U.S. Election Predictions/Results

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Guynemer
And there is NO such word as "irregardless"!

Look it up in the dictionary.

[DanS]

Guynemer: Don't you have anything better to worry about than a crusade against idiomatic speech?

Really, it's not worth it.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
In a midterm election when the oppossing party was still expected to hold control of the Senate at the end of the day, I believe that the President deserves a little credit.

Actually, the Democrats deserve the credit for the Republican victory. Rather than acting like an opposition party, rather than sticking it to Bush over the failure of the intelligence services to stop 9/11, rather than stick it Bush over Enron and friends, rather than stand up to Bush on the crises he's created over Iraq, they've allowed themselves to be the Prez's whipping boys. They lost because they disgusted their party base.

And what lessen will the Democrats take from this? That they need to suck up even more to the Republicans, no doubt. Interestingly, those democrats who opposed the bill on Iraq all seem to have come out okay.

Until the Democrats are will to stand up to the Republican Party like the way the Republicans stand up to them, they will continue to suffer defeat after defeat. Why should their base vote for them if they are only going to be a poor copy of the Republican Party.

And this time they can't blame it on the Greens.

[JohnT]

"Interestingly, those democrats who opposed the bill on Iraq all seem to have come out okay."

Like Max Cleland.

[uh Clem]

Interestingly, those democrats who opposed the bill on Iraq all seem to have come out okay.

Well, if you don't count Minnesota...

[DanS]

"Rather than acting like an opposition party, rather than sticking it to Bush over the failure of the intelligence services to stop 9/11, rather than stick it Bush over Enron and friends, rather than stand up to Bush on the crises he's created over Iraq, they've allowed themselves to be the Prez's whipping boys."

Thing is, they did bring these things up. And loudly. But those dogs didn't hunt.

One of the things they could have done (and didn't at all) is offered alternatives. This would have at least shown that they had thought about the issues seriously. Yes, they brought up the economy a lot and nobody listened, but what is the Dem plan for getting the economy moving more quickly?

I didn't hear any sort of detailed plan--even something to shoot at in the broadest terms. Did you?

Perhaps they were unable to do so, because they couldn't agree on a plan among themselves...

[rah]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


Actually, the Democrats deserve the credit for the Republican victory. Rather than acting like an opposition party, rather than sticking it to Bush over the failure of the intelligence services to stop 9/11, rather than stick it Bush over Enron and friends, rather than stand up to Bush on the crises he's created over Iraq, they've allowed themselves to be the Prez's whipping boys. They lost because they disgusted their party base.

And what lessen will the Democrats take from this? That they need to suck up even more to the Republicans, no doubt. Interestingly, those democrats who opposed the bill on Iraq all seem to have come out okay.

Until the Democrats are will to stand up to the Republican Party like the way the Republicans stand up to them, they will continue to suffer defeat after defeat. Why should their base vote for them if they are only going to be a poor copy of the Republican Party.

And this time they can't blame it on the Greens.

Quite the tirade considering the closeness of a few of those key races. Heck what was the difference in Minn. and Missouri. A few thousand votes here a few thousand votes there. So for a few thousands votes your're calling them gutless. If those two had gone the other way, I'm sure your tune would be a bit different this morning. Maybe it more simple then that. It's common for the person that get's appointed not to win the seat in the next election (Missouri). In Minn., I think the Democrats embarressed themselves sufficiently the last few days. So maybe it has nothing to do with being gutless and standing up to the REPS. But then, I don't have a problem calling them gutless.

RAH

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by DanS
"Rather than acting like an opposition party, rather than sticking it to Bush over the failure of the intelligence services to stop 9/11, rather than stick it Bush over Enron and friends, rather than stand up to Bush on the crises he's created over Iraq, they've allowed themselves to be the Prez's whipping boys."

Thing is, they did bring these things up. And loudly. But those dogs didn't hunt.

Well, maybe in your neck of the woods you heard it, but out here in the sticks I heard nothing of the kind.

I didn't hear any sort of detailed plan--even something to shoot at in the broadest terms. Did you?

Nope, not even McBride offered an alternative.

[chequita guevara]

Democrats have only themselves to blame.

Joe Conason's Journal
Democrats have only themselves to blame.

- - - - - - - - - - - -

Nov. 6, 2002 | No excuses
Whatever eventually happens in Louisiana, the Democrats have lost control of the Senate. The nation will return almost immediately to the Republican domination of the executive, legislative and judicial branches that existed before Vermont's Jim Jeffords turned independent last year. Now the Democratic voters who chose not to show up Tuesday are going to find out what their decision meant, in a country ruled by President Bush, Trent Lott and Tom DeLay. From drilling in Alaska to regressive taxation to unilateral war, the agenda of the corporate and religious right will shape our future.

In this historic election, Bush overcame his weaknesses as a statesman with his skills as a politician. While I dislike what he represents and what he does, I can't deny his determination and enterprise. Against a drifting, disorganized Democratic Party, he hustled the money, the issues and the voters. He saw the opportunity and embraced the risk, big time. He fully exploited the advantages of his office, including his ability as commander-in-chief to foment an atmosphere of war. In several contests he made an important difference, creating the conditions for his party's momentum. So the president's supporters will insist again, as they did in the wake of Sept. 11, that he has achieved the mandate that eluded him two years ago.

Unlike the debacle in 2000, the Democrats have no one but themselves to blame for this defeat. The Republicans had much more money, but they always do. Their schemes to intimidate voters were appalling, but didn't provide the margin of victory in places like Florida and Texas. The Green Party had a will to spoil, but lacked the capacity to make any real difference. Across the country, from California to New York, bland and compromised Democratic candidates were unable to motivate their own base, let alone attract the independents required to win close races. Only where the issues were predominantly local, as in the campaigns for governor, could the Democrats prevail consistently.

There were moments during the midterm campaign when it seemed that the Democrats were nothing greater than the prescription-drugs party. It was a safe issue, or so the party leaders in Washington believed, and therefore became the phrase that they and their candidates repeated like a mindless mantra. Medicare coverage of prescription drugs is a worthy goal, and the Democratic plan is far better than the Republican proposal. But that issue isn't enough to nationalize a midterm election, and certainly not enough to persuade voters uneasy about war and the economy. Those voters were listening for a powerful Democratic message about global security, the faltering economy, employment, education and health care. All they heard was "prescription drugs."

A party that will not criticize the incumbent president cannot defeat him, now or two years from now. A party that has nothing to say about unfair tax breaks, a vanishing surplus and a looted economy cannot expect anyone to listen when it asks for votes. A party without passion or vision is hardly a political party at all. Even in their righteous defense of Social Security, Democrats too often sounded as if their chief concern was to preserve their own institutional position. Today the future looks grim for them because they blurred the purposes of their partisanship.

As for the Republicans, they will exaggerate the meaning of this election in their usual triumphal style. Their gloating may not last long, however. Leading a one-party government, they will no longer be able to evade responsibility for whatever comes next. Their ideas and ideology are no more plausible than they were yesterday. They have divided rather than united the country, and their worst initiatives will still meet resistance from the many principled Democrats who were returned to office Tuesday night. Even at this low ebb, progressive revival remains a possibility, although much damage will be done during the next two years.

Moving forward onto this hostile political terrain, the Democrats would do well to recall the combative stance adopted by the Republicans after losing both houses of Congress and the presidency in 1992. They can begin by examining the real reasons for this narrow but awful defeat, without flinching.

===========================

Get your Vaseline ready, America.

[DinoDoc]

It will be a good time to be a Mississippian with Lott in charge of the Senate.

[uh Clem]

I saw the Conason thing elsewhere this morning and almost posted it. I agree completely. What, if anything, does the Democratic Party represent? Why should people vote for it?

After Clinton's election, JK Galbraith commented that the country didn't really need 2 Republican parties. But it's truer today than it was then. Clintinoids might note that this is the second shellacking the Dems have received in the past 8 years.

As far as I can tell, the Democrats are little more than the Good Cop to the Republican's Bad Cop.

[DanS]

"Well, maybe in your neck of the woods you heard it, but out here in the sticks I heard nothing of the kind."

Did you watch any of the debates from other parts of the country? Mondale hammered away at the corporate special interests, especially the drug companies. Coleman parried that there was no shame in it (!), and that Mondale served on a lot of corporate boards himself. Mondale should have won that race, but he relied on the old rhetoric. And those dogs didn't hunt!

This happened in a lot of races with similar effect. Shaheen hammered away at it in New Hampshire. And lost. Carnahan hammered away at it, but apparently nobody bought it.

I didn't watch many of the other races, but I think it would be incorrect to state that the Dems didn't pursue the matter.

Edit: And it would be foolish to abandon Clinton and the center right now. He's the only good thing that the Dems have been able to produce for the last 2 decades.

[chequita guevara]

Regardless, this will be a great time for us Socialists. Lots of recruiting potential now.

[DinoDoc]

DanS: Mondale set himself up for faliure by staging the debate in the midday on the day before the election when it would have no real effect. He also appeared to be relying only on the sympathy vote for Wellstone given that he made no real attempt to craft a message of his own before the election.

[DinoDoc]

Che: Do you have access to the premium articles on Salon?