Dems, Dems Everywhere
Well, I can't help but think of the TWM at this moment. I was hoping the media would be proved wrong. The media who thought republicans were on a slippery slope. It's all one big cycle. Eventually, everyone will tire of the Dems, and then the balance of power will switch again. What's weird is Dallas County basically turned blue overnight. I didn't really think the republicans in Dallas were under fire for anything.
At least that dumbsh*t Chris Bell didn't win.
posted by Feels like Nine at 8:19 AM
10 Comments:
I read a good quote from one republican (I can't remember who). He said: "The Democrats didn't win. The Republicans lost."
The majority of America was so desparate for change that they said, hell, let's just give the Dems a shot and see what happens.
News flash: The Dems don't have a plan for resolving the Iraq war either.
And that's what this was all about - the war. People didn't stop to think that taxes are relatively low. The economy is healthy. Joblessness is dropping. Or any number of good things that are happening within the country that can be attributed to Republican dominence.
10:29 AM
While I think that clearly anti-war, anti-Bush, anti-Republican sentiment was a strong factor in the overwhelming Democratic victory, I think we can't ignore the pro-Dem results either.
Democrats won a majority of governorships and state legislatures. Hell, Texas Dems held onto all their incumbents in the State House and actually increased their number by 5 (this may cost Tom Craddick his Speakership actually) and, as you mention, we had a complete blowout in Dallas County. Clearly, Bush and national issues weren't at play there.
Also, most people seem to agree with us on the issues too looking at the referenda results across the country:
-South Dakoka's abortion ban failed and parental notification failed in California (again)
-Embryonic stem cell research won out in Missouri
-All 6 state minimum wage increases won across the country
-3 state ballot initiatives calling for troop withdrawal passed
-Hell, even one of the gay marriage bans, in Arizona, failed
And so on...
3:15 PM
Well, Adam, what can I say other that I think you're simply wrong.
Why should we be at all surprised that Democratic party issues passed in various parts of the nation? The last decade has shown that our nation is essentially split over these things. There is obviously plenty of support for the Democrats. These issues would have passed in those various places regardless.
The massive boost in Democratic party leadership, however, is a direct reaction against Bush. It is not the purchase of a liberal agenda. People were mad, probably voted "straight party" and they got their way. Democracy at work, right?
Think I'm wrong? We'll see how much Democratic agenda the people are willing to tolerate on a national level. The new leaders shouldn't forget why they were voted in: to appease the whining American public about Iraq.
This snippet from a Kiplinger's article restates my point more eloquently:
"Democratic leaders will be pragmatic and more moderate. They may be claiming a mandate, but deep down, they know their gains aren't a victory of ideas. Neither side really offered any. Democrats picked up seats in both chambers only because voters are angry with Bush and the GOP. And many of the new House and Senate Democrats are moderates or conservatives. That's why they won, and they know they won't win again unless they stop the old-dog Democrats from pushing any pent-up liberal wish list."
10:38 PM
Well again, I think that much of it was a referendum on Bush and the Republicans - but anytime there's a change over it's going to happen because of displeasure with the incumbents.
I disagree that the results of these referendums aren't significant though. The abortion ban didn't fail in a blue state, or even a swing state. It failed in South Dakota, a conservative and Republican stronghold. Likewise, the gay marriage initiative in Arizona. I also don't really see your point here. You said "people are divided on these things" (but then say it would have passed anyway?). Well, clearly they aren't divided. Our side won 90% of these all over the country - blue, swing, or red state.
You might argue that straight-ticket voting lead to the good down ballot results for state offices, but that ignores the fact that we won a lot of governorships and legislatures in red states in places that didn't have a Senate election.
Lastly, if you look at the exit polls and other polls that have been done since the elections, Democrats are favored on nearly all issues - even taxes and immigration, considered to be Republican issues.
So again, while clearly anti-Republican sentiment was a necessary component of the huge victories Democrats achieved, I think it'd be pretty misguided for Republicans to pretend that this wasn't at all a rejection of their hardcore conservatism these last few years, and they simply have to wait for the next election cycle. But by all means...
6:14 AM
Only time will tell (specifically the next presidential election) what the voters really wanted to accomplish by giving the Democrats more congressional power.
Many of us believe that this was a reaction primarily motivated by Iraq, as you agree with to some extent. As for the other issues you're talking about, I don't see a connection. The fact that several states and smaller districts passed liberal issues isn't surprising to anyone, really. I believe they would have passed no matter what the public thinks about Bush or the republicans. No one is so foolish to doubt that there is a massive liberal voter base. So yes, certainly some people want change in a number of ways, like yourself. I just doubt that the congressional shift had much to do with such a variety of issues.
Like I said, only time will tell. I predict that the democrats will push hard for their entire liberal agenda and pretend like Iraq is still the republicans' problem. Hopefully I'm wrong. If I'm right, however, I also predict that the democrats will be disappointed in the next election.
9:53 AM
John is right in that there will be a lot of pressure on the Dems to "fix" Iraq. I can't wait to see how they handle (or mishandle) it. Peoples lives are at stake, so I hope they don't do anything to make the situation worse. And if the Dems don't make Iraq their biggest priority, that's going to piss off a lot of voters. 2008 will be very interesting indeed.
It is an interesting phenomenon how many state and local elections turned blue when these politicians don't have a direct impact on Iraq. I think it was mostly due to the country following a trend, or voting straight party if you will. But I really can't say for sure, and don't reallly want to do the research to back my claim up right now.
In addition, I think the minimum wage increase is a good thing. Also, I would be supportive of stem cell research if there were a way to conduct experiments without harming or killing human embryos or zygotes.
On the brightside, you can now buy booze in Coppell which will prove effective for seducing all the jailbait you could ever want.
11:42 AM
At least the Coppell voters had some sense. Irving, however, remained as bone-headed on the issue as ever.
I voted yes for beer/wine. I guess Irving is content with losing as much business as is necessary to keep a wine aisle out of Tom Thumb, God forbid that every happen...
1:06 PM
Certainly the Dems will have to prove themselves. The voters want change, and we have to deliver results.
I don't see you're going to see a big liberal agenda, especially since Bush is still president and would veto everything, and the narrow Democrat majority in the Senate. Pelosi already said impeachment was off the table, and I don't expect much outside of economic bills coming up for a vote, and nothing on social issues or other controversial measures.
3:27 PM
At least the "yes" for beer/wine voters showed a bit more gusto this time than last. When we vote on this again in two years (as you know we will), I hope...
(1) that the "no" voters will be too old and tired to put up another good fight;
(2) the liquor store owners in Dallas will have had enough of their profits move to Coppell competitors that they will no longer be able to provide 99% of the financial support for the "no" campaign; and
(3) that the new Coppell liquor stores won't have broken even and can't afford to support the Irving "no" campaign. All I want is a Central Market that doesn't require a 1 hour drive round trip. Is that so wrong??
(Kou and I did enjoy all the entertaining "vote no" propaganda that we received at the house, especially the references to malt liquor at "liquid crack".)
9:38 PM
Tis time for the Grim Reaper service to pay a visit to Beer/Wine "No"voters.
11:37 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home