But that’s (except for redistricting) saying nothing really different than what happened on the national level: a disorganized and splintered party lost an election against a bigger name. Attributing the GOP losses at the state level solely to flukey, non-ideological factors seems a tad . . . shaky, especially when the flukes happened repeatedly and across different states.
The article I cited provides an example of how the GOP’s national profile cost it at the state level:
I’ve never understood why Dems think that a few medals earned thirty years ago made for an open-and-shut case for Kerry. Not that I think Bush was at all superior; just that running on what he did thirty years prior was always a silly idea.
Well, maybe it has something to do with how, in 1988, George Bush graced the cover of Newsweek. Bush, the youngest Navy pilot in WW2, decorated for heroism, and a man who had survived being shot down out of the sky, had the caption under him of: “The Wimp Factor.”
In other words: just because one is a war hero does not give one backbone in other matters. Just because one fucked around and fucked up as a young man doesn’t mean he’s a wastrel in middle age.
Well, according to the article linked – that seems to be the consensus of both the local Democratic and Republican organizations. And they only gave two specific examples - “redistricting” and “name recognition.” I assume that you agree that redistricting may have caused some of the difference - judging from your post. As to the other - I tend to think that “name recognition” at the local level doesn’t translate, necessarily, into “bigger name” on the national level. In quite a few local elections I’m sure many - if not most of the voters have never heard of some of the local candidates. Both Kerry and Bush were well known names - so was Nader, which not always the case with candidates in a local election. Advertising money isn’t always available to the extent needed to have your name become well known. Being a former news reporter on a local channel might work wonders in the absence of that money -
But again - the two - the national and the local - just may not compare well -
Interesting opinion, but utterly unsupportable by actual data.
She may say she’s not interested, but you are living a double dose of cognitive dissonance if you think the idea of her candidacy is just “Republican porn”. Just look at the polling numbers. For example (my bolding):
I’ve said it before and I will say it again.
The Democrats have moderated themselves out of existance. A lot of people arn’t that concerned with what they stand for, only that the people they vote for seem strong and “the right man for the job”. By chasing after the middle, refusing to stand on anything that might get them the dread lable “liberal” and not speaking out against things that seem obvious- e.g. the war- the Democrats have made themselves superfulous. They are now Republic Lite…kind of like the pubbies, just not quite as much. Thats no way to get elected.
For proof, I’d like to see some numbers regarding how Americans feel about traditional “liberal” and “conservative” issues. A lot of Americans are against the wars. A lot of American support gay rights and abortions. But there is a disconnect between what people believe and what they vote.
It’s an indication that there’s a lot wrong with the Democratic party. However, I should think that the last thing that’s indicated is that the public has decided against the Democrats on the issues. Polls consistently show that the majority is with the Democrats and liberals on most issues. It also shows that elections aren’t about issues any more (if they ever were).
What’s even more indicative of what the Republicans have been doing right and what the Democrats have been doing wrong is that Hillary Clinton qua HILLARY THE SCHEMING MANIPULATIVE ATHEIST LIBERAL WHO’S GOING TO TAKE YOUR GUNS AND TAKE YOUR BIBLES AND MAKE YOUR CHILDREN HAVE ANAL SEX WITH GAYS AND THEN MARRY THEM AND PUT YOU IN JAIL IF YOU EVER, EVER STAY HOME AND MAKE EVEN ONE GODDAMN COOKIE FROM HONEST-TO-GOD SCRATCH is entirely a creation of the Republican echo chamber. She’s not the most hated liberal in the country because back in 1992 the Democrats got together and decided to make her the enduring symbol of Democratic liberalism. She’s the most liberal in the country because the conservative media saw an opportunity to make her into a bogeyman and efficiently carried out that plan.
I agree with this. I’m registered in Md as an independent, but my politics are much more in line with the Democratic platform than the Repubs. It could be that a lot more conservatives feel compelled to identify themselves as Republicans, especially since the GOP is currently running things. We must take in account the general tendency for people to associate themselves with the winning team.
Was that the best example, John? Good thing I read your link. Also from your cite:
You call that enthusiastic?
Well the point being made wasn’t that Hillary will win the Democratic primary without much else to say. The point was the “Hillary,” as a candidate, isn’t just some Rove inspired Republican pipe dream. While big, healthy, Republican males don’t always bed their wives over the idea (John Maces “Republican porn?”)- and Republican women don’t start lactating. Even though there is some strong politico-sexual appeal to Hillary as a candidate. But notice - it’s Democrats that have Hillary at the top of that poll by 10 points - not Republicans.
And by the way – what in the hell is “Bill Clinton” doing in the 4th position in this poll of Democrats? Give it up folks!!
Also from John Mace’s cite:
I’ll go out on a limb here and say that “Unsure” would win in a landslide, with broad bi-partisan appeal.
Redundant fact-check for Tigers: Hillary is not at the top of that list (except chronologically). “Unsure” is the clear winner, on both sides of the aisle.
At last, something that unites us.
I think the more interesting part of the cite John gave is how undecided most of the people polled were, regardless of party affiliation. As far as 2008, we won’t know until we see who is running and who makes a decent show in the early primaries.
As far as party affiliation goes, it’s really to complex to predict. The left has certainly not been putting on the best face lately. It’s been very easy to label them as elitist and whiny. Heck, there were a couple of left leaning comedians on Comedy Central the other night and neither one was funny. Both were kind of shrill, which brings us to Michael Moore. His movies are certainly interesting and get him a lot of attention, but they really appeal mainly to the left and don’t give a lot of sway to the moderates/undecideds.
Meanwhile the right has been doing everything…well, right for lack of a better term. Homeland security and moral values have been good for reaching the moderates. Tax breaks are always a strong seller. Ignoring the right wing spin machine is impossible. It’s likely going down in history as a great political forces of our time (assuming Bush doesn’t end the world 
)
To put it simply, the right has been doing a tremendous job of reaching out to moderates while labeling the left as being out of touch. What you end up with is rights and moderates vs the far left as far as perceptions go.
And as you’ve demonstrated, with the right-wing insta-pundits spending the last decade or so demonizing everything to do with the word “liberal,” a lot of left-leaning folks may register themselves as “independents” just to avoid harassment by smug, self-righteous Republicans.
I most certainly do. Among people who have an opinion, she’s at the top of the friggin’ list , for God’s sake!! Look, **elucidator **has been saying for about a year that the idea of HRC as a presidential candidate is confined to Republicans. Clearly that is NOT the case. Clearly she is the front runner among Democrats, to the extent that there is a front runner. Now, if you or **elucidator **have some data that shows HRC to be on the BOTTOM of any list of Democratic presidential candidates, lets see it. BTW, the second poll you cited is from REPUBLICANS. We’re talking about D-E-M-O-C-R-A-T-S.
Not really. The election is 4 years away. I agree that the political landscape could change radically in 4 years. Who knows who the candidates will actually be? But, to say that Hillary’s presidential bid is mere Rupubican wishful thinking is flat out wrong. That’s the only point I was trying to make.
Goodness. Now I’m going to have to become a Democrat. That’s going to be a stretch.
That’s one of the whackiest theories I’ve heard yet. Just how much are you willing to raionalize away the facts in order to maintain your world view, rjung?
Understood. I just don’t think the change required to keep Hillary out of the candidacy would be that drastic. The only reason that Hillary was at the top of the list was that “unsure” isn’t really a candidate. A majority of those polled were unsure, more than would vote for Hillary or any other candidate.
I’m not saying that it’s a republican pipe dream. It’s just not even close to a lock. Everything will come down to 2007/08; who runs, how they campaign, how the first few primaries go.
IMHO, Hillary and the dems would be better served if she remained out of even the primaries and served as more of a leadership/icon role for the dems. But that’s another thread entirely.
Anyway, what do party labels really mean?
I’m probably way to the left of most Dems on many issues (FTR, I’m Independent), but if I had to choose between a “South Park” Republican or a “Dixiecrat” Democrat, guess which one I’d tick off?
Olympia Snowe or Zell Miller?
Eaten alive by fire ants or boiled alive in oil?
C’mon, ya gotta choose!!!
And what is with this talking point that Michael Moore doesn’t speak to mainstream America?
A wise-ass overweight white guy from the midwest who wears a baseball cap? Not mainstream American???
(to paraphrase Louise Black)
Yes, I included that info when I posted. Sorry I didn’t S-P-E-L-L I-T O-U-T for you. 