« Leader | Main | Mandate Time »
Some Thoughts
Just some bullet-points. But they're crucial, damnit, crucial.
1. Shouldn't at least part of coping with the "moral values" problem involve some effort to do a better job of convincing people that more liberal positions than the ones they currently have are actually the correct ones?
2. More broadly, you've got to have a strategy for convincing people that at least some of your currently-unpopular ideas are ideas that they should like, not just a strategy for trying to figure out which ideas will be popular.
3. (1) and (2) above are less the task of campaigns than they are something other people need to be doing out in society when a campaign isn't happening.
4. Look at Harry Reid's actual record as an obstructionist before you leap to the conclusion that he's too electorally-vulnerable to be an effective Leader. Has he broken with the party on any major judicial or legislative votes? As far as I can tell, no.
4. Stop arguing about the reason Bush won (or Kerry lost), these things are multicausal. Elections are complicated.
5. Concretely, and in the very immediate future, reality-based individuals (included, but not limited to, Democratic elected officials) need to start talking about Iraq as a currently ongoing war and not a campaign issue.
6. A desire not to undercut Kerry's campaign has, to a large extent, constrained what reality-based individuals have been saying and doing about this. Now that that factor is gone, we need to start discussing, debating, and advocating various courses of action. My thoughts (like, I suspect, those of many others) on this matter are somewhat muddled at the moment, and only an open exchange of ideas will let people get clearer.
7. Liberals need to learn to talk the talk and walk the walk of nationalism better. Hopefully in some guise that doesn't simply involve invading countries at random. Michael Lind has historically had smart things to say about this, and hopefully will more such smart things to say in the future.
8. Who's figuring out what happened to the Latino vote? That's important. The news that highly religious conservative white people like George W. Bush, though much reported over the past 24 hours, is fairly banal. The fact that Democratic support is waning among Latinos is not banal.
9. Keep in mind that fighting like hell to block GOP legislation and fighting like hell to gain some Senate seats may not be mutually compatible goals. Due to constitutional design, there are many more solid Red states than solid Blue ones. The Senate Democratic caucus is therefore bound to be either small, or else disunited and more conservative than the party as a whole.
November 4, 2004 | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/1366679
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Some Thoughts:
» Please allow me to flip-flop. from Left Oblique
Perhaps the Democrats don't need to sacrifice their liberal social values to win. I was listening to an interview on the radio with a professor of ethics (or something like that) who was saying that Democrats have great values - they just can't form... [Read More]
Tracked on Nov 4, 2004 2:24:48 AM
» Starting to Think Through Strategies from Saheli*: Musings and Observations
Matthew Yglesias has some bullet points, and I think his list is a good starting point. Summarizing and combining somewhat, my take on his list:1,2&3. Yes! 4. Yes, yes, yes. 5&6.Absolutely. 7. Hell yes. I don't really have anything to say about 7&8 ... [Read More]
Tracked on Nov 4, 2004 4:47:41 AM
» Let's Have A New Strategy from Three Guys
We Demoncrats need to find ways to convince the man on the street that he's wrong when he thinks that gay marriage will destroy the earth. Step one on doing that is to fucking admit we don't oppose gay marriage, even if it does cost us in some demogr... [Read More]
Tracked on Nov 4, 2004 6:18:55 AM
» Status Wars from Left Center Left
The ever valuable Matt Yglesias lists out some useful thoughts in approaching the election portmortem, including the reminder that elections are too complicated to be boiled down to one cause. But I particularly like his first three points: 1. Shouldn't [Read More]
Tracked on Nov 4, 2004 1:41:59 PM
» The from The Bonassus
Attack GOP values? Talk up Democratic values? Go all Lieberman/Tipper Gore? Some thoughts on how to combat GOP electoral superiority on "values." [Read More]
Tracked on Nov 4, 2004 2:35:22 PM
» Exit Polling and a More Perfect Election from American Idle
Exit polls have been vilified in American elections since 2000 and it's a curious problem that has very serious and intelligent people scratching their heads and wondering what is going wrong. I have my theories. Exit polls are often wrong... [Read More]
Tracked on Nov 4, 2004 4:52:32 PM
» Post Mortem from Jam Today
Some thoughts about the election:
Arianna Huffington made a good point. Kerry lost the election by going after independents and undecideds:
This meant that at every turn the campaign chose caution over boldness so as not to offend the undeci [Read More]
Tracked on Nov 4, 2004 7:40:20 PM
» Navel Gazing from Dispassionate Lib
What I believe is emerging is the the genesis of a liberal, open-source internet think-tank which could solidify as an influential base for future sculpting of the minority agenda. [Read More]
Tracked on Nov 4, 2004 10:34:12 PM
» Reflections ad Infinitum from Pacific Views
Paul Waldman at the Gadflyer sums up the election as a referendum on the parties' competence at campaigning. Over at Making Light, there's an interesting prevalence among the commenters to describe Republicans as anarchists. Yeah, that fits. Blog Reloa... [Read More]
Tracked on Nov 5, 2004 5:31:31 AM
» Post-Election Notes From The Blogosphere : Matthew Yglesias from c u l t u r e k i t c h e n
Matthew Yglesias: Some Thoughts I can't believe Yglesias is still in his twenties. He's one of the most articulate and insightful political writers in the blogosphere and out. Let me thread through his talking points [presented in italics]: 1. Shouldn'... [Read More]
Tracked on Nov 8, 2004 11:21:13 AM
» Post-Election Notes From The Blogosphere : Matthew Yglesias from c u l t u r e k i t c h e n
Matthew Yglesias: Some Thoughts I can't believe Yglesias is still in his twenties. He's one of the most articulate and insightful political writers in the blogosphere and out. Let me thread through his talking points [presented in italics]: 1. Shouldn'... [Read More]
Tracked on Nov 8, 2004 11:22:39 AM
» Latinos for Kerry after all from chez Nadezhda
Well this should bring a sigh of relief to Matthew Yglesias, who's been fretting ever since Nov... [Read More]
Tracked on Dec 4, 2004 6:11:59 PM
» Moving Forward from Democrats & Liberals:
[I posted this on my own blog back on November 6, but it still seems relevant.] America has made a grievous error. I'm not going to spend much effort analyzing why. As Matthew Yglesias notes, "these things are multicausal. Elections... [Read More]
Tracked on Jan 29, 2005 5:51:39 AM
Comments
MY, it's impossible to talk about "what happened to the Latino vote" because the exit polls were all wrong - at the least if we don't come to the conclusion there was widespread fraud in the elections.
In fact, the original exit polls in Florida (as opposed to the adjusted (ie made-up) exit polls) showed Kerry was doing fairly better in Florida among non-Cuban Hispanics than Gore. And, no, it's pretty absurd talking about the adjusted exit poll results when the pollsters have simply adjusted it to come out with what they consider to be the "correct" results.
In fact, one of the reasons why it's so difficult to talk about what happened in the election is because we don't have any demographic information on who voted for whom due to fact that the real exit polls (as opposed to the made-up "adjusted" exit polls) were all wrong across the board.
Posted by: Dan the Man | Nov 4, 2004 1:01:01 AM
I've been thinking a lot about community (real or virtual)-based groups that would serve to 'protect our nation's values against GWB' or *something*, by
1) gathering & sharing information, esp. local issues - I imagine there will lots of local, somewhat obscure battles in terms of lower court appointees and etc.
2) working to influence opinion
3) nonviolent action
Not political groups so much as formalizing all the current lots-of-folks-everywhere talking in workplaces, lines, streets, etc. . . about what on earth wil happen to us, and giving them a broad but effective focus. Ideas?
-Dan S.
Posted by: Dan S. | Nov 4, 2004 1:01:24 AM
Shouldn't at least part of coping with the "moral values" problem involve some effort to do a better job of convincing people that more liberal positions than the ones they currently have are actually the correct ones?
No. The point of moral values isn't that they are moral, but that they are the voter's. The values-peddaling politician tells the voter "I share your values. Those condescending liberals do not. They sneer at your values." The animating impulse is jingoism not morality. Any attempt to educate the masses as to what are the right values will simply be seen as elitist liberal lecturing.
Posted by: WillieStyle | Nov 4, 2004 1:05:19 AM
"1. Shouldn't at least part of coping with the "moral values" problem involve some effort to do a better job of convincing people that more liberal positions than the ones they currently have are actually the correct ones?"
Here's the deal. Gay marriage helped to bring a lot of voters out that we didn't necessarily want to come out because there were ballot props banning it in crucial swing states. It will be decades before most of these laws are overturned, and the GOP can only play this card once per state. As it is, they're running out of swing states to play it in (if they haven't already run out.)
After this election, and Bush stacks the courts with lunatic fundamentalist judges, the GOP will have nothing further to offer Reagan Democrats, who have been voting Republican for most elections since 1980 (and in no small number of cases 1968) because there was virtually no real difference between the two parties on economic and trade policy in most cases, and between nothing and at least hearing what they wanted to hear on cultural issues they voted Republican.
The worst that can happen is that the Bush SCOTUS overturns Roe V Wade, and that would be a terrible thing for poor women of color deep in red state territory, but from a political POV it (and maybe Bush's victory alone) opens up the whole of the midwest, the southern border states, the southwest, and perhaps even some southern states like Arkansas and Lousiana. Abortion will eventually become legal just about everywhere again (as will gay marriage), but in the meantime the Democrats could well sweep a significant swath of red states with Huey Long style pro-life economic populists.
Posted by: Green Democrat | Nov 4, 2004 1:12:29 AM
I would add that Democrats *can* become a party where both pro-choice liberals and anti-choice populists, pro-gay marriage liberals and anti-gay marriage populists coexist at the national level because a) marriage is an issue for the states and b) if Roe V Wade is overturned abortion will become an issue for the states to decide. Neither of these issues will be taken up at the federal level.
Posted by: Green Democrat | Nov 4, 2004 1:17:22 AM
"Liberals need to learn to talk the talk and walk the walk of nationalism better."
I'd agree with that one. I support liberalism because I think it makes America stronger. If you could convince me that another policy would make America stronger, I'd accept that.
On the other hand, liberals shoot themselves in the foot every time; they also need to be less arrogant, both intellectually and morally. Case in point: "Shouldn't at least part of coping with the 'moral value' problem involve some effort to do a better job of convincing people that more liberal positions than the ones they currently have are actually the correct ones." Correct? WTF?
Posted by: Andrew Boucher | Nov 4, 2004 1:23:33 AM
Democrat's need to drop the Pro-Choice stance. Democrats need to make it clear that they're pro-choices. Imposition creates opposition. Democrats need to be the party of responsibilty and freedom.
Posted by: Porco Rosso | Nov 4, 2004 1:23:35 AM
PS Incidentally I hope I didn't sound as though I was somehow elated at the prospect of half the states in the country outlawing abortion. I was simply suggesting that should Roe V Wade be overturned, and Democrats want to remain viable in states like Ohio, West Virginia, and Arizona, they may well need to allow anti-choice populists into the fold. As for changing hearts and minds, that is really the responsibility of activists and organizations. Politicians generally play catch up. That's how its always been. If gays want to convince their fellow residents-of-a-particular-state that gay marriage should be legal, they need to go out in the community and work it. That's how progress is made.
Posted by: Green Democrat | Nov 4, 2004 1:34:43 AM
Liberals need to learn to talk the talk and walk the walk of nationalism better.
Er. Liberals are, by and large, internationalists. Perhaps Liberals should just "talk the talk and walk the walk" of conservativism better, too.
Or maybe, liberals need to work on grassroots community building and identity building the way the right has, both to have permanent (not just election centered) mobilization, and bypass major media for disseminating information, and also to keep pressure on the major media.
Posted by: cmdicely | Nov 4, 2004 1:35:41 AM
Andrew -
Yes, correct. There are moral truths. The truth of this claim is totally independent of a seperate claim that moral truths are whatever a divine being decreed them to be. One obvious candidate for a moral truth would be, "Killing other people for pleasure is wrong." The belief that such claims cannot be true, or that they can only be true for a particular individual, is highly pernicious. It is a seperate issue at to what degree morality should be involved in government, but the existence of disagreement about what is morally true does not mean that there is nothing which is morally true.
Posted by: washerdreyer | Nov 4, 2004 1:39:52 AM
You could start by dropping this "reality based" meme. It is a smear, it is elitist and it is false stereotyping.
Not a very good start, really.
Posted by: ronb | Nov 4, 2004 1:44:16 AM
Yes, you do have to exert an effort to change values, otherwise you either end up pandering to existing values and lying, or following through with the same policies as the other side. And when it comes to setting your own policies, it will come through that you have liberal values, regardless of what you say or don't say. Changing those values is called leading. Echoing what the polls tell you the crowd wants to hear is pandering. And once you've done that, you're trapped.
As for elitist liberal lecturing, there was a time when so called 'ordinary folk' went out of their way to attend such lectures. When Abraham Lincoln was campaigning, it was not unusual, in a small town, for the candidates to debate through the afternoon, break for dinner, and then continue late into the night--and for the crowd to stay and listen to the whole debate. We have allowed education to be portrayed as arrogance and rigorous argumentation to be spun as elitist. If we are going to teach new values, right there is a good place to start.
Posted by: Mark Fournier | Nov 4, 2004 1:51:24 AM
Myglesias--
Yes, elections are complicated affairs with multicausal outcomes. But we are all delimited by our cognitive abilities. There are going to be one, two, three...five "lessons" of this election at most. The construction of the 2004 narrative, like the AIDS quilt, is a huge collective process. It begins now.
The Massachusetts Supreme Court may have cost the Democrats the election. The country seemed to be congealing around a consensus of "civil unions." People understand that insurance, visitation, etc. are a big pain in the ass and they had no active animus that wanted to prevent gays from having those privileges. But then the MA Supreme Court tried to, you know, abolish marriage as we know it. (Yes, yes, by extending it.)
Now it's a sad day when extension of rights is odious to the American people. And perhaps the MA supreme court was right in its constitutional exegesis. But this is a HUGE policy change and the court basically enacted it unilaterally.
So while elite Democratic opinion was thrilled, actual, you know, people might have felt a little bit disenfranchised. ("I don't remember voting for this.")
Maybe the Democrats need to deal with judicial activism--and yes, there's a conservative variety, too--before it can be exploited for GOP gain.
Posted by: Chuck | Nov 4, 2004 1:51:54 AM
"5. Concretely, and in the very immediate future, reality-based individuals (included, but not limited to, Democratic elected officials) need to start talking about Iraq as a currently ongoing war and not a campaign issue."
I tend to suspect that how the coming battle of Fallujah goes, and how elections go in January (if they happen at all) could well have a significant impact on the direction of the war. Or not.
If Iraq turns the corner, things will be strategically clear for the Democrats, but politically difficult, which is to say the neoconservative strategy in the so-called war on terror will have been vindicated, and Democrats will need to run a liberal hawk in 08 to have so much as a snowball's chance in hell of winning the presidency - however loathe they might be to do that.
If Iraq continues to go south, things will be much politically simpler for the Dems, but strategically much murkier, which is to say that the failure will amount to a wholescale repudiation of neoconservativism, but that it may well be very (and dangerously) unclear how to proceed in the "war on terror" and perhaps even raise the question as to whether we should proceed at all.
Posted by: Green Democrat | Nov 4, 2004 1:52:34 AM
Well, we'll need a new meme, then. "We are all minorities" sounded good to my mind's ear a few hours ago, but it could be mocked way too easily.
Posted by: Maureen | Nov 4, 2004 1:56:43 AM
Mark-
Very good points re: education and argumentation. I've though for a good while now that we need an organization entirely devoted to "Raising the level of Debate."
Posted by: washerdreyer | Nov 4, 2004 1:58:02 AM
Mostly people's "values" reflect what they feel comfortable with and what makes them feel threatened. Mostly, they are not swayed by the considerations that might lead a philosophy major at Harvard to conclude that a value is "right." (For most of these people the idea that a value is enshrined in the Constitution is an argument for amending the Constitution.) But they are swayed by experiences that affect their feelings. Perhaps the most positive thing we can do is to express and live our values with pride and dignity. Trying to "repackage" our values in some more appealing manner doesn't fool anybody, and is seen as expressing hypocrisy and a certain kind of shame.
The Democrats should be the party of the big tent, of course, but not by compromising core values. It wasn't enough in the end, but this year we did pick up a lot of former Republicans who are repulsed by that party's current core constituency. After 1964 the right built an enduring electoral juggernaut (I don't include Nixon in this BTW) by staying true to who they were instead of trying to weasel their way to the center. If we stay true to our core values we will, slowly, pick up more young people, more moderates, and so forth, while the Republicans will be increasingly be dominated by a hateful core that repulses the majority.
Posted by: NashEq | Nov 4, 2004 2:22:54 AM
Michael Lind? Are you serious?
Posted by: haha @ yglesias | Nov 4, 2004 2:33:44 AM
I'd note that if Roe is overturned there's no reason Congress can't just pass a federal ban on abortion. It'd be nice if they'd just leave it up to the states, but consider their approach to the gay marriage issue.
And come to think of it, once you've got a court that'll overturn Roe, my guess is that's also a court that won't quibble if you want to pass a federal ban on same-sex marriages.
Basically I'd say dig up all the Scalia/Thomas dissents and that ought to give you a good idea of what we'll see.
Personally, I think the right to privacy will be the one I'll miss the most...
Posted by: boonelsj | Nov 4, 2004 2:38:33 AM
"I'd note that if Roe is overturned there's no reason Congress can't just pass a federal ban on abortion. It'd be nice if they'd just leave it up to the states, but consider their approach to the gay marriage issue."
True but unlikely. It would be a staggering over-reach by the GOP, and they would pay for it at the polls, that is if blue states didn't simply secede.
"And come to think of it, once you've got a court that'll overturn Roe, my guess is that's also a court that won't quibble if you want to pass a federal ban on same-sex marriages."
There already is a federal ban on same sex marriage, signed into law by Clinton. If you're talking about the Federal Marriage Amendment, that's not going anywhere, nor will it, and even if it did the Supreme Court would have nothing to do with it.
Posted by: Green Democrat | Nov 4, 2004 2:51:10 AM
The future of the Democrat Party (provided they want one) is Lieberman.
Lieberman is a capitalist - unashamed, he knows the engines of prosperity. He liked the tax cuts.
Lieberman supports the war - we have real anti-liberal enemies out there, diplomacy is not going to cut it with the fanatics any more than it did with Hitler
Liberman is in opposition where it matters - social issues.
Bush got my vote this year - you run a Lieberman type candidate and he would be my prefrence over any one the Rs are likely to run.
Hell I was pinning for Joe this year.
Start with these propositions:
1. socialism is dead
2. there is a war on
Once you have those down try finding positiions that give you the votes to win.
BTW it would be a good idea to purge the Jew haters from the party. Cynthia M. should be disavowed by the Democrats.
The same way the David Duke/Pat B. wing was purged by the Rs. Publicly. Same goes for the Jew hater and arson inciter Sharpton. Ugly people make an ugly party.
You guys need to clean up your act if you ever expect to get out of the wilderness.
--==--
Take Zell Miller's critique to heart. He is trying to tell you something important.
Posted by: M. Simon | Nov 4, 2004 3:02:12 AM
This idea that the country was congealing around civil unions until the Mass SJC came around is utter bullshit. Civil unions became the widely accepted moderate position when gay marriage became a real possibility. When Dean signed the bill he got all kinds of death threats--in VERMONT. Nor have many states actually passed civil unions laws.
Posted by: Katherine | Nov 4, 2004 3:05:03 AM
Republicanz:
If you want your free advice taken seriously, don't refer to us as the Democrat party or pine for Joe Lieberman. We're stupid, but we're not that stupid.
Posted by: Katherine | Nov 4, 2004 3:06:50 AM
Whatever happened to the party whose liberal watchword was death to tyrants?
Any one remember Jefferson?
What is wrong with invading random countries and replacing tyranies with democracies? Why not have a plan or a list instead of getting in the way?
Posted by: M. Simon | Nov 4, 2004 3:07:07 AM
Katherine,
Glad to hear you are not that stupid.
In fact I predicted in May of '03 you would not be that stupid. I also predicted then (before any one knew who the candidate would be) that you would lose this election. Based on my knowledge of how smart you are.
If you are the future of your party let me make another prediction - '08 is going against you as well. By a larger margin.
When you have had enough of being so smart you will change.
Posted by: M. Simon | Nov 4, 2004 3:14:01 AM
Apologies for feeding the troll/sincere dispenser of advice with my own best interest at heart.
A small majority of Massachusetts supported actually Goodridge when it came out. A large majority of Massachusetts supported civil unions, but we had a conservative Democratic House speaker who ruled with an iron hand, who had bullied members into voting to lift his term limit as speaker, and refused to allow a vote on it, ever. It's hard to say whether Republicans or Democrats liked the guy more, but Republicans should have liked him more because he kept winning them gubernatorial races as a convenient foil. He was elected by, oh, maybe 30,000 voters. His approval rating was something like 30%. I would guess Margaret Marshall's is quite a bit higher.
I'm sure the other states didn't like it, but that's federalism for you and they can suck it up. There was never much chance of the Georgia Supreme Court or the U.S. Supreme Court forcing them to allow gay marriage--though they should; it's much less "judicial activism" than Roe v. Wade or Miranda v. Arizona. The most realistic possibility would be the Supreme Court striking down DOMA as far as federal benefits, but that's not the same thing.
I agree with everything Matt said.
Posted by: Katherine | Nov 4, 2004 3:16:54 AM
My solution to the Democrats' destitution: a generous heaping helping of class warfare. See the following:
http://newcenturyjournal.blogspot.com/2004/11/new-direction-for-democrats-proud.html
Posted by: Dan Kervick | Nov 4, 2004 3:26:29 AM
So Katherine what would you prefer?
The Communist Party? The Socialist Party? The Progressive Party?
I have been a long time Libertarian so right now (given the war and all) I'm an independent. I like the Democrats on tolerance and the Republicans on the war and economics.
Call me a Republicanz all you want. I'm not one. I'm from the center. Where elections are won and lost.
I'm a Zell Miller Republican if you want to put a name to it.
I'm none to happy with chimpy on social issues. But hey, Osama reminded me, as if I needed reminding that there is a fookin war on. And we are no more going to diplomacy or new foreign aid program ourselves out of it than Chamberlain did in '38. Delay just added to the butchers bill.
I'd rather pay up front now than pay later with interest.
Posted by: M. Simon | Nov 4, 2004 3:27:22 AM
1) "...more liberal positions than the ones they currently have..."
They already do have these liberal positions for themselves, they are just not applied to you! If you have those positions, you are a "librul". Rush wasn't very conservative in the way that he used prescription drugs was he? No, he was liberal! They are fully prepared to grant themselves this... pardon, for lack of a better word, for behaviour or thoughts that they would condemn and denounce in another. Go look at he way the conservative deals with "conscience" (among other things) at
http://polaris.gseis.ucla.edu/pagre/conservatism.html and tell me I'm wrong. This article also references a language memo out of Newt's GOPAC from 1995, so they have indeed been at this a long time.
8) Latino vote? Down here in Texas us liberals have been wearing blinders for a very long time, because we thought the Latinos would be grateful to those who believed in the great melting pot and treated them as equals. We were wrong. I have been telling people for years that they are bringing in conservatives as fast as they can. We have defended their rights to be here, and to come here, to the point that the "Latino" population has moved from a mere inconvenience to the upper classes (we do love our Tex-Mex!) to the bedrock of the economy. The cost of having a house built down here is probably half what it costs anywhere else. Guess who builds them? Guess who is the nanny and the gardener and the cook? Think they get minimum wage? Think they got Social Security? I''m a cab driver so my view is pretty much street level, and I carry the nannies home regularly all the time. Ya wanna know their common story? It is that the "Mrs." didn't pay them all the money this week, so she has to go back next week to get it, but the funny thing is, she was short last week and she is gonna be short next week, too. And still, pro-life values trump it all. Once again, read the article on "conscience."
Non-violence? Sometimes I don't think the other side will ever believe us until somebody does get violent. God. Forbid.
I like the "reality-based" thing cause if we read and re-read the quote it comes from, it cant do anything but remind us that this is Urgent!
Nuff!
Posted by: Loupy | Nov 4, 2004 3:38:24 AM
washerdryer: "One obvious candidate for a moral truth would be, "Killing other people for pleasure is wrong." "
Well, I didn't believe that moral truth was under dispute. I think the moral truths under dispute (and which Matt thinks are "correct") concern such things like gay marriage and abortion. Notice, by the way, how anti-abortionists can use the moral truth you felt so solid about: they can claim that a woman is killing a child for her own pleasure (so she's not burdened with raising it, etc.) So are you an anti-abortionist ?
Posted by: Andrew Boucher | Nov 4, 2004 3:39:18 AM
I might mention that Obama got my vote as well as Bush.
Posted by: M. Simon | Nov 4, 2004 3:41:52 AM
M Simon tells it like it is.
Socialism is dead.
There is a war on.
Embrace those positions. Let the democrats lean libertarian.
Posted by: Brian S | Nov 4, 2004 3:44:00 AM
BTW, where was the first gay marriage attempt? In Massachusetts? What a coinkidink! I think everything is a Rove op now. Yeah, Himmler.
Posted by: Loupy | Nov 4, 2004 3:49:12 AM
From the AmericaBlog comments section:
[[
EVERYONE is missing the point - WE HAVE NO WAY OF KNOWING WHO REALLY WON THIS ELECTION. I will go to my grave KNOWING that Kerry won this thing - but I HAVE NO WAY OF PROVING IT. If we ever expect to win anything, forget introspection, forget changing leadership, etc. AND START DEMANDING ELECTION REFORM. We need a 100% VERIFIABLE SYSTEM OF VOTING, or it's POINTLESS. If there's one thing that these folks have accomplished, it's that they've made people who voted Dem this time NOT TRUST THE VOTE. We MUST organize to CHANGE THIS NOW or there will NEVER be a free America again. If we hold the Dems accountable for anything right now, its not its platform, but rather its LACK OF LEADERSHIP ON GETTING US A TRULY VERIFIABLE ELECTION SYSTEM after the 2000 debacle.
How do we achieve such a system? Too much detail to get into here, but in a nutshell:
1) Standardize formats for FEDERAL elections - if there's a Federal office or issue on the ballot, states MUST use the unified FEDERAL system.
2) Whether paper or electronic, ALL VOTING SYSTEMS MUST HAVE A TRACEABLE BALLOT SYSTEM. That means that EVERY BALLOT HAS A TRACKING NUMBER.
3) Whether paper or electronic, ALL VOTERS WALK AWAY WITH A HARD COPY OF THEIR VOTE. It doesn't identify you by name, but it DOES have the tracking number above.
4) After the elections are completed, each county election commission MUST PUBLISH THE RESULTS USING CROSS-TAB TABLES. Offices/candidates across the top, ballot numbers down the side; this way, each voter can both CHECK THE ACCURACY OF THEIR VOTE, and if so desired, CHECK THE MATH OF THE ENTIRE ELECTION.
5) Voters have 30 days to file a complaint; if more than 0.5% of voters complain within that time, THAT PRECINCTS VOTE IS INVALID AND VOTERS MUST BE GIVEN A CHANCE TO VOTE AGAIN.
I've had a more detailed plan for this in mind for some time; I'm also a Web developer, so I've considered tyring to get a movement going on this. Is ANYONE out there interested in becoming part of this sort of movement? If so, please use the e-mail above to let me know; if I get enough response, I will get this started.
Rex | Email | Homepage | 11.04.04 - 3:48 am | #
]]
Let the ballot stay secret and I'm all for that.
Posted by: Grace Baez | Nov 4, 2004 4:04:35 AM
I guess my vote for Obama makes me a Republicanz troll.
LOL
And you wonder why you lost the election.
If all you have to say is "we wuz right and the voters and Republicanz were too stupid to see it" then the Ds are going to continue losing.
1. You lost the Presidency.
2. You lost House seats
3. You lost Senate seats
And I'm a troll for pointing out what I like about the Ds and what I don't.
Perhaps Democrat is the wrong name. I guess you would prefer loser.
Let me give it to you another way. Elections are won and lost in the center. The closer you are to the center the easier it is to win. Going hard left is not the answer.
The opposite is also true - look at Keyes. Going hard right was definitely not the answer. The problem is the Republicanz do not have enough candidates like Keyes to insure Democrat victories.
LOL
As to economics - you could do worse than study the last 20 years of Nobels.
If you want the short version read DeSoto's "Capitalism" - he talks about how to empower the poor. Then there is Hayek's "Serfdom" - which explains why socialism can't work. Written in 1944. Stil a good primer on why economic liberty is better than economic planning.
Posted by: M. Simon | Nov 4, 2004 4:07:14 AM
Grace is right about the ballot thing.
It must have a paper trail.
I guess that makes me a Republicanz too.
ROTFLMAO
BTW Brian S. - thanks for the props.
Posted by: M. Simon | Nov 4, 2004 4:16:00 AM
Hayek rocks!
Karl Popper too!
Posted by: Brian S | Nov 4, 2004 4:31:42 AM
Class warfare will not work in America.
There is economic mobility and every one at least dreams of getting rich.
So people see taxing the rich as placing a tax on who they will become. i.e. it is a tax on people's future.
People already know this by watching big lottery payoffs. You win a gazillion dollars in the lottery and wind up with only 60% (or less) of the winnings. Reported every time there is a big win. First it is a $100 million payoff that is only $30 million taken as a lump sum. And only $18 million after taxes. People notice.
You are not going to get ahead in politics by taxing people's dreams.
Democrats used to be the party of hope. In fact for many years (before I believed Kerry that the killings by the communists if they won would be minimal - the boat people and 2 million dead Cambodians fixed that) I was a staunch Democrat.
Kennedy was the most exciting President I have ever lived under. His policy was low taxes and (ultimately) muscular foreign policy.
I remember the Cuban missile crisis when we all thought a nuclear war was hours away. I still liked his anti-communism.
--==--
The economic reality is that any economy that can make the income of the poor double will increase the income of the rich by a factor of 20 or 100. I say let 'er rip. In such an economy I may some day become rich too.
Lieberman got that one right.
Unfortunately you can have fairness or wealth generation.
My belief is that wealth generation is better for every one.
Posted by: M. Simon | Nov 4, 2004 4:38:14 AM
Dear Mat,
The reason Kerry lost the election is really rather simple. It's so simple that I don't think that the DNC will ever get it. The majority of Americans idea of morality isn't that of the Democratic Party. The huge positive numbers on the Anti-Gay Marriage Amendments should give you a clue, but I don't think it will truly sink in. The Democratic Party thinks/believes (or the PC phrase I despise: "feels") that Hollywood's concept of morality (if it feels good, do it), that homosexuality is normal and therefore permitted, is what America thinks/believes is good. You couldn't be further from the truth.
Additionally, the DNC doesn't get the fact that a "liberal" hasn't been elected president since FDR (JFK-doesn't count, he was basically a pragmatist). None of the Democrats that have been elected to the White House in the past 50 years have been from the left of the Party. Neither Carter nor Clinton were (Carter has drifted left in the past 10 years or so). If the Dem's had chosen either Gephardt or Leiberman (w/either as the ticket head), they would have won the race. But instead, they fell in love with Dean (as well as that ass Michael Moore) and realizing that he was unelectable, chose the nearly as left leaning Kerry instead. The results speak for themselves.
As a historian with a Ph.D., it's been my job to analyze historical movements. If the DNC doesn't reinvent itself, it's doomed to follow the Federalists and the Whigs onto the dustheap of history. Perhaps the saddest message of the election is the clear rejection of the Dems (The Repub's have strengthened their hold on BOTH house of Congress) in favor of the other major party. This trend isn't likely to reverse course any time soon either. It's one that has been building since the crushing defeat of Goldwater in 1964. You know the election, the one where the Dems lost the South...the Conservative South, the and Republicans gained a strategic foothold to move on the rest of the country...just look at all that red in what the elites call "flyover country"...
Thanks for letting me vent...btw, I'm a life long moderate republican...so much so, that I no longer teach as I don't spout the acceptable PC line in my lectures...so now, I'm a cabinetmaker.
Sincerely,
Richard A. Vail, Ph.D.
Pikesville, MD
Posted by: Rich Vail | Nov 4, 2004 4:51:13 AM
Ooh, a Ph.D.
Posted by: SqueakyRat | Nov 4, 2004 5:33:06 AM
"I'd note that if Roe is overturned there's no reason Congress can't just pass a federal ban on abortion."
Yeah, but the same Justices who'd overturn Roe, would UNoverturn the Tenth amendment, and there's nothing in the Constitution that actually delegates the power to ban abortion to the federal government.
You Democrats are so reflexively opposed to limits on federal power; You really ought to rethink that, when that power is going to be exercised by people you despise for the foreseeable future.
Posted by: Brett Bellmore | Nov 4, 2004 5:56:55 AM
7. Liberals need to learn to talk the talk and walk the walk of nationalism better.
Absolutely the wrong thing to do. Let's avoid all state-sponsored idealism.
The strength of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution are the universal principles that we aspire to, not encode and follow mindlessly.
Peace and love.
Posted by: Jim K | Nov 4, 2004 6:10:25 AM
I agree with Brett that there is nothing in the Constitution that gives the federal government the power to ban abortion--except in jurisdictions (DC and the territories) in which the federal government has plenary power.
On the other hand, I disagree with Brett that conservative justices would reject a federal ban merely because of the 10th amendment. They would likely be the same justices who, for example, decided the Seminole v. Fl line of cases--which essentially held that the states retained a form of sovereign immunity, using, among other things, umbras and penumbras of the 11th amendment--despite the fact that there is nothing in the Constitution to support their conclusion. In other words, conservative justices appear to be just as willing to make things up as conservatives accuse liberal justices of doing.
Posted by: raj | Nov 4, 2004 6:24:01 AM
To Rich Vail: The exit polls show that 3/4 of the voters opposed gay marriage -- but 2/3 of them supported secular gay civil unions. Unless you think we ought to sell out what we are firmly convinced is genuine morality by opposing gay rigths in general, the obvious thing to do is to split the two issues off by opposing bans on the latter rather than on the former. (The particular anti-gay marriage amendment that Bush endorsed -- unlike two alternative versions -- also outlawed civil unions everywhere in the naion; but Kerry didn't point that little fact out during the debates. Then Bush ended up verballly opposing such a ban toward the end of the campaign -- WITHOUT mentioning the fact that he was tacitly for it. That fact should be brought up.)
The other two things the Democrats should do -- although, to put it mildly, these need to be discussed in more detail than I do here -- are to: (1) develop plausible convincing policies on Iraq, and on the Iranian, North Korean and Pakistani A-bombs (which Kerry did not do, any more than Bush did); and (2) increase their plausibility on fiscal policy by not trying unconvincingly to play Santa Claus. (Kerry insisted with a straight face that reversing Bush's tax cut on the wealthy could erase the deficit AND fund a large middle-class tax cut AND a large new health-care program AND a variety of other goodies, without even trying to explain just how it could do all those things simultaneously. By so doing, he seriously weakened his own credibility when attacking Bush's fiscal atrocities.)
Posted by: Bruce Moomaw | Nov 4, 2004 6:24:25 AM
#2--...you've got to have a strategy for convincing people that at least some of your currently-unpopular ideas are ideas that they should like...
you've got to have a strategy for convincing people that at least some of your currently-unpopular ideas are ideas that they should like
Posted by: James J. Kroeger | Nov 4, 2004 6:34:48 AM
#2--...you've got to have a strategy for convincing people that at least some of your currently-unpopular ideas are ideas that they should like...
If Democrats want to know how to know how to make currently unpopular ideas appealing, they might want to ask themselves how it is that the Republicans have---once again---been able to persuade millions of Average Americans to vote against their own best interests?
The answer is that Republican strategists understand something that their Democratic counterparts do not: the state of mind of The Swing Voter. The typical Swing Voter knows that he does not understand the subtle details of the issues well enough to make a wise decision, so he relies on his “impressions” of the candidates. Is this candidate someone I can trust to rule over me? Understanding this, the Republicans focus all of their efforts on defining Democrats in the minds of the Swing Voter in a negative, vaguely threatening way. They do this by relying primarily on negative campaigning.
Republicans know that accusations and insinuations are persuasive to Swing Voters primarily because they are typically headline-readers and sound-byte-nibblers who do not seek out in-depth explanations of complex issues. If the media reports that a Republican has accused a Democrat of having a character flaw, the average Swing Voter will tend to believe it unless it is successfully answered. These attacks not only create a negative image of their opponents; they also implicitly suggest that Republicans are devoid of the character flaws they are attacking. It enables them to indirectly claim that they are noble & virtuous before the electorate.
Republicans understand precisely what they are doing when they speak disparagingly of “those Democrats.” It’s a variation of the “us vs. them” social comparisons that are so common among high school students. Throughout October, Swing Voters constantly saw video clips of George Bush standing in front of his adoring supporters, ridiculing John Kerry with his smirky smile. People do not tend---on a natural level---to want to be associated with those who are being ridiculed.
Average Americans who put Republican candidates into office with their votes do so because they are identifying with those whom they intuitively perceive to be social “winners.” They don’t understand all of the nuances of the issues, but they do have this impression that there is something “defective” with The Democrats. Once they’ve become invested in their identity with the Republican Party, they instinctively defend Republican policies even when those policies are likely to harm them. In order for the Democratic Party to win these Average Americans back, they must begin to fight fire with fire.
If they want to again become the majority party, Democrats need to define The Republican Politician as a DECEIVING, MANIPULATIVE, SCHEMING, MEAN-SPIRITED, CON-ARTIST who willfully and gleefully assassinates the character of any innocent victim that stands in the way of his rabid lust for power. They need to create an image of The Republican Politician in the minds of the Average American that is instinctively feared. In defining The Republican Politician as essentially manipulative, Democrats will also indirectly be defining themselves as The Protectors of the Average American.
Democrats tend not to want to participate in “character attacks” because they maintain an idealistic hope that a respectful debate of the issues of the day is possible in a civilized society, but they really have no choice: the Republicans have no such inhibitions. Every attack and accusation they make must be used to define them as smiling, disingenuous weasels. In doing so, Democrats must express both derision and wisdom and show an eagerness to explain what the Republicans are up to. They need to take the time to point out and explain in television commercials the misrepresentations, the deceptions, the intent, and the strategy of the Republican attacks.
It will also be important for Democrats to spend more and more time ridiculing the stupidity of Republican policies and---implicitly---those who embrace/defend them. This is necessary in order to socially isolate those who belong to the Republican Party (or to at least counteract the social pressure on Swing Voters that is created when Republicans ridicule Democrats). If the Democrats fail to do this, the Average American will not even listen to what they have to say re: “the issues.” If their image of Democrats is sufficiently negative, they won’t want to be persuaded because they’d want to protect an identity that had become very important to them.
Posted by: James J. Kroeger | Nov 4, 2004 6:42:12 AM
Grace is right. The first priority must be ensuring voting integrity. The Democrtats should be prepared to hard-core obstructionist over this issue before any others. And if they are forced to take action that amounts to civil disobedience, Glike the Texas Dems last year, they have to be more organized n their message presentation. The Texas Dems didn't use their action as a bully pulpit. They decided they were getting free publicity and let the media run with the carnival side of the story. That can't happen again.
Election integrity before all alse. The fight must start now, and we Democrats must not use rhetoric that more than implies suspicion of what happened on Tuesday. It is certainly true that massive fraud could have occurred, and that we will never know if it took place. We must be both extremely aggressive and highly judicious about how we make this fight. But we must fight, or all else is lost.
Everybody must get on message. Elijah Cummings' statement yesterday offers hope that the black caucus will push the party in that direction, and soon.
Beyond this issue, MY is dead-on. We must frame liberal positions in moral terms, and be responsibly nationalistic. And Teddy Roosevelt is our new talking point. The dominant faction among the Republicans want to take the country back to the pre-Square Deal days, and are increasingly unshamed to admit this. We must make sure that the electorate gets this fact pounded into its head in the next two years.
A pretty full plate already, huh? We need an effective national spokesman to make this work. We need Kerry as Senate minority leader. His flaws are real, but so are his virtues, and there is no one else with the ability to make our views heard.
Posted by: Sean Flaherty | Nov 4, 2004 7:02:24 AM
BTW, on the gay marriage issue, I live in MA--although I was raised in Ohio. I followed the results of the statehouse races here in MA, and it is clear that the gay marriage issue had little if any effect on any of the races. On the one race I have been able to identify in which it did have an effect, the effect was the ouster of gay marriage opponent Vincent Ciampa (a representative from the Somerville area) by gay marriage proponent (and gay man) Carl Sciortino, but that happened in the primary. Sciortino was induced to run against Ciampa because of his opposition to gay marriage. Gay marriage was not the stated focal point of either candidate's race, but it came as a surprise to most people that Sciortino was able to defeat an intrenched incumbent like Ciampa. Sciortino defeated Ciampa in the primary, but in the general election (there was no Republican opposition), Ciampa tried to mount a write-in campaign, largely on the gay marriage issue. Ciampa lost, big time.
In other races in which gay marriage was an issue, the issue was a wash. The most important race was that involving Marian Walsh, who had voted against the proposed MA Constitutional amendment, and was running for re-election in a relatively conservative Catholic area. She was specifically targeted by the Catholic church because of her vote against the amendment. But she won with 2/3 of the vote. As did my representative, Alice Peisch, despite a concerted effort by Snitt Romney's crew to oust her (more on that later). And as did my state senator Cynthia Creem, who creamed her opponent. All of them had voted against the proposed amendment. And all of them were targeted. And all of them won. Regarding Walsh's victory, an interesting comment by Globe columnist Eileen McNamara http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2004/11/03/a_telling_loss_for_the_church/
I'm not sure of Walsh's district, but Creem's and Peisch's (both are Dems, of course) districts (they overlap) have had a history of regularly voting Republican in decades past. Indeed, Margaret Heckler (remember her? a US Representative) was from this area. Heckler campaigned in favor of Peisch's opponent, Republican George Field. Despite that, he lost, big time. http://www.electfield.com/PressReleases/heckler%20release%209-20-04.pdf
Regarding Snitt Romney and the statehouse elections, last spring Romney announced a big effort to get more Republicans elected to the MA statehouse and to the MA congressional delegation. He lost, and he lost big time. Before the election, the Republicans didn't have enough senators or representatives in either house of the MA state legislature to sustain any of his vetos. And, after the election, they still don't. Indeed, the Republicans lost representation in the statehouse. The Republicans have one fewer state senators, and two fewer representatives in the house. Despite all the money and effort that he (supposedly) put into the effort. Romney couldn't even get the Boston Back Bay area, a heavily (but not overwhelmingly) gay, and admittedly liberal district to elect a gay Republican Richard Babson, who opposed Romney on the gay marriage issue. Romney lost, big time. Maybe he can get himself appointed to an ambassadorship somewhere.
Posted by: raj | Nov 4, 2004 7:22:37 AM
Oh, and for those of you who can actually read the foreign press
>Der Siegeszug der Puritaner
>Der Ausgang der US-Präsidentschafts- und Kongresswahlen offenbart einen dramatischen Rechtsruck Amerikas. Dahinter steckt der Kampf um die puritanische Seele der Nation. Die Demokraten haben den jetzt verloren.
The victory march of the Puritans. The results of the US presidential and congressional elections make clear the dramatic rightward movement of the US. Behind that hides the struggle for the puritanical soul of the nation. The Democrats have lost that.
http://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/0,1518,druck-326341,00.html
Posted by: raj | Nov 4, 2004 7:31:34 AM
Tin-Foil Hat time:
6PM exits Vote Result
Kerry Bush Kerry Bush Difference
PA 53 46 51 49 -2.5
FL 51 49 47 52 -3.5
NC 48 52 43 56 -4.5
OH 51 49 49 51 -2
MO 46 54 46 54 0
AR 47 53 45 54 -1.5
MI 51 47 51 48 -0.5
NM 50 49 49 50 -1
LA 43 56 42 57 -1
CO 48 51 46 53 -2
AZ 45 55 44 55 -0.5
MN 54 44 51 48 -3.5
WI 52 47 50 49 -2
IA 49 49 49 50 -0.5
The 6PM exit polls were based on the ones posted here on the main page yesterday. The vote result was culled from CNN.com last night. You can all make up your own minds. The key is understanding that the states/Prec with paper trail audit machines EXACTLY MATCHED the 6pm exits, while the counties using NO AUDIT paperless terminals gave GWB 2-5% everytime (only in the battlegrounds of course - but always in FL/OH). To better understand how KKKarl did it, download Votergate at
http://130.94.133.128/
The math has been done by SoCalDemocrat at DU. Read it and weep - we're f*cked!
Posted by: raver | Nov 4, 2004 7:39:57 AM
For you non-math majors, I lifted this from one:
SCOOP EDITOR'S INTRODUCTORY NOTE: Within parts of the U.S. progressive community there is already widespread concern that electronic voting fraud may provide an explanation for the astonishing 8 million vote gain made by George W. Bush in the 2004 presidential U.S. election.
Already there a variety of odd phenomena which have aroused suspicions about this possibility:
For example:
- In Florida Bush received a million extra votes, while Kerry received only 500,000 extra votes, in spite of a massive Democratic Get-Out-The-Vote(GOTV) and registration campaign in that state;
- In Florida's Broward County, a democratic stronghold and heavily black community, unauditable voting machines recorded a 33% (70,000+) vote gain on Bush's 2000 results and a much smaller gain to Kerry – again Broward was the scene of a massive GOTV campaign;
- In several places voters reported ( http://www.infozine.com/news/stories/op/st...View/sid/4154/) voting for Kerry but noticing the machine record their vote for Bush;
- Recollections, reported here at Scoop.co.nz in 2003, that there is evidence of vote fraud in Florida in 2000 involving security holes in voting systems;
- Observations that many of the security flaws reported in mid 2003 in vote counting systems remained in place for the 2004 count last night (see… http://www.blackboxvoting.org/ for details.)
But by far the most wide source of public suspicion about the results came from the stark difference between the exit polls, which showed strong Kerry leads in many battleground states including Ohio and Florida, and the actual results in those same states. Bush achieved a 5% margin of victory in Florida and came very close to winning Michigan, Minnesota and Wisconsin.
Add in the fact that the reported exit poll results were changed in the early hours of Wednesday morning, and there was a recipe for suspicion brewing in the online internet vote fraud community last night.
In order to attempt to get a firmer hold on the extent of vote fraud if it did occur Faun Otter (a veteran of the U.S. based vote fraud investigative community) conducted the following preliminary analysis comparing the initial exit poll results (note this link takes you to the revised results) vs actual results.
- Scoop Co-Editor, Alastair Thompson
Analysis Of Exit Polls Vs. Supposed Ballot Counts
Method
Grab one site which lists the exit polls before they were "corrected.”
(Correction is the procedure by which the exit polls are retrofitted to match the figures provided by the vote counting machines. It is easily done by changing the exit poll results, such as the 2.00 a.m. flip-flop of the Nevada exit poll scores which was done without any change to the sample size. A slightly less obvious sleight of hand is to alter the weighting. Weighting is the name for a multiplier used to correct sample subgroups to match the proportions in the whole of a state population. Thus an exit poll can be ‘corrected’ by saying something to the effect,
“Oh well, the vote results show we must have under sampled Republicans and therefore we’ll multiply that subgroup of the exit poll sample by 1.5 to make our results fit the figures the ballot counting machines are spitting out.”)
Here is one list as an example of raw (pre-correction) exit poll data:
http://www.bluelemur.com/index.php?p=386
[Note another list was published on Scoop.co.nz HERE - Scoop editor]
Then take a look at the results by state, such as on this chart:
http://news.yahoo.com/electionresults
There is a bit of math involved but don't worry, I taught market research at a University - a place where Republicans fear to tread, according to the media’s own polls! The Bush people argue that the exit polls are skewed by the methodology employed. It is odd that they don’t say what that error producing part of the methodology might be. A skew means a systematic error is introduced by the test protocol and causes a consistent shift in one direction.
IF this was true, then all the exit polls would show the same sort of shift from 'actual' results.
The GOP offer an alternative argument that the exit polls are not large enough samples and therefore the results are off by a large random error.
IF this was true, then the exit polls should scatter on either side of the actual result, especially if the final result is close to 50/50.
So what do we actually see when comparing exit polls with actual results?
There is skew - but ONLY in states which the Republicans had previously stated to be target states in play. The skew is in the same direction every time; that is to say in favor of Bush.
The exit poll results are not scattered about the mean as the alternative theory predicts.
They are all on the Kerry side of the vote counts as issued by the states except for a hand full of states which hit amazingly close to the exit poll figures.
Here are the figures. They list the four contemporaneous and uncorrected exit polls. Kerry is listed first and Bush second in each pair of figures. Published = the figure presented as the vote count as of 10.00 a.m. EST on 11/3/04
Arizona
Poll one 45-55 Final 45-55 Published 44-55
Colorado
Poll one 48-51 2nd 48-50 3rd 46-53 Published 46-53
Louisiana
Poll one 42-57 Final 43-56 Published 42-57
Michigan
Poll one 51-48 Published 51-48 Published 51-48
Iowa
Poll one 49-49 3rd 50-48 Final 49-49 Published 49-50
New Mexico
Poll one 50-48 2nd 50-48 3rd 50-48 Final 50-49 Published 49-50
Maine 3rd poll 55-44 Published 53-45
Nevada:
3rd poll 48-49 Published 48-51
Arkansas:
3rd poll 45-54 Published 45-54
Missouri
Final 46-54 Published 46-53
These tracking polls were right where you would expect them to be and within the margin of error. However, if we look at some other states, the figures are beyond curious. either the exit polls were wrong or the vote count is wrong:
Wisconsin
Poll one 52-48 3rd 51-46 Final 52-47 Published 50-49
Pennsylvannia
Poll one 60-40 3rd 54-45 Final 53-46 Published 51-49
Ohio
Poll one 52-48 2nd 50-49 3rd 50-49 Final 51-49 Published 49-51
Florida
Poll one 51-48 2nd 50-49 3rd 50-49 Final 51-49 Published 47-52
Minnesota
Poll one 58-40 3rd 58-40 Final 54-44 Published 51-48
New Hampshire
Poll one 57-41 3rd 58-41 Published 50-49
North Carolina
Poll one 3rd 49-51 Final 48-52 Published 43-56
Taking the figures and measuring the size and direction of the poll to supposed vote count discrepancy, we find the variance between the exit poll and the final result:
Wisconsin
Bush plus 4%
Pennnsylvannia
Bush plus 5%
Ohio
Bush plus 4%
Florida
Bush plus 7%
Minnesota
Bush plus 7%
New Hampshire
Bush plus 15%
North Carolina'
Bush plus 9%
In summary our election results appear to have been tampered with to give Bush some unearned electoral votes. Tin-Foil hats OFF NOW. Matt, you said you wanted some proof. Several posters at DU actually screen copied the exit polls from CNN before and after the "switch" at 3am EST. It is non-refutable evidence that would pass a treason court muster. Sorry, but your democracy has been stolen. . . . . What are you going to do about it?
Posted by: raver | Nov 4, 2004 8:08:16 AM
7. Nationalism. Since 2000 I've felt that the Bush administration is a final spasm of nationalism. Technological factors are breaking some of the external causes for the necessity of nation-states, and in some arenas the role of the nation state is diminishing. Multi-national corporations, drops in trade barriers, the EU, dramatic improvements in communication and travel, dramatic decreases in the overhead of long-distance trade, information technology as a world-wide industry with little-cost to employing people from anywhere on the planet, etc, etc.
This is a scary transition, and leads to reaction. The most difficult part of the transition is psychological. Deeply, deeply embedded in our psyche is the concept of U.S. We say the pledge, see maps, see soldiers, see the flag and talk about patriotism* from the pre-school on. The U.S. is a primitive and deep construct in each of our brains. And, in fascinating ways, its a bit different in each of us. (What's the construct like for people who have a poor sense of global geography -- those, for instance, who think you can drive to Europe?).
The response to 9/11 was a fascinating example of internal psychology. We know now that the terrorists are not a nation state or a group of states. So we even have difficulty formulating speech patterns to describe the war. Wars are supposed to be between nation states. The conservative in all of us, especially the right, wanted this to be an old-fashioned war, a war between nation states. Bush and company interpreted the terrorist attacks as an attack on the U.S. and his response has been, to a large degree, uni-national. For a few moments, consider the terrorists' principal targets on 9/11: the world trade center. This was the second time the World Trade Center was targeted. This is not a nationalist target, but a symbol of internationalism and economic interdependence. Clearly, the fight against the militant jihadist movement must be international, and one of the largest failures of the Bush administration has been to cooperate in large-scale international efforts.
I digress. Part of our job is to educate and prepare for the future. I believe the future will be a planet where the role the nation-state is diminished. I think the left should present an open-eyed internationalist perspective to the nation. Improving our talk and walk on nationalism may be a necessary evil, but one I deplore.
* What does "patriotism" mean? Every caller on Sean Hannity greats him with the salutation "you're a great American" and he responds in kind. What are they saying?
Posted by: John Kubie | Nov 4, 2004 8:31:12 AM
This is so cute- 130 million Americans realizing they are about to be treated like marijuana smokers. Welcome to the Gulag! I hope you enjoy your stay....Just remember a few simple rules:
They are taking names. Watch what you say.
Being basically the same as them will not protect you.
Yes, it made sense to you (reality based wonk!) but that is not the point.
As for the PhD above and other triumphalists- nothing lasts forever.
In the short run this sucks. I oughta know because I'm one of the people who stands a good chance of dying because of the flu vaccine shortage.
In the long run, the rest of the world can now make a clean break with the fantasy that the U.S. supports 'democracy' etc etc. The rest of the world needs to create a power that can bell the American cat. The sooner they start on this task the better.
If you're one of the Democrats who never questions the military budget, it's time for a history lesson- What happened to all the empires who went before us? When you can confidently answer this question in one sentence you're ready for the next step.
Posted by: serial catowner | Nov 4, 2004 8:41:28 AM
You cannot convince people whose life and egos are centered around *never* being convinced. They have too much to lose by agreeing. They will never agree.
This election is no last spasm of nationalism or of religion, or of any such thing. People generally get more conservative as they age, and ours is a rapidly aging population. Do the math: the US will continue toward preconceived ideas and against thinking and evidence. Nothing in life demands that things get better.
Posted by: some guy | Nov 4, 2004 8:46:39 AM
"the real exit polls (as opposed to the made-up "adjusted" exit polls) were all wrong across the board."
"Tin-Foil Hat time"
You guys don't understand how exit polls work. The problem is how to weigh the data collected.
If you think 50% of the voters are Democrats and 50% are Republicans, and you talk to 10 Democrats and 15 Republicans, and find 11 votes for Kerry, you conclude that Kerry is leading.
As the day goes on, however, you continue to gather information about who is actually turning out to vote--and it's not split 50/50 between the parties-more Republicans are actually turing out to vote. You can look at your orginal data again with a revised model based on actual turnout, and it becomes clear that Kerry wasn't leading at all.
Post-election adjustments to the exit polling model give s a relatively good picture of who actually voted. Early results on election day, before such adjustments can be made, as simply guesses. There is absolutely nothing suspicious about the early results being wrong.
In fact, thinking about modeling, it seems to me that those early Kerry leads were actually danger signs. Our hope was that by strong GOTV efforts, we would turn out an unexpectedly large number of Democratic voters. If things had been going the way we hoped, those early results would have reflected pro-Bush modeling errors and Bush would have looked like he was doing better. Good results in the early exit polls are a good sign only if conventional wisdom is that you will win comfortably.
Posted by: rea | Nov 4, 2004 8:54:04 AM
The blue states, Massachusetts in particular, need to do a better PR job. When he's not trying to get R's elected locally and nationally, our stupid governor peddles our low taxes in places like California.
( This may make for good billboards, but as someone who moved here from California, I can tell you that the real draw is the cheap housing (*). The right has done an excellent job of framing the issue as one of incompetent government wasting your taxes, as opposed to, say, a mortgage company not doing one damn thing with the money. If I had bought a similar house in California ten years ago, I'd be paying probably double my mortgage, if not more -- enough money to cover both income and property taxes here in Massachusetts. Nowadays, the prices there are so high that I know one dual-income-PhD-computer-scientist who is considering purchasing a mobile home.)
(*) cheap, only relative to California.
If liberalism were such a bad thing, Massachusetts would not have low crime, the lowest divorce rate, a low rate of teen pregnancy. Third lowest infant death rate. Other blue states are similar, and some of the most significant red states are camped out at the other end of these distributions. We need to be aggressive about the benefits of liberal government. We need to be aggressive about what good citizens we are in the amount of money that we donate to the federal government. Not so much that we are perceived as superior assholes, but someone needs to make the point. I rather doubt that our governor will make the effort to sell Massachusetts along these lines, but he should.
Massachusetts has its problems -- the weather sucks half of each year, the roads are designed by idiots, and people drive Very Badly. But, mostly, the government works well, relative to other states, often relative to other states who tax their citizens more heavily. You'd think that they'd want their governments to work at least as well as crappy old liberal Massachusetts.
Posted by: dr2chase | Nov 4, 2004 8:56:09 AM
rea -
In the I-4 corridor:
Hillsborough County - Florida
E-Touchscreen
51.2% REP - OVER
11.0% DEM - OVER
241,630 REP #
210,892 DEM #
455,970 TOTAL VOTES
35.1% REP - EXPECT
41.7% DEM - EXPECT
621,201 REGISTERED #
159,843 REP - EXPECTED #
190,023 DEM - EXPECTED #
Kerry was supposed to win by 30,000 votes, but lost by 30,000 votes instead.
Note: These numbers were calculated when the Florida vote was 98.6% in.
Explanation of What these numbers are, and how they were calculated:
PERCENT CHANGE for DEM, for example, = (Actual DEM Vote - Expected DEM Vote) / (Expected DEM Vote)
This is a simple percent change measure taught in highschool mathematics.
EXPECTED_VOTES REP, for example, was calculated by multiplying the percentage of registered REP times the total number of voters who voted in each county on Tuesday.
EXPECTED votes would normally vary from the ACTUAL votes due to increased voter turnout or other factors. What seems very odd in these numbers is that the increase in ACTUAL votes over EXPECTED votes for REPs has a striking pattern of being so much higher than that for DEMs in counties using optical scan voting machines.
Wow the statistics don't lie.......They actually robbed it using Diebold's central server!!!!
The republicans were outnumbered by democrats, but forced more votes to magically just boost all their margins on the toll tallies.
That was their fraud.....They used the ATM banking trick to reverse the number, there by reversing the percentage!!!!
Its like taking $25, and making it -25, putting the same $25 in the other account like the bank does....
Rea - are you saying that the Republican GOTV worked SO WELL in BROWARD BLACK preciencts, they had to "adjust" the expected Rep partipation up?
Hurry up RAPTURE and take these MF's away!!
Posted by: raver | Nov 4, 2004 9:02:07 AM
I think your "Jesusland" map should be altered. Notice in this map the tiny fraction of geography controlled by democrats.
Posted by: Abadaba | Nov 4, 2004 9:05:41 AM
Rich Vail writes: The Democratic Party thinks/believes (or the PC phrase I despise: "feels") that Hollywood's concept of morality (if it feels good, do it)...
That isn't the Democratic concept of morality. If you start with a false premise, none of the conclusions you draw have much weight.
To me, the difference between liberals and conservatives on morality has to do with public versus private behavior.
The liberal's moral concerns are about public behavior: Our responsibilities to each other and to the world.
In contrast, the conservative's moral concerns are about private behavior such as sexuality.
The other distinction that I see is that liberals are mostly concerned with judging one's own behavior, while conservatives are mostly concerned with judging other people's behavior. Conservatives use morality as a way to feel better about themselves: they remind themselves of how very moral they are, compared to the homosexuals, the adulterers, the abortionists, etc. Liberals use morality as a way to feel bad about not doing enough (for the environment, for the poor, for oppressed people everywhere). I guess it's no wonder that conservative morality is more popular.
Posted by: Daryl McCullough | Nov 4, 2004 9:13:59 AM
Abadaba --
Where's the surprise? Rural, thinly populated regions have been Republican dominated for some time. The more interesting map, I think, would have (a) county size distorted to be proportional to population, and (b) colored in a shaded way to reflect the *proportion* of the vote going to either candidate. Such a map would look, I suspect, much bluer -- but even more, much "purpler", and much less geographically divided. One of the problems with the electoral college is that we forget that Kerry got almost 40% of the vote in Texas (and would have gotten more, if it had been worth his while to campaign there) and that Bush got almost 45% of the vote in California (almost as many tatal votes as he got in Texas).
The idea that the US is geographically divided, while having some validity, is very much overstated by these winner-take-all, area-weighted maps.
Posted by: Alex R | Nov 4, 2004 9:28:43 AM
Oops, "tatal" == "total"
Posted by: Alex R | Nov 4, 2004 9:30:43 AM
Lieberman is a capitalist - unashamed, he knows the engines of prosperity. He liked the tax cuts.
Actually, Kerry and Lieberman had almost identical tax plans. Both involved rolling back the tax cut on those making more than $200,000/yr.
Independents in New Hampshire -- home to a lot of conservative independents -- as well as South Carolina were very turned off by Lieberman during the open primaries. They had the chance to vote for him, if they liked him so much, but he was rejected.
The other point you miss is that Democrats opposed the Iraq war and attacked Bush's record there because the war went badly. Had the war in Iraq gone according to predictions, I guarantee you that Kerry would have almost ignored it as a campaign issue. (Bush wouldn't have spoken any differently about it, of course). Keep in mind that those for whom the war in Iraq was the most important issue for them this election voted for Kerry, not Bush. THat you wanted a Democratic candidate who would cheerlead for the Iraq war is just wishful thinking on your part, not good strategic advice.
Let's not beat around the bush (no pun intended) -- the Democrats got trounced over the gay marriage issue. Trounced. Plus, they never made a pitch for who were inclioned to vote against them in an attempt to disarm the issue. I think a lot of cheerleaders for tax cuts and neoconservatism are missing the fact that they have handed their victory over to some single-issue fundamentalists, here.
The blue states, Massachusetts in particular, need to do a better PR job.
Damn right.
Posted by: Constantine | Nov 4, 2004 9:38:32 AM
Rea -
Here are the FL counties by touchscreen and optical scan. I believe that Rep GOTV could have increased REP vote by what 20-25-25% like in the touchscreen counties. Do you think that Rep GOTV can generate 275-700% in optical scan counties? That is some serious door-knockin', robo-callin', and poll rides! hahahahaha!
Here are the FL numbers at 98.8% counted:
http://ustogether.org/Florida_Election.htm
Now do you see how it was stolen? They don't care that it is obvious. The switched votes are in cyberspace. I'll bet the program code overwrote itself after it was done. Kinda like the melting ice bullet from Edgar Allen Poe.
Posted by: raver | Nov 4, 2004 9:40:47 AM
For the love of all things holy, it's "dammit," not "damnit."
Posted by: anon | Nov 4, 2004 9:50:03 AM
For the love of all things holy, it's "dammit," not "damnit."
Posted by: anon | Nov 4, 2004 9:53:31 AM
Rich Vail,
You can't win elections without the Jack Ryan Republicans.
The Democrats can win us over by going with the Lieberman wing.
The anti-gay stuff we are seeing mirrors the hysteria as segregation was ending.
The South has always had a collective view of morality. This has its good points and bad points.
The good - communities stick together
The bad - outsiders and new ideas are always a problem
Prejudice is not sustainable in America.
I was visiting the Niel Boortz site - he is big all across the South - his home base is in Georgia. His vision is similar to mine. He was once a big L Libertarian. He is now small l.
He is trying to teach you fellers a new way. In time he and others like him will convince you that no matter how much you hate gays their day has come.
In fact even though I voted Bush I'm now in permanent opposition on the gay thing and the drug war. If god hates gays let him punish them - (you can learn a lot from Jesus). If god hates drug users it is up to him to punish them.
The only reason for government to punish any one is fraud and breaches of the peace.
Posted by: M. Simon | Nov 4, 2004 10:02:08 AM
> I'd note that if Roe is overturned
> there's no reason Congress can't just
> pass a federal ban on abortion.
Ironically enough, they would have to get that past Scalia and his voting bloc, and I think that would be difficult.
Cranky
Posted by: Cranky Observer | Nov 4, 2004 10:03:54 AM
I just was about to make fun of the libertarians, but it might be a solution. Might.
There are very very few libertarians, but they share core values with liberal elitists. They are open to rational arguments, and to borrow Friedman's construct, while I may disagree with them on specific policies, they share the same fundamental vision of what America is. Rule of law, separation of church and state, honoring the office and not the man in it, aversion to "fear and smear" tactics, and a fundamental commitment to the processes of liberal democracy (little l, little d).
The other side lacks those things. We won NH because its Republicanism is fundamentally fearless libertarianism, not the fearful "holy mission" Republicanism of George Bush.
We're only behind 49-51, so we don't need that much more of the electorate to win. But before we go after the libertarians, we have to ask ourselves if the libertarian vote is large enough and distributed enough so that we can win states and elections outside of the Northeast and West? If we're just shoring up the Northeast, this strategy gains us nothing. Also, are libertarians growing? Or are they a dying breed?
But I think the point of this election might be that the elctorate has repudiated the notion of separation of Church and State. If, fundamentally, most voters want God and religion in the political discourse, we need to stop arguing about whether we should mention His name and start fighting to make the Official God of America a reflection of Christianity's "care for the poor and sick, judge not lest ye be judged" tradition and not its "suffer not a witch to live" tradition.
Don't get me wrong, I think it's a horrible thing to bring religion into the political discourse. But if it's here, I want it on our side (or at least neutralized). If we allow ourselves to be cast as the "party of secularism" and them to be cast as the "party of God," no matter how much people disagree with the Republican God, they will choose Republicans over Democrats. Because for a majority of voters a president with a bad God is better than a Godless state. Apparently, given a choice, a majority of Americans would live in Tehran and not Amsterdam. Go figure.
Posted by: theorajones | Nov 4, 2004 10:08:29 AM
On the issue of moral values, Democrats should emphasize that the Republicans in their quest for power have chosen the way of sin in the way they campaign. When the people in the Bush campaign systematically told lies and distortions about Kerry's record, they chose the way of sin. When they sought to keep people from voting chose, they the way of sin.
No one of good character can approve of what the Republicans chose to do in this election. They need to face up to the moral decay that has come to dominate their politics.
Posted by: david1234 | Nov 4, 2004 10:15:29 AM
Richard A. Vail,
BTW I think tthe rest of your piece is right on.
I wrote about it here. I talk about thte demise of the Democrats. the piece was first published in May of '03.
I also though a party of Santorum and Sullivan couldn't hold. Core philosophy will hold them together for a little longer. Not much longer.
Posted by: M. Simon | Nov 4, 2004 10:17:02 AM
The blue states, Massachusetts in particular, need to do a better PR job.
Why? When the federal government doesn't have enough revenue--because of reduced taxation--from the blue states to support the red states, why should we in the blue states care what happens to the red states?
We in the blue states should support Bush's federal tax reductions. Actually some of us do.
Posted by: raj | Nov 4, 2004 10:24:19 AM
theorajones,
The most depressing thing about this election is that I was hoping we would have a phase of Bushism after 9/11 that would give way to a rational secular government.
It is possible that the strategy of a secular government is not an electoral majority, but the alternative is really not a government I will be able to fully support.
Perhaps this revival of incoherent religiously inspired values (not necessarily a knock on religion, just the somtimes incoherent things that sometimes flow from it) is a pushback against the major scientific discoveries that are getting ready to force some re-thinking (a complete understanding of genetics, a complete understanding of brain function, AI, gene-manipulation, organ-cloning, nanotechnology, etc.).
The other depressing thing is that, just like Bush made us more vulnerable to an attack on 9/11, his continued insistence to only follow state-based threats makes us more vulnerable to further attack.
Posted by: theCoach | Nov 4, 2004 10:26:04 AM
A desire not to undercut Kerry's campaign has, to a large extent, constrained what reality-based individuals have been saying and doing about {the iraq war}. Now that that factor is gone, we need to start discussing, debating, and advocating various courses of action.
I doubt there's anything you can do to influence Bush about the war. And I doubt there's anything you can do to influence the House or the Senate. So your main choice is whether to volunteer for the military or not.
You *could* protest the war, and get on the traitors' list. That might affect the war in about 10 years.
I had thought if we acted optimally we could keep the american casualties down to about 2000 total before we left. But now I think that's out of our hands. We don't get to make any more choices about how the US government interacts with iraqis. All we get to choose is how we interact with the US government.
Posted by: J Thomas | Nov 4, 2004 10:30:04 AM
Jim K,
The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution are American Nationalism.
Where people differ is whether we should be extending those values by war.
All I can say is that elections in Afghanistan with 40% of the vote done by women were very successful. The women did their moslem death ritual before standing inline - some for many hours. There were widely broadcast death threats.
So at least for now that is working.
Iraq is next - soon.
The cost is high but at heart I'm a liberal.
Death to tyrants.
Posted by: M. Simon | Nov 4, 2004 10:36:06 AM
. Do you think that Rep GOTV can generate 275-700% in optical scan counties?
Kind of strange to steal it in the optical scan counties, since those ballots are around to be counted.
Not saying its impossible, but it doesn't seem particularly likely; of course, its also at least partially verifiable, unless you are contending that somehow they switched the actual physical ballots, which I'd want some evidence of.
Also, I'd like to see past election results from those counties -- the expectations aren't based on polling but on registration, which may be a weak predictor of Presidential votes, particularly in the south.
Posted by: cmdicely | Nov 4, 2004 10:36:17 AM
Sean Flaherty,
Why make election integrity a partisan issue? Why not act like it is a universal ideal.
There must be a paper trail.
We have those kind of electronic ballots and every one here trusts them.
--==--
Not every thing needs to be a fight.
Posted by: M. Simon | Nov 4, 2004 10:45:51 AM
There are very very few libertarians, but they share core values with liberal elitists. They are open to rational arguments
Um, the "rational" libertarians are what we call "Republicans who like to smoke pot." The rest are not "rational." They adhere to a fanatical ideology. Some of them aren't even libertarians-- they're in the Grover Norquist wing of the Republican Party. You think we're going to try to convert them? No way.
We're spending way too much time trying to figure out how to make inroads in rural areas. It can work on a local level, but it's not going to work on a national level.
The Democrats decisively won Pennsylvania. How? The democrats kept their bases in that state and fought outwards towards the suburbs. A similar strategy has to be in place for Ohio, Georgia, and Missouri. We have to turn those states into the Pennsylvanias of tomorrow. There are lots of non-fundamentalist Republicans in these states. They are rational Republicans. They're Catholic or mainline Protestant. We peel them away from the Republican party and leave the party with the fundamentalist-Protestant wing. (aside-- sometimes I wonder how much the Serbian Orthodox in Ohio swayed the election against Kerry-- there was a lot of anger at the prospect that Holbrooke might be Secretary of State or Nat'l Sec'y Director in a Kerry administration)
Trying to convert libertarians isn't going to work. Mark my words-- the next 4 years of Bush will be, in many ways, a dream come true for a teenage fan of Ayn Rand. Well, except for the draft.
Posted by: Constantine | Nov 4, 2004 10:53:59 AM
Matt, General Glut has some thoughts that you should read and think about today.
Posted by: la | Nov 4, 2004 10:56:57 AM
David1234,
I'm a 'Nam Vet. I followed the Swiftie thing with a great deal of attention to the unfolding details.
I can tell you his shortened duty for flesh wounds and his antics in '71 upset a lot of people. People like me who remember the Cambodia and boat people aftermath.
Making demons out of the Republicans is not a winning strategy. What you need to do is to attract so many voters they can't cheat.
How hard can that be?
Posted by: M. Simon | Nov 4, 2004 11:02:05 AM
Why should we listen to you Mr. Simon? Your way is the way that has been rejected. Libertarianism was rejected. Those who voted on the economy voted for Kerry. Those who voted on bigotry voted for Bush. You my friend are as meaningful as Ralph Nader.
Then again you seem to think Kerry called for governemnt ownership of capital. The only thing close to that was Lawrence Lindsay's social security plan. You know, the guy who works for Bush?
Posted by: Rob | Nov 4, 2004 11:17:38 AM
Constatine,
The center is libertarian.
Protect America from foreign agression (that is what the State and War Depts are for).
Otherwise out of my bedroom and out of my wallet.
Posted by: M. Simon | Nov 4, 2004 11:28:13 AM
2. More broadly, you've got to have a strategy for convincing people that at least some of your currently-unpopular ideas are ideas that they should like, not just a strategy for trying to figure out which ideas will be popular.
You should also have a strategy for evaluating whether some of your currently-unpopular ideas are so because they are in fact wrong or infeasible, not just poorly presented.
(As with several of MY's other suggestions, this applies to all political parties, moreso the "minor" ones.)
Posted by: Shelby | Nov 4, 2004 11:31:47 AM
The center is libertarian.
It's become very trendy, these days, for everyone who has a vague dislike of the Republican and the Democratic parties to describe themselves as "libertarians." Real libertarians, however, are not common, are not part of the "center," and can't be brought over to the Democrats. You can describe "the center" as "libertarians," but that doesn't make it so.
Bill Clinton represented "the center" much better than anyone claiming to be a "libertarian" ever could.
Posted by: Constantine | Nov 4, 2004 11:36:35 AM
Limousine liberals like Matt Yglesias are destroying the Democratic Party. They want to sit on their pile of gold and issue proclamations and lectures about the correct values to have. They stand around at wine and cheese parties supporting little pet social issues, but what they really support is a status quo that maintains their stature and wealth. They believe their charity towards the little people in the red states obligates those people to do what they say. Rich intellectual elitists are the worst kind of Democrats. They have no clue as to what actually motivates average Americans; they only know that illiterate low class people shouldn’t question them. It’s no wonder they can’t win elections outside of their own social circles anymore. We want a champion of the people in '08, not one who is using the people.
Among the many great points made by Dan Kervick in his most recent post in The New Century Journal is:
But the growing gap between rich and poor doesn't seem to move the opinion leaders in the socially liberal but economically complacent corporate media which is the dominant voice of the contemporary Democratic party. Economic inequality doesn't trouble the thoughts of the successful and elite Democratic professionals, proud to have softened the rough tastes, and washed off the grubby and unseemly class-consciousness of their parents and grandparents. Contemporary "liberals" are often embarrassed by their heritage. Modern Democratic opinion leaders have developed a strange love for the free market and the mystical and omnipotent invisible hand of neoliberal ideology. They are entirely too comfortable with the fatalistic idea that the economic dispostion of human beings should rest mainly in the hands of the impersonal, largely irrational forces of production and the market. And why not? They have benefitted personally from the current arrangement. Their liberalism is focussed mainly on the preservation of the social and intellectual liberties they enjoy, and the promulgation of their cultural preferences. To the extent that they are more economically progressive than the Republicans, the motivation is largely just a more lively appreciation of the enlightened self-interest of society's winners - the need to offer a few more crumbs to the masses to prevent widespread unrest and maintain the prevailing order.
If you are one of these morons who thinks you will win national elections by ridiculing the majority of the population or ignoring entire regions of the country, I strongly urge you to go read his entire post.
http://newcenturyjournal.blogspot.com/2004/11/new-direction-for-democrats-proud.html
Posted by: Just Karl | Nov 4, 2004 11:41:18 AM
Democrats need to do a better job addressing cultural issues. Kerry using the word lesbian did not help him. Always. Always run on the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
A better answer:
The Democratic Party is strongly committed to the rights guaranteed under the First Amendment to practice your religion as you see fit.
No matter who you are, there are Americans that disagree with your religious beliefs. The Democratic Party will always fight for your right to practice your religion in your place of worship as you and your fellow believers see fit, regardless of what others might think. This includes the right of your religion to set standards for marriage or other sacraments. The government should not interfere with the practice of religion in America. To make America a place where everyone can freely practice their own religion, we encourage all Americans to show curtesy to those who hold religious beliefs that differ from their own.
Posted by: bakho | Nov 4, 2004 11:48:23 AM
Re: Election Reform and forcing the States to one federal standard.
Here in the flyover state of OK, the entire state votes with optical scanner machines. Voting is like taking those scantron tests in high school and there has never been a problem.
Posted by: Chris | Nov 4, 2004 12:04:17 PM
There are two forms of nationalism: "positive" nationalism and "negative" nationalism. The former is based on ideas and self-pride, the latter on victim politics.
Posted by: lucidish | Nov 4, 2004 12:14:20 PM
To begin with, we need more polarization, not less. We need to do to moderate Republicans in Blue states, as enablers of the radical right agenda, what DeLay et al. are doing to conservative Dems in Red states, i.e., eliminate them. Truly target every Republican senator in a Blue state. Work hard to pin what's happening nationally on them. Ditto every moderate GOP Congressman in cities, counties, towns that went for Gore or Kerry.
Posted by: larry birnbaum | Nov 4, 2004 12:30:59 PM
9 of the 10 richest Senators are Democrats. Gee, how can this be? Aren't Dems the party of the common man? Whatever!
Take all the rich Dems and Hollywood elitest and let them live in 'common man' homes. Take all their riches and give it to the 'common man'. Why do the rich Dems need all that money? Are they greedy? They are definitely hippocrits.
Start spending your own money first. When you are living like Mother Teresa did, then your party will get the respect you so deperately desire.
Wow, that sounds a little harsh. :)
P.S. Don't worry about being poor. You are the party of entitlements.
Posted by: Lance | Nov 4, 2004 12:34:27 PM
Some Guy,
It is conventional wisdom that people grow more conservative as they age, and it is probably true that as people grow older they tend to lose many of their illusions and develop a more realistic appreciation of human nature and the workings of human society.
But I, for one, have grown more "liberal" as a result of that maturation process. And the Iraq adventure in particular has had the effect of jolting me leftward. I am only 45, and who knows what the future will bring, but right now I am a newly-born and unabashed leftist.
It is true I started out in my teens and early twenties as a childishly naive idealist. Then I became an only slightly less childish adult and family man, intent on convincing myself and the world that I was now an oh-so-realistic and responsible grown-up, with no illusions about how the world worked. I accepted more and more of the legitimizing propaganda of existing institutions. I remained a Democrat, but was increasingly attracted to the Republican-lite, big business friendly, DLC wing of the party. I was a "centrist".
I now see my growing conserva