About that tide...
Early returns look positive for Dems. Despite my clear issues with the bi-partisan nature of American politics, I'm happy about this. Let's see where the night takes us, because I remember being told Gore was our next president one November eve. And I picked a horse in this last weekend's Breeder's Cup that I had a "good feeling about," that literally died, so I'm not real big on my prognostication skills in general. So who knows.
All that said, there's all this talk about a "tide" or "wave" of Democratic momentum. Even if they pick up both houses of Congress (unlikely, I think the GOP holds the Senate when all is said and done, but again, the horse...), it's not a tidal wave when all the individual elections are 51% to 49%. It's the same thing with the "Bush mandate," barely over half of the voters doesn't mean you've won some clear victory and the other side no longer matters. It's just silly, this is all about whether a small majority of voters likes one party/set of candidates or another, it's simply IS NOT a mandate about one clique all of a sudden being the "cool kids" and the others being relegated to the debate team (and before anyone gets offended, I was not only on, but was captain and coach of my high school debate team).
All that said, there's all this talk about a "tide" or "wave" of Democratic momentum. Even if they pick up both houses of Congress (unlikely, I think the GOP holds the Senate when all is said and done, but again, the horse...), it's not a tidal wave when all the individual elections are 51% to 49%. It's the same thing with the "Bush mandate," barely over half of the voters doesn't mean you've won some clear victory and the other side no longer matters. It's just silly, this is all about whether a small majority of voters likes one party/set of candidates or another, it's simply IS NOT a mandate about one clique all of a sudden being the "cool kids" and the others being relegated to the debate team (and before anyone gets offended, I was not only on, but was captain and coach of my high school debate team).
posted by cuznate at 7:52 PM
11 Comments:
reading that over now that it's posted, what i meant is that i have issues with the two party system, not really the "bi-partisan" nature.
but many of the races that switched to democrats are NOT 51/49 races. many of them were actually decisive.
moreover, the fact that only maybe 2 democratic incumbant seats were considered competitive, while many more republican seats were, does say something.
this election was clearly a referendum on bush/iraq and also on corruption. republicans certainly do not hold a monopoly on corruption (though i think they come close to holding a monopoly on hypocrisy), so i am not interested in those votes.
but the wave (yes, a wave) of disapproval for how bush is handling iraq began months and months ago. it is real. it IS significant that he has not been able to scare as many people into voting the way he says they should this time around.
his policies and actions regarding iraq have not changed. only the voters' opinions of those policies and actions have changed. that means his hold on the country has weakened. it means that a signficant number of people are no longer completely blind to his lies and inadequacy. this election shows that.
his appointment to the office in 2000 and his election in 2004 were not mandates. but when so many house seats start out republican and go democrat, and when republican seats that seemed solid become competitive, there is a wave happening. it's not as strong a wave as the republican one in 1994, but it is a wave nonetheless.
hallelujah.
Anon,
Well said. Hallelujah!
anon - now that more of the votes are in, i agree with you, and agree with ish that your post is well said. when i wrote my post originally, it was still very neck and neck in many of the races but pundits were talking about a massive shift. it is indeed a wave, and by the end of the night i was pretty amazed at the scope of the shift.
however, i will say this, the dems should be careful about interpreting this as a "wave" driven by the far left side of the party. it's not a mandate for liberal democratic policy, rather, it's a reflection that the center voters now favor the dems. many of the dems that won over previously considered "safe" seats are conservative dems. that doesn't make the wave a small thing, in fact it represents a massive shift. but it means that the dems have a chance to solidify gains and come out ahead in the long run if they lead legislatively from a clintonesque centrist position and work to own the middle. if they cater to the more left side of their party (which of course they will and should to a degree), they will not only have trouble getting things done because of divisions within their own party, they will lost the national momentum they've built with this election.
I cringed a bit when I heard some Dems get a little carried away last night, making sweeping promises about all the changes they would bring to Washington.
The fact is, they are going to have a narrow edge in the Senate (if at all), and a Republican president, so passing lots of sweeping legislation is not in the cards. Still, they must go on the offensive and *try*. Otherwise, in the lead-up to 2008, Republicans will be yapping all about the "do-nothing 110th Congress."
I'm very happy about retaking the House and Senate, and it's not because of "cliquishness". It's because the Republican party has become an embarrassingly incompetent criminal enterprise hell bent on destroying the country and the world. Hopefully having a Democratic legislative branch will at least help to put the brakes on the Republican's looting of the treasury and criminal neglect of the basic tenents of good government.
"Republicans and Dems are one and the same" is exact kind of fatuous thinking that got us into this clusterfuck in the first place.
Thanks again, Ralph Nader.
anonymous,
Thanks for that blast of adolescent fatuousness.
el gallo, i'm not intelligent enough - what does fatuousness mean? one who is a fool, or one who eats too much? or both? you're so brilliant.
anon,
From where you're sitting, I'm sure everyone looks brilliant.
yeah even howard dean and joseph trippi look brilliant.
Post a Comment
<< Home