Weird democratic post-election comment on NPR

Great Debates
1

The day after the election, NPR ran some comments from Democratic politicians about how they felt. One of them gave a weird rant in which he seemed to say, in effect, that the Dems had given Bush everything he wanted, but that nefarious Bush had gone ahead and campaigned for Republican candidates anyway. So now Bush needs to think about what that will cost him, because now the Dems are serious about the 2004 election, and it’s no more Mr. Nice Guy.

And I thought, did I hear that right?

Did anyone else hear this? I found it very strange. He seemed to be implying that the Dems had given Bush everything he wanted with the understanding that in return, Bush wouldn’t campaign for the Republicans.

2

I didn’t hear it, but it doesn’t surprise me. The Dems didn’t expect to lose as tremendously as they did, and they’re still in shock. I’ve been hearing similarly batty things from others. It’s basically a post-election temper tantrum. The funniest thing I’ve heard so far is some guy on the radio who said that this loss was all part of a grand scheme to lull the Pubs into a false sense of security before the Dems win back the presidency and an 80% majority in the House and Senate in '04. :smiley:

Jeff

3

The Dems did not “lose tremendously.” They lost two seats in the Senate, held steady in the House, and picked up several governorships. The coutry has been and remains evenly divided between the two major parties. The only thing that was “tremendous” about the election was that the nation’s collective coin flipping ended up giving the Senate to the Republicans.

4

So minty the historical trend of the President’s party losing congressional seats in the first midterm election is irrelevant? The Dems lost big compared to what historical trends suggested would happen.

5

The Dems lost the Senate, lost more ground in the House, and lost their majority of state legislatures. It couldn’t have been much worse.

Jeff

6

Yes, “the historical trend” is irrelevant to who the voters voted for.

7

Flip a coin 100 times, Jeff. When it comes out 52 heads and 48 tails, come back and tell me that it couldn’t have been much worse for the tails.

8

Okay, the Democrats could have lost all of the seats in the Senate, and all of the House, and all been crushed by meteors, I suppose. But restricting one’s expectations to what is actually reasonable, the Dems did pretty badly. To deny that is to… well, to be in denial.

Jeff

9

I hate to burst your bubble, minty, but with Louisiana still unsettled we don’t know whether the Dems will lose 2 or 3 Senate seats. Furthermore, I believe the Reps picked up around 8 or 9 seats in the House – quite impressive given the small number of competitive races. According to this UPI article the number of Governorships gained by the Dems was just one (although they gained some big states and lost some smaller ones.)

The Republicans also made big gains in state legislatures in a number of states. In Georgia, 3 State Senators switched from Dem to Rep, giving the Reps a majority for the first time since Reconstruction. You know better than I do what happened to the Dems in Texas.

10

The Dums lost the State Senate here in Wisconsin, giving the GOP both sides of the legislature. However, for the first time since 1982 a Democrat was elected Governor ( a real crooked a**hole too. He got in with only 48% of the vote thanks to third party loons). Hopefully the Republican senate and assembly will keep him from doing the things he promised to do which will raise property taxes almost $1000.
Can someone please explain Wyoming to me? I was of the understanding that it was a Republican stronghold. How did a Dem get elected Governor?

11

60% of our fellow Americans belong to the Apathy party, the rest of the electorate is pretty evenly divided. Similar stuff happened with the Gingrich Horror: this is it, total control, the Right will rule forever, etc. etc. Get a grip, gang. Its an election, not a holocaust.

The Man Who Fell Up is actually downplaying this, and I think I know why: the Jesus Right. The Jesus Right is allied with the Money Right, but they don’t have that much in common. The Money Right doesn’t really care that much about gays, abortion, and the Decline of Western Civ, as long as theres a buck in it. The Jesus Right ignores the plundering of the commonweal by the corporate fat cats because they dont care. Thier alliance is shaky at best.

The Jesus Right is going to present thier bill. They have been frustrated by years of promises about God in schools, an affirmation of stern public values, hippies and gays lined up and shot, or at least deported to Canada. It ain’t gonna happen 'cause it can’t happen: you cannot legislate a social change that has already occured, it can’t be repealed.

Notice how Trent Lott is already talking about the “partial birth” ban? They’re throwing them a bone because its the best they can do, its way, way too late to criminalize abortion. They will also no doubt make a big whoop-de-fuck-a-doo about keeping “God” in the Pledge, and “faith based” initiatives (with “faith based” funding). They’re hoping to buy off the Jesus Right with 10 cents on the dollar, because without thier support the Right is toast. And they know it. Some kind of “pro-marriage” act, with anti-gay overtones but without any real impact on life styles will also make headlines, but will have just about no impact. Why? Because gays are the only minority who are not particularly disadvantaged economicly.

And now the Pubbies have no one to blame, no one to scapegoat. They can’t claim to really want to press the Jesus Right’s demands, but are unable to because the Damn Democrats stopped them.

The Jesus Right expects a payday. A big one. They ain’t gonna get it. And they’re gonna be pissed.

Hunker down, keep your powder dry, its gonna be a lousy couple of years. But the clock has already started ticking, and it never runs backwards.

12

Personally, I don’t think the “Jesus right”, the “gun nuts”, or any other “right” group can claim credit for the Republicans victories this last tuesday. For the most part, guns, gays, abortion, etc., wern’t very big issues. Even democrat/liberals confess that the main thing was the Dems offered nothing.
Even though the republicans were, for the most part, triumphant, last weeks elections were not the same as 1994.

13

You misunderstand, pkbites. Those groups don’t represent the bulk of the Republicans, they represent the difference between barely losing and barely winning. (Actually, quite a bit more than that, but exaggerating for a point.) An apt comparison is the Right wing in Israel’s dependence on very small fringe religious elements: they may only represent 5% of the electorate, but thats the difference between 46% (losing) and 51% (winning).

14

Right, elucidator, just like the huge backlash against Ronald Reagan when he didn’t get prayer into public schools and outlaw abortion. They sure turned on him when he was elected.:rolleyes:

Regards,
Shodan

15

Quite my point, in an obtuse sort of way. Same promises, every election. Same non-results. Twenty years, and counting. And it gets narrower all the time. Without the “Jews for Buchanan” fiasco in Florida, Al Gore would be occupying the Oval Office, this is historical fact. As much as you might like to pretend that America has delivered an unalloyed mandate to the Bushistas, the numbers don’t add up that way.

16

elucidator raises some very good points, but the question about why the Jesus Right didn’t turn on Reagan when they didn’t get what they wanted is a good one. I think that what it boils down to is, love him or hate him, Reagan was a strong politician. He gave the Jesus Right some of what they wanted, but eventually gave them the short shrift. This man who could sell Americans on the idea that 1980s computers were capable of knocking ICBMs out of the sky could certainly buy off a bunch of religious nuts. (Does anyone remember that Reagan didn’t even go to church?) Furthermore: who controlled Congress during the Reagan administration? Not the Republicans. With the Democrats there, Reagan had a convenient scapegoat for the failure to hand the religious right their goodies.

Now that the Republicans control the presidency and both houses for the first time since 1902 (unless you count those few months in 2001,) someone’s going to expect a payoff, since there’s no more Democratic obstruction, right? Well, they’ll expect it, but they won’t get it. The Republicans risk energizing the Democrats if they push hot-button issues like prayer in schools, abortion, guns, tax breaks for the wealthy, etc. And the Republicans risk alienating their right-wing base if they ignore those issues, and will fail to inspire the voters in 2004.

What the Republicans need is a leader who’s a uniter, not a divider. As much as I loathe the man and everything he stood for, I have to admit Reagan was such a leader. If there were Democrats who voted more in line with the Republicans than their own party, they were welcomed and referred to warmly as “Reagan Democrats.” Yes, the Republicans didn’t officially control both houses under Reagan, but effectively they did. The old saying about keeping your friends close and keeping your enemies closer certainly applies here. The Reagan Democrats gave Reagan and his party room to move. If he didn’t give the right wing of his party everything they wanted, so what? He had sympathizers in the opposition party.

Bush, too, had sympathizers in the opposition party. Numerous Democrats voted for the massive tax cut, for the war in Iraq… they got on board with Bush. Bush paid them back for their support by targeting their seats for removal. All’s fair in love and war, yes, and I’m a little surprised those congresspeople didn’t see it coming, but that’s not a mistake the Democrats are likely to make again. Reagan Democrats knew they were safe; Bush Democrats now know that they’re targets.

As someone who is utterly opposed to the Bush administration, I have to say I’m optimistic that the Democrats will get the message and actually be the opposition party they’re supposed to be. In a Washington Post article the other day, someone quoted President Truman: “Give the people a choice between a Republican and a Republican and they’ll pick the Republican every time.” And there you have it: in many of this week’s races, the voters picked the Republican. Whoever it was who designed the strategy of running Democrats as Republicans this year will have to start sending résumés out and quick. I’m sure Terry McAuliffe will soon be out of work.

I think one of the reasons that Bush did so well in 2000 is because he came across as an affable, dopey guy who wouldn’t do much but wouldn’t screw things up too much, either. I think that’s what a lot of voters were looking for. The do-nothing quality wasn’t so strong in Al Gore, which probably hurt him somewhat, but not enough to deny him from getting the most votes. The United States’ situation has changed, though, and as much as Karl Rove might claim, Bush really hasn’t changed with it. His slacker image still hasn’t been rubbed out, and I believe most voters still sense that he doesn’t have much of a hand in what’s going on. If the Democrats can nominate someone in 2004 who appears to be ready, willing and able to roll up his sleeves and get to work, they could win. But 2004 is a long way off, and there’s no way to comfortably predict what will happen by then. I’d say that from the way things look right now, Bush could win a second term—and he also couldn’t. Karl Rove is a genius, so there’s no telling what will happen.

At any rate, Democrats know that aligning themselves with Bush policies won’t help them, that Bush will come after them just for being Democrats, no matter what. I hope they’ve learned their lesson this time, however fleeting that lesson may be. If the opposition party actually opposes the Republicans this time, the Republicans could be in serious trouble. Once the Democrats change their leadership, we’ll have a better idea what to expect. Gephardt’s being replaced on November 14, probably by Nancy Pelosi, but Harold Ford is making a case right now. McAuliffe will also go, I believe, and Daschle might, too, but I haven’t heard anything about a new Democratic Senate leader yet, one way or another. (Maybe Jon Corzine? Dick Durbin? Debbie Stabenow?)

Oh, and one more comment by elucidator: yes, there’s no way this election is to be viewed as “an unalloyed mandate to the Bushistas.” Far from it. The 2002 election was not a win for the Republicans, but it certainly was a loss for the Democrats. A total of about 50,000 votes divided between several states would have given the Democrats gains in the Senate, and would have had us talking about how badly the White House screwed up. I wouldn’t call this election a sweep for the Republicans, but rather a slight nudge in their favor. Governing in 50/50 conditions as if you had a mandate from the people is kind of like slinging rocks at the sword of Damocles.

17

Erratum: I said that the last time the Republicans held the presidency and both houses was 1902. I was wrong; the last time was actually 1952, when President Eisenhower was elected. 1902 was the last time the Republicans took control of both houses during midters under a sitting Republican president.

18

Another advantage for Reagan was probably Tip O’Neill, I would guess.

19

Back in early 2001 or so, The Onion ran a mini-article akin to “Bush Calls For End to Era of Political Disagreement” (a pretty effective little Onion-style take on the essential silliness of calls for the alleged importance of “bipartisanship”).

I guess, like many things, it’s funny because someone–an addled politician in this case–thought it was true.

20

Hey, I even remember that Nancy Reagan consulted astrologers. (For the religious right, “character counts” only when it’s the flawed character of someone who’s not pushing evangelically correct positions.)

Would he also have to be a “reformer with results”? :wink: