I haven't seen the exit polls, so I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt. But it looks like you're claiming all Latinos voted against Republicans solely because of their handling of immigration. That assertion seems horribly short-sighted and, frankly, kind of offensive.

Thanks,
Alex Boekelheide

Some people simply realized they had been had. In good faith, these voters trusted Republicans to represent their own strong moral motivations.

So they went to the polls Tuesday and rendered unto Caesar. God doesn't need a political party.

"Second, independents swing back and forth all the time, and there's no special reason to think this particular swing is permanent. It's obviously good news, but by their very nature independents are centrists, which means this swing will be long-lasting only if Democrats continue to appeal to the center."

Is there any evidence for this? My experience is that self-described independents are just retards like Althouse and the Instafluffer that refuse to acknowledge that they are convervadicks, but that break for thugs 9 times out of 10.

All those factors you mention played a part in the Dem's win; their influence varies I think with both region of the country and obviously with individual reasoning and feelings. On C-SPAN's Washington Journal, after the election, more than one caller from Michigan complained about the economy and said they'd voted Dem in Congress because of that. Callers from the Southeast were almost always talking terror, 9/11 and Iraq. I would suppose that midwesterners and mountain-staters are growing more concerned about the thoroughly un-conservative, authoritarian, big-gov't nature of the current Republican movement. Corruption came up a few times from all over. There's no one answer.

I live in a state where we do not register by political party but 36% of the registered voters identify as independents when polled. But Missouri is exquisitely wierd in oh so many ways.

In the California 50th district, the Democratic candidate Francine Busby got 45% of the vote, about what she almost always gets. No swing there.

Dems Allen Mollohan and Alcee Hastings both won, and William Jefferson got a plurality, so corruption couldn't have been too important.

As to the Hispanic vote, it is interesting that the Republican House rebelled against Bush/Rove on the immigration/fence issue, so the Hispanic swing should not be blamed on Bush and Rove.

Most of the anti-gay-marriage ammendments passed; the one that was defeated was the one that prohibited civil unions, so the Republican view on this issue more or less prevailed.

In Michigan an ammendment to roll back affirmative action also won, so the Republican view on that prevailed even as Democratic incumbents won re-election.

Interestingly, that happened in the only state that has suffered a net loss of jobs under Bush, which makes the economic rationales perplexing. It's almost as though Michigan voters wanted the failed policies of Michigan adopted nationwide.

Numerous Democratic anti-war candidates were defeated, including Ned Lamont (who got about 2/3 of the Democratic vote) and a slew of veterans.

Casey Jr. and Tester are pro-life and anti-gun control, muting the general Democratic message on those issues.

Californians had no trouble with the Bush budget deficits -- they passed $57 billion in bond issues.

Since California already funds embryonic stem cell research, the only issue in the MO stem-sell research ammendment was whether any embryonic stem cell research would be performed in MO, and the passage of the ammendment mainly benefits one huge research lab near Kansas City.

So, ..., as you say, all explanations are still on the table. Every one has some liabilities as a general explanation.

What we saw was a liberal revolt.

More precisely, a small government liberals revolt.

Liberals, generally in the middle between the conservatives and libertarians always assume power when the conservatives have government on catastrophic growth path or when the libertarians have shrunk government to the point government is defenseless.

Jefferson was a libertarian who governened as a liberal. Hamilton the traditional conservative, growing government recklessly. Washington the typical liberal.

Liberals, in their time and place, step in because, generally the conservatives are creating a stalinist (or monarchist) state headed to war. This was the battle we had at independence. This battle between liberalism and expansionists, conservative monarchists was 18th century politics.

Bismark was a liberal in his time, proposing loosely alligned small monarchists states and tying up Germany in a set of trade and foreign treaties that forestalled war. He chose a path that sort of "kicks the can" down the road.

This is the common complaint that liberals hear from hysterically frightened conservatives, that we just kick the can down the road. We do, we have to because if liberals are in power it is because conservatives have created some dire catastrophe.

Liberals are generally unbiased about how much or how little government. We want the government we have to work better, and we want to lower or raise the amount of government such that we minimize catastrophe. Pelosi will likely be a liberal that governs as a libertarian. The danger we face is that the massive growth in government by conservatives is likely a catastrophe.

Libertarians have little respect for nationalism, they are by nature internationalists because they put in policies that weaken the state. The Chinese, right now, are governing as libertarians in their environment. Hong Kong is the classical libertariqans state, before takeover.

Uotimately it is liberals that define the state becuase conservative growth in government leads to war, and libertarianism leads to a dimished state. What is left of state power is their precisely because liberals have stepped into the breech somehow. In our history, it was the liberals that prevented the civil war between conservative (monarchists) and libertarians, until Abe Lincoln.

Lincoln was a conservative who tried to govern as a liberal, but failed.
.

I think Kevin was right the other day. the Republicans shot themselves in the feet over and over in the last two years: starting with Bush's attempt to reform Social Security, the Schiavo disaster, the Abramoff scandals, two very public and stupid misplays by Dennis Hastert, resignations of 4 Republican representatives, the unpopular stand on the fence and immigration. Even Republicans were unwilling to come right out and say that they had accomplished anything.

Republican pundits' abrupt insistence on 'governing from the center' is a red herring.

There is no center to be found that involves the present form of the Republican party (or, really, any form of it). They are so alien, parasitic and anti-social the only center that can be found is united against them.

I think you're wasting a lot of time trying to analyze what the Democrats did right. People voted Democratic largely because of what Republicans did wrong. I don't believe this points to a major wave of Democrat-love.

If the GOP flips on immigration, and they obviously have reason to now, Hispanics may swing right back. Independents may be growing, but still appear to be a very small voter block.

KD:"Did Dems win because of the war? Because they shifted to the center? Because of an economic populist message? That stuff is all fair game, and I don't yet have any strong opinion on any of it."

Surely it isn't one thing? The nation has been tottering on 50-50 for some time. All we needed was another 5-10% of the population to get fed up with Republican mismanagement and corruption.

For some it was the lies, the corruption, the bamboozlement.

For some it was the War.

For some it was the cynical manipulation of their deepest values, the gay hypocrisy.

For some, the medicare scam.

For some, the attack on birth control & the legal right to abortion.

For some, the economy.

A couple of percent here, a couple percent there, and we have victory.

Question is did that 14 point swing win a few close elections for the Democrat's? Montana is even Virginia? Missouri?

In 2000 the Arab American vote went strong for Bush over Gore because of "family values". In some states like Florida, there weren't many Arab Americans, but enough to overcome to provide a winning margin.

"Yesterday the God Gap all but disappeared. Americans who attend religious services on a weekly basis voted 51 percent for Republican candidates and 48 percent for Democrats, a statistically meaningless difference." -Amy Sullivan, November 8, New Republic

This was a national election. It wasn't an interest group election. 5+% of the electorate just decided enough is enough. I really think this election is payback to the Congressional Republicans for failing to provide any kind of oversight. After Katrina it was pretty damn clear to everybody that the Bush administration was fundamentally incompetent. Schaivo convinced lots of people the Republicans were cable television ideologs out of touch with the needs of real citizens. Throw in Iraq, Aberoff, Foley and the rest, and suddenly a lot of people decided it was time to throw congressional Republicans under the bus.

The biggest single result from the election. Last I looked not a single Democrat incumbent lost. Not one.

That reflects a repudiation of the Republican party.

Had Denny Hastert been Speaker of the House and not Speaker of the Republicans there is every reason to believe the Republicans in the house might have survived the election. Had the Republican Senators who lost shown any independence from the Administration, they might not have lost.

I think Lincoln Chaffe (an outstanding public servant, and by all accounts a truly decent man and a fine senator) lost for one reason and one reason only. The folks in his state realized that if he was reelected his first vote would be for the Republicans. That would have meant no oversight of the Administration. No other vote he might take would have mattered.

Second, independents swing back and forth all the time, and there's no special reason to think this particular swing is permanent.

This is just silly. No political party should ever consider a block of voters to be "theirs".

Every action in the politics of a democracy is an audition for the next election.

BTW, I've been fighting a bug for a few days and haven't posted for a bit, so allow me:

YI-HAW!!

Democrats: Cleaning up Republican messes since 1932.

ron,

I think it became a national election because of McCain-Feingold. Since single issue groups are not forbidden form running ad campaigns, it was the national parties that managed most of the campaigns.

In the future, it will become much harder for Republicans to win anything and McCain-Feingold make s it even harder.

Also, the demographic trends are all against the Republicans and all in favor of the Democratic Party. The real question should be is if the Republican can remain viable as the second party if a two party system.

"wooing the Latino vote was a major part of Karl Rove's "realignment" strategy, which has now been pretty thoroughly dashed, and (b) it's likely to be a fairly permanent switch."

Pete Wilson permanently and decisively put the Latinos of California in the Democratic camp in 1994 with prop 192. Instead of learning from this, Republicans made the same mistake nationally this year and certainly alienated Latins from the R party for a generation or more.

Matt:

Very very interesting analysis which I've never encountered before. Conservatives lead to war and statism (anti-government conservatism is a relatively new phenomenon and doesn't square with historic conservative authoritarianism) -- libertarians lead to internationalism through a weakened state (the truer home for small-government corporatists than traditional conservatism) -- liberals (the dialectic synthesis) step into the breach and govern as pragmatists, with an appropriately-sized government and an internationalism built on alliances and a world order rather than anarchism of laissez-faire.

I'm really going to have to think long and hard about this perspective.

Thanks for the salutory mental stimulus.

Bob

If you want to know what is coming down the pike for the national Republican party, look no further than Kansas. The Kansas Republican party is caving in on itself. A moderate and electable Republican can't get on the ballot in the general election because the r^3's (rabid religious right) control the primary process.

What is happening in Kansas is so significant that Kevin dedicated an entire pre-election post to the fact that the Johnson County Sun, a Republican newspaper, was endorsing more Democrats this election than the paper had previously endorsed total in it's 56 year history.

Kansas was the beachhead where the Blue Tsunami came ashore. A Dem AG, a Dem Governor and two of four national congressmen are Dems. Kansas is way more purple than we are next door.

Ron Byers:

And Mr. Chafee may prove to be a nobler public servant still -- if rumors are true that he's planning to switch parties to the Democrats for the lame-duck session :)

Bob

I am a Christian conservative who works in an industry (software) and area (Santa Monica ) containing mostly centrist-liberal to liberal registered Democrats. I surveyed several of my more liberal friends in the days after the election and was pleasantly surprised that they had reached some of the same conclusions I had.

Several points that we seem to be in agreement about.

1. This election represents no ideological shift of the country.
2. The Republicans lost rather than the Democrats winning ( main issues corruption and an unpopular war).
3. The Democrats were not runnning on a new plan but on "We're not Republicans"
4. Democrats won a lot of seats by finding many good centrist candidates to run.

The main conclusion I draw from this.

Liberalism has not made ground amongst the people like conservatism made ground in the 1980's.

It seems in the 1980's an ideological shift in the country came about that was recorded in electoral politics in 1994. Whatever one thinks about the ethics of the people that were elected, the country had embraced a new direction that differed from the liberalism of the 60's - 70's.

Many more people believed in conservative ideas and embraced them. According to my way of thinking what happened is people began to wake up and see that the so-called peace-loving, radical behavior of the 60's and 70's was really just narcissistic immature idealism. The 'Reagan Revolution' wasn't about Reagan so much as about a call back to a more practical conservative viewpoint of life. Reagan simply embodied this ideal in a strong leader.

This 2006 election was not a rejection of that more conservative outlook, but was in part ( leaving out the war for a bit ) a rejection of those who claimed to be part of that revolution, but only used it to line their own pockets while feigning support. ( Abramhoff, Delay, Ralph Reed and the whole bunch )

As a conservative who wants strong ethics practiced I say "good riddance" to the fakers.

But if this election does not represent an ideological shift to liberalism - I think those of you espousing the liberal viewpoint have to consider this.

It can not be doubted that liberalism owns the major output of main stream media and academia by astounding proportions. Yet in spite of this, the results of this election appears that the "liberal" philosophy has not made ground in becoming the thinking of the average American.

Now one can take one or two guesses about why this has happened

1. Liberals are still doing a bad job of educating people about what a good philosophy it really is.
2. People fail to embrace liberalism because it basically is not true, and fails as a philosophy.

I choose 2.

superdestroyer

I remember people saying there was a real question whether the Democrats could remain a national party. They did. Don't let this election fool you. If the Republicans can rid themselves of the Turd Blossom Republicans they will be back. Ying and Yang. Nothing wrong with that.

The real questions in my mind center on Fox News and the political televangelists. Both have been hit with some real body blows. Political televangelists seem to cycle. Have they peaked? Is cable news losing its relevance in light of the rise of netroots? Kinda gives us all a reason to continue living just to find out.

Ron Byers mentioned that not a single R pickup was made. Here is a link to an interactive map that shows the races. There is not a single bright red state or CD. But check out all that bright blue!

A moderate and electable Republican can't get on the ballot in the general election because the r^3's (rabid religious right) control the primary process.

of course. the GOP has decided it lost because it wasn't ideologically pure (see Rush, Hewitt, RedState, et al) - if they were only even more conservative they'd have beat the leather pants off those libertine Dems. nonsense. their problem was not insufficient conservatism, so much as unpopular conservatism combined with overall incompetence and rampant corruption.

Global Citizen,

If even Kansas goes blue, then how does the US function as a "two party state." I believe that the Republicans will implode because there is not political move that they can make that gain them support.

However, will a blue Tsunami end up making national politics look like local politics in DC, New Jersey, or Rhode Island?

wishIwuz2: "...you're wasting a lot of time trying to analyze what the Democrats did right. People voted Democratic largely because of what Republicans did wrong."

I think I agree, in general. However, for their part, the Democrats did mute some of the visceral, talk-radio objections that people have towards Democrats: weak on national defense; big on big government, in favor of gun control, abortion, gays; certain to raise taxes, hostile to Southern rednecks.

Faced with a certain loss, people are more likely to take a gamble. Republican leadership was the cause of certain national and individual losses, so citizens chose to gamble on the Democrats. How could Democratic leadership possibly be worse?

Ron Byers mentioned that not a single R pickup was made.

i prefer to phrase it as "not one Democratic incumbent lost his/her seat."

The election was won by the Unrepublicans (i.e., people voted against the Republicans much more than for the Democrats or their ideas and goals). The closest result to a mandate from the election is that the messes left by the Republicans need to be cleaned up. There are not, of course, any clear mandates on which direction to take or how best to clean up the mess (in fact, disagreement on these subjects is extreme).

If the Democrats want to cement their advantage with Latino voters, it might not be a bad idea to nominate Bill Richardson for President in 2008. He's Latino, the governor of a state with a significantly Latino population, a former Ambassador to the UN, a former Secretary of Energy, and looks good in a flannel shirt and cowboy boots as well.

Hopefully the Democrats will realize that:

a) JFK and Harding are the only two former senators elected president in the last 100 years (sorry Hillary, Kerry, Bayh, Biden, Edwards, Gore, Feingold, Obama, etc.), although Nixon did serve two years as a Senator from California before becoming Eisenhower's Vice-President.

b) nobody from north of the Mason-Dixon line has been elected President since JFK (LBJ and both Bushes are from Texas, Nixon and Reagan from southern California, Carter from Georgia, and Clinton from Arkansas)

c) except for Bush 41, the last four people elected president have all been governors (Carter, Reagan, Clinton, Bush 43)
If the Democrats nomimate another northern senator with no charisma in 2008 they will once again lose the presidency.

Hopefully, the Democratic party will learn from its mistakes and nominate a solid midwestern or southern governor. And if people think that this could never happen, remember that Clinton was a complete unknown six months before the primaries started.

(b) it's likely to be a fairly permanent switch.

Hogwash. Just like Karl Rove's successes in 2002 and 2004 portended a "permanent realignment" towards Republicans, right?

Look, there are some permanent Republicans and there are some permanent Democrats. But Latinos aren't permanent Democrats now just because they're pissed off at all the illegal immigrant crap Republicans pulled. What do Dems do for them, to make them fervently pro-Democratic? Squat.

A few years down the road, maybe two or four, there'll be some fresh face in the Republican party, who reaches out more to Latinos. And Latinos and others will take a fresh look at this new fellow (or lady), and at the Republicans.

And that's fine. Lots of people are not partisan Democrats or partisan Republicans. Happens all the time.

So I think it's an overreach. (But I admit, I feel very good about the election too).

Hostile on November 10, 2006 at 1:22 PM:

She still thinks Priest Ted was possessed by Satan though.

Lol...Dinner-time discussions must be real interesting at the Hostile House...

Drum:

I'd say that any plausible answer has to be something equally broad based.

I'd say that you are correct...There wasn't one outstanding issue that caused the Dems' success in this election, but multiple 'trigger events' occurring over the past two years caused a more critical examination of all the GOP's actions, not just their actions on a single issue.

If there is a lesson here, maybe it's that the GOP's poor performance regarding a single issue (say, the invasion and occupation of Iraq or immigration or government accountability, et cetera) may be overlooked come election time, poor overall performance on many issues is too hard to ignore.

As I said on the other thread, the no-HS and Hispanic votes indicate that raising the minimum wage is a winner.

Let's deconstruct what John Hansen wrote and the points he made.

1. This election represents no ideological shift of the country.

Perhaps no dramatic shift occured, but there was indeed an awakening. Turnout was higher in many precincts on Tuesday than it was in the 2004 presidential election. Whether the r^3's want to admit it or not, this was a referendum against them and the policies of the administration that embodies them. A repudiation, a stinging rebuke, a good old-fashioned ass-kicking took place. that silent majority Nixon spoke of ceased being silent on Tuesday.

2. The Republicans lost rather than the Democrats winning ( main issues corruption and an unpopular war).

What is the difference? If one side wind the other loses. I understand the instinct to put some salve on the wound, but this isn't a wound that a balm can assuage. It's a through-and-through.

3. The Democrats were not runnning on a new plan but on "We're not Republicans"

Nancy Pelosi was a determnined and strong leader, and she resisted the prompting to come up with some bullshit marketing plan like the "Contract with America" and by the way, "we're not Republicans" was good enough in a whole lot of cases.

4. Democrats won a lot of seats by finding many good centrist candidates to run.

A lot of those "good centrist Dems" are Dems in the finest tradition. They have a Trumanesque "we take care of our own" bent that will no longer be ignored.

I have been saying this for months. We are not our parents democratic party. We are, however, our Grandparents Democratic Party, and we are going to reclaim the word liberal, too.

Kevin wrote: "However, there's a whole different level of policy analysis that I didn't address and didn't mean to address. Did Dems win because of the war? Because they shifted to the center? Because of an economic populist message? That stuff is all fair game, and I don't yet have any strong opinion on any of it."

According to all reports on the exit polls, a top issue, if not the top issue, determining voters' choices was corruption.

Voters were sick of the blatant corruption and naked criminality of the Republican Party of Dick Cheney, George W. Bush, Tom DeLay, Jack Abramoff, et al.

These people are not and were not "conservatives". They are crooks. They are career corporate criminals and war profiteers, masquerading as "conservative" politicians and promoting a fake, phoney-baloney bullshit pseudo-conservative ideology in order to gain power, rip off the taxpayers and line their pockets and the pockets of their ultra-wealthy white-collar-crook financial backers.

Anyone who ever believed that the Bushes and Cheneys of the world were actually "conservatives" was a dupe, and in the end, even the dupes finally woke up to the fact that they were being bamboozled by a gang of thieves.

The Democrats succeeded in large part by running against the blatant corruption of the Republican Party, and would do well -- not only for their own political fortunes but for the actual good of the country -- to make good on Nancy Pelosi's promise to run a clean, open, transparent, accountable and ethical Congress.

And, through the power of investigation that they will now have, to drag the disgusting reality of the Bush administration's corruption and criminality into the daylight for the entire nation to see.

If there is anything that people of any political persuasion -- liberals, honest conservatives, libertarians and Greens alike -- can and should agree on, it is the absolute necessity of clean, open, transparent, accountable and ethical government.

I didn't get the memo. Where are the trolls or even the Trools?

Nancy Pelosi was a determnined and strong leader, and she resisted the prompting to come up with some bullshit marketing plan like the "Contract with America" and by the way, "we're not Republicans" was good enough in a whole lot of cases.

GC - you can "deconstruct" what I say but please make intelligent statements.

Nancy Pelosi was not a strong leader with regards to this election. She was conspicuously absent during the campaign. Accept this as true or respond with a list of "Pelosi has a full day stumping for Webb, Tester and McCaskill" articles that I seemed to miss.

Global,

Didn't two moderates join the Kansas State Board of Education?

Had to laugh here in Oregon - Ron Saxton, the Pub for Guv, used his money from Labor Day until two weeks before the election to run negative ads only against the sitting Democratic Governor.
However, once endorsed by the Oregonian and closing to almost even in the polls, he changed his tactic to one of appearing himself and saying "Hey, I don't like what is going on in Washington, either".
The tide turned and he lost by almost 7 percentage points. So did the reversal mean that many people said, "Oh yeah, he is one of them"?

Kevin,

What, exactly, do you define as "the center" of American politics? The term implies that there is a linear range, or maybe a spherical range. What evidence exists to suggest that this is applicable or helpful in understanding the various ideologies, beliefs and policy positions?

Take abortion rights, for example. When a substantial minority of the country believes that abortion is murder and that outlawing all abortions is the Number One political priority and one that overrides all other political considerations, what position is "the center?"

When one party states that there shall be no estate tax (more properly understood as the estate AND gift tax), what is "the center" position on allowing realized income to go untaxed for people of great wealth?

She stayed out of the fray and it was a brilliant strategy.

I'd say that the voting public responds to events like an aircraft carrier responds to steering commands....very slowly. At least from the perspective of those hyper-engaged with politics such as bloggers, pundits, and political junkies in general. I think your first instincts were correct, Kevin, and this was a simple "country headed in the wrong direction" decision, and analyzing it deeper than that is an exercise in futility, unless you just enjoy that kind of thing.

The Democrats succeeded in large part by running against the blatant corruption of the Republican Party, and would do well -- not only for their own political fortunes but for the actual good of the country -- to make good on Nancy Pelosi's promise to run a clean, open, transparent, accountable and ethical Congress.

Agreed.

John Hansen wrote: This election represents no ideological shift of the country.

Neither did the theft of the 2000 election by George W. Bush. That didn't stop him and his gang of career corporate criminals and war profiteers from asserting a nonexistent "mandate" and ramming through a so-called "conservative agenda" which was actually not "conservative" at all, but simply a monumental crime spree, nor did it stop them from misleading America into an illegal war of unprovoked aggression based on sickening lies, for the purpose (as Bush recently admitted to Rush Limbaugh) of seizing control of Iraq's oil reserves by their oil company cronies, at the cost of the mass murder of tens of thousands of innocent people.

Most Americans are not "ideological". They want good effective government and they want their tax dollars to be carefully and effectively spent on things that make America a better place to live.

The fake, phony, corporate-funded "conservatism" of Ronald Reagan, George W. Bush, Fox News, Rev. Sun Myung Moon, Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter was never anything but a scam and a fraud, a front for massive criminality and corporate totalitarianism, and now it is history, and those dupes who still adhere to it, like John Hansen, are dinosaurs who are rapidly becoming extinct.

Where are the trolls or even the Trools?

they're stuck in the older threads.

don't worry, CharlieThomasChuckJefferyTrolly will be up here soon enough. maybe he'll bring Civility Jay and Grandpa Norman with him.

She stayed out of the fray and it was a brilliant strategy.

You can believe this if you want but I think much more obvious reason is that she stayed away because she did not want to ruin the chances for centrist candidates to take republican areas.

Just as September 11, 2001 informed every vote in 2002 and 2004, so the image of Katrina informed 2006. Everything that was said and done by politicians and pundits was measured against the image of our people left to drown. I know there are many reasons voters reconsidered the direction the country is going. The war, the torture, the loss of civil rights, and many others. I do not think you can discount how sharply Katrina brought home to people the callous disregard of the welfare of the people that was demonstrated by this administration and its minions of mendacity.

However, there's a whole different level of policy analysis that I didn't address and didn't mean to address. Did Dems win because of the war? Because they shifted to the center? Because of an economic populist message?

Right, and I’m not up to such analysis today. But a couple of personal opinions.

One, it seems that sometimes things have to be really bad before the U.S. voters wake up and make a change. Anyone halfway paying attention should have known in 2004 not to vote for Bush and the more ideological and corrupt Republicans, but those folks were re-elected. We have paid dearly, morally and monetarily. And I don’t understand except to guess that so many citizens are not paying attention.

Two, I think the President of the United States has too much power. We should think seriously about changes that will make it easier to hold the President accountable. I realize this is tough one to conceive and implement, but consider that the Bush administration could have done to Iran what they did to Iraq. They could have killed three time as many Iraqis. They could have bombed North Korea. They could have attacked anybody, justifying it with huge lies. That is not acceptable to me.

Just ask yourself tea leaves and entrails reading pundits: if the war had gone the way Cheney had hoped it'd go would the Dems have won? Big fat no there. If those silly Iraqi elections a year ago had actually produced something vaguely resembling stability would the Dems have won? Possibly but very unlikely. If two weeks before the election a well placed JDAM had redecorated the inside of a cave with little bits and pieces of Osama would the Dems have won? Possibly the house in a nail biter, but not the senate.

Any election analysis attempted without keeping above in mind is a waste of time.

John Hansen: " Liberalism has not made ground amongst the people like conservatism made ground in the 1980's."

I don't think that conservatism made ground in the 1980s nor do I think liberalism made such headway in the 1960s and 70s.

An alternate hypothesis is that the majority of Americans aren't very interested in ideology. One might say that Americans went along with liberal ideology during the depression & WW2 and the Eisenhower years because it was pragmatic and helpful. It worked. America got out of the depression. America won the war. Eisenhower, though Republican, led from this pragmatic, non-ideological center.

During the 60s, Americans continued to support liberal leadership because it continued to work. But the defeat in Vietnam began to sour people on "liberalism." The boffo oil crisis and hostage situation during Jimmy Carter's time made people decide that liberalism wasn't delivering the goods.

So Americans began to vote for the conservative alternative, and that worked for them, more or less, for twenty years or so. People stick with what works. But now, we're losing another war, corruption is rampant and the economy is confused. Conservatism is no longer delivering the goods. People are switching.

As long as the Democrats do a half decent job of governing, as long as the Democrats deliver the goods, people will continue to vote Democratic. When the day comes that the Dems screw up, we'll see people vote Republican again. But I think we have 25 years of Democratic leadership ahead.

Global Citizen,

Hate to inform you, but Major Tom ran 3rd in the lst at Churchill Downs this morning - It was a $15,000 Maiden Claimer affair.

However, on election day at CD, Rove completly out of the money for the 6th or 7th time - He remains a maiden - That race was won by Special Interest.

Global Citizen,

Hate to inform you, but Major Tom ran 3rd in the lst at Churchill Downs this morning - It was a $15,000 Maiden Claimer affair.

However, on election day at CD, Rove completely ran out of the money for the 6th or 7th time - He remains a maiden - That race was won by Special Interest.

Secular Animist nails it at 2:32. His point about corruption explains why the alliance between churchgoers and the Republican party has weakened just enough to allow some of those voters to observe many other issues (war, taxes, Katrina) more honestly.

The phony sacred Republican vestments are beginning to tatter, and the wads of cash are becoming more visible underneath.

I think Lincoln Chaffe (an outstanding public servant, and by all accounts a truly decent man and a fine senator) lost for one reason and one reason only. The folks in his state realized that if he was reelected his first vote would be for the Republicans.

Right, and that’s why I have quit voting for Republicans until I see a significant change in the way they hold their leadership accountable. Moderate Republicans need to assert themselves.

Many people like to emphasize the so-called “chaotic” nature of the Democratic party. Conservative ideologues use the word “spineless”. But I see the Republican party today as spineless. They treat their leaders like “Daddy”, scared to oppose them or hold them accountable. They are the ones who rolled over for Bush, not the Democrats.

Hate to inform you, but Major Tom ran 3rd in the lst at Churchill Downs this morning.

He's at the track? He was supposed to be in Gross Anatomy this morning! You mean that while I was trying to keep my eyes open during the Cell Bio presentation, he was at the track. He is in so much trouble when he gets home this afternoon...

I don't just choose to believe that John Hansen, the analysis bears it out.

Bush is a polarizing figure. He appeared in Topeka to stump for Ryun and Boyda got the bump.

The right was castigating her and her "San Francisco Values" (one marriage, by all accounts a happy one, and five children) and had she responded, the polarity might have gone both ways.

So yes, it was brilliant strategy to just hunker down and let the perfect srorm blow itself out.

That’s right GC. Accountability. Practice makes perfect.

Now, let’s ignore calls for so-called good sportsmanship, and hold Bush accountable. A few professional, legitimate, overdue investigations.

The issues in this election were competence, competence, competence.

People have ideological leanings but are quite willing to vote for candidates who look like leaders and can get the job done. Republicans have shown no ability to govern effectively at any level or on any issue.

Bad policies poorly executed. You don't need to be a policy wonk to see this level of dysfunction.

It was Big Tuesday, a great surf with perfect waves. It was UP, man! Here in my beach shack in blue Oregon it seemed obvious everything was breaking right for the Dems because the GOP don't surf. Kevin is spot on, as the Brits say. My GOP neighbors seemed disgusted that they had been fooled by Bush. At the American Legion bar there were tables of war critics and angry veterans. Gone were the mini-flags flapping from truck aerials and SUVs. It was a numerically modest but strong increase of disgust and disappointment with everything GOP the past two years. Will it last? It's up to the Dems. Surf's up, dudes!

An alternate hypothesis is that the majority of Americans aren't very interested in ideology

I would say a majority of Americans aren't very interested in articulating their idology. They don't analyze how they make decisions they just make them.

Nevertheless they base their decisions in an underlying ideology which even if they can't put it into words, significantly effects their lifestyle choices.

I don't think a lot more people today embrace liberal principals. I think conservatism is still the ascendant philosophy even if people can not put it into words. The failure of the republicans is that they did not implement this philosophy correctly.

The issues in this election were competence, competence, competence.

People have ideological leanings but are quite willing to vote for candidates who look like leaders and can get the job done. Republicans have shown no ability to govern effectively at any level or on any issue.

Bad policies poorly executed. You don't need to be a policy wonk to see this level of dysfunction.

...but by their very nature independents are centrists,...

Not really. Being poorly matched with the ideology of either major party doesn't make you a centrists; independents can be centrists, they can be equally liberal or conservative to the mainstream of either major party on the issues that divide the major parties, but be "off to the side" because they have a number of key issues that neither major party addresses at all, so that they are only particularly motivated to vote when the issues that divide the major parties become more important to them, either because the major parties move farther apart or circumstances bring those issues into sharper immediate relevance. They can also be far out to either extreme beyond the major parties, and thus only motivated to have a strong preference between the major parties when the contrast between the majors is enhanced by one or the other major party seeming more extreme. Lots of other possibilities, as well. The idea that of a unidimensional political spectrum on which the two major parties are the extreme poles and therefore "independents" are necessarily "centrists" is wrong in a whole lot of ways.

The hackneyed liberal/conservative paradigm (with moderates in the middle) just does not explain American politics. American conservatives are just too severe and the ‘liberals’ are everyone who opposes them. You could not imagine British Tories demanding that the Prime Minister have rights as a unitary executive. They would be loath to make a political alliance with a fundamentalist religious movement. You could not imagine them storming around Britain burning with nationalist fervor. They have certainly not produced people like Abramoff , Norquist, Cheney, Ralph Reed, Dobson and George Bush.

What we have is an authentic authoritarian political movement. They are thuggish, hypocritical, arrogant and nationalistic. They are cronies who want nothing more than total power. Their entire agenda is about religious and economic orthodoxy. They are prepared to use subterfuge and even violence to maintain it. They are made of fear and self-righteousness.

Opposed to this, the so-called ‘liberals’, are just people who are not authoritarians. They do not demand allegiance to any one orthodoxy. These ‘liberals’ are called ‘relativistic’ because they accept opposing views. For authoritarians there are no legitimate alternative points of view. “Liberals’ are called ‘socialists’ because they want some kind of mixed capitalist economic model with risk-sharing and not orthodox Manchester Capitalism. For American authoritarians Manchester Capitalism is an orthodoxy without alternative. If the same personalities were in Russia a decade ago it would be communism. Because ‘liberals’ are merely patriots who what to cooperate with other nations in the world and not strident nationalists they are called traitors. For the authoritarians America is not a nation with apple pie and baseball, but a religion.

Revolutionary leaders, no matter the ideology or cause, are likely authoritarians. The vanguard followers are also likely to have similar personalities. It is not by mistake that many revolutions for liberation end up as oppressive as the regime they overthrew.

America was founded by men who were of much more mild disposition. It was their aim to set up a government that would prevent tyranny of a king or any faction. If you read their writings you are immediately struck with how different they are from the radical authoritarians who now rule the Republican Party. The authoritarians aim to limit the restraint on power provided by the Constitution. Pluralism in any form is their enemy.

The right was castigating her and her "San Francisco Values" (one marriage, by all accounts a happy one, and five children) .

The right has never castigated Pelosi for what she practices, but for what she publicly supports.

It is my experience that many liberals practice good values ( not labeling the values as conservative or liberal for a moment ). They have great marriages, insist on obedience from their kids, and do their best to love their neighbour as themselves.

They don't make the leap then that part of their success in life is do to the practice of these values. They are afraid to proscribe what works in their life for someone else.

"It can not be doubted that liberalism owns the major output of main stream media"

I can't believe that anyone still believes this, after all the evidence proving it to be garbage.

People fail to embrace liberalism because it basically is not true, and fails as a philosophy.

Liberalism is not a failed philosophy and never will be. Liberalism is what has made America great. Safety nets are a main philosophy of Liberals and a large majority of Americans support them.

When Americans start rejecting Social Security, environmental protections, and minimum wages, just to name a few liberal policies, then people can argue that liberalism is failure.

Paul Krugman puts it very well, I think:

Here's what I wrote more than three years ago, in the introduction to my column collection "The Great Unraveling": "I have a vision - maybe just a hope - of a great revulsion: a moment in which the American people look at what is happening, realize how their good will and patriotism have been abused, and put a stop to this drive to destroy much of what is best in our country."

At the time, the right was still celebrating the illusion of victory in Iraq, and the bizarre Bush personality cult was still in full flower. But now the great revulsion has arrived.

... I do hope and believe that this election marks the beginning of the end for the conservative movement that has taken over the Republican Party.

In saying that, I'm not calling for or predicting the end of conservatism. There always have been and always will be conservatives on the American political scene. And that's as it should be: a diversity of views is part of what makes democracy vital.

But we may be seeing the downfall of movement conservatism - the potent alliance of wealthy individuals, corporate interests and the religious right that took shape in the 1960s and 1970s. This alliance may once have had something to do with ideas, but it has become mainly a corrupt political machine, and America will be a better place if that machine breaks down.

Why do I want to see movement conservatism crushed? Partly because the movement is fundamentally undemocratic; its leaders don't accept the legitimacy of opposition. Democrats will only become acceptable, declared Grover Norquist, the president of Americans for Tax Reform, once they "are comfortable in their minority status." He added, "Any farmer will tell you that certain animals run around and are unpleasant, but when they've been fixed, then they are happy and sedate."

And the determination of the movement to hold on to power at any cost has poisoned our political culture. Just think about the campaign that just ended, with its coded racism, deceptive robo-calls, personal smears, homeless men bused in to hand out deceptive fliers, and more. Not to mention the constant implication that anyone who questions the Bush administration or its policies is very nearly a traitor.

When movement conservatism took it over, the Republican Party ceased to be the party of Dwight Eisenhower and became the party of Karl Rove. The good news is that Karl Rove and the political tendency he represents may both have just self-destructed.

Two years ago, people were talking about permanent right-wing dominance of American politics. But since then the American people have gotten a clearer sense of what rule by movement conservatives means. They've seen the movement take us into an unnecessary war, and botch every aspect of that war. They've seen a great American city left to drown; they've seen corruption reach deep into our political process; they've seen the hypocrisy of those who lecture us on morality.

And they just said no.

They don't make the leap then that part of their success in life is do to the practice of these values. They are afraid to proscribe what works in their life for someone else.

One mans fear is another mans respct for diversity, I guess.

Most of us bristle at the notion of other people proscribing their values to us. We just respect other people and the fact that they might have a different set of priorities. We didn't like the attempts by the r^3's to shove their morality down out throats. Why would the right be any more accepting of havign our morality forced on them?

My uncle and his partner have been together over 35 years. If they were allowed to get married, that would not affect my own marriage or threaten yours in any way. It would not change a damned thing except they would have spousal protections; something they are considering with urgency as they age.

It is my experience that many liberals practice good values

Gee, thanks.
Would you also say that many blacks are hard working?

They don't make the leap then that part of their success in life is do to the practice of these values.

I honestly have no idea what that means.

I think you are trying to be sincere, but what comes across is that you believe "liberal" is a bad word that carries all the baggage that GOP marketing has told you it carries. I could write an essay disagreeing with that, but I'm lazy. And it wouldn't change your mind anyway.

MatthewRMarler on November 10, 2006 at 1:41 PM:

It's almost as though Michigan voters wanted the failed policies of Michigan adopted nationwide.

Hardly. Michigan voters couldn't see much of a difference between DeVos' policy proposals and Dubya's policy positions...and almost no one can call Dubya's implementation of trickle-down economics and promotion of the global economy a glaring success for the average Michigander.

...the Republican view on this issue more or less prevailed.

Considering that measure you are mentioning was supported by the Klu Klux Klan, saying that it matches the 'Republican view' doesn't say a whole lot for Republicans...Not to mention the shenanigans surrounding getting enough signatures to get Proposal 2 on the ballot.

It will be interesting to see if someone pits the ban on programs that give preferential treatment to groups or individuals based on their race, gender, color against the Proposal 2 from 2004, which banned gay marriage in Michigan...the language limits the proposal to 'public employment, education or contracting purposes', but it seems to me that there is a logical disconnect between approving the government's preferential treatment for straight couples while disapproving the government's preferential treatment for women and minorities.

Should make for an interesting debate if it occurs.

John Hansen wrote: I don't think a lot more people today embrace liberal principals. I think conservatism is still the ascendant philosophy even if people can not put it into words. The failure of the republicans is that they did not implement this philosophy correctly.

First of all, your comments make it quite clear to me that your notions of "conservatism" and "liberalism" are one-dimensional cartoon comic book stereotypes that have no relation to reality. "Liberals" don't actually live their values because they love their children? What a load of bullshit.

Secondly, anyone who ever believed for a moment that the Republican Party of Ronald Reagan, Newt Gingrich, George H. W. Bush, Dick Cheney, George W. Bush, Karl Rove, Tom DeLay et al was guided by "conservative philosophy" or any "philosophy" at all other than greed-driven criminality and a totalitarian lust for absolute power is at best a gullible idiot.

How the hell have they managed to demonize a political philosophy that is rooted in the concept of liberty and dates to the enlightenment and the age of reason? How did liberty fall from grace?

John Hansen on November 10, 2006 at 3:10 PM:

I think conservatism is still the ascendant philosophy even if people can not put it into words.

Lol...Shorter John Hansen: 'Conservatism' is whatever a person thinks it is.

SA

Just curious -
Is there any true conservative in national government who you think is a principled individual ? You seem too intelligent to believe conservative = greedy crook. Who amongst the current republicans do you believe is a good man or woman?

The 'Reagan Revolution' wasn't about Reagan so much as about a call back to a more practical conservative viewpoint of life. Reagan simply embodied this ideal in a strong leader.

Well, having lived through the 60s and 70s, I have a rather different view than that of John Hanson. You make it way too complicated John.

The overriding issues in those days were the Vietnam War and Civil Rights. Many people and politicians were against Civil Rights, including Reagan. Do you realize that Reagan publicly opposed every piece of specific civil rights legislation to come down the pike? He, and his self-called conservative brethren, always found an excuse to oppose. Black people took note and voted against Reagan 9 to 1 when he finally won the nomination and ran for President. But boy the self-called conservatives flock to the Republican Party.

Many people opposed the Vietnam War, thought it was a bad idea, thought Vietnam was no threat. Others, like Reagan, liked the Vietnam War, thought it was a great idea. Such folks tended to call themselves conservative and label anti-Vietnam War folks as liberals, radicals, etc..

You use the word practical. Yep, back in those days many folks who opposed Civil Rights found every proposed solution impractical, i.e., “looney”. Guys like William Rehnquist wrote memos pointing out that white folks would never accept crazy ideas like school integration. And opponents of the Vietnam War were naive and/or unpatriotic.

So, thanks John for taking us back to the good old days when great leaders like Ronald Reagan finally straightened us all out. We owe guys like him and GWB a great debt. Also, known as the national debt. Thanks.

Who amongst the current republicans do you believe is a good man or woman?

I know one, but she is in Missouri politics. Her name is Sarah Steelman and she is our State Treasurer. She essentially announced her intent to mount a primary challenge against Matt Blunt for the governor's mansion in 2008 during his innaugural address.

If she defeats him in the primary and then faces Jay Nixon in the general, there is no bad outcome for the citizens of this state if that scenario plays out.

Who amongst the current republicans do you believe is a good man or woman?

at one time, i thought McCain was honorable. after years of watching him smooch Bush's rosebud, no matter how many times Bush shat upon him, i lost that opinion.

How the hell have they managed to demonize a political philosophy that is rooted in the concept of liberty and dates to the enlightenment and the age of reason? How did liberty fall from grace?

GC -

If this is a sincere question and not merely rhetorical, I invite you to go visit

http://www.dennisprager.com.

Dennis Prager is a conservative commentator who considers himself a liberal in the tradition of JFK. A former Democrat, he claims that the party left him, not he the party.

You might disagree, but at least give his site a look. Because he is a much better writer, he can better express how classical liberalism - which "...is rooted in the concept of liberty and dates to the enlightenment and the age of reason..." , has now become the unprincipled server of special interest groups.

John Hansen on November 10, 2006 at 3:53 PM:

Is there any true conservative in national government who you think is a principled individual?

Back at ya, John...Is there an individual in national government that could be considered a 'true conservative' ?

How the hell have they managed to demonize a political philosophy that is rooted in the concept of liberty and dates to the enlightenment and the age of reason? How did liberty fall from grace?

Because they believe in all of the above, so long as all of the above is restricted to their own group. Remember, for some that does not include women, certain races of people, and many other groups which they reserve to right to define on an ad hoc basis.

you mean this Dennis Prager:

Perhaps the most important argument against same-sex marriage is that once society honors same-sex sex as it does man-woman sex, there will inevitably be a major increase in same-sex sex. People do sexually (as in other areas) what society allows and especially what it honors.

?

Oy. I'm a godless Jew. I know from Dennis Prager.

The difference between him and me is that I am willing to fight for my party and take it back from the feckless and useless appeasers.

John Hansen:

Classical liberalism is laissez-faire economics coupled with civil lihertarianism and an internationalist foreign policy. Its analogue in European politics would be the Liberal parties and not Labour.

Democrats who embrace getting back to it are often called neoliberals. Clinton's strong embrace of free trade and welfare reform makes him a classic "Third Way" politician in this regard.

But people like Dennis Prager who sentimentalize the old Democratic Party of Truman and JFK tend to be either one of two things -- cranky Libertarians without the strength of their convictions to go all out with it, or else liberal hawks who believe that America has a duty to stand firm in the world against alien ideologies.

Since there are many aspects of these two philosoophical tendencies that are mutually contradictory, this is actually sort of silly.

The Democratic Party of Truman and JFK was as rife with machine politics, corruption and special interest assuagement as any majoritarian political bloc, and hardly had a pure singular philosophy that somehow got corrupted later.

Bob

has now become the unprincipled server of special interest groups.

Does it hurt, having that huge beam in your eye?

SecularAnimist

John Hanson can't help it. It is clear that he hasn't given much thought to either liberalism or conservatism. I am not sure he can give us either a definition or a good example of a "liberal." I am equally sure he is unable to give us a good working definition or a good example of a "conservative"

John Hanson, people come in all stripes and with all kinds of beliefs. The "liberals" you hate don't really exist because no one believes in or lives the full set of valuse you assign to "liberals." The same for the "conservatives" you embrace.

Or should I say, one man's special interest group is another man's freedom fighter?

Uh-oh, my bad.

I didn't realize Dennis Praeger is a WorldNetDaily contributor.

That would make him a social conservative ideologue who romanticizes about the Truman and Kennedy Years not so much because he supports some sort of pure, uncorrupted notion of liberal ideology -- but only because those eras occured before the Sexual Revolution :)

Although, you'll admit, JFK was a bit ahead of his time in that regard :)

Bob

John Hansen wrote: Because he is a much better writer, he can better express how classical liberalism - which "...is rooted in the concept of liberty and dates to the enlightenment and the age of reason..." , has now become the unprincipled server of special interest groups.

Oh, yes. All those "liberal special interest groups." Like wage-earning workers. Like family farmers. Like teachers. Like women. Like children and old people. Like policemen and firefighters. Like any Americans of other-than-western-European descent.

And completely unlike the "ordinary folks" whose interests are championed by the Republican Party -- hereditary billionaires.

John Hansen wrote: Is there any true conservative in national government who you think is a principled individual?

Bill Clinton was a true conservative. Among other things, he practiced fiscal discipline, submitted balanced budgets to the Congress, and actually reduced the size of the federal government, unlike either Ronald Reagan or George W. Bush. Also unlike Richard Nixon, Reagan, George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush, he didn't try to expand the powers of the federal government to totalitarian extremes.

John Hansen wrote: Who amongst the current republicans do you believe is a good man or woman?

Lincoln Chafee seems like a decent sort.

Back at ya, John...Is there an individual in national government that could be considered a 'true conservative' ?

Rick Santorum comes to mind immediately. William Rhenquist, Antonin Scalia, John Roberts and Sam Alito too. Tom Coburn probably some others if I wanted to spend more time thinking.

GWB is not a 'true' conservative.

But, since its politics, its hard to tell who is sincere and who is just putting on an act to get votes. I have to admit Tom Delay had me fooled.

As one of those independents that broke your way this election, I just have a few comments...

My vote (and I suspect other independents as well) is ALWAYS IN PLAY. I gave the Dems a chance this election because of the GOP's general incompetence and lack of desire to actually govern. I got tired of the partisan games and the cheap political stunts of the Repubs.

Make no mistake - I didn't necessarily vote Dem because I think they have clear solutions to the problems this country faces. Truthfully, I think both parties are sticking their heads in the sand when it comes to the make or break issues, such as:

*The impending retirement of the baby boom generation and entitlements. I have not heard either party responsibly address this. How are we going to pay for all the goodies the Dems are promising? How is the vast block of seniors going to be supported in a country that is mountains of red ink and refuses to tax itself? Dems act like the system will just take care of itself and the GOP wants every person for themselves. They don't want to face the inevitable choice of eit