US Poll Results

[lord of the mark]

look at the referendum outcomes. Bad news for gay marriage, marijuana legalization, affirmative action. Good news for English only. Really extreme stuff, like S Daks ban on all abortions lost, and min wage referendums did quite well.

This is not a liberal electorate. And its very much NOT a libertarian electorate. The strongest liberal referenda were not on social issues, but on good old lunch bucket social democratic economic issues.

One of the big swings was in Penn, from an ideologue to a sane moderate.


The Dems would be wise not to misread this election, the way the GOP has misread previous elections.


If Webb wins - he ran in the primary with the strong support of Clinton hating Kossacks. In the general he relied on Bill Clinton for support, and if he wins he will owe the Clintons. A dilemma, no?


Crist won in Florida - turned down support from Bush, embraced support from McCain. Will the GOP draw the right lessons?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Libermann has already said he'll caucus with the Dems if he won.

Yeah, I know. I didnt mean to imply hed hold an auction for support between now and January. But that the Dems will rely on him for the next two years. I think that puts him in a pretty influential position.

[Arrian]

This is not a liberal electorate. And its very much NOT a libertarian electorate.

A fair assessment (unfortunately ).

-Arrian

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
Yeah, I know. I didnt mean to imply hed hold an auction for support between now and January. But that the Dems will rely on him for the next two years. I think that puts him in a pretty influential position.

Well he was pretty influential beforehand. A lot of Dems backed him in his race, but I think Libermann knows that the ones who didn't did so because they couldn't publically back an Ind over a Dem in a general election.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


Well he was pretty influential beforehand. A lot of Dems backed him in his race, but I think Libermann knows that the ones who didn't did so because they couldn't publically back an Ind over a Dem in a general election.

SOME of the ones who didnt. Theres clearly a large part of the party, including, I think, some in congress, who really were pulling for Lamont.

[Admiral]

Originally posted by lord of the mark

If Webb wins - he ran in the primary with the strong support of Clinton hating Kossacks. In the general he relied on Bill Clinton for support, and if he wins he will owe the Clintons. A dilemma, no?

The irony of the liberal netroots is that because of ideology and outsider status, they are able to embrace candidates that people in Washington don't think have much of a chance. If the netroots are able to propell the candidate into a tight race, Washington takes notice, and an eventual win will be ascribed to Washington.

This isn't necessarily a bad thing, as a widespread recognition of the netroots would constrain its freedom of action. But it is an irony nonetheless.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Admiral


The irony of the liberal netroots is that because of ideology and outsider status, they are able to embrace candidates that people in Washington don't think have much of a chance. If the netroots are able to propell the candidate into .

Jim Webb had at least some Washington support, and of course all the Marine generals hes tight with (who are pretty establishment, IMO) Some folks felt a debt to Harris, but I dont think Kos was unique in thinking Webb had a chance. And nobody, but nobody, could have predicted that Allen would make his gaffs. Really, look at how close it is. WITH Macacca, with "im not Jewish, oh wait" Eliminate those, and Allen would have been reelected.

[Ramo]

Some of the trends in the ballot initiatives are positive, though. Civil union and gay marriage bans passed, but a much smaller than 2004-style margins. See SD, VA, and CO for instance.

Similarly, parental notification laws for abortion were rejected in the two states where it was voted on - CA and OR. And SD soundly rejected an abortion ban.

And stem cell research won in MO.

Actually, it wasn't a bad day as far as ballot initiatives went.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Admiral


If the netroots are able to propell the candidate into a tight race, Washington takes notice, and an eventual win will be ascribed to Washington.

Nope, if "Washington" was as poisonous as the netroots say, then it would have been easy to reject, or at least discourage help from that quarter. On the contrary, IIUC Webb was very happy to get support from the Clintons, which helped him esp with the african american vote where he was quite weak.

If the realist-ex-reaganite/antineocon-toughguy alliance with the lefty netroots is so strong, then it doesnt need eevil DLC- Clintonistas to buck it up. And if it does need them, then the DLCers and CLintonistas need to be respected, not dissed.

[Ramo]

And I don't think that Kossacks expect Webb to be a solid liberal. They knew that he was Reagan's Secretary of Navy way before Clinton campaigned for him. He'll probably be well to the right of Hillary...

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Ramo
Some of the trends in the ballot initiatives are positive, though. Civil union and gay marriage bans passed, but a much smaller than 2004-style margins. See SD, VA, and CO for instance.

Similarly, parental notification laws for abortion were rejected in the two states where it was voted on - CA and OR. And SD soundly rejected an abortion ban.

And stem cell research won in MO.

Actually, it wasn't a bad day as far as ballot initiatives went.

The VA ban was extreme - it banned any union that purported to extend the rights of marriage to the unmarried - not just gay marriage per se. And believe me, the "it will just create alot of lawsuits" issue played well here.

Stem cells are clearly one social issue that the conservatives are not strong on. A vague slippery slope versus promised tangible benefits. Emphasis, TANGIBLE benefits, not airy arguments on "rights". Freedom of contract vs 7.25 an hour. The right of the phar industry not to have the govt interfering in the market, vs lower costs for drugs. Avoiding death and disease vs the possibility that folks will create embryos for harvest (despite the abundance of embryos as byproducst of legal fertility programs) Protection against terrorists, vs rights to foreign radical Islamists under some damned treaty. Spreading democracy in countries we wish wed never heard of, versus money, lives, and having troops available to fight in places where there are folks who might still try to kill us. Keeping marriage like it is (While treating gays "moderately" by historical standards) vs abstract rights to equality in marriage.

I see a consistent desire for the tangible over the ideological. Some of it "right", some "left". Some good, some bad (and no, I dont see a clean map between good and either left or right on these issues)

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Ramo
And I don't think that Kossacks expect Webb to be a solid liberal. They knew that he was Reagan's Secretary of Navy way before Clinton campaigned for him. He'll probably be well to the right of Hillary...

Oy. Ramo, I live here, and ive been following this since before the primary. I know quite well that the Kossacks were going around saying how pragmatic they were, how they wanted to WIN above all else.

But not all moderates are of a piece. Clintonism has been associated with social liberalism, DLC neoliberalism on economics, free trade, and a wilsonianism on foreign policy that has SOME things in common with the neocons. Webb is conservative on social issues, his only articulated position on economics sounds protectionist, hes put forth as a Jacksonian/realist tough guy on foreign affairs, and hes got the support of folks like Gen Hoar, no ally of the Clintons. Right vs left isnt the point, and is misleading to some degree. Webb is very much UN-Hillary, whether hes right of her on some issues or not. At least thats the way hes been portrayed, and that, as much as the chance to beat Allen, was what the Kossacks grabbed onto. It was like - look, WE can grab the center too, and we can do it without supporting free trade, without sucking up to big Dem donors (like Silicon Valley, Goldman Sachs, or Jews, all part of the Clintonista financial base) and we can do it without a Wilsonian for policy, in fact with a for policy that consists mainly of attacking the eevil neocons. all we need is some guy with reaganite potentials who supports guns, and writes about being born fighting.


Its a very different vision from the Clintonista one, and thats going to be the battle for the soul of the Dems the next two years, not one between moderates and "radicals" Even the radicals know that one is hopeless.


Next round in the battle

Murtha vs Hoyer for Maj Leader. Both are "moderates" Hoyer is a long time DLC type suburban moderate. Murtha is a rural (?) conservative Dem, whos made his name advocating total, unconditional, withdrawl from Iraq.

[DanS]

I have a belly laugh when I think about the fact that Senate control was gained on the utterance of a single non-English slang word of which I still don't know the meaning.

For sure, the world is an interesting place and politics is a strange business.

[Ramo]

I don't really see much ideological difference between the DLC and the left-wing blogosphere, actually. They're both vaguely libertarian; it's just that the DLC is big on national security (and therefore small on civil libertarianism) and generally is to the right across the board. Basically, Kossacks et al. typically come from the professional class, which is currently experiencing a proletarianizing process (Ruy Tuxeria has written some interesting things about this), while the DLC reflects the concerns of this class two or three decades ago. So we see a general shift to the left, particularly on economics, and a big emphasis on process. But I think the degree to which they're protectionists is over-stated. Mostly, it seems to me, we see the demand to use trade policy as a bludgeon to increase other countries' labor and environmental protections rather than a Buchananite-type demand to insulate us from the rest of the world. As would be reflected by a class analysis.

What Kossacks seem to like about Webb are his style, credentials, and viability rather than strong ideological similarities. I think if Miller had Webb's resume, he would've been supported by this community. Remember that they were big on Kaine last year, and he's more similar to Miller than Webb.

[Ramo]

without sucking up to big Dem donors (like Silicon Valley, Goldman Sachs, or Jews, all part of the Clintonista financial base)