Autopsy 2006 -- what the Dems did right, what the GOP did wrong [Archive]

View Full Version : Autopsy 2006 -- what the Dems did right, what the GOP did wrong

Thomas Veil

Nov 8, 2006, 12:27 AM

The Democrats have finally retaken the House (and possibly the Senate), and I don't think a lot of the TV pundits are giving them credit where credit is due.

First, I think a big amount goes to Howard Dean, who got the party organized for the first time in quite a while. Seems his 50-state strategy is working. I know Rahm Emanuel (sp?) doesn't agree with the way Dean is doing it, but you can't argue with the results.

Because I think dissatisfaction with Bush and the Republicans helped the Democrats win, but I think the win would've been a lot more marginal if Democrats hadn't chosen the right candidates, identified trends and acted upon them, spread the money around to a lot of different states, and finally, turned out the voters. It wasn't perfect, but it was a lot better than what we're used to. And Dean did that.

As for the GOP: talk about the economy, corruption or the war all you want. Everything falls under the same general heading: they just got too goddamned cocky. They stopped listening to the people, and listened only to the fringe cuckoos in their own party.

zimv20

Nov 8, 2006, 12:36 AM

i think we'll find that many of the "democrats" elected to the house are actually pretty darn conservative.

despite the takeover, the gradual shift to the right continues, imo.

pseudobrit

Nov 8, 2006, 12:50 AM

i think we'll find that many of the "democrats" elected to the house are actually pretty darn conservative.

despite the takeover, the gradual shift to the right continues, imo.

I agree, but at least the Congress will cease to be a partisan blank cheque for Bush. And the GOP corruption machine has been knocked out of service for a little while.

trebblekicked

Nov 8, 2006, 01:21 AM

i don't think this election had anything to do with what the democratic party did right, and had everything to do with what the GOP did wrong. they've acted like arses for six years, and it's finally caught up to them.

the majority in the house will be too small to wield, and the senate was never really in the president's pocket anyway. if the democrats intend to seize on the growing distaste for rove-style republicanism, they've still got a lot of work to do. changing the tone of politics with a balanced and thoughtful presidential ticket in '08 is the first step; steering the discourse away from fear and one-liners, then fielding senate candidates who fit the mold.

the new democratic party will and should take it's cues from barrak obama, and would do well to learn from bernie sanders and ralph nader while they're at it.

finally, there's no more bully to blame; the democrats must deliver in the house, or they will be right back where they started. don't think that the GOP is going to stop attacking just because they're a minority now.

Peace

Nov 8, 2006, 01:25 AM

MACDRIVE

Nov 8, 2006, 03:09 AM

I just heard George Stephanopoulos tell Charles Gibson on ABC News, that he expects to see a lot of oversite hearings being held to hold the admistration accountable for their blunders in Iraq.

solvs

Nov 9, 2006, 03:00 AM

despite the takeover, the gradual shift to the right continues, imo.

Yer so cynical. :p

But, well, yeah... :o

beatsme

Nov 9, 2006, 03:08 AM

This wasnt about democrats winning.It was about Bush.

I'd have to agree. The 2000 general wasn't about Bush winning, it was about Clinton.

Thomas Veil

Nov 9, 2006, 05:55 AM

I just heard George Stephanopoulos tell Charles Gibson on ABC News, that he expects to see a lot of oversite hearings being held to hold the admistration accountable for their blunders in Iraq.And that, if anything does, is what could lead to impeachment hearings. If what the Democrats find is damning enough and reaches high enough, it'll get the voters even angrier than they already are. It'd be like when all that evidence came out, day after day, about how Nixon was involved in Watergate after all. The dawning realization by the people that their president was a crook was what forced Nixon to quit or face impeachment.

iGary

Nov 9, 2006, 07:49 AM

I think a lot of people should realize that the Dems taking control doesn't mean prediential impeachment, the United States turning into a state of bliss, gay marriage being legalized or any number of things.

The Dems haven't and still don't have solid leadership or a platform.

clevin

Nov 9, 2006, 08:07 AM

I agree its largely GOP's inability to govern for the American as a Whole.
They move to the extreme right wing and play tricks in election, I think they really treat American majority people as stupid and can be manipulated.

GOP is now so extreme, they abandoned all Goldwater principles, now they have totally no discipline, no idea, it would not take long for them to transform into a bible party if they don't change their strategy.

Greebazoid

Nov 9, 2006, 08:13 AM

I aint American - so you can ignore this post if you like - but as a gay liberal I have to say, I'm delighted in your election results.

Hopefully, your politicians will stop pandering to the religious right - Even small steps to the left are better than large steps to the right.

(ps if you care - today is the day our government here in South Africa votes how to implement same sex marriage)

skunk

Nov 9, 2006, 08:16 AM

(ps if you care - today is the day our government here in South Africa votes how to implement same sex marriage)Just as well that decision's not in the hands of Jacob Zuma: What would he make of it?

Greebazoid

Nov 9, 2006, 08:24 AM

Just as well that decision's not in the hands of Jacob Zuma: What would he make of it?

Actually, believe it or not he publicly supports the amendment - he was severely stung by his anti-gay comments. Although, he has far bigger fish to fry at this point - his financial advisers corruption appeal was rejected and the police are (its believed) sharpening their pencils to move against him.

bowens

Nov 9, 2006, 08:39 AM

It seems to me what the dems did right was nominate more conservative people, especially in southern and more conservative states. I agree that the republicans did get cocky. They had been in power for so long they just took it for granted. The dems had a good plan and it worked.

Queso

Nov 9, 2006, 09:11 AM

(ps if you care - today is the day our government here in South Africa votes how to implement same sex marriage)
I hope it goes through. South Africa is years ahead of a lot of countries with regards to gay rights. It put the UK to shame for many years.

Chundles

Nov 9, 2006, 09:34 AM

Quack, quack, quack, limp, limp, limp...

http://img182.imageshack.us/img182/1583/3bt16046ke0.jpg

And Cheney is the VP - we all know what happens when you put Cheney and a duck together...

We Aussies are very happy down here.

jelloshotsrule

Nov 9, 2006, 10:08 AM

i think we'll find that many of the "democrats" elected to the house are actually pretty darn conservative.

despite the takeover, the gradual shift to the right continues, imo.

seriously. how is harold ford jr, a dem in TN, more to the left than michael steele, a rep in MD?

that is exactly why the amendment votes are what scare me more than anything... the people of the country aren't moving left, they're just moving away from the people screwing things up

jelloshotsrule

Nov 9, 2006, 10:09 AM

We Aussies are very happy down here.

surely not *all* of you... your pm for instance? hah

Chundles

Nov 9, 2006, 10:12 AM

surely not *all* of you... your pm for instance? hah

Well yeah, but we couldn't care less about him.

jelloshotsrule

Nov 9, 2006, 10:13 AM

...and would do well to learn from bernie sanders and ralph nader while they're at it.

want to borrow my flame retardant suit? ;)

Well yeah, but we couldn't care less about him.

so i take it he'll be booted next time you get the chance? let's hope so!

Chundles

Nov 9, 2006, 10:20 AM

so i take it he'll be booted next time you get the chance? let's hope so!

Not likely, the opposition don't have a strong leader, LJH may be many things but he leads with authority - until Labor can come up with someone willing to really take the fight to LJH they're not going to win an election. Too much factional in-fighting and mud-slinging, not enough hard questions being asked of the Liberals.

Beasley's not bad but he just doesn't strike me as having the balls to really lead his party to victory. He's already had a couple of cracks at it and failed.

We're happy that Bush is crippled by the results in the US but when our elections come around next year (I think) we'll go for the party with the strongest leader - at the moment that's the Liberals and LJH.

xsedrinam

Nov 9, 2006, 11:12 AM

seriously. how is harold ford jr, a dem in TN, more to the left than michael steele, a rep in MD?

that is exactly why the amendment votes are what scare me more than anything... the people of the country aren't moving left, they're just moving away from the people screwing things up
I think that's a pretty fair observation. I'd say the single most answer to "what the Dems did right" is that they were relatively focused on Turning the Iraq War Into An Ally (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/09/us/politics/09recon.html?ex=1320728400&en=d89638916fc70312&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss). Whether one would call any swing a "right or left" move, it's been about moving away from incompetence. And we've seen too much of that particularly in U.S. foreign policy.

Black&Tan

Nov 9, 2006, 05:01 PM

trebblekicked

Nov 9, 2006, 05:19 PM

want to borrow my flame retardant suit? ;)

thanks. us greens take care of each other. nader/sanders in '08!

DZ/015

Nov 9, 2006, 10:19 PM

i don't think this election had anything to do with what the democratic party did right, and had everything to do with what the GOP did wrong. they've acted like arses for six years, and it's finally caught up to them.

Couldn't agree with you more. The GOP took over congress in '94 on a platform of cutting taxes, smaller government, fiscal responsibility and moral values. They have gotten very far off the mark lately. The swing voters did not heartily endorse the dems as much as they abandoned the republicans. Unless the dems can pull off some amazing things, control will slip back into GOP hands in 2 years. Maybe 4.

Thomas Veil

Nov 10, 2006, 12:10 AM

Two years?? The voters' memory is short, but it's not that short.

Thomas Veil

Nov 10, 2006, 05:24 PM

Apparently one thing the Dems did right was get out the youth vote:

Youth turnout in election biggest in 20 years

By Jason Szep / Reuters

BOSTON - Young Americans voted in the largest numbers in at least 20 years in congressional elections, energized by the Iraq war and giving a boost to Democrats, pollsters said on Wednesday.

About 24 percent of Americans under the age of 30, or at least 10 million young voters, cast ballots in Tuesday's elections that saw Democrats make big gains in Congress. That was up 4 percentage points from the last mid-term elections in 2002.

"This looks like the highest in 20 years," said Mark Lopez, research director of the Center for Information and Research on Civic Learning and Engagement, which compiled the data based on exit polls. "Unfortunately, we can't say if it's a record because don't have good comparable data before 1986."MichaelMoore.com (http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/the06fix/index.php?id=520)

And I think it's safe to say that the youth vote was predominately against Bush, his war and his Congress.

Ugg

Nov 10, 2006, 05:29 PM

And I think it's safe to say that the youth vote was predominately against Bush, his war and his Congress.

I think it was also about the power of the internet.

Thomas Veil

Nov 10, 2006, 08:09 PM

That's another thing the Dems can get to work on: making sure that Net Neutrality means what it says.

it5five

Nov 10, 2006, 11:48 PM

When I went to go vote, the poll worker told me "We've been getting a lot of you young people today." Guess she was right. ;)

leekohler

Nov 11, 2006, 04:24 AM

When I went to go vote, the poll worker told me "We've been getting a lot of you young people today." Guess she was right. ;)

That's exactly what happened when Clinton got elected too. Keep voting, youngsters!

Dont Hurt Me

Nov 11, 2006, 08:21 AM

This wasnt so much about Democrats or Republicans but the Independent voters who jumped off the Republican Spin machine. Independents voted Democratic in numbers never before seen. Lets Face it Republicans can do rock bottom horrible things and people would still vote for him. Heck we just saw that, just look at the past 6 years and still you have people backing these traitors. Same goes for the democrats you have folks who think they do no wrong.
Then you have the Independents watching what both do and put America first not either scumball partison party. Hail to the Independents,not brainwashed, able to evaluate and able to CHANGE!:) Independents won this one for the Country.

Thomas Veil

Nov 12, 2006, 09:33 AM

Independents voted Democratic in numbers never before seen.Yes, independents and evangelicals. A news report I saw a couple days after the election said that 29% of evangelicals voted Democratic, which is unheard of. Even they wanted to send a message.

Bill Maher said something that is very true:

(The Republicans) lost every part of the country except the South. Really, the Republican Party now is the old Confederacy. And this was Karl Rove's method. See, Karl Rove went against what everybody always did in politics, was to run toward the center.

Karl Rove said, no, let's go to the real far right base. And that's where he ran, and that's all he's got left now. Everybody else left him, all the independents are gone, even evangelicals voted in numbers for Democrats.

That's exactly what happened when Clinton got elected too. Keep voting, youngsters!When I was growing up in the '60s and '70s, we always believed that it was young people who could change the world. It's still true.

Thomas Veil

Nov 12, 2006, 10:51 AM

More:

Wes Anderson, a Republican strategist who consulted in some of the closest Senate races, said that before the attacks of September 11, 2001, voters identified the GOP as the party of fiscal conservatism, middle-class economics, national security and ethical reform.

"Our problem is our brand is broken," Anderson said. "Voters didn't walk away from the core principles of the brand. They just didn't think we represented them effectively."

A poll that Anderson's firm conducted in 12 of the most contested congressional races on November 5-6, right before Election Day, showed the depth of voter anger. When voters were asked which party was "controlled by big corporations," 8 percent said Democrats, 51 percent said Republicans and 25 percent said both.CNN (http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/11/12/dems.lease.ap/index.html)

I would argue that if the voters really did think that the GOP was the party of fiscal conservatism, middle class economics and ethical reform, it was only because they had been fooled by Karl Rove's propaganda. The Republican party does not stand for any of those things.

And I think maybe, just maybe, the voters finally realize that. If they do, if this wasn't just an anti-Bush vote, then the Democrats will be able to sustain this victory and build on it.

(Howard Dean) also repeated other goals of Democrats, including raising the minimum wage, cutting interest rates on student loans, and working for energy independence.CNN (http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/11/11/dems.radio/index.html)

Again, if the Dems follow through on this stuff, they will continue to win. These are bread-and-butter middle class issues, and the Republicans either merely give them lip service, or try to outright kill them altogether.