desh | (no subject)

tester is D-MT (montana, not minnesota). you knew that, and just mistyped, i figure, but just in case.

yeah. sucks to have lieberman in that position. he does so not deserve that.

but still - democratic senate so much better than republican senate.

anyway; i am not at all certain that tester will hold onto that lead. it's down to 3113 or 1743 votes (state site vs CNN). CNN has more up-to-date numbers. yellowstone and gallatin cty are only 1/3 counted, and they went burns last election, and meagher is small, but also red. (i suddenly know quite a bit about which montana counties vote which way, *snrk*).

i am crossing all my fingers and toes. and thanks for doing your part to get santorum, uh, ruptured. :)

right, but isn't it better for them to be dependent on his swing vote than be a foregone conclusion?

connecticut kind of sucked in this election, though.

Bleh, I shouldn't post so early in the morning. Thanks for the correction and the info.

I hope his swing vote is better, yeah. In fact, it probably would be. I've just hated Lieberman for years, way before any democratic blogs existed, and so I'm not so happy he's still in office. Once the rest of the results come in, I hope I'm happier.

And part of me still hopes that the dems kick him out of the caucus if he ends up not being a swing vote for whatever reason, though I know intellectually that that would probably be a bad thing.

I'm also not happy with Lieberman, but I decond that swing is better than predetermined.
Also, the House went blue, and we definitely kicked tush in the gubernatorial elections. (And as someone from MA, let me say that that is a profound relief -- about damn time we had a Democrat for our governor. Oh, and Kerry Healey would have been a disaster regardless of color.)

looking good now -- only meagher county outstanding, which can't deliver more than 500 votes to burns, and tester is ahead by 1815 (CNN).

They did the Yellowstone recount already? I thought it would be all day.

I too wish Lieberman had bowed out of the race, it would have been nice to have Lamont. But look at it from Connecticut's point of view, with Lamont they would have had a senator who supported the values of the Democratic Party, with Lieberman it is possible (repeat possible) that they have a sennator who can look after the specific values of the state of Connecticut from a hugely powerful position. In other words, bad for the Democratic party, and bad for any progressive politicos out there, but good for the state of Connecticut.

-charley

Don't worry your pretty little head, Desh! You aren't taking into account possible defectors!

After the 1994 Republican Revolution, several moderate Democrats defected to the other side. That potential exists even today! We've got Hagel (NB), Snowe (ME), Voinovich (OH), Specter (PA), and possibly others to consider. It may not happen overnight, and it may not even happen in name at all, but you bet your ASS those Senators are going to be fairly buddy-buddy with the Democrats in the meantime. I mean, hell - Specter even used to BE one. Things are rosier than they seem on paper.

--Jeff

Jeff, they can also go the other way. To keep it close to home for you, Bob Casey (PA) is a "liberal" only when juxtaposed with Santorum.

these are not hand recounts, which explains why they go fairly fast. that county uses ES&S 150 central count scanners (can see down the page here: http://www.cs.uiowa.edu/~jones/voting/pictures/#optical). basically you just feed stacks of ballots back through them. and the ballots are all already in one location, so there's not much logistics involved either.

Well, that's exactly the problem with the make up of this Congress. Jeff listed four moderate Republicans, but Chafee got booted and a good number of moderate Republicans got booted in the House. That's a problem. Plus, Casey, Webb, Lieberman may be Dem/Dem friendly but they, and a LOT of the Dems elected last night, are also pretty conservative. Conservative to the point that if they were running in CT or RI they would be way to the right of the Republicans!!

I think that's an unfortunate result of this election. Yes, people tend to vote with their party when it comes down to it (especially on close votes and if there is a good Whip (ha..I didn't name the offices)), but I think those more independent minded Rs are critical. The importance of a majority of Ds controling scheduling, committees, etc cannot be overstated, but the lack of open minded Rs combined with conservative Ds could be a serious issue especially since these conservative Ds are new and with the House Dem leadership being more liberal the Ds may not want to follow the Ds on issues those Rs would have.

Historic day for women blah blah, I'm not convinced that Pelosi being in charge isn't going to help the Rs wayyyyy more than the Ds. Yes, yay, Dem control. But a good number of races were absurdly close yet everyone is ebullient about the result. I don't think the Dems have any more reason to claim a mandate than Bush ever did, but I dunno, maybe puffing up their wounded pride will be useful somehow? Guess we'll see. (...end random rant)

(Just wanted to make clear I was just responding, repeating, expanding on your point. Redundant, but you sparked a rant.)

Oh, and another thing about Jeff's comment. Why would the independent Republicans do that? By forcing out independent Republicans while supporting conservative Dems I think the Democrats have made it clear that it is the D that matters, not the substance of their stances.

If the Rs are smart they will be MORE inviting of those independent minded Rs. For one they need them for coalition building with Dem leadership, but those independent Rs can be pretty strong (hell, Snowe got 74% of the vote!). Obviously you could turn it and say that the answer is to push further to the right (and that's what people are worried about, and what would presumably force those Rs to turn D though if they haven't yet I really don't see it happening), but I think independent minded is the savvier, smarter way to go. Idealogues can be bad news (Bush), but people like Snowe who were able to distance themselves from Bush by saying "hey, you know me, I'm not Bush, here is what I stand for." are the true competitors. (Yes plenty of Rs tried that approach and failed, but I think (and hope) that'll be the focus in 08, for both sides.)

ok, I'm really done now.

Yes, the current Democratic victory is due in large part to the inclusion of "Blue Dog" moderate/conservative Democrats in the current coalition - but I don't see that as a bad thing. If you look at the way the Republicans were trending before the last election, they were drifting more and more towards the far right. The Democrats responded by absorbing the disaffected middle - the moderates and conservatives that felt disenfranchised - which is a perfectly reasonable way to start shifting the political direction of the country. Make no mistake - the political leanings of most Americans did NOT change before this election. If anything, this election demonstrated the risk inherent in being too extreme to either the left or right and ignoring common sense politics.

Candidates like Bob Casey, Jim Webb, Jon Tester, and others are exactly what the Democratic party needs right now to lend it some balance. For years the Republicans have been painting a portrait of a wrecklessly liberal and "out-of-touch" Democratic party, and now the public is beginning to see that the "Big Tent Party" label has shifted from R to D. Yes, it will make the Democratic party agenda harder to set and yes, it will be viewed as a setback by many in the left (Daily Kos, anyone?), but it's really not that bad. Take for example Bob Casey and his own opposition to abortion. It's no secret that abortion rights were slowly being eroded under the GOP - and there are a significant number of new conservative Dems who aren't big on being pro-choice. However, if you're really paying attention to the rhetoric of late, abortion isn't what the Dems are talking about. Hillary Clinton, as of a few months ago, wasn't making speeches about preserving abortion rights (even though she is very much in favor) - she was making speeches about the perils of abstinence-only education and the availability of contraception. The Dems aren't going to bring up a divisive issue and doom themselves this early in the game - but there ARE pragmatic steps they can take to shore up abortion rights WITHOUT actually bringing up abortion. And guess what? The Blue Dogs are in favor of many of these approaches. Casey himself is in favor of replacing "abstinence only" education with "abstinence plus", which is just a code-word for abstinence-plus-birth-control education, which isn't "abstinence only" at all.

Basically, my point is this: the country hasn't shifted left yet. No one should expect that it WILL shift left overnight, Iraq War notwithstanding. No one should expect that any ruling coalition will be able to exclude some conservativism when most of the country feels similarly (5 states DID just vote to ban gay marriage). However, this pragmatic approach to filling in the gaps where it is both popular and common sense to do so is a very good start. And THAT is why I believe there will be some R to D defections in the next few months - because any smart self-serving politician will see that the balance has shifted, the Republican party has moved too far right, the Democrats have reoccupied the middle, and that the country won't be too far behind in trending more and more left if the Democrats can prove that they can get business done.* So, keep an eye on the former GOP from the Gang of 14 (minus McCain, who is going for the Republican nomination for 2008, but who I think doesn't really stand a chance) and cross your fingers - it's going to be an interesting year.

--Jeff

* And because the Republican leadership has proved corrupt, and because their micro-targetting strategy has failed them, and because the Democrats will now control appropriations, and because Bush's bad polling is poisoning candidates, and because the GOP leadership has been ignoring moderates for years, and because it happened in 1994 also. Phew!

Jeff, I have to disagree.

One of the serious ideological problems of the Democratic party over the last couple of years has been its attempt to be the "Big Tent Party", as you put it. By attempting to appeal to everything from the historic left of labor unions (at this stage, economically protectionist, socially conservative), the "new" left of post 1960s environmentalists and social liberals, and still appeal to potential corporate sponsors, the Democratic Party has been attempting to articulate widely disparate views under one umbrella. They have, obviously, failed to do so. This is partially because, until recently, there has been no one unifying concept around which to coalesce the momentum of people from the left to center-right (Bush has nicely provided them with this in 2006 after not quite managing to in 2004).

This is partially a structural problem within the American political landscape. Because the "center" in the US is so far to the right, any party attempting to bridge both the center and the left has to compass a huge ideological spectrum, where as a "center-right" party has a much more compact range. Socialdemocratic parties have been vastly more successful in continental Europe because the moderate center was more to the left to start with, inherently buying into ideas such as the welfare state and a relatively pacifist stance on foreign policy.

In summary, what I see as having happened is that, in many areas, the Democratic party won not because it reached out to moderates and forged a working coalition but because it intentionally took up significantly more conservative positions, ignoring everything to the left of those positions because it could count on those people voting against Bush. As

evr1bugsme points out, this has led to a dissonance between the rhetoric of some parts of the Democratic leadership (Pelosi, for instance) and the majority of the Democrats who will take their new seats in the House and Senate. As she also alludes to, one of the other effects of this policy was to cull many of the moderate Republicans (Santorum is a notable exception), something which will make passing more liberal legislation in both Houses of Congress more difficult, not less.

Jeff, in short, I am happy about the fact that the Democrats gained ground on Tuesday. I am not, however, under any illusion that this will result in policies all that much more liberal.

Just a comment on the whole red/blue thing. Does anyone else get the image of Joe McCarthy thrashing in his grave at the fact that the Republican party is referred to as "red"? What an absurd misnomer!

I didn't want to keep rambling on someone else's journal so I expanded on this point in my own journal, which is friends locked, whoops!

I agree that expanding the defintion of Dem is good. It's copying the Rs who, ideologically, have absolutely been the big tent party. I just don't agree that those Rs will defect. If they've stayed R so far I think they're sticking it out. MAYBE if the Rs continue to pull off to the right (but how can it get further right, really? Look at the leadership! Brownback a serious presidential contender? Moderate Rs (Romney, Pataki) trying to impress the right with out of character moves? I think (compared to the independent Rs) it's pretty extreme already) they'd defect. I guess also maybe if defect+D power=cushy committee position they could be persuaded, but I think that would take a serious dismantaling of the R Party and those few defectors would probably be the least of the problems! Yes, the Rs are a mess, but they lost very close races. The micro-targeting has always been a high risk game and it went their way (helped enormously by D ineptitude) for several cycles. This isn't a unified mandate like in 1994. They have a divided government for at least two years? That was business as usual (on and off) for DECADES, I don't think it is an overwhelming rebuke. Now they just have to run things like most other administrations. Absolute power, etc.

I think your take on the abortion discussion is overly optimistic. I don't think pro life Ds (or pro choice Rs, together a sizeable number) will vote for anti abortion bills, but the discussion of abstinence and contraception is NOT POSITIVE. Whether the Ds are pivoting from abortion to a more inclusive issue as you suggest or responding to the crazy right wing discussion about contraception being part of abortion I think contraception being part of or in any way connected to or even up for discussion about legislation at this point is an extraordinary step backward!! I recognize that things like funding for sex ed and medicaid for contraception do come up for votes and are ways for pro life Ds to empower women, BUT that is not all that this discussion is about now. It's about if contraception is even ok and, no, I'm not super excited for someone to be like "hmm...yeah, sure, I think contraception is ok." It should be automatic, and it largely was up till a few years ago.

Anyway. I also disagree that the country is, or is even leaning conservative. Gay marriage and abortion as example are wedge issues. If Ds adequately explained their stances on the social and economic issues that actually IMPACT those people they'd be overwhelmingly D! (and when polled on the issues they do NOT answer conservatively) This is also going to deter the independent Rs because they may be pro choice, but maybe they favor business on economic issues. They are not Ds for a reason. And I think those gay marriage votes also make it clear that voters do not (fully) connect gay marriage ban with anti D since Ds won in those gay marriage states so there is no reason for the independent Rs to defect. Rs don't need to be Ds to say "hey we aren't crazy conservatives."

And I don't think Ds EVER thought they needed to be Rs to prove "hey we aren't crazy liberals," but hey, at least now that is crystal clear. (Senate leader is a pretty conservative D, though everyone worships Clinton he is a true centerist and a lot of his friends (RAHM) remain in high places, and those "crazy liberals" are rarely very far left and almost never "crazy liberals.")

Ok, I could keep rambling, but I'll stop. Email or something if you'd like to continue.

I wouldn't be so pessimistic! I actually agree that the Ds being successful at being an ideological big tent party is GOOD. The Rs have been enormously successful with that approach, they have libertarians to crazy christians, neo cons and social conservatives, poor rural farmers and rich urbanites. I think the Ds can be successful too and the problem is not with the political landscape, but with the scaredy-cat D leadership.

Rs being REALLY good at their job doesn't mean the country is more conservative. When people are polled on individual issues they trend to the D side. The country didn't undergo a revolution in the past few decades, the Ds just kind of conceded to the public relations prowess of the Rs. BUT! I truly believe that the Ds can turn this around not by being more conservative, more centerist (at the leadership level), but by leaning more to the left, aiming high for what they really want and compromising down to what they'll accept, and by having well articulated stances that are not just "well....we're not them, we're better!" I think people respect that, and that the conservative Ds, as Webb himself has said, believe in the heat of the D Party and that the leadership using lefty banners won't scare them away. Sure, they might not vote for it, but they'll vote for something like it (if the Ds can be effective at messaging, coalition building, and getting their fucking party in line that is).

I agree the policies won't be much more liberal, but I think that's just cause the leadership sucks. I fully believe that if the Ds wanted they could have extremist leadership like the Rs and formulate legislation from that standpoint (that would be watered down. but my point is TO water down from like a $12/hr living wage rather than from $7.25 min wage to $6.15 or whatever. This compromise is key. It is what is usually missing from the Bush administration. Also compromise != bad, wishy washy, etc. It = effective bipartisan politics.)...and maybe in two years that will escape a veto :o)

Oh, and I don't think this extremist model is the only one that can work, but I would just like to see the Ds with confidence about their lefty stances, not scared about pissing everyone off because well, I agree with the lefty stances, and, more importantly, people clearly respond to that confidence! (I'm under no illusions this will happen either, but I think it's one way to look at things optimistically?)

I didn't want to keep rambling on someone else's journal

No, no, carry on! Maybe by listening to y'all I'll actually learn enough to participate in this sort of discussion. I get most of my dem info from Daily Kos, which (by design) is much more focused on campaining and election strategy than on actual governing. Consequently, I have much less of a sense of what will happen next than perhaps I should.

I would just like to see the Ds with confidence about their lefty stances, not scared about pissing everyone off because well, I agree with the lefty stances, and, more importantly, people clearly respond to that confidence!

Not just to the confidence, but to the actual issues! I truly believe that this country, on the whole, is pro-choice. And not by a razor-thin margin, but more like a 55/45 or 60/40 split. But those 55% or 60% think they're in the minority! Governing confidently is one step toward getting the national debate and the framing of the issues onto more realistic territory and out of the hands of the Religious Right.

i've been much amused by that for a while. but hey, i didn't pick the red/blue colours as current representation for the repubs/dems. who did, i wonder, and what were they thinking? naw, it probably grew organically out of something silly. but "absurd misnomer"? what's absurd is the idea that tagging an ideology with a colour would be anything but a fleeting gimmick in time. especially red, which is a colour co-opted for so many things because of its vibrancy.

but whatever makes mccarthy rotate faster in his grave is alright by me.

I assume that the colors were assigned sometime after 1848, and am guessing post WWII. Given the historical context, I stand by my claim.

They've only been around since 2000. And, in fact, I'm amused that the origin of the system has already started to become a lost-to-history sort of thing.

Hah, didn't realize that the official nature of it was that recent. Although, to be honest, it's not surprising that I didn't pay close attention to which colors were used beforehand, since that was the first election I could vote in.

I didn't closely read what everyone else said but Charley and I actually discussed this post of yours in the car the other day and I told him, as I'm sure other bloggers have told you, that there's a whole posse of moderate democrats and republicans who can swing the tide. Definitely not the 2nd most powerful person in America (whoever it is, I'm sure s/he contributed to Lieberman's campaign).

(no subject)

better lieberman than red

no subject

Re: better lieberman than red

no subject

no subject

Re: better lieberman than red

Re: better lieberman than red

no subject

no subject

no subject

Re: better lieberman than red

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

Re: better lieberman than red

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

Re: better lieberman than red

Re: better lieberman than red

Re: better lieberman than red

Re: better lieberman than red

not the 2nd