Three, actually, but yes, it is quite amazing.
What in the world are you talking about? Where are these “few” and “some” races that you refer to? There was exactly one race decided by 10,000 votes or less, and that was won by Democrats. The Republicans won another couple by about 20,000 or so. If you are going to be criticizing other people’s inacuracies, it would help if you were not making stuff up yourself.
As for the OP, I don’t think this election heralds anything other than the fact that it is hard to run against a “wartime” president. This does not mean that there were not other factors involved. Of particular note, GWB gets credit for having put his power and prestige on the line and come up bigtime. But the bigger picture is that timing worked out in favor of the Repubs.
And the great victory was not actually that great, as has been previously noted - just that the balance of power was that close to begin with, combined with the fact that the Repubs hit the upper end of expectations.
Hard to predict the future, and it is certainly a mistake to predict it based on the current situation. Remember the gleeful Democrats two years ago. Still, the early edge would have to be in favor of the Republicans, both because they defend fewer (Senate) seats, and because the cyclical economy is likely to be in better shape. (Compare to Reagan’s first term).
I am skeptical of polls showing that the Republicans have a better plan for the country or are better for the economy. Generally, polls move in tandem with each other - of there is a wave of symphathy in favor of someone on one issue it will lift them with regards to every other issue as well (has to do with cognitive dissonance and whatnot). The Republicans are benefitting from the war/terrorism issue, and the rest is carryover, IMHO.
In sum, I don’t think any major changes are called for - if I was the Democrats I would keep doing the same thing and wait for the ball to bounce in my favor. But their strategy of moving to the left may work as well. Time will tell.
Well, Doghouse, your critique of the Emperor’s New Clothes as being the very finest might equally be taken as proof of my premise. I see a narrow defeat, you see a historical landslide. I see an amiable doofus, a mediocrity, you see a born again Churchill, a Leader of Men. I say its catsup, you say its a vegetable. I think you’re likely to be wrong, you think you are 100% totally extremely right.
We shall see.
It seems to me, first, that the Democratic Party is not moving to the left. The party has always had a handful of left wingers floating around, running off at the mouth and making good copy (or in this age providing pithy sound bites). By the same token the Republican Party has always had a handful of right wingers saying some really scary stuff. If anything we see the Republican Party becoming more and more obligated to and catering to Conservative Christians and really big business—the temporary death of the so-called Bankruptcy Reform Act because it contained provisions that would keep civil judgements for damage to abortion clinics and providers and the inclusion in the enabling legislation for the Homeland Defense Department of provisions that would immunize pharmaceutical manufacturers from liability are merely examples of this trend.
Second, I can’t explained the out come of the elections in other states but I do know that in my State the elections demonstrated a split personality on the part of the voters (and we did have a record turnout for mid term elections). For instance, in Iowa Senator Harkin, the keynote speaker at Senator Wellstone’s memorial rally, pretty easily beat a good Republican candidate. Governor Vilseck handily beat a long time Republican activist who was closely identified with the small government and tax cut movement. At the same time my congress man, Jim Nussle, a man who only opens his mouth when Dick Armey pulls the string, was reelected. Western Iowa, a safe Republican district, elected a man who seems to be determined to replace income taxation with a national sales tax. While it is easy to say that all politics is local, I have a hard time explaining how a thinking voter, even one who knew nothing more that what he saw on TV, could walk into the voting booth and pull the levers for Tom Harkin and Jim Nussle. The conflict of political philosophy and objective between the two is irreconcilable.
Third, and most important, it seems to me that the Great Victory was in fact a small victory given the slight change in the party’s congressional strengths. The slight change, however, may be enough for the Republicans to work their will over the next two years. Hold on to your hat we are in for a hell of a ride. I ascribe the result to what I think is the Republican Party superior marketing skills. Especially its ability to market the President. For the last year it has been clear to me that Carl Rowen et al has done a superb job of convincing the electorate to pay no attention to that man behind the curtain. Now that the election is over and the little victory dance is winding down, we will see if the electorate will stomach what the little man behind the curtain wants to do with our country.
Okay, the above is so full of wild speculation and misstatements it’s hard to decide where to start. I’ll start with a request for evidence that the Democratic Party is “veering sharply to the left.” The election was almost two weeks ago, and I see no evidence that the Democratic Party is veering anywhere. One might argue that the elevation of Nancy Pelosi to House Minority Leader is such an indication, but that’s akin to saying that Dennis Hastert being the House Majority Leader indicates that the Republican Party is a haven for the radical right.
“Moving back to Kennedy liberalism”? Huh? I don’t think they will, no. I mean, their current frontrunner is Al Gore, f’Chrissakes! There aren’t too many prominent liberals in the Democratic Party, much less in the U.S. Government. Sure, there are some liberals, but I’d hardly say they control the Democrats’ agenda.
Yes, the 2004 Democratic convention is going to be in Boston, Massachusetts—a state famous historically (and currently) for liberal Democrats. But John Edwards is not a liberal New England Democrat. North Carolina, which Edwards represents in the Senate, is a far cry from New England. It doesn’t even border New England. Edwards is a moderate, and is a likely presidental candidate. John Kerry is the liberal New England Democrat who’s taking a shot for the presidency. There’s plenty of speculation that Kerry wouldn’t have enough appeal outside the northeast, and I’m inclined to agree with that. I’m sure he’ll run, but he wouldn’t likely make it too far in the primaries.
Currently, the frontrunners are Al Gore and John Edwards, I believe, though no one has officially announced his candidacy yet. Republicans would love to see John Kerry get the nomination, and many give in to the temptation to presume that he’s the likely nominee. Five getcha ten Kerry announces his candidacy in early 2003, along with most of the rest of them, but anyone who would say the Democrats have an effective nominee already is tragically naïve.
Some are trying to downplay the significance of the Democratic gubernatorial victories (and losses) in this year’s elecitons. These contests need to be looked at, but I don’t think they indicate a national trend, but rather show a few stumbling blocks and green lights for the 2004 presidential race.
Massachusetts—This state hasn’t had a Democratic governor since 1986. Romney was long the favorite in this election, and he did win—though it was close. But Romney’s not exactly a conservative, and it’s crazy to suggest that Romney’s winning this election shows Massachusetts trending Republican.
Rhode Island—Yes, Governor-elect Carcieri is a Republican. And George Pataki won a third term in New York. Does that mean New York is trending conservative Republican, too? Amazing.
Vermont—I don’t think a state that produces Republicans like Jim Jeffords is going to elect a George Bush-style Republican, and I don’t think they did in 2002.
Pennsylvania—Ed Rendell kicked ass here, beating Republican Mike Fisher by double digits. Pennsylvania has always been a swing state, and has gone Democratic in the last three presidential elections. When Pennsylvania’s Democrats get energized, they can really pull something off. Rendell was a strong candidate who was up against a weak one.
Maryland—Townsend’s campaign blew up toward the end, tainted by scandals in the Glendenning administration. Maryland remains strongly Democratic; this hardly shows that Maryland is turning Republican.
Georgia—Sonny Purdue will be the first Republican governor of Georgia in history. Upon Purdue’s election, much of the state senate switched parties. Frankly, I feel it’s about time. Georgia has always been more conservative, and their switching over to the Republican party in droves is only logical. Now maybe the political monolith of Georgia can give way and let the first real opposition since Sherman have a chance in this state.
Florida—Did anyone hear Jim McBride debate Jeb Bush? Good lord, McBride is a terrible debator—and surprisingly, Bush is pretty good. McBride just wasn’t a very good candidate, as his campaign bore out. And George Bush’s dozen or so campaign swings through his brother’s state certainly didn’t help McBride…
Alabama—This one still has legal recounts pending, which most Alabamans want Come what may, this one was a pretty close call.
Tennessee—New Democratic governor here. To listen to Republicans in 2000, you’d think the Democrats were finished in Tennessee. Guess again.
Michigan—Democrat Jennifer Granholm won handily, waltzing into power after the disasterous Engler administration. Michigan is also a swing state, and one that reëlected Democratic Senator Carl Levin easily. Michigan has been trending Democratic over the past fifteen years.
The auto and steel industries in states like Michigan, Pennsylvania, Ohio and West Virginia still lean Democratic. Bush’s push for tariffs aren’t playing well in those areas, since most voters are more concerned about the benefits they’re losing with the decline of the steel industry, rather than Bush’s nebulous promise to “aid” the industry at the expense of respect from America’s foreign trading partners.
Illinois—Governor-elect Blagojevich beat scandal-ridden (and scandal-affiliated) Republican George Ryan with ease. This indicates a meltdown of the Illinois Republicans, probably, but not a national trend.
Wisconsin—A scandal-ridden Democrat barely beat a Republican challenger. Wisconsin is trending Republican, somewhat, but it’s still definitely a swing state.
Oklahoma—A Democratic governor? Does this mean Oklahoma is turning liberal? Obviously.
Kansas—See what I wrote about Oklahoma.
Wyoming—Ditto.
New Mexico—A failed gubernatorial pickup for the Republicans in a state that’s increasingly enchanted by Democrats. This trend will likely continue.
Arizona—First Democratic governor in twenty years. Arizona is increasingly a swing state that doesn’t toe the line to the national Republican Party, and will continue to give Bush-style conservatives headaches. For example: John McCain.
California—Most Republicans could have beaten Gray Davis this year, but the one they chose didn’t do it. The California Republican Party is in deep trouble. Will Arnold Schwartzenegger save them? Good lord, I hope not. Why not run Riordan again in 2006? They’d be much better off with him.
Oregon—A close race won by a Democrat promising a state-run health care system paid for by the taxpayers! There’s a lesson here for Democrats: provide a clear message that the Republicans aren’t already providing and you’ll do well.
Hawaii—Hawaii elected its first Republican governor in history. Well, sometimes people react badly to state budget crises. There’s another lesson for the Democrats…
The point is that the Republicans have lost the governorships in some key swing states, and have held onto the governorships in others. There’s no swing state that elected a new governor this year that booted out a Democrat. Massachusetts, Maryland, Rhode Island, Hawaii… all of them are strong Democratic states. The Republicans, however, lost statehouses in swing states like Pennsylvania, Michigan, Illinois, Arizona and Oregon. The underlying message here is that there are still a lot of Democratic voters out there, despite what happened in the Senate. This fact is going to make it tougher for the Republicans in 2004, who will need to do well in the Northeast and Midwest if they want their boy to get another term in office.
I think the original article linked to at the top of the thread has a lot of merit. Bush has a track record of tipping political balances decidedly in his party’s favor.
As to the above-linked article, I don’t think it necessarily indicates that Bush will sweep the country like he did Texas in 1998. By the same argument, you could say that Anthony Williams, who was elected Mayor of Washington, DC with over 90% of the vote, could replicate the same results if only he ran nationally.
It bears mentioning, though, that Bush did so well campaigning against Democratic senators and representatives this year for a similar reasons: national Democrats in 2002 ran campaigns as different from the Republicans as Texas Democrats do. It’s true that there are no states that Democrats should take for granted, but if the Democrats can get themselves together and get a cohesive message, it’s ridiculous to say that it’ll be a walk for Bush in 2004. Another significant Democratic failure in 2002 was that they didn’t mobilize their base, which certainly hurt them. They didn’t bother courting black voters until the final few weeks of the campaign, which is why the turnout in the South was much more disasterous that expected.
Basically, Bush ran a campaign in 2002 with no opposition. The local races had opposition, but the Campaigner-in-Chief was the one who ran around with no one to check him. During the coming presidential election, there will be someone to oppose Bush. Local races will stay more local, while Bush will have to put up with someone saying that Bush shouldn’t have the job that he has.
One crucial variable that’s missing in Broder’s column: who was the 1998 Democratic Texas gubernatorial candidate? Could it be that Bush does poorly against strong opposition (like when he campaigned for Dole against Clinton in 1996) but does well against weak opposition (like the 2002 midterms)? A little more information on the 1998 Texas governor’s race would either build up or tear down Broder’s argument. Broder’s argument is incomplete.
The leap from A:
to B:
is a rather large one, don’t you think? It does not naturally follow, you know.
The fact is that the majority of the American Public is not reasonably well-informed, (assuming you are not exceptionally generous in your definitions). The majority get their information in 30-second soundbites from local news, and an occasional flip through Newsweek. If the public were truly well-informed, political advertising would be pointless and campaign finance, reformed or not, would be utterly beside the point.
That’s a load of rubbish. I find it quite ironic that the party that claims to support ‘the people’ is always quick to claim that the people are wrong, or not intelligent enough, or don’t care enough, or are easily fooled.
The public IS reasonably well informed. As individuals, we often don’t know specific details. But society is self-organizing. A person can have a sense of how they want to live without having to know all the details about policy A,B, or C. So, they ally themselves with other groups of people who make them feel most comfortable. That’s what political parties are all about - people delegating the micro-managing of their political goals to a larger group. It’s an intelligent process, and in the end it represents the true interests of the people remarkably well. After all, if it didn’t, they’d abandon it.
As an example of this process, you could claim that the public is horribly uninformed about cars. If cars were politics, there would be pollsters at auto dealerships asking people coming out things like, “So, what do you think of the new T2024 alloy that GM is using in its body panels?” Then they’d get a blank stare, and conclude that people are horribly uninformed about the cars they buy.
And yet, the people are very good at picking good cars from bad. Why? Because information filters out of the details and is carried out to the people who need to know, only in the amounts they need to know. For example, an auto writer who DOES understand aluminum alloys will write an article praising its use in the car. This will be read by the hardcore auto afficionadoes. They in turn will be respected for their judgement by their friends, co-workers, etc. People will trust their advice because we all learn how to delegate some of our decision-making to others.
People are also very good at using feedback. When people buy bad cars, they bitch about them. This stops other people from buying them. Then the slow sales of the vehicle become another data point, and people become wary. They don’t have to know WHY the car isn’t selling, although they might. But that doesn’t mean they are incapable of making decisions.
Look around you. We are all surrounded by an amazing array of products of extremely high quality. But more importantly, there are far more products of poor quality that have been rejected by ‘the people’. We are amazingly good at running our own lives and society.
The same thing happens in politics, and the wonks never understand this. Individually, people can be quite uninformed on some very basic issues. But collectively, they make astoundingly good judgements.
This paternalism of the left is ubiquitous. That’s why they want to protect people through regulation so much, whereas the right is much more willing to say, “Let the people choose what they want to buy.” It’s also why the trial lawyers are heavily allied with the left - the left is much more likely to accept the notion that people are incapable of making their own judgements about products, and therefore are easily preyed upon. Conservatives are much more likely to say, “The people are responsible for their own actions, and are just as capable as I am of determining their own levels of safety.”
Whenever this gets brought up (usually by me on this board), you guys on the left go bananas and claim that it’s ridiculous. But it never takes long for one of you to respond to an argument like the current one by claiming that average people are too stupid and ignorant to know what they want or need.
I would like to believe this.
But how then can we explain the near-monopoly of Libman mops in the cleaning section of our supermarkets??? If “the people” had the ability to string at least a couple of neurons together, this crap would be off the market.
Sam has an excellent point. The American people, like most human beings, don’t like being told they’re wrong, whether individually or collectively.
I don’t see how it would be a good idea not to tell them they voted for the wrong guy, however. If the left is paternalistic, are they not performing exactly the same function as those auto writers and afficionadoes? Are conservatives giving advice any different, even if they say ‘make your own decision - and by, the way, vote GOP?’
As for the OP, politics are just as unpredictable as the weather, the economy, and sports. GWB must have his father’s spectacular rise and fall front and center in his head, though.
Hawaii—Hawaii elected its first Republican governor in history. Well, sometimes people react badly to state budget crises. There’s another lesson for the Democrats…
**
[/QUOTE]
Though New Hampshire has had other Republican leaders before, I think the same reasoning applies. It explains our brand new Republican gov (who I did not vote for because think he’s a lunatic, go figure!) as well as the current gov’s loss of the senate race. If the educational funding - which is the biggest issue with state funding at the moment - wasn’t a crisis issue right now, I bet the Dems might have won one race or the other.
Sam you representing your personal biases as if they were facts. They are not. I trust the judgement of the people, but I recognize thier limitations. First and foremost is access to the truth, and a committment to that access. From whence comes the Freedom of Information act, one of the finest pieces of legislation ever to escape the grasp of a parliament of whores.
And how does Bush respond?
The Reagan papers were supposed to be released, that is the law. Apparently, there are things there that he would just as soon didn’t see daylight, all manner of “national security” claims are made to keep secret information twenty years old, and more. Might one be forgiven for suspecting that utter candor is not the motivation here? That there are things embarassing to the Powers That Be? Yes, I rather think we might suspect that. I’m pretty sure I do suspect that.
Because if every document therein is nothing less than a testimonial to the prescience and probity of the Reagan Administration, you know as well as I they would have it before our eyes toot goddam sweet.
Similarly, with the papers relating to the Bush administration of Texas, where government is kept off the backs of Business and in its pocket. By legal slight of hand, those papers are trundled off to be hidden away, and you’ll see them when he’s damn good and ready. Which is to say, never. I should really like to know what sort of civic-minded thinking goes into a pollution policy that is formulated by the polluters themselves, and then, just to be on the safe side, is made voluntary! Yes, I think an examination of the thinking that went into that would be most enlightening.
Its our government, isn’t it? They are our employees, aren’t they? The people we work for can read our e-mail, test our pee for unsavory substances, and yet we are not to see what our government does on a daily basis? Pray, why?
So, who is it, again, that doesn’t trust the people, Sam? Is it we, who say “Show us the truth” or is it they who say “You can’t handle the truth”? I’m willing to take my chances, Sam, why is it that Mr. Bush is not?
Gosh, you don’t think it could be that he’s hiding something, do you? Well, you know, Sam, that’s exactly what I think. I think that when someone hides something, there’s usually a reason. I think the people can deal with the truth. Mr. Bush apparently disagrees.
Why do you think that is, Sam?
Wow. That’s a pretty big strawman you’ve erected there, elucidator. You managed to leapfrog a discussion from whether or not the people can be trusted to make up their own minds, to a diatribe about Bush’s selective sealing of a documents?
And, you assumed that I agreed with Bush on this. I don’t. The only documents that should be sealed are those that would cause damage to the national security of the United States.
In that case, it’s not a matter of trusting the people. It’s a matter of releasing information that would be of benefit to your enemies.
Is it possible that there is still sensitive information in the records form the Reagan years that could hurt the U.S. if it were revealed? Of course. There could have been discussions of moles in the Soviet Union who are still in power, and who would be in big trouble if the information were leaked. There could be information about Iraq from sources within the Hussein government, who are still in place. I have absolutely no idea.
Now, do I think that that is the likely motivation? Probably not. My guess is that Bush Sr. doesn’t want them released and Bush Jr. is accomodating him. But sorry, if you’re in public life, you forfeit the right to keep your utterances secret.
The sealing of the documents in Texas acts is more evidence that the motivation for keeping the records sealed is more personal than a concern for the security of the country.
And yes, the Freedom of Information act is a fine thing.
We will now return from this unscheduled departure from the subject.
Well, now that you clarify, what your serving is that old favorite bucket of Bushwa, about the “liberal elite”, usually described as inhabiting the Northeast.
And, to a certain degree, there is some truth. What I disagree about is the cause. Yes, the people are somewhat ignorant. But they are not ignorant due to some inherent failing in themselves, but because they are lied to and manipulated.
The President’s case for war with Iraq, and the subsequent emotional climate which his handlers milked for all it was worth, was founded on innuendo, allegations, and the occassional outright lie.
So, yes, I do believe a great number of people who voted Pubbie did so in a state of ignorance. But not because they aren’t as smart as us liberals. Thier state of ignorance was deliberate, and to some degree abetted by a natural human desire to trust one’s leaders. The solution is leaders who can be trusted, more than trying to degrade that feeling. Uncomfortable truths are more difficult to transmit that comfortable ones, that isnt a human failing so much as a human weakness.
I dont blame people for being human, that is futile as well as callous. I blame the people who exploit those weaknesses.
What ** Boris ** said.
Well then, I guess I’m not clarifying enough, because I didn’t say anything about the ‘liberal elite’, and certainly not anything about the Northeast.
I was talking about Liberals, period. When I’m together with my conservative friends, I NEVER hear them talking about how stupid the people are, or how uneducated they are, or how they are duped by powerful forces. Usually, if they don’t agree with a liberal they’ll just say he or she is wrong.
But when I’m together with my liberal friends and the talk turns to politics, you can usually set your watch by the time it takes them to start acting superior and talking about how stupid everyone is. It happens all the time on this board, for example. The masses are just a bunch of unthinking dullards who can’t be trusted to buy their own drugs, make their own retirement choices, etc.
Retirement choices are a good example. The Republican position is, “The people are smart, and should be allowed to invest their own money for retirement.” The Democratic position is, “People are stupid and greedy, and if we let them invest for their own retirement, they’ll put it in risky stocks and lose it all.”
Or education. Republicans: “Parents should be given vouchers and allowed to send their children to the school of their choice.” Democrats: “If we allow people to send kids to the school they want, we’ll have a bunch of Christian schools teaching that evolution is evil and turning out a bunch of ignorant luddites.”
Or Drug policy. Republicans: “The people are the best judges of whether the risk of a new drug is worth taking. And they defer those decisions to their doctors anyway, and pick doctors they trust.” Democrats: “We have to protect the people, because if they are left to their own choices they’ll buy snake-oil and recklessly take new drugs that kill them.”
Republicans are the party of the people. Democrats are elitist snobs who think they should run things because the average person is too stupid to do it.
There. That ought to get some hackles up. Note that I’m being inflammatory on purpose, since you keep missing my point when I state it more subtly. In real life, it’s not that black and white. But the general point stands. Liberals tend to think that they are smarter than average. Plato’s philosopher-king would have made a great Democrat.
Not quite. My position is that such legislation should be titled the Stockbrokers Full Employment Act. No, people are not stupid. But they definitely are not as knowledgable as the people who work there. Some of whom, we are aghast to realise, do not strictly follow the Republican line of total ethics. I know, its hard to accept, but trust me: there are a number of reports of late that suggest that some of these people just aren’t entirely honest. No, really. Quite a few intelligent people made reasonable and informed decisions to buy Enron for thier retirement. Screwed, blued and tatooed.
So what does happen to the ill-advised? If they invest thier retirement money and it goes bye-bye, then what? Does the Government back up thier retirement money with a fall-back, so that if they lose thier money, they don’t starve? And doesn’t it seem clear that if a lot of retirement money is invested in the stock market, then the government is dependent on that market. It will be impossible to judge what will be needed in future years to provide for retirees because we have to wait until we see how the market goes.
Privatization is such a dumb idea, the Pubbies who were trumpeting thier support ran for cover this last election. Oh, and they lied about it. Big time. In spades.
I’ll tear up those other nonsensical assertions after dinner.
Just curious, Sam, since you seem to have such a lofty opinion of the masses, what your take on Clinton’s 8 years in office is? Just a glitch? Temporary insanity? Perhaps you think Clinton was cool, I can’t keep track of everyone’s opinions about everything. But if you think Clinton sucked ass, how would you explain the fact that the people voted him in?