MuadDib

Note: This is cut and pasted from my blog so take that into context before critiquing my verb usage or any facts out-dated by less than 12 hours. I'm posting here because I want to get a feel for how my fellow Tilted Politic-ers find my take on this election, as well as their conflicting takes.

<b>PLEASE help me keep this civil and educational.</b>



Alright, well it's past my Tuesday night bed time but anyone who knows me knew I wouldn't go to bed without results or the assurance that I won't miss a thing going to bed. Hell, I stayed up for 48 hours in 2000 waiting for Florida before I finally accepted that I wouldn't miss hearing about if I caught 40 winks.

That being said, let's get rolling. I'm not going to scream, gloat, or flaunt victory but I'd being lying if I didn't say I've been nothing but pleased so far. No surprises in the House, I think anyone paying attention over the last month knew the Dems were gonna take it. It was surprising the amount though. Not a single incumbet Democrat lost an election in the House, Senate, or for state Governor. Now that says something, but I'll get to that momentarily.

The Senate is huge! No matter what happens the Dems held all their seats and gained a good number. It will be a different Senate as the loss of moderate Republicans and addition of moderate Democrats will change the shape of many commitees. That good word aside, at this point I am very hopeful of a Democratic Senate. At this time the vote is still out in MO, MT, and VA but I would be shocked at lossing MO or MT. VA is huge and Florida-close. With the exception of major voting issues though a recount won't make a full percent of difference and it's likely that the provisional ballets (those that the voter thought should count, but in which there was uncertainty) would favor Webb. Knock on wood, but since all my calls have been right thus far I think we'll be taking the Senate as well.

Now ballot issues. This is what I find very interesting. By and large the nation agrees on these issues. Every minimum wage increase initiative won & every abortion restriction lost and these might be clues about why the Dems faired so well in Congressional elections. Gay marriage bans acrossed the board EXCEPT in Arizona where the 'ban gay marriage' amendment failed. This is the new civil rights topic and it's going to be very interesting to see what states go what way, or if SCOTUS will step in and end the disjunction. Pot legalization failed acrossed the board, but did anyone really think this would fly right now? This is a generational issue and it's still too soon. Give it ten years, but stop cluttering ballots with it in the mean time. The last two big issues are stem cells and official language. No surprise AZ went for the English initiative, but it'll be interesting to see if that issue spreads out of the Southwest to make it's way onto other ballots. As for stem cells, the last thing I saw was that the verdict was still out on this initiative. However, that is a new hot topic and if MO tells us anything (as an initiative and THE issue of the McCaskill (D) campaign) it's that it is going to be a major divisive issue in the coming years, right up there with abortion and the death penalty.

Summation: There's change in the air and it's an exciting time to be a Democrat. No matter how the Senate fairs, the overall jist of this election is that America is ready for some accountability on the economy and in Iraq. Does this mean that there is a liberal shift in this country? Doubtful. The Democrats taking seats are moderate and that is, perhaps, the message of this election. It's a move to the center and, right now, that is better represented by Democrats. These moderate Dems represent change, but not a polarizing change. Americans (both Republicans & Democrats) are fed up with the extreme right. What's going to be most telling about '08 elections is how the Democrats take it. They need to realize that this is NOT a mandate, but a chance. It's a chance to bring America back to the center, because as fed up as we are of the extreme right, we are equally afraid of the extreme left. If the Dems bring accountability to our government then we can talk mandate next cycle, but if we become opportunistic and abuse our chance to make things right by pushing an extreme liberal social agenda then '08 will be worse than '94. Let's hope we Democrats have learned some temperance in the last six years because this could be the dawning of a new day and we need to make something of it.

__________________
"The courts that first rode the warhorse of virtual representation into battle on the res judicata front invested their steed with near-magical properties." ~27 F.3d 751

NCB

Well said, especially the summation. The big winner here that has yet to be mentioned is Howard Dean, who was ridiculed for his 50 state approach and the recruitment of conservative Dems in the South. He gambled and it paid off.

__________________

aceventura3

I just posted in another thread similar to this one. The Democrats have been on the outside doing nothing but giving criticisms, now that they have control of congress it is time for them to deliver. The expectations are high. Over the last 12 years I would give the Republican congress about a C+, mostly due to their failures to control spending. The Democrats have a tremendous opportunity, now that they have what they want they may be wishing that they had toned down the rhetoric. But they can easily out perform the Republican controlled congress over the past 12 years, but I doubt that they will.

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

Jove

Michigan just banned affirmation action programs that give preferential treatment to groups or individuals based on their race, gender, color, ethnicity or national origin for public employment, education or contracting purposes.

*shakes head* Michigan is screwed.

NCB

Off topic: why should one group be given preference just because of race?

On topic: You really want to see a fucked up ballot initiative that passed? CO passed a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT, not just a law, that states that the min wage be set to 6.85 starting in Jan and then adjusted every year based on economic indicators of the two largest cities in the state. Goodbye CO jobs. Hoped you enjoyed your stay

__________________

Seaver

Not everyone who opposes a National minimum wage hike opposes state hikes. I believe that min. wage jobs should be determined by the states. Sorry but cost of living in Mississippi is MUCH lower than say, Colorado/Cali/NY. A national min. wage hike would drive up cost of living in the lower-cost states where it is not required.

__________________
"Smite the rocks with the rod of knowledge, and fountains of unstinted wealth will gush forth." - Ashbel Smith as he laid the first cornerstone of the University of Texas

NCB

Not saying that. The problem I have with the CO one is that its in their constitution AND that it will continue to go up and up and up. Dont you see the inherent problem with that?

__________________

MuadDib

Thanks NCB, it means a lot to me that we generally agree about what this election does and does not mean. On that note, you are absolutely right that Dean is possibly the biggest winner here. Like him or not he has a great political mind. He has shown that running for governor, in being governor, and especially in his presidential primary. As the DNC head I think he has found a great fit. Personally, I like the guy but don't see eye to eye with him very often. What I think that says about him is that he is a great party leader, but not much of a national leader.

Ballot issues were huge for me this year and I think they put the Democratic 'wave' into perspective. We see the 'liberal' democratic gay rights agenda taking major hits while we see the 'moderate' democratic minimum wage issue spreading like wildfire. Regarding minimum wage, I think Colorado will be very interesting. I'd like to note that the amendment calls for annual 'adjusting' and that doesn't necessarily mean increases every year with inflation nor does this make it the equivalent of a living wage. That being said I think this will be a great test state to actually examine this style of approach lauded by the Dems for so long. Myself, I have a lot of faith in this approach for two reasons. First, because the minimum wage does need to be raised, as evidenced by the states who have done so in the recent past having all had improved economies compared to states that have not. Second, the 'adjustments' approach forces state legislators to wrestle with the wage issue every year and make a statement about maintaining, raising, or lowering the minimum. This is something that I think should be discussed every year by every legislator acrossed the country. Make them talk about and then come to a firm decision about it every single year. This should help keep the wage fair and help voters hold their legislators accountable to their constituents.

__________________
"The courts that first rode the warhorse of virtual representation into battle on the res judicata front invested their steed with near-magical properties." ~27 F.3d 751

guy44

No, there's no problem with that. It's called a cost of living adjustment, and there's no good reason why only white collar workers and the upper crust should get that. Every middle class working person I know would go nuts if they didn't get COLAs to help them adjust to inflation every year, and justifiably so. Why should those making the minimum be the only ones who don't get help? Clearly, they are the ones who need it the most.

As for the original post of this thread, I agree pretty completely. Of course we now know that the Dems did take the Senate, which is quite huge. And I agree completely that Dean is really the biggest winner of all. Also, a couple points I haven't seen mentioned yet:

South Dakota voted down, by double digits, their draconian anti-choice referendum.

Dems got the biggest percentage of white evangelicals ever (for them, obviously).

I think that Republicans have screwed themselves out of black and Latino votes for a long, long, long time. Katrina seems to have officially destroyed Mehlman's "reconciliation" strategy with the black community, and the hardline House Republican tactics toward immigration have cost them a significant portion of the Latino vote for the foreseeable future.

Just some thoughts.

__________________
"You have reached Ritual Sacrifice. For goats press one, or say 'goats.'"

ratbastid

Speaking of ballot issues...

Seattle's so-called "Four Foot Rule", that effectively banned lap dances in the city's strip clubs was defeated yesterday. Hooray for Democracy!

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...pclubs08m.html

mixedmedia

I think your summation is fair and insightful. And I completely agree with your take on where Democrats should go from here. No mandates, no strutting or finger-pointing. Just get down to business. We have a lot to prove in two maddeningly short years.

__________________
Most people go through life dreading they'll have a traumatic experience. Freaks were born with their trauma. They've already passed their test in life. They're aristocrats. - Diane Arbus
PESSIMISM, n. A philosophy forced upon the convictions of the observer by the disheartening prevalence of the optimist with his scarecrow hope and his unsightly smile. - Ambrose Bierce

ubertuber

Nice summation MuadDIb.

Actually, President Bush said something the other day that was extremely astute.

There's no way you can interpret the Democratic gain of 28 seats in the house as anything other than a "thumping". However, this election doesn't even match the 2004 election in terms of the magnitude of the victories. There was a really interesting graphic on the NY Times today showing win margins from the 2004 and 2006 House elections (and linking the districts in the two). In 2004, the Republicans won by much much larger margins than the Dems did this week. This week was remarkable for the breadth of victories, not the depth of them. No mandate, no sea change. Just a change in direction, and one that could be re-fought in 2008. To produce a sea change will require some dynamic leaders to emerge in the next couple of years and some visions to be articulated in a pretty compelling way.

I'll say again in this thread that the governorships the Dems picked up could be of as much strategic import as the legislative victories. We could be seeing Governors from the class of '06 as presidential candidates in several elections in a decade or so.

ubertuber's packaged assessment: nice job dems, but it's still just an electoral pancake - broad and thin.

__________________
Cogito ergo spud -- I think, therefore I yam

cj2112

Do you really think that a state ought to be giving preferential treatment to groups or individuals based on their race, gender, color, ethnicity or national origin for public employment, education or contracting purposes?

Marvelous Marv

In order not to be accused of flaming or trolling, I had hesitated to post something I've seen a couple of times now.

"Since World War II, the party in control of the White House has lost an average 31 House seats and six Senate seats in the second midterm election of a president's tenure in office."

Therefore, this was a pretty average midterm election, in spite of Iraq and scandals. Perhaps the robust economy blunted the effect.

The Democrats definitely need some accomplishments in the next two years, because their support appears thin, as you said.

__________________
"The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money."
Margaret Thatcher

host

Marv, here are the stats....since WWII of congressional turnover in the mid-term election of presidents in the second of two ELECTED terms:
[quote]http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/data/..._elections.php

President ..............Year House seats Senate seats

Dwight Eisenhower 1958........-48...........-13
Ronald Reagan .......1996........-5.............-8
William J. Clinton ...1998........+5.............0
George W. Bush......2006........-29...........-6

...we can add some other second mid-term results:

Harry Truman ........1950*........-29...........-6

Gerald R. Ford........1974........-48...........-5
(This was the first federal election after Nixon resigned because of his role in the Watergate scandal, and his VP Agnew resigned to serve a prison sentence for his bribe taking
during his term as Maryland governor.)

*<b>Oooops !</b>

MuadDib

Not flaming/trolling at all. I think what is remarkable about this election is not the loss itself, nor the change in seats. What is remarkable is the shift of control of both houses of Congress AND the the fact that not a single incumbent of the winning party lost a seat. Let me say that again, not one single Democrat lost his seat; only gains.

But it is a matter of perspective and what you're saying is important. As I've been saying we need to see this election year for not just what it is, but also for what it isn't. So make of it what you will, but something that has deep meaning for America occurred and, for those of us who are democrats, we need to do the best we can with it.

__________________
"The courts that first rode the warhorse of virtual representation into battle on the res judicata front invested their steed with near-magical properties." ~27 F.3d 751

hiredgun

Another interesting fact is that not a single candidate who appeared on the Colbert Report lost his race. This includes both incumbents and the few challengers, who all appeared on the show's "Better Know a District" segment.

It's an interesting and surprising correlation because on the whole, the interviews are conducted in such a way as to make the guest inadvertently ridicule himself and appear foolish.