Okay, listen to this

[mmcirvin]

1. The early leaks of exit polls had bad sampling biases; CNN's final exit polls are a lot closer to the returns, except maybe in Nevada and New Mexico. Sorry, that's the way I'm seeing it. Kerry/Edwards shouldn't concede until the absentees and provos are counted in Ohio, but I don't see them getting a miracle and I don't see any obvious sign that the election was stolen. Republicans ran a really good, if hateful, GOTV campaign in Ohio and Florida, and Bush got a clear lead in the national popular vote; in the likely event that he wins it'll be because he got more votes than the other guy. Unfortunately this means that any meaningful electoral reform is probably going to have to come from the bottom up.

2. Screw bipartisanship. Democrats in Congress, etc. should use every clear and legal mechanism in their power to obstruct further obnoxious Republican initiatives (and they are essentially all obnoxious), even benignly named ones, and remind the country that whatever happens over the next four years belongs to the GOP. The tea leaves tell me that, in the age of Nancy Pelosi, this is exactly what they will do. The votes to start another impeachment circus aren't there, but they really ought to push forward on Abu Ghraib; there's no moral middle ground there.

3. I know a bunch of Bush supporters. They're not bad people; in general they're not stupid people. I would like them to watch closely over the next four years and consider if this was what they really wanted.

4. Leave the country if you want, I'm not gonna.

Comments

[mmcirvin.livejournal.com]

Yeah, scorched-earth tactics have basically worked well for them. I don't see much downside in reciprocating. They've got essentially everything now at the federal level, and to an increasing degree at the state level; pushing back as hard as possible is the only way I can see to forestall a one-party system like Mexico used to have.

1996 was because Dole was basically uncharismatic (though they did an admirable job of somehow painting him as a nice guy) and the economy was in a strong recovery, and Bill Clinton was Bill Clinton.

Impeaching Clinton didn't hurt Clinton's popularity much, but it didn't really loosen Republican control in Congress either.

Dems have to stop being ashamed of their liberal base. Liberals are real Americans, possessed of many of the values we allege to be fundamental to this country; they don't always get it right but they get it right a lot, and they're mad as hell and motivated to do things.

[doctroid.livejournal.com]

Dems have to stop being ashamed of their liberal base.

I could be wrong -- I'm not as plugged in to politics as I could be -- but I get the impression this is happening. Has been in the works, I think, since 1992, but as recently as 2000 there were hand-wringers in the Democratic party saying Gore lost because he was too liberal and the party needed to move to the right. I still have yet to understand why Gore lost -- sure, he was uncharismatic, but Bush seemed and still seems about as presidential as a sack of weevils. But I think further reflection has led the Dems to realize Clinton won on a left of center platform, and Gore nearly did (or not, you can argue with me as to where the center is, but certainly they were left of their opponents); this year Kerry was probably the most liberal candidate the Democrats have run since Mondale, and look how much better than Mondale he did.

In fact I see the 2004 election as good news for American liberalism. Not as good as it could have been, of course; but not as bad as it might seem. For years the Democrats have lacked the solidarity and focus of the Republican party. Even in the Clinton years their own support for their own candidates always seemed halfhearted; there was never the kind of closing ranks behind the party leadership the Republicans are so good at. That gap is, I think, still there, but narrower. In 2004 the liberal wing has become angrier, more determined, and more unified than it's been probably since about the 1960s -- certainly since the Reagan years. Of course, it helps that the flirtation with that idiot Nader is belatedly over.

In recent years the elections have seemed to be the battle of the "-pts": the corrupt Republicans versus the inept Democrats. And again that's still somewhat true -- you'd think after steamrolling the primary opposition Kerry could have somehow managed to keep from fading into vapor for most of the summer. But again, there are signs of improvement. I've never seen the Democrats as mobilized as they were this fall.

So now what -- do they lick their wounds, give it up, and go home? Or do they say, "Damn, that was close, we can take 'em next time" and start pushing their agenda for 2006?

Oh, and here's point five:

5. The message to put across is: We care. About the unemployed, the poor, the middle class, working families -- not just about winning the next election. Both parties are spending too much time insulting each other and not making the voters feel like they want to help them. If the Dems can grab that handle, they can ride it a long way.

[mmcirvin.livejournal.com]

Also, in return, I wish the liberal/progressive pundits of the world would give it a rest for at least a couple of days before they start carping about how their foolproof plan would have won it, if only the stupid, weak, incompetent, sissy Democrats who never do anything right would listen.

Paul Waldman of Gadflyer (http://gadflyer.com/articles/?ArticleID=256) seems to be one of these people, though his foolproof plan seems to involve publicly acknowledging how "fukken stupid" (http://gadflyer.com/flytrap/index.php?Week=200445#1077) American voters are. It's inspiring. Circle the wagons and shoot inward, boys!

[kerri9494.livejournal.com]

"I still have yet to understand why Gore lost -- sure, he was uncharismatic, but Bush seemed and still seems about as presidential as a sack of weevils."

Here, read this.

[ronebofh.livejournal.com]

THANK YOU I'M DEPRESSED NOW

[davetheinverted]

this year Kerry was probably the most liberal candidate the Democrats have run since Mondale, and look how much better than Mondale he did.

That, I think, has a lot to do with the quality of the opposition. Mondale was running against Reagan. Reagan was one of the two best communicators we've seen in the Oval Office in the last 40 years, was not bogged down in an ugly war, had a recovered/booming economy, and was perceived as being the One In Charge.
Bush II can't reliably get an unscripted sentence out of his mouth, has the ugly war, an economy that may or may not be recovering, and the perception that he's a puppet for rather selfish interests.

I've been a Republican as long as I've been anything. I remember celebrating Reagan's win over Carter as a 10-year-old. I despise Kerry as a person and on a policy level. I think his war record doesn't stand up very well (Bush's non-record doesn't impress me eithere, but that isn't the issue here, so don't go there), I can't get much of a sense of what he actually believes, his concept of how an economy works is significantly at variance with mine...and yesterday afternoon, I went down to my local polling place and voted for the miserable bastard.

This was not a vote for Kerry. It was a vote against Bush and against what he and his sort have done to my party. It was a vote for government deadlock and for changing which parts of the Constitution and society are under assault. It was a vote for hoping this was 1976 all over again and that we might get another Reagan in '08.

In short, it was not a vote for a new hardcore liberalism. I'm just one person, just one data point, and I don't know how widely shared my feelings are...but I'd be careful about making too many assumptions about the palatability of hardcore liberalism to moderate voters.

Dav2.718

[mmcirvin.livejournal.com]

...If you believe Lakoff, "We care" isn't going to work that well; it's too Mommy Party and you have to be Daddy Party. Think "OBEY MY COMMAND AND BE REWARDED HUNDREDFOLD, OR DISOBEY AND PERISH."

[glitter-ninja.livejournal.com]

Actually, I've met Dole, and he is charismatic and likeable in the Midwestern, gentlemanly, Truman-esque kind of way. Except Truman was a remarkable man and Dole is just a man.

[mmcirvin.livejournal.com]

I wouldn't be so surprised if he's like that off-duty, or when talking to constituents.

[davetheinverted]

That was something that really pissed me off: discovering that Bob Dole was a warm, funny, human person. The '96 campaign was, I think, the single worst-managed Presidential campaign I've seen. Clinton was vulnerable, with new scandals popping up seemingly every week...and the Republicans nominated someone who appeared to be a member of the walking dead. Had the real Bob Dole shown up for that campaign, I think we'd be coming to the end of Dole's second term having just watched an epic battle between either Kemp or McCain and Hillary Clinton.

Dav2.718

[mmcirvin.livejournal.com]

The thing is, though, throughout his whole career Dole's role in the Republican Party was as a designated hitman. He was Mr. Nasty and got paid for it. Once it didn't matter any more, he loosened up a bit... but he was Mr. Nasty again during this campaign.

[davetheinverted]

Hadn't known that, and it's useful to know it. Honestly, though, it makes it worse: in 1996, my image of Bob Dole was not "warm, funny, sensible person," nor was it "guy who will kick ass and take names, who can lead this country." It was "really old and decrepit guy who's getting his shot because he's got seniority but who might not live out his first term." Assuming that this isn't some weird localized failure of perception on my part, that says to me that that campaign failed monumentally at getting its preferred image of Bob Dole out in front of people.

Dav2.718