I’ve seen several times, on this board and elsewhere, where conservatives proudly stick out their chests and proclaim great victory in that America has chosen their Dear Leader twice, discrediting the Democrats and saying that a clear choice has been made.
They seem to be completely oblivious to the fact that both elections were won by very narrow margins, and Bush’s approval rating continues to drop.
Can we please stop the chest-pounding? Bush is hanging on by the skin of his teeth, and then only because half of America believes his outright lies years after they have been disproved.
I think you are missing the bigger picture being so wrapped up in your antipathy towards Bush (and appearently those few remaining Republicans on this board who still support him). The bigger picture is that the Dems have been loosing ground for quite some time now, not only on the presidential front but in both houses and even at the local state level (things like governors for instance). Perhaps you’d like to debate THAT…i.e., is this true that Dems have been loosing ground across the board in recent years? If so, why?
See, a debate. Try it sometime…you might like it. Or, conversely, open threads such as this in the Pit…you will be more, er, warmly received.
I guess the debate is, how can people and the media be talking about “complete and utter defeat” of the Democrats and how they ought to change their ways because they are out of touch with America, if they only lost by a couple of percentage points?
Also, according to the results at CNN, for the Senate, the Republicans got 37,850,613 votes, while Democrats got 41,253,684 votes.
Well, that certainly explains it. It shows conclusively how the Democrats were able to maintain their majority in the Senate in the 1994, 1996, 1998, 2000, 2002 and 2004 elections.
Tom Daschle has been doing a bang-up job as majority leader, too. Glad to see he’s sticking around.
It seems that the Deomcrats keep getting a similar number of votes to the Republicans, but they ended up with fewer senate seats (the 21-12 difference in 2002 is notable).
Overall, over these last 4 senate elections, Republicans have gotten 95.5 million votes while Democrats have gotten 97.9 million votes.
So, more people vote for Democratic candidates than for Republican candidates.
Of course, there are more Republican senators at the moment, so the Democrats need to learn how to win the small states too (which the Republicans seem to be winning, since they get so many seats with so few votes), but beyond what the Democrats should or should not do, the numbers above show that phrases like “the country is becoming more and more conservative” and “democrats are out of touch with the majority of America”, are false.
You can paint the Democratic losses in the election as being relatively benign, even positive- the Democrats were running against a war-time president who had made a huge popularity boost following a national tragedy, and who was presiding over an economy doing as well or better than the one that re-elected Clinton in 1996; coming within 3% as opposed to the Dukakis or Mondale debacles is an accomplishment in that light. The losses in the Senate are easily written off as Southern states finally completing the conversion to solid red states, and point to the fact that the only swing state in play- Colorado- elected a Democrat. And the loss of seven seats in the House is entirely due to Texas redistricting. So no serious losses, and some hope in there.
What most Democrats are reacting to, though, is that what happened fell seriously short of expectations- the belief that monkeyboy Bush, who presided over job loss and got us into a war worse than Vietnam while smirking his way to infamy, was going to be driven from the White House with ease, with Democrats firmly taking back the Senate and maybe even the House. Since that didn’t happen, “obviously there must be something seriously wrong with the party since we couldn’t have lost, right?” becomes the mindset. Enter beliefs that the party must veer to the middle, or must become more stridently liberal, or that tampered voting boxes delivered the election to Bush.
Where I think the truth lies: the Democrats ran a strong campaign against a strong incumbent, and lost heavily due to external factors- a recovering economy, and wartime rally-round-the-incumbent. But Democrats could have won if they had played their cards better- come up with a focused message and stuck to it, for example. And while Democratic Senate candidates may have won more votes, the great re-alignment of the South to Republican is going to make it very hard for the Democrats to take control of the Senate unless they change either their platform or their process.
I’m just curious why you think such numbers matter, Polerius. If a senator in, say, New York (just an example btw) wins by a landslide vote of several million, but 5 senators from the other party win in less populous states by comfortable 100k margines, the ‘popular’ vote is skewed towards the one senator in New York…while the reality is that its one senator to 5 now in the house. I really fail to see how your numbers have any real meaning at all, since senators and congressmen are voted in by STATE…and pulling national numbers is meaningless. Perhaps you could explain?
The only NATIONAL figure we elect is the President, and the current (conservative/Republican) president won by several million in the popular vote…no? And he wasn’t even all that popular AND he had a load of baggage that would take a train to carry. As John Mace said (in another thread I think)…if you couldn’t beat Bush, who exactly DO you think you can beat??
Not only that, think back a few years…just how many LIBERAL Democrats have won the presidency in, oh, the last 20 years? 30? 50? Is it getting better or worse do you think? How many Democrats have won in those same time periods?
Well, I’m convinced. The Democrats are doing great after all! No need to change a thing. As long as more people are voting for Democratic Senators, I’m sure that the new Minority Leader can simply ask for a few extra compensatory “shadow votes” in the chamber, and it’ll all work out fine.
That is irrelevant to what I said. What I said was:
beyond what the Democrats should or should not do, the numbers above show that phrases like “the country is becoming more and more conservative” and “democrats are out of touch with the majority of America”, arefalse
Geeze, it’s OBVIOUS. Republicans have gotten 95.5 million votes while Democrats have gotten 97.9 million votes. More people voted for the Democrats. Therefore, they’re doing just fine.
Maybe if I change the font sizes you guys would get my point:
beyond what the Democrats should or should not do, the numbers above show that phrases like “the country is becoming more and more conservative” and “democrats are out of touch with the majority of America”, are false
Sure.
I’ll just quote what I said above
[ul]
[li]Of course, there are more Republican senators at the moment, so the Democrats need to learn how to win the small states too (which the Republicans seem to be winning, since they get so many seats with so few votes), [/li]
[li]but beyond what the Democrats should or should not do, the numbers above show that phrases like “the country is becoming more and more conservative” and “democrats are out of touch with the majority of America”, are false.[/li][/ul]
In case you are not pretending, here’s an example:
Suppose that for the past 4 presidential elections, the Republicans have been winning the electoral vote (and the presidency), but the Democrats have been winning the popular vote by a couple of percent.
That would mean
The Democrats would need to learn how to get more electoral votes
Phrases like “the majority of America is becoming conservative” would be false.
Bricker seems to be a lot smarter than I am…perhaps he is pretending. I, however, still fail to see the relevence to pulling raw vote numbers for congress/senate races and drawing any kind of conclusion from them. A more relevant statistic is…how many new seats did you win (or lose)? Let me put it another way…say you won the entire population of California and New York…every single voter voted for your candidates there. However, in all the rest of the states the other sides candidates won by very small margins. You look at the results and you are literally MILLIONS AND MILLIONS of votes ahead of the opposing party. What exactly have you won though?
You keep repeating this as if it means something. I STILL fail to see the relevence. Its pretty obvious that the Republicans ARE gaining more and more of a hold over the country (at least at this time), that they are gaining more control over the government (seeing as they now comfortably control ALL of it).
Its equally clear (to me anyway) that even your own party shy’s away from running a ‘liberal’…even when the candidate IS a ‘liberal’. Why is that? Kerry was undoubtedly a ‘liberal’ by US standards…yet he didn’t RUN as a ‘liberal’. He attempted to run as a ‘moderate’. Why? How many Democrat senators/congresscritters DO run as ‘liberals’? And how many run as ‘moderates’? Answer THAT question and I think you will see the direction your party needs to take if it wants to survive.
Or, conversely, you can keep thinking you are neck and neck with the Pubs, and that the worm will turn any time…
No doubt. This must be ‘fuzzy logic’ I guess…I was always weak at that.