Brad DeLong's Semi-Daily Journal: A Weblog

With all due respect Professor DeLong, a Democratic Party that can't beat an incumbent as incompentent as this one cries out for the need for new leadership.

Well said. In addition to the war and incumbency advantage, add a semi-decent economy. Bush should have won in a landslide.

Democrats should respect the President and work with him when possible. And prepare to fight like hell in 2008.

Well said, Brad, but we're screwed. What do have to look forward to in the next four years: indictments? Pretty thin gruel. My sister's teenagers will definitely be heading for the Mideast if the draft gets reinstated. Lovely.

I agree with Kosh

I agree with Kosh

I agree with Kosh

You're absolutely 100% right.

In 2002 Ray Fair of Yale published a popularization of econometrics entitled "Predicting Presidential Elections and Other Things" (Stanford Business Press) in which he applied his tried and true equation for predicting presidential vote shares to project results for 2004. His independent variables (average economic growth rate, inflation, exceptionally high quarterly growth rates, duration of incumbent party's tenure, a party variable and a war variable) predicted a 56.9% share of the popular vote for Bush. The independent variables that have changed since Nov. 2001 have generally changed in Bush's favor. The fact that Bush was held to only slightly more than 50% should be attributed to his multi-standard-deviation incompetence and to a vigorous, smart campaign by the Kerry team, the Democratic Party, and the enlightened 527s.

So maybe the Democratic Party doesn't need any fundamental rethinking of its basic strategy, although we're sure to hear lot's of demands for that.

I'm not ready to cry yet. If you believe the figures on Daily Kos, it will be very close with the provisional ballots. I've been trying to find confirmation that 85% of Ohio's 107,000 provisional ballots in 2000 went for Gore.

As a non-American, can I ask what did voters see in Bush? From the view we get abroad (including CNN) he comes across as nothing but an idiot. Kerry didn't impress me hugely but certainly was a no-brainer compared to the idiot (or mendacious Machivellian) who currently has the title of "Leader of the Free World".

Guess all I'm trying to say is "WTF is wrong with you people?!?!"

I don't see things changing in America unless a major catastrophic event, along the lines of the Depression, occurs.

I do believe, however, that the policies of the Bush administration bring closer the time in which this will happen.

Eventually, the chickens will come home to roost.

I'm with Moe and Kosh. Eff pride; I want to win. Moral victories are the stuff of Adlai Stevenson candidacies, and until we stop putting a premium on that stuff, we're going to keep losing.

After taking a week or two off to lick our wounds, we need to start thinking about how to (a) limit the damage, and (b) win next time.

I'm convinced that things won't change in America until a major caastrophic event, along the lines of hte Depression, happens.

The policies of the Bush administration bring closer the day on which this will happen.

Sooner or later, the chickens come home to roost.

Democrats are going to have to work to build another form of New Deal voter's coalition. This was a harsh loss.

I disagree with Kosh. The democratic party doesn't new leadership. The democratic party needs an american electorate that is part of the reality-based community. One that is smart enough to realize that a guy who lies, lies and lies some more and who uses someone like karl rove to help him win election doesn't have "strong moral values". One that is smart enough to realize that one who giddily makes fun of people he's about to execute doesn't really believe in a "culture of life". One that is smart enough to realize that taking responsibility for your mistakes is an important part of being a good leader.

America got the president it deserves. If 60M people are stupid enough to vote for bush and 80M others are stupid enough to not vote against him ...

Democrats should respect the President and work with him when possible. And prepare to fight like hell in 2008.

Bullshit! We should impede Bush at every turn and make damn sure he takesthe blame for the messes he created.

And kick wimps like you out of the Democratic Party!

Adlai Stevenson could be "proud" too.
Somehow, looking back, it doesn’t seem to have made a big difference.
Time for a change in party leadership (and tactics; what works - works!)

we need to stop being so chickenshit about what we stand for. Democrats are so timid. Bush says, "gay marriage amendment," and the Democrats don't stand up for gay marriage. they tepidly oppose the amendment while bending over backwards to declare that even though we don't like the amendment, don't get us wrong, we don't like gay marriage either. this leads most americans to believe (rightly) that we don't really stand for anything very strongly. we just desparately want voters to like us. we don't want to lose the gay vote, that's all. that kind of hedging doesn't sit well with most americans.

We're also impatient. it's true that if you do a poll right now, it will tell you that most americans oppose gay marriage. but the problem is circular. When no one prominent is willing to make the argument forcefully and proudly, public opinion doesn't change.

Republicans have been working to move opinion in their direction for years. They propose wacko things like privatizing social security that the vast majority of americans oppose. but they push these ideas over and over again. people still oppose the ideas, but now they are part of the national dialogue. over time what was once a radical idea becomes politically possible. they have been patiently pushing a lot of their wacko bad ideas for decades and they don't care that most americans don't like the ideas. eventually, they manage to move public opinion in their direction. and there's the added bonus that at a gut level, voters get the (correct) impression that they have overarching principles, albeit wacko ones.

i think we need to be prouder of what we stand for and we need to be more assertive. and we need to frame what it means to be a democrat simply and powerfully. i think we need to stop working for the instant gratification of a single electoral win and invest in branding the democratic party and liberalism in uplifting terms americans can relate to.

I think you're right. Even though there was merciless pounding on Kerry's liberalism, he did a good job. I don't think the Democrats framed the issues as well as the Republicans, but they've had to play catch up to 30 years of rhetorical development. The Republicans have been organizing their troops since the last election.

That said, I still have questions about why the exit polls were so different.

Still Niall Ferguson's article in the WSJ on August 28th reminded me that if Bush continues on his ridiculous path, the Republican party won't remain united. Second terms are often not that good...

I disagree with Kosh. The democratic party doesn't new leadership. The democratic party needs an american electorate that is part of the reality-based community. One that is smart enough to realize that a guy who lies, lies and lies some more and who uses someone like karl rove to help him win election doesn't have "strong moral values". One that is smart enough to realize that one who giddily makes fun of people he's about to execute doesn't really believe in a "culture of life". One that is smart enough to realize that taking responsibility for your mistakes is an important part of being a good leader.

America got the president it deserves. If 60M people are stupid enough to vote for bush and 80M others are stupid enough to not vote against him ...

A great suggestion from Kash at Angry Bear:

I also have a substantive recommendation to the Blue states: Do all that you can to shut off the spigots. Completely. Shut it down. All of it. No more sucking on the government's teat for the Red states. Transform the rhetoric of your Republican brothers into practice: Slash federal spending (is that still a Republican position?). Wipe out the farm subsidies. Eradicate all block grants to the states. End the transfer of thirteen cents out of every Blue State Tax Dollar to the Red states (call it "Real Welfare Reform".) Replace every dollar of reduced federal spending with a dollar of in-state spending.

Let Illinois, New York, Michigan, Wisconsin, Washington, California, and the rest of the Blue States keep their own damn money. Let the Red states keep out the gays, which is apparently their highest priority. Wait ten years and see who comes out ahead. And yes, this is bad policy. But it's clearly great politics. And winning on the political dimension is, sadly, a necessary condition for winning on the policy dimension.

http://angrybear.blogspot.com/2004/11/karl-rove-is-evil-genius.html

What they said above. If we can't beat the worst president ever, we don't deserve to be a party.

We have to learn that being positive / taking the high road doesn't work.

Dean for head of DNC.

All out civil (political) war. It is all too easy for rich white guys to forget about the consequences to millions of not-so-rich and not-so-white folks.

It's November 3 and John Kerry has been elected President. On Fox News a humbled Karl Rove is interviewed and says "Republicans should respect the President and work with him when possible".

Oberon, you've got to be kidding. That's the kind of "the meek shall inherit the earth" bullshit that makes it easy for people like Bush and Cheney to get away with it time and again.

I think we've shown that pandering to the middle doesn't work. Can we get a candidate that panders to our base instead? I'm tired of the Democratic party pandering to swing voters who don't vote.

Trying to pull a moral victory from an actual defeat is a long tradition, but it means nothing. There are no prizes for being right, only for winning. All over the blogs, people are putting forward this argument that the second Bush term can only be a disaster, so 2008 should be a shoe-in. They said the same thing in 2000.

Election day was, coincidentally, a holiday for some firms in Belgium, and I spent the day watching "Apocalypse Now" on DVD. The Republicans are fighting like the Vietcong - totally and brutally. Either the Democrats have to turn into Colonel Kurtz and fight with equal brutality, or they have to accept marginalisation for a long time. Neither choice sounds appealing to me. The American electorate is never going to hold the Republicans to account. Not now, not in 2008.

Honour means nothing and courage means less when cowardice, fear-mongering and appeals to bigotry lead to victory. There are no points for being right.

Kosh, absolutely right. I don't have to like this, but I'll be damned if I'm going to keep subsidizing those red state dolts. My wife is already writing to those catalog firms in red states to take us off their mailing list. We're not going to do business with you.

I'd be more impressed by Mr. Martens speech, except for one of Brads columns a few months ago. Mr. Martens is right about the intensity, ferocity and discipline of the Republicans over the last 20 years. But Brad's column was alist of how the actual policies implemented over the last decade reflected more a liberal agenda than a conservative one. I forget the exact date, but the line I remember the best was "Homsexuals?" showing up how a generation ago conservatives didn't even think of these as humans and now even the president discusses civil unions. {Brad, Why don't you reissue that one as a little morale booster}

Kerrey did a good job campaigning. I am proud to be a democrat. I don't think a radical change is needed.

America Beyond Capitalism by Gar Alperovitz.

Read It.

New coalitions, new vision, new playing field.
Nowhere near as radical as the title, in case that scares you.

Oh, and boat loads of optisism on the twin strategies of Resistance and Development.

Read It.

Democrats blamed Nader in 2000,who is the whipping boy this time? I will be voting Nader 2008.

Democrats blamed Nader in 2000,who is the whipping boy this time? I will be voting Nader 2008.

weinerdog43, what a great thing to do. I will be following suit. You know, I did not expect Kerry to win. The electoral vote map is just too inflexible. It can't always just come down to one or two states, especially the states of Ohio and Florida. So I guess my disappointment is a little bit tempered by that notion, and also by the fact that, if he had won, Kerry would have been another Jimmy Carter. There is some justice in forcing Bush to deal with the mess he has created. If it didn't endanger my civil rights, the future of my children and the lives of thousands of innocent people, I would not feel so depressed.

Like Angry Bear, however, I am tired of trying to feel solidarity with those who are more worried about keeping others down than with pursuing the common good.

Don't get me wrong, I am incredibly disappointed. I feel like my future and that of my children has been mortgaged away.

My concrete resolution is to help in the next Pennsylvania senate election (PA was good news for Kerry and I helped GOTV).

The fact of the matter is that the DNC needs to change. It is too focused on big-time fundraising, and does not support progressive candidates that are more likely to win elections. We need to make sure that the leadership of the DNC changes so that we can start to embrace more progressive candidates.

I've created a website, which is http://www.ChangeTheDNC.com/ and I hope it will become a place for discussion and organization around this idea. I just registered it, so you may have trouble getting to it, so if that doesn't work, try http://216.92.24.7

The fact of the matter is that the DNC needs to change. It is too focused on big-time fundraising, and does not support progressive candidates that are more likely to win elections. We need to make sure that the leadership of the DNC changes so that we can start to embrace more progressive candidates.

I've created a website, which is http://www.ChangeTheDNC.com/ and I hope it will become a place for discussion and organization around this idea. I just registered it, so you may have trouble getting to it, so if that doesn't work, try http://216.92.24.7

I'm with Barbara. What solidarity is there between people like us and people who vote to outlaw gay unions and civil unions between heterosexuals, as the majority did in Ohio? What respect is there to give to people who apparently think the invasion and occupation of Iraq, with the consequent horrors of Abu Ghraib and the thousands of civilian deaths from aerial attacks are just the greatest expressions of patriotism there could be? My children and their children are going to be saddled with the costs of the majority of the voters' inability to think for themselves coupled with their willingness to be made blind to the manipulation carried out by the likes of Limbaugh and Russert, Hannity and the other blatherskites who are rich and white and in no danger of dying from want or war.

Very sad. Extremely enraging. Unamusingly daft.

What is a sane person to do when irrationality reigns?... All I can think to do is to prepare as best I can for the inevitable results of Bushworld unleashed. (i.e. buy euros, don't become gay, and thank God I'm no longer draftable) That and remind my deluded brethren that the events of the next four years are a result of their policies.

This isn't some recreational football game you're playing. In life, some battles have to be won and there's absolutely no consolation for losing, despite what you want to tell your children. The Democrats have to stop asking themselves why they lost, and start asking themselves what they can do to win. Democrats act as if they're a shoe-in to win, and then are surprised when they lose. But reality is that the Democrats are way past their prime -- Clinton was an anomaly. The results from this election were sewn a generation ago, and it will take quite some work to make the next election results better. The Democrats haven't made mistakes that lost the election. They are simply too incompetent to have formulated a strategy that would lead to victory. That is the difference. You don't win by nominating John Kerry as a presidential candidate. You don't win by ignoring the huge swath of "red" states with their steady population growth.

If you want to win, it starts today, and that's by not trying to gloss over the facts to take solace in your moral superiority. It's by assigning some strategists and tacticians to various red states as of today, having them experience the local culture for an extended period, and formulating a platform that remains true to the party's spirit and is palatable to those people. You need to start injecting your vocabulary into the local dialect, so that in 4 years time the other side can't bait you with their own terminology. You need to start scouting the local populace in search for compelling congressional candidates.

To put it simply, it's long time that the Democrats start treating the red states with some respect. Perhaps then, you can begin to win. Throw conventional wisdom out the window, you're not winning with the big ticket electoral vote states only. For the foreseeable future, presidential elections will be won a handful of electoral votes at a time, so it'd be best to start hedging your bets on these votes right now.

for god sake, we ran against a guy who lied and lied and lied and lied. WTF-ck didnt Kerry call him a liar??

D

This isn't some recreational football game you're playing. In life, some battles have to be won and there's absolutely no consolation for losing, despite what you want to tell your children. The Democrats have to stop asking themselves why they lost, and start asking themselves what they can do to win. Democrats act as if they're a shoe-in to win, and then are surprised when they lose. But reality is that the Democrats are way past their prime -- Clinton was an anomaly. The results from this election were sewn a generation ago, and it will take quite some work to make the next election results better. The Democrats haven't made mistakes that lost the election. They are simply too incompetent to have formulated a strategy that would lead to victory. That is the difference. You don't win by nominating John Kerry as a presidential candidate. You don't win by ignoring the huge swath of "red" states with their steady population growth.

If you want to win, it starts today, and that's by not trying to gloss over the facts to take solace in your moral superiority. It's by assigning some strategists and tacticians to various red states as of today, having them experience the local culture for an extended period, and formulating a platform that remains true to the party's spirit and is palatable to those people. You need to start injecting your vocabulary into the local dialect, so that in 4 years time the other side can't bait you with their own terminology. You need to start scouting the local populace in search for compelling congressional candidates.

To put it simply, it's long time that the Democrats start treating the red states with some respect. Perhaps then, you can begin to win. Throw conventional wisdom out the window, you're not winning with the big ticket electoral vote states only. For the foreseeable future, presidential elections will be won a handful of electoral votes at a time, so it'd be best to start hedging your bets on these votes right now.

The Dems left the working class and the working class left the Dems. Leave the yuppies behind, stand for the workers, and social issues or not, Dems will win. The problem was that Kerry said some halfhearted things about stopping outsourcing, etc., but he really didn't mean it and the electorate knew that. Get rid of that Terry McAwful and the Clintonistas, find a true representative of the people, and Dems will win again.

I agree with Brad DeLong. The problem isn't the Democrats' message. I think the uphill battle really happens when you are running against an incumbent president who has come immediately after a president from the other party. In the 20th Century, the only president whose predecessor was of a different party to lose reelection was Jimmy Carter, who lost under exceptionally poor economic and foreign policy circumstances.

I think it's correct that Bush is thoroughly incompetant.

But that was offset by the fact that we have a television media, which is anti-Democratic and pro-Bush. There were three media events which, I think sealed the election for Bush.

1. Swiftboat Veterans for Truth came out and smeared John Kerry. These guys were thorough liars and obviously an arm of the Bush campaign. The TV media, with a few exceptions, gave an even-handed report even though these guys were complete liars, thereby creating the impression that their side had some validity. Kerry's national polls plummeted from a lead around August 20 to a tie on September 1.

2. The Republican National Convention happened at the beginning of September, in which they exploited and exploited New York City's tragedy on September 11th in order to get support from the rest of the country. The media was thoroughly uncritical of this, in stark contrast to the DNC.

3. Kerry's Mary Cheney comment (as well as that by John Edwards) was obviously meant to be nice comment to encourage tolerance in the debate on gay rights. No one can argue that the TV press did not take Lynn Cheney and the Bush campaign's side in that one. They did not leave open any possibility that Kerry had good intentions and they parotted the Bush-Cheney line that he was
"talking about someone else's kid."

I say that these three events were pivotal because Kerry's polls unambiguously dropped when each of these events occurred:
http://www.pkarchive.org/image004.gif

More importantly is what didn't happen. That is, substantial coverage of Bush's lies on the war on terror, Iraq, and his economic policy, which is far more important substantively than the media events described above.

BTW, if you're conservative and disagree with my above characterizations, you can interpret the swifties as virtuous, the RNC convention as wonderful, and the Mary Cheney comment as ill-intentioned. In that case, you can interpret my comments this way: The arrival of the Swiftboat veterans for truth, the RNC convention, and the Mary Cheney commment were all events associated with large drops in Kerry's polling numbers.

Personally, I think that Democrats need to discuss and, more importantly, act in terms of changing media coverage of their candidates in order to prevent future election losses.

The worst part is, he didn't just win the popular vote, he severely beat Kerry in the popular vote. In fact, Bush got the highest number of votes every recorded for any candidate in our nation's history.

As I said over at Matt Yglesias' blog, if he had to win at all, I'm glad he won by such a large margin. That way, when this country is fucked fiscally and socially in a few years, the American people will not feel conned. They will know they made the wrong choice; they will have nobody to blame but themselves. And what's more, Bush will finally have to clean up one of the messes that he has made.

I want to suggest one final service that John Kerry can perform for both the Democratic Party and American Progressives. He should pursue libel actions against the Swift Boat Veterans. He could the depose them under oath, exposing their financial support and media backing. He might win some judgments. (He may be able to file in Massachusetts.) Such an action could hinder future smear campaigns.

Progressives would have to support such an effort, including financially, but that is certainly possible with the Internet.

I want to suggest one final service that John Kerry can perform for both the Democratic Party and American Progressives. He should pursue libel actions against the Swift Boat Veterans. He could the depose them under oath, exposing their financial support and media backing. He might win some judgments. (He may be able to file in Massachusetts.) Such an action could hinder future smear campaigns.

Progressives would have to support such an effort, including financially, but that is certainly possible with the Internet.

KOS weighs in:

Terry out. Get Howard in.
by kos
Wed Nov 3rd, 2004 at 15:11:18 GMT

The McAuliffe reign has ended in disaster, with the Democratic Party in worse position electorally than when he came in as Chair in February 2001. We have lost seats in the House and Senate, and failed to cleanly take out the Worst President Ever.
While McAuliffe was an artful fundraiser, the party continued to lack the ability to develop a clear message or properly frame the political debate. And it's been killing us.

Even if Kerry can pull off the victory, it's clear the Democratic Party as currently constituted is on its deathbed. It needs reforms, and it needs them now. Quite frankly, the status quo simply won't cut it.

Howard Dean for DNC Chair.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/11/3/111118/941

KOS weighs in:

Terry out. Get Howard in.
by kos
Wed Nov 3rd, 2004 at 15:11:18 GMT

The McAuliffe reign has ended in disaster, with the Democratic Party in worse position electorally than when he came in as Chair in February 2001. We have lost seats in the House and Senate, and failed to cleanly take out the Worst President Ever.
While McAuliffe was an artful fundraiser, the party continued to lack the ability to develop a clear message or properly frame the political debate. And it's been killing us.

Even if Kerry can pull off the victory, it's clear the Democratic Party as currently constituted is on its deathbed. It needs reforms, and it needs them now. Quite frankly, the status quo simply won't cut it.

Howard Dean for DNC Chair.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/11/3/111118/941

I want to suggest one final service that John Kerry can perform for both the Democratic Party and American Progressives. He should pursue libel actions against the Swift Boat Veterans. He could the depose them under oath, exposing their financial support and media backing. He might win some judgments. (He may be able to file in Massachusetts.) Such an action could hinder future smear campaigns.

Progressives would have to support such an effort, including financially, but that is certainly possible with the Internet.

I don't blame John Kerry, the Democratic party, or all the supporters who came out in droves in this election. I don't blame MTV, P.Diddy, or Eminem, for laying aside their cool for a moment, and actually showing they care. I blame each and every American who voted for Bush. I blame those in the isolated middle who proclaim concern about security while clearly not giving two hoots for those of us actually living in areas of danger, like NYC, Chicago, DC, and LA. They have their gay marriage ban. I hate them for trading my security for their moral righteousness. May terrorism come to their backyard instead of mine.

I appreciate what Senator Kerry did in conceding the election rather than fighting the inevitable for over a month as Mr. Gore did in 2000. Hopefully, it will give us the chance to re-unite as a nation and move forward.

Amen, chickensoup.

This is a dark, day.

We need to do what we did to Sinclair. Stop subsidizing the Red States and those who do business there. I have gone thru my kitchen cabinet and identified all products manufactured in Red States. I will write to them and tell them why I won't buy their crap anymore. Also I drive a Saturn, a good car but made in a Red State- next year I will be buying a car made in a Blue State and I will let Saturn know. We need to let our congressional representatives and senators know we in Blue States will no longer subsidize the Red States with our federal tax $$$. Show them we mean business by hitting them in the pocketbook.

For me, the only consolation is Bush will have to take responsibility for the disasters that are approaching - there's no one else to blame now!

The deficit is huge and growing fast.
The trade deficit is huge and growing fast.
Interest rates are rising, and so will bankruptcies, foreclosures, credit card debts, etc. Will taxes have to be raised, too?
The draft is coming.
Iraq is a quagmire, and is all Bush's fault.
Afghanistan is backsliding.
Isrealis are killing Palestinians at a faster and faster rate, and Bush's road map leads nowhere (and never did).
N. Korea and Iran will soon have the bomb, and missles.
SDI is an expensive joke, and won't protect us for the forseeable future.
More terrorist attacks are certain, even acc. to Bush's own advisors. Who will be blamed this time??? The guy who keeps us safe???

All these and many more things will come back to haunt Bush, and even though it will hurt me more than him (he's priveliged and rich, while I'm neither) I plan to just laugh in his face and his voters' faces, and say, hey, you picked him!! Yes, we're screwed, and it is YOUR FAULT!!!

I remember Bush justifying his removal of our basic rights by saying, "When I was elected, I swore an oath to protect the american people." Uh, no you didn't! You swore to protect and defend the Constitution! You can't even get remember your most basic oath, and you didn't protect us or the constitution anyway. Well, this four years, I hope to use what remains of my right to freely speak, and make sure everyone knows the coming disasters are all your fault. Bush, you and your voters need to be held responsible!

We fought the good fight, and came far closer to saving our country than anyone would have imagined a year or two ago. But that's an irrelevant, reality-based observation. I fear the end result will be the same as if they had gotten the Dukakis-type landslide they were hoping for.

START respecting the Red States?!?!?

What really, really, really pisses me off is this notion that somehow the Democratic Party hasn't been obsequious enough toward the dear heartland. What do you propose? Bringing back Jim Crow? Outlawing abortion? Making homosexuality illegal? Leading the fight on behalf of the polluters?

Fuck you and fuck that. I'm well-past tired of aiming for the lowest common denominator in a futile effort to win the support of the regressive paranoids floating around. The Democrats will never win them over. It's just not going to happen. It's never going to happen. Do you really think that Erksine Bowles wasn't kissing cracker ass? He lost anyway. Stephanie Herkseth pledged her support to Bush as a House Electorate, and they voted out her patron. Ohio? If they'd rather vote to outlaw gay marriage than have a functioning economy and health care, the conundrum for progressives is that there's no upside to the Democratic position - either they pander (I hated Kerry and Edward's bullshit stand on gay marriage v. civil unions.) and lose or they stand tall and lose.

Kerry would have made a good to great President and it's stunningly obvious today that we don't deserve one.

I suggest we move on to the next steps:

Can we prevent the confirmation of Scalia is the next Chief Justice? Because that's what's coming, perhaps in the next 2 months.

Can we prevent the confirmation of a Federalist Society member as his replacement Associate Justice? (Who will it be? Silberman? Sentelle? Posner? worse?)

Because if we don't prevent these two things, kiss goodbye choice, privacy, and more.

Could Bush push these through next month as recess appointments? Don't underestimate his gall, he has a mandate now.

Canuck, I think you're 180 degrees off target. What exactly do the red states have that I want? Screw them.

No vacations; no corporate relocations; doing business only w/blue state firms, etc...

The vast majority of this country's wealth is concentrated in the blue states. I'm w/Schnitzel; I'm with J. Old Europe tourists, come visit us here in the blue states, but don't waste your vacation euros down in banjo land. No more revenue sharing.

No way I'm rewarding shitty behavior.

Kerry should pursue legal actions against the Swift Boat Veterans and those behind Stolen Honor. Most people don't realize a stealth campaign was waged in the final few days with smaller rural broadcasts, often Pax or Christian stations, running 30 uninterrupted minutes of "Stolen Honor" directed toward conservative families.

I would also like to have some independent group compare an audit of a sample county - say Miami-Dade. The machines in the precincts keep a paper trail of totals and I want the total of these paper trails compared to the total Kerry vote after being run through the central tabulating machine.

While the Ohio saga may linger for some days, it's abundantly clear that the Democrats have suffered a devastating defeat. Bush has his mandate, the GOP owns Congress and the governorships, and the Supreme Court is only a matter of time.

Let the recriminations begin. Progressives will no doubt cite a host of factors, from Kerry's wooden personality, the unshakable flip-flopper label, the Swift Boat slanders, "voted for it before I voted against it", among others. But these are questions of tactics, not strategy. At the end of the day, Democrats must realize their party is adrift in terms of ideology, policy and branding, and that is the source of Tuesday's calamity.

Democrats need to learn five lessons from this debacle, and learn them fast:

- Restore credibility on national security.
- Compete for white males.
- Move beyond identity politics.
- Understand intensity versus propensity in the culture wars.
- Focus on branding and communications.

For more detail, see:

"The Donkey Gets Its Ass Kicked: Five Lessons for Democrats"
http://www.perrspectives.com/blog/archives/000038.htm

On an earlier post I asked that if Florida voted for Kerry/Edwards, could we then consider Florida not part of the redneck South? I guess I under estimated the voting population here. We lost, but only by a small margin. We need to remember there are 50+ million citizens who don't like Bush or the Republican Party. Add to that number the majority of Europe's population and most likely the majority of the one billion Muslims out there. Do I feel bad that the Democrats lost? I feel bad that the majority of this country lacks the intelligence of knowing who and what they're voting for. Therefore I'm not going to pick apart the Democratic Party or Senator Kerry as the reason for this setback. I'm going to continue to resist this regime's power irregardless of what others may do. I'm disassociating myself from all known republicans in retaliation for the damage they've done to my country. I'm a "Blue" in a "Red" state but almost half the population here are "Blues" too so I don't feel alone.

While the Ohio saga may linger for some days, it's abundantly clear that the Democrats have suffered a devastating defeat. Bush has his mandate, the GOP owns Congress and the governorships, and the Supreme Court is only a matter of time.

Let the recriminations begin. Progressives will no doubt cite a host of factors, from Kerry's wooden personality, the unshakable flip-flopper label, the Swift Boat slanders, "voted for it before I voted against it", among others. But these are questions of tactics, not strategy. At the end of the day, Democrats must realize their party is adrift in terms of ideology, policy and branding, and that is the source of Tuesday's calamity.

Democrats need to learn five lessons from this debacle, and learn them fast:

- Restore credibility on national security.
- Compete for white males.
- Move beyond identity politics.
- Understand intensity versus propensity in the culture wars.
- Focus on branding and communications.

For more detail, see:

- "The Donkey Gets Its Ass Kicked: Five Lessons for Democrats"
http://www.perrspectives.com/blog/archives/000038.htm

I'll begin with jon above, your words are poison and not worthy of a mouse click.

Schnitzl and weinerdog43 have a good idea there, and it could work if enough people became involved. But is it just payback, and can you maintain the rage?

Kerry was skewered by a bunch of scheming liars but he was put in situations that were hopeless. No honest man recalls the exact detail of what happens in combat, and the more minute the details remembered, the less likely it is to be true.

And what the fuck do issues like gay rights, abortion or religious beliefs have in a presidential campaign anyway? Why did the Democrats meekly allow these distractions from Iraq, the economy, the environment?

I feel deeply distressed because I think a golden opportunity has gone.

I'll begin with jon above, your words are poison and not worthy of a mouse click.

The million dollar question is why moral value issues are ultimately the determinant factors in the time of instability, chaos (economy, Iraq, terrorism, oil,...)? I think the propaganda fear machine by the Republican has worked exceedingly well. If fear can be rationalized, fear can be overcome. When fear is too overwhelming, fear incapacitates one's ability to think or reason. Faith is most often the alternative route when one feels things are out of hand. The GOP successfully has created then exacerbated ambience of fear and uncertainty ("changing time", "crusade", "axis of evil", "constitutional amendendment banning gay marriage knowing full well it would not pass", "hard work", "pre-911 mind set",...) throughout the last few years. Bush campaign messages seemed shallow and outright lies to many New Enland and West Coast urbanites, but to the rural south and great plain folks they were very comforting and resonating. Bush's facade is very deceiving. He plays the role of the simpleton very, very well.

"Swiftboat Veterans for Truth came out and smeared John Kerry. These guys were thorough liars and obviously an arm of the Bush campaign. The TV media, with a few exceptions, gave an even-handed report even though these guys were complete liars..."

Are we talking about ABC's Ted Koppel? CBS's Dan Rather? MSNBC's Lawrence O'Donnell:

http://flyunderthebridge.blogspot.com/2004/10/little-worried-about-how-election-is.html

That's the problem with the Swift Boat people - some, much or most of the TV media gave "an even-handed report even though these guys were complete liars".

Frankly, I enjoyed Larry O'Donnell's impromptu impersonation of Sean Hannity.

"These guys (Swiftboat Veterans) were thorough liars and obviously an arm of the Bush campaign."

I bet you believe that Micahel Moore is an unbiased commentator, too.

Sigh says: America got the president it deserves. If 60M people are stupid enough to vote for bush and 80M others are stupid enough to not vote against him ...

I agree. The saddest thing for me is that 51% of the voting Americans revealed themselves to the entire world how ugly they are: arrogant, selfish, mean, soulless! Bush is what they deserve!

The question is, what is there to do for the 49% of us who do not want part of this? Another poster suggested that the blue states should stop subsidizing the red states. How about simply separate from the red states? There are clearly two United States now, by separating, some of us still unfortunately living in the red states will have the added motivation to move to the red states, and other small minded people who happen to be in the blue states may decide to move to the red states and we both will be happier and the world will be a better place.

no need for a culture war or other war, let's just depart ...

Sigh says: America got the president it deserves. If 60M people are stupid enough to vote for bush and 80M others are stupid enough to not vote against him ...

I agree. The saddest thing for me is that 51% of the voting Americans revealed themselves to the entire world how ugly they are: arrogant, selfish, mean, soulless! Bush is what they deserve!

The question is, what is there to do for the 49% of us who do not want part of this? Another poster suggested that the blue states should stop subsidizing the red states. How about simply separate from the red states? There are clearly two United States now, by separating, some of us still unfortunately living in the red states will have the added motivation to move to the red states, and other small minded people who happen to be in the blue states may decide to move to the red states and we both will be happier and the world will be a better place.

no need for a culture war or other war, let's just depart ...

Steve, I'm not sure how I would flesh it out. Mostly venting, but I'm also serious. I dislike the idea of a formal boycott, but I think we sent Sinclair a shot across the bow.

The more I think about the problems with paperless voting, and what happened in Ohio, and what the chairman of Diebold promised BEFORE the election, the angrier I get. How do I send those bastards a message?

In other words, there are millions of very unhappy Americans right now who are looking to do something. I want Shrub to understand there will be consequences for rolling over us. How in the heck to we get there? I'm open for suggestions.

Take heart people. Power corrupts and the Reps are totally corrupted. They are bound to drive themselves off of a cliff sometime soon. I think that the conservative Christian power has peaked. If I know my Falwells, Robertsons, etc., now they are in power they are about to do some PUBLIC ugly things they can't blame anyone else for. Look for even conservatives to get disgusted with this crew very soon. We just have to hit bottom first. I just hope we can claw our way back.

Thank you, J, for your vehement and on-the-mark rebuttal of Canuck's demand that we begin to "respect" the Red States. I respect those democrats in the south who have fought valiantly against the tide of fundamentalism and intolerance that has overtaken those states once more. But we don't need to learn that language or roll in the cultural dirt to get a win. We need to stand up with those democrats who are already there, working hard for the values we all share.

Reading quickly through the comments I thnk I see a disturbing pattern- Blame the voters, especially those who aren't from the North East or the West Coast who aren't sophisticated enough to see through the Bush Facade of Lies, Lies and more Lies. Oh yes and beliitle anyone who does not share your view as to what the campaign should be based on, ie you can use religion, unless of course you're say a black preacher stumping for a the liberal agenda. Why you can't figure out that peopl are drawn to moral value issue in times of instabilty shows your lack of curiosity or just plain hubris.
When you place all your 'faith' in government to solve problems and cannot allow for alternatives, then I suppose you can only try to belittle those you disagree with you. Yes,yes yes there are those on the Right who do the same thing so don't play the 'Jimmy did it first' game.

You can't win elections by being against things you must be for something. And the Kerry campaign focused too much on being Anti-Bush.

Just please don't let the next candidate be Hillary. I hate her as much as I hate Bush. If her, I hope the next republican candidate is someone with integrity.

This is another sad day for our country. There have been too many these past four years. To our non-American friend, Joe: what's wrong with this country is that we're no longer one nation, we're two and one of them is very ugly.

I think it's time to stop pretending we can ever again unite in any meaningful way. Life is too short and there's no good reason to wait til the other side dies off. I sincerely hope we can begin the process of separation as some others suggested in this thread. I think Red states will find responsibility again once they're denied the Blue State crutch.

In the meantime, we lost yesterday but let's start another fight, or 10, every single day. It's either that or emigrate. The America we grew up in is all over the world. We could go home again if we're willing to give up the homeland.

Regarding Kerry and the Dems. They did great. I'm proud of them and proud to be associated with them.

The biggest channel for the blue states to subsidize the red states is through the federal programs, right? So short of a full independence, maybe we should support Bush's effort in cutting the federal income taxes as much as possible and a total dismantaling of federal programs such as medicare, medicaid, and social security -- once the federal programs collapsed, states will have to come in to pick up the pieces, and the red states will be left in the dust, which is what they deserve anyway!

The biggest channel for the blue states to subsidize the red states is through the federal programs, right? So short of a full independence, maybe we should support Bush's effort in cutting the federal income taxes as much as possible and a total dismantaling of federal programs such as medicare, medicaid, and social security -- once the federal programs collapsed, states will have to come in to pick up the pieces, and the red states will be left in the dust, which is what they deserve anyway!

I haven't had time to read all comments, so if others have already made these points, forgive me.

The fact is, Bush had a big advantage as an incumbent in war time. All this handwringing about this election being an indictment of the Democratic party misses this crucial fact. While it's obvious to Democrats that Bush is a fuckup, it's not clear to undecided/independent voters. In times of war, undecided/independent/unaffiliated voters are loathe to take a chance on someone new. It's really that simple.

I've read a lot of desperate, angry comments about how Kerry's loss signifies some deep shortcoming in him and the party. That's just not true. Kerry got about 48% of the vote while Bush got 51%. That means that Kerry needed to convince a mere 3% of those who voted (or conversely, convince another 1-2%% of the population that didn't vote at all) that he was the right guy for the job . 3%, that's not very much, and even though he lost, it's hardly a reason throw out everything and start over.

I guess I'm saying, "Calm down." Yes, we're all disappointed, but we'll get over it. And once we do, we need to take a careful, rational, considered look at how we can change things in 2006 and beyond.

The Democratic Party didn't lose this election, Michael Moore did.

Dick Gephardt would have won. He's a Democrat.

The moonbats are barking loud tonight. There's so much arrogance in this thread that it's breath-taking. There's lots to discuss but let's just take your contempt for the "red" states. The proposals to strip federal funds from those states is foolish. There is a such thing as Congress that would not allow this to happen. Particularly since it is a Republican congress. Hello! But the real problem as I see it is your impatience. People are reluctant to change. They fear change and need to be cajoled into change unless there is some overwhelming need to change to survive. The Depression? So, in dismissing the religiosity with such contempt you show that you have NO understanding of basic human psychology. Gay marriage is the Right Thing To Do, and by golly, we'll force those yahoos to do it whether or not they like it. Arrogance and contempt don't win many elections. One last point. Do the posters to this thread really believe that a liberal Senator from Masschusetts can win enough electoral votes to become President? Clinton won as a moderate. Dukakis lost as a liberal. Mondale lost as a liberal. Ford was hated for pardoning Nixon so Carter won. Humphery lost as a liberal. Kennedy won as a tax-cutting moderate. Does anyone here see a common link to the victories and a common link to the losses?

Actually, I'm willing to agree with Pat Sullivan that it's unfair to say that the SBVT were "complete liars". They were just ALMOST complete liars. They did manage to hang the "Christmas In Cambodia" story on him convincingly. It's just everything else they said about him that was revealed to be cold-blooded, quite deliberate lies. (And, lest we forget, it was Chris Caldwell -- a conservative -- who had already announced earlier that the events in the Robert Kerrey case revealed SBVT's founder Adm. Hoffman to be "a Kurtz-like maniac".)

Jack,
You don't know shit. For starters Nixon was more liberal in '68 than Kerry in '04. Humphrey lost because he was tied to Johnson and his immoral war. Whatever your notion of liberal is it didn't have much to do with this election. Who knows what liberal and conservative means any more with the GOP charging off into the 19th century? The Dem/Republican divide these days is between competence and fantasy. Yesterday fantasy won.

Your comment about sticking fast until survival forces change seems about right. Kind of a like a deer in the headlights of modern society.

Wow, the wing-nuts are swarming here. First, I hate to say this, but: our immoderate (and proudly rude) Republican brethren, buzz off. You want to do a victory dance, fine - don't do it here. Go over to one of your own sites and do it there. I'm sure the young misses there are just waiting for your arrival at the ball.

Jack, go to a blog that's your style - this isn't it. Be a barbarian elsewhere. Don't leave your droppings here. Arrogance and contempt don't win many elections? From a supporter of Bush and Cheney, this is a bit rich, eh? Oh, we already know that you've bought into the line that Bush and Cheney are just folks. Fine. Then I can believe that Kerry is just as just folks as those open elitists.

The fact that you come over to our place of discussion (not yours, pal) and drop your turds o' wisdom shows what you really think of "arrogance and contempt". Frankly, you LIKE arrogance and contempt - your candidates literally personify those qualities. Arrogance and contempt make you queasy at the knees - you think leadership is a bully shitting on your head (and secretly that makes you aroused). Admit it and finally give in to your secret fetish, Jack!

Frankly, anyone the Democrats would have nominated you would have hated as equally - doesn't matter how liberal, how conservative, how southern, how northern. In fact, you guys hate lots of the moderate pols in your party just as much. You would have hated Joe Lieberman just as much - in fact, in the last election, you DID hate Joe Lieberman just as much. Let's just face it, you're enraged by the enfrontery of there simply actually BEING another party other than the NationalSo......er, GOP.

Now, go Cheney off.

First Jon: OK, I understand now: a devastating defeat is losing by 3%. Hmmmm, it's a devastating defeat when the Democrats lose by 3% but a great world-historical victory when Bush "wins" it by electoral votes alone. We see where you're coming from. Next time, when peddling an idea to someone you should try to repress your insatiable desire to scream "infidel must die! "death to heretic scum!" to their faces before the sales pitch. Now, here's a penny and go scram, geek

Canuck, what precisely "respect" do you need for people to do? Just how is John Kerry supposed to combat your completely free-floating imaginary paranoia that the Yankees hate you? The vice-presidential candidate was from North Carolina. Are you seriously going to argue that the reason that Edwards lost is that he didn't respect "the red states" (a openly nonsensical formulation, as everyone realizes) enough? Are you saying Donna Brazile doesn't understand the South? Are you seriously arguing that Ken Salazar, Brian Schweitzer, Mike Easley and Joe Manchin don't understand and respect "the red states"? Well, maybe you should ask their Republican opponents.

Let's just admit what you really what - you want to make every Democrat in the country lick a Old Confederate flag wrapped around your member just before you cut off their heads with the Civil War re-enactment battle saber you're holding with your left hand while your right beats you off to your fantasy. C'mon, just admit it - we all know its true anyway.

Brad, sorry to be so dirty but it had to be done.

First, let's keep in mind that the Dems just barely lost. They're hardly destroyed as an alternative party, any more than the GOP was when it got wiped out tremendously more badly in 1964.

Second, let's keep in mind WHY the Dems narrowly lost: there were two key factors. The first is homophobia -- which is a genuinely evil enemy and which the Dems must not pander to, but which they can partially defuse by pointing out (as Kerry did not during the debates) that the FMA that Bush backed would not only outlaw gay marriage (with its religious connotations) but also outlaw secular gay civil unions (which 64% of the voters backed, according to the polls). Note also that Kerry never came up with a remotely convincing explanation as to WHY he considers homosexuality -- and early abortions -- morally permissible.

The second factor is that the Dems really have not yet come up with a coherent, convincing national security policy. The voters were perfectly aware that Bush was telling fairy tales when he insisted that things are not going to hell in Iraq and that nothing major needs to be changed; but they were equally aware that Kerry was telling equally absurd fairy tales when he insisted that the only thing needed to correct the problem was to somehow persuade huge numbers of foreign troops into entering Iraq. The truth, of course, is that within a few months the President is going to have two real choices: either pull out of Iraq (or at least part of it) and let it go to hell, or massively increase the number of US troops in it, which will certainly require far more spending and will probably also require reinstituing the draft. Neither of these guys faced up to that genuinely difficult choice. And neither of them mentioned that keeping our military in Iraq tremendously limits our ability to prevent Iran from acquiring its own very real Bomb -- or to cope with any military crisis produced by the fact that North Korea and Pakistan already have the Bomb. Kerry's advisor Graham Allison HAS pointed this out -- as, for that matter, has George Will -- but Kerry ignored him.

Finally, Kerry didn't even play properly to his very real strength on economic issues. He could and should have stuck to simply pointing out -- correctly -- that Bush is building up a deficit whose consequences for most of us will be disastrous, and that he's creating most of it by handing out massive tax cuts to the already-rich. But, once again, during the debates, Kerry solemnly insisted that just by eliminating those upper-class tax cuts he could not erase that deficit but ALSO pay for a large middle-class tax cut AND for a considerably enlarged health-care program AND a variety of other goodies -- without even trying to explain how the figures added up. When Bush said flatly that the figures did NOT add up, Kerry never even tried to respond to him. It was a Dukakis Moment, and so he reduced his own credibility on economic issues to the point that he couldn't wield them as a really effective weapon against Bush.

But the Dems must also do one more thing during the next four years: stubbornly filibuster all really outrageous judges that Bush nominates (of which there will be a lot), no matter how much the Talking Heads click their tongues at them for doing so. The reason is not so much Roe vs. Wade (although the Dems have every right to block Bush's nominees as much as the GOP blocked Clinton's nominees earlier) as it is the danger that said judges will be willing to tinker with election rules -- which, as I said last night, makes a very dangerous combination with trail-less electronic voting machines that could permanently and seriously disrupt democracy in this country. Other than that, the thing for the Dems to do is simply to make their own message more coherent and convincing (see above), and then just lean back and wait to pick up the pieces.

To Weinerdog43:We could begin a movement to have the I.R.S.(before they get dissolved)revoke the tax-exempt status of all the evangelical and catholic churches in the country. A catholic church in the Boston area had a sign in their front lawn case, you know the one where they usually put the bible dittys, and it said: "If you vote for a person who supports abortion, you are committing a mortal,(not even venial!,SIN." ..revoked! all the evangelical pamphets and 'voter guides'...revoked! all the sunday night meetings about "reelecting our president" ...REVOKED!
Mike: you wrote that Kerry was too anti-bush: he wasn't anti-bush enough! all that Edwards pap about running a postive campaign...
Mee: on Hillary: did you or anyone notice that she did the bare minimum on the trail?
Re: democratic party: Terry Mac is not too bright: he was barely able to respond after the Repub convention. He looked shellshocked. And in an elegant display of nastiness, he barred Nader from the convention when the Kerry campaign should have been looking instead into Nader's "silver tray demostration" ,...ten silver trays ,carried by waiters, to teh kerry headquarter, each plate carrying an issue Kerry could adopt to beat bush. The campaign ignored it, never paid it a minute's attention.
Most of you express needing/wanting a new Democratic Party? call c-span and order one of the few Nader 'stump' speeches... Now I know that doesn't suit you Dems...but truly, look into it.
One of the big BIG mistakes Kery made was never exlaining -when he had three opportunities and plenty of time-the 87 bill vote. It was such a simple explanation. Hell, even the red-state people could have understood it."I voted for it when it was a democratic bill, paid for by rescinding the tax cut for the wealthy." Instead he came up wih the cockamamie excuse: "I may talk about the war wrong, but he made the wrong war, which is worse?" That was too weird....
Lastly, the Democratic Party lost its mind under Clinton and the Dem.Leadership Council bullshit.

Re: stripping the red states of federal subsidies. There is some truth to that: I think that two Senators (Moynihan?) used to colllate and analyze federal funding information and publish the results--given the Bushie/GOP penchant for secrecy and false figures this service probably doesn't exist anymore. However, if I recall correctly some "blue states" like NJ received less than it paid in in tax dollars and some "red states" (like AZ) received much much more in tax dollars then it paid in. I'm not sure this is consistently true across the red/blue spectrum--it would be interesting to see what would happen if the lavishly endowed states no longer received such largess. I have found it interesting that the "wise use" movement (in the west and PNW) is an kind of nasty outgrowth of the so-called "pioneer" attitude that I see in parts of OR, i.e., Oregon pioneers are/were "independent" and self sufficient--yet when I came to OR (many years ago) I was amazed at how cheap electricity was--and why? Because of dams built by the federal government. Not the "pioneers" (unless they were paid by the feds). Some of the agriculture is subsidized by federal water programs (as in CA and other arid parts of the US), and the national forests have long subsidized the timber industry through "deficit" timber sales (and by logging road building in on FS and BLM timber lands). I don't doubt that some of the original OR pioneers were self-sufficient, etc., but much of OR has benefited from types of direct and indirect federal subsidies since at least the '30's, if not before. But the myth lives on and is being used to fuel movements like the "wise use" one (which is mostly about removing all barriers to unrestricted private development while retaining all federal subsidies--subsidized water supply, etc.).

As for this election, I am deeply disappointed--which surprised me as I hadn't realized I'd believed, as opposed to hoped, that Kerry could win. I don't really know what to think--I don't really understand how people could believe Bush could stand for anything but pork barrel, lying, insane foreign and economic policies, machine politics and a version of "Christianity" that includes stomping on the poor while working to create a society that reduces ever more people to poverty and is more than likely to produce a much more poorly educated population. But then, I think Bush's "No Child Left Behind" is designed to destroy the public school system so that ringwing fundamentalist schools can attract more students and obtain federal funding through the voucher system and "faith-based" projects. A good way of building a permanent constituency-- brainwash 'em from the beginning. And of course you get to destroy the teachers' unions, etc., as well--and union busting has been a GOP goal since Reagan. My impression is that the radical GOP goal is for at least 70% of the population to be working for Walmart wages and believing they're fulfilling a religious purpose by helping the US stay "competitive" with the rest of the world--and sending their children to fight more pre-emptive wars to preserve their American way of life and "freedom" --and there will be more children because abortion and most forms of contraception will either be illegal, be religiously proscribed or people will never have learned about them ("abstinence only" education). Oh, and we'll see growing rates of cancer, disorders like Parkinson's disease, MS, more deformed babies, higher infant mortality rates, etc., because corporations will be free to pollute because the Bush Administration and Congress think any kind of pollution control unreasonably limits corporate profits/growth, plus it's ok for the federal government to interfere in an area of the law constitutionally and traditionally within the realm of the states by forcing tort "reform" (limitation of corporation liability for acts of negligence and fraudulent concealment of evidence of negligence and/or reckless acts) via federal law. He's already moving swiftly along this last path by doing his best to get the DOD exempted from liability for any harm done by perchlorate (coming from bases) as well as responsibility for cleaning it up. In addition, you can expect cleanup of Superfund sites to stop completely, as under the Bushies, money is not being collected from polluting corporations anymore. The ends are all that matter to most of these folks, process, as in due process, equal protection under the law, etc., is for liberal suckers, I guess.

At least that seems to be the general thrust of the Bush/Cheney doctrine as I understand it.

I do not think that the way lies in changing the Dem party to "win" the white male vote, as one poster suggests. There are more women than men in this country, so logically, if you want to win, you'd go for increasing the turnout of all women (of all colors, ethnic backgrounds, and ages) and capturing their vote. There were many single women (with and without children) who had not voted and probably did not vote--because no one was addressing issues that matter to them. And convincing them that those issues exist and do matter: all the stats I've seen indicate that many more women end up on SSI (Supplemental Security Income--you get it if you're disabled and very poor or over 65 and very poor--considerably below the poverty line)--partly because they continue to live longer than men and thus are more likely to outlive their savings and see inflation eat away any pension. And single women continue to make considerably less (I think it's now 74.6 cents of the $1 that men earn) than men. They are probably less likely to have health insurance, probably more likely to be a single parent. Apparently black women are much much more likely to attend college than black men--just how difficult is it for those women to pay off their student loans or even finish school? Find a decent job if they do graduate? I didn't read every speech, but of those I read, I don't recall much about those issues as they pertain to women--of any color. Except in generalities. Except for the necessity of the nation controlling the reproductive capacity of women, etc. And I think it would've been easy enough to make a connection for people between pollution and dangers to themselves and their children, in and out of utero.

I do agree with one poster who said the rabid branch of the GOP has done a better job (for years) of brainwashing people, raising money, controlling the mainstream media and perfecting vicious tactics. I wish I knew why it seems that so many people in the US appear to be so easily brainwashed, i.e., to continue to believe that Hussein was involved in 09/11, etc.

This yellow dog liberal Democrat has to respectfully disagree. Fact is John Kerry, Michael Moore, George Soros, et. al. offered splendid critiques of George Bush but when it came to offering new positive programs for the future their cupboard was bare.

That's because the Democratic party has ceased to be a party of new ideas. While groups like the Heritage Foundation and the Cato Institute have developed a whole new range of policy options and packaged them for Republican politicians, nothing comparable has happened on the Democratic side.

If Democrat are going to succeed, that's got to change. Liberal academics need to come up with new
viable policy options and make them available to Democratic candidates. Then when the next Democrat running for president is asked for his views on Social Security he'll have real policies to offer instead of being stuck with the unbelievable claim that there is nothing to fix. He'll be able to offer a real vision for K-12 education instead of the me too answer of fully funding No Child Left Behind. And he'll have a better job creation strategy than abolishing some obscure tax break that even he knows will do little to help the hundreds of thousands losing jobs to globalization.

You are right Prof. DeLong the Democratic Party has great values. The challenge for Democratic academics is to use those values to shape viable policy alternatives for the future. When the Democrats have that when they can offer real postive programs, then they will be in a position to compete effectively against the Republicans.

I'm truly surprised at the great amount of sense coming from Judy, and even more surprised w/ Prof DeLong's post. Being proud of losing when the stakes were this high is downright silly. There's something wrong w/ America when somebody this incompetent gets re-elected.

VixenPerson:>>>>Lastly, the Democratic Party lost its mind under Clinton and the Dem.Leadership Council bullshit.<<<<

But that is the center of your country. Bill Clinton defined the center in this country; Gore rejected it but George W. Bush did not. John Kerry rejected it a long time ago and only his masquerade as a Democrat centrist got him as close as he got.

Not only are you, ma'am, unwilling to fashion a consensus with the 51% who just voted for Bush, you reject an accomodation with a substantial portion of your own party as well, those who voted Kerry only out of lifelong Democrat affiliation and simple habit.

The election was not as close as you think.

If you look around the country of which you're an unfortunate and oppressed citizen, you might note that the GOP majority in governships, statehouses, and Congress cannot simply be attributed to the evil Rove.

Even the Goebbels of the Right ain't that good.

Howard Dean for DNC chair? Might as well go whole hog with Michael Moore or Noam Chomsky and consign the Democratic Party to go the way of the Whigs.

Look at the UK. Tony Blair's thorough capture of their "centre" has made not only the Liberal Democrats irrelevant, but the Conservatives (Thatcher's Tories, for those who came in late) as well.

Only the most hardcore Tory resents Tony Blair's PMship.

He rules by consensus, not on thises or thatses. There is no serious challenge from the left or right. The beancounters of history make themselves irrelevant by their lack of vision about more than the beans in front of them.

The folks here who resent the incursions on "our" board show the problem, content with the comfort of the cocoon, disinterested in locating the center, ignoring the lesson of leading horses to water, saying fuck those stupid horses anyway.

Correspondent Judy properly calls for creativity. A shame he's a loner like Kerry, but Oakland mayor Jerry Brown is a brilliant counterpoint (or complement) to the Cato Institutes of the right.

Jerry Brown is and always has been a visionary. Just like Newt Gingrich, who rocked your world, only less political...:-)

Dear tvd: At least the 51% of people who voted for the anti-christ have an excuse--they believe in god (being their brother's keeper on matters that don't concern them, saying fuck you to matters that should) and they don't read.
"CLinton defined the center"...Be serious: Clinton just co-opted the moderate Republican agenda, and by so doing lost the few shards and shreds of the Old Party.. "Gore didn't" 0f course he did campaign on the DLC bs, until the last week or so, death penalty and all.I thought that was common knowledge.
Judy's suggestion of creativity will never be found in the center,a rather uninspiring and dangerous place to be: PROOF--just look where Clinton's so-called centrism got us...(the ascendancy plans of the conservative repubs really got organized during CLinton's 8, while you all were so happy with him, the DLC and the market: Untold crimes by bush, the best is yet to come on that score, and a truly uninspired Democratic party and electorate. When will the democratic party 'thinkers and academics' alight upon the idea that we need more choices and voices, that the two party system is a defunct and corrupt actuality. We need to look to artists-thinkers: who know and live the fact that nothing inspired, new/old and valuable ever comes from the 'center' way of thinking.
And the UK centrism of Blair doesn't and can't apply here at the moment. It is a noble thought, to govern from the center, but that center has to be about SOMETHING.
Tvd: sorry for the incursion onto your board. and...I am more "unfortunate and oppressed" than you could imagine...

Kerry couldn't be for anything. only 30% of his support was for him, and 60% was against bush. Kerry has waffled in words while voting the contradictory rob peter pay paul Democratic line for 25 years.

Perhaps the Democratic party could come up with a few ideas that would sing to the common man:

1. levy a 1% tax on accumulated wealth instead of a 30% tax on its derivitive, (income).
2. allow honest people to carry guns for their own security, instead of only permitting the rich to have private and public bodyguards.
3. Fight the culture war by legislative support married families with significant tax cuts for more kids, rather than pushing nonproductive homosexual relationships by judicial fiat.

I am trying to help here guys.

Ideas for the future:
1 Public Education is a great idea. Alas it makes little difference if Main Stream Education destroys itself from the inside by union propaganda or funding is removed from the outside by politics. In either case a significant service to the body politic will be lost.
2. Unions ought to develop and recommend a way of weeding out incompetent teachers before they get tenure. Noone should be allowed to join the union until they have demonstrated their competence.
3. Unions have to provide a better product to make up for the extra money they desire. This was true with the riverboat pilots union, and that is how they took over the market. If you don't then the union just becomes a bunch of thugs that coerce not management but other workers. Hardly the sort of thing to help the "Workers of the world" to Unite.

Hey Brad, odd that you delete my posts, when I, the child of two school teachers, am trying to rejuvinate the Democratic party.

I am horribly poor, but educated. My children are minorities of one sort or another, and I am just the kind of guy that ought to be the Democrat's meat and drink.

So, anyone have ideas on how to save the party of the people against the powerful?

Proud memebers of the 49% nation!

I agree that the top of the party needs to be refreshed, but let's not get apocalyptic.
49%
49%
In the face a the TRILLIONS of dollars spent in the last 30 years to stop us at all costs. To turn Liberal into a slurr, to buy the media, too expand their empire of hate.

We are damn close to taking the country back. We need to work on framing the message and the messanger but we are fundamentally sound.

We shall overcome.
We are not afraid.
We shall overcome.

As an economist, Brad, you should understand why Kerry lost. People vote based on their preferences, which is some weighted average of how they feel about various issues. Because Kerry didn't make clear how he would do anything different in Iraq, many people pushed this issue further back than it should have been. The economy is improving for most people, so that got a little less weight. And the "morals" issue is really about maintaining traditional institutions. Voters in the red states value traditional institutions like marriage more than voters in blue states. With the Massachussets Supreme Court decision about gay marriage, this issue became more important and they voted for the candidate that they thought would uphold tradition. Had the Democrats nominated someone like Lieberman, they would have won many of these votes and won the election.

Dear Democratic Friends:

My condolences on Tuesday's results. Senators Kerry and Edwards did fight a good fight, but the voters have spoken and it will be Mr. Bush will be President Bush for four more years.

In reading your comments to each other, it seems y'all have a whole lot of anger. I'd encourage you to deal with that constructively, for anger is an acid that eats away at its container.

Best wishes for 2008.

"The Democratic Party has ... conducted itself with honor and courage."

Courage!

Kerry's #1 issue was that he would do *better* in Iraq than Bush.

Bob Woodward reported that he talked at open-ended length with Bush about Iraq and published the conversation. He then asked Kerry's people if Kerry would answer some questions about what he'd different in Iraq than Bush.

Their response: No, Kerry won't -- but *if* he had answered the questions, his answers would have been "strong and compelling"! ;-)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A55919-2004Oct22

Courage!

The #1 domestic issue is the $50 trillion entitlement funding gap. Bush named a Democrat-led commission to explore options to close the Social Security part of it.

Kerry had no, zilch, nada, idea towards that goal of his own -- then falsely named one of the Commission's options as Bush's and bashed Bush with it, falsely saying it would cut Social Security benefits by 45%. (Right after Bush brought back the draft.)

There's Courage on the Big Issues of the day!

"It has put forward an alternate vision of America -- one that values our allies and builds the Grand Alliance..."

...by slurring allies who actually stand with US as "the bribed, the coerced, the bought...", and by having his sister urge the electoral defeat of one of its leaders.

I'd almost have liked to have Kerry win just for the fun of seeing him forge his Grand Alliance with John Howard. ;-)

The rest of the piece seems about the same quality.

It's fine to give a cheer-the-troops speech -- but actually believing one's own propaganda won't help produce a better result next time.

Dear Democratic Friends:

Sorry if my last message sounded ironic, sarcastic condescending or patronizing - had to leave quickly to run an errand for my boss. (See, I'm not even a typical Republican who owns the company - I work for someone else.)

Anyway, it strikes me that if I were in your shoes, in thinking ahead, you need to find a candidate who is a) good-looking (because it is a popularity contest, after all), b) has a sense of self-depreciating humor (see comments after a)), c) attracts the middle of the electorate, the moderates of both major parties and indepedents and d) has a proven track record that shows the courage to take and hold positions that shows where he or she stands without being so dogmatic that it alienates his own or the other party.

I know that's a tall order, but John Edwards would have fit the bill. Frankly, I was very concerned about him being your nominee, and was delighted when the ticket went upside-down with Kerry for President and Edwards VP. But given their ages, it's understandable and I don't know that it would have made a difference in the outcome.

Bill Clinton fit that profile, especially on a, b & c - a nice guy that I would have enjoyed golfing with, except that I knew he'd cheat (and I would never have left him alone with my wife) and at least disgused himself as a fiscally conservative moderate.

Jimmy Carter especially did fit that profile - A great, great man and humanitarian that I have tremendous personal respect for. Unfortunately, he maybe have been too honest and uncompromising to be a good President. (In private life, though, those are good things. Hopefully, I'd be in that same boat if anyone was insane enough to elect me President.)

Two of the knocks on Senator Kerry that may have been key to his defeat were his ranking as the #1 most liberal of all Senators, based on his voting record (Edwards ranked #4); and his reputation as a flip-flopper on issues. Truly successful people make decisions quickly and change them slowly, not the other way around. It's a fine line for a politician to walk, I realize, but I think Mr. Kerry came across as trying too hard to please at the cost of his own expressed beliefs.

Hate to tell you this, but you won't be able to elect someone who is totally acceptable to your party's most-liberal elements, any more than we could elect one who reflects our most conservative ones. I am very confident that Ralph Reed, head of the Christian Coalition, will never be the Republican candidate for President. Similiarly, I think you might agree Ralph Nader will never be the Democratic nominee (if you want to win the election. If not, please go ahead and nominate him! We'd be happy to increase our margin of victory.).

If you want to fuss and complain about how you can't get someone elected, continue to nominate people to the far end of the left spectrum. If you want to get someone elected that will advance at least some of your most important agenda items, you will have to accept someone who at least looks moderate in the eyes of all voters.

I concluded earlier by wishing you well in 2008, neglecting that we also have midterm elections in 2006. Sorry. Good luck in those, as well. My wish for both our parties is a fair, clean fight, a honest dialogue and exchange of ideas and that the best ideas from both sides will rise to create a future that is better than either of us could have built alone.

Take care,

A compassionate conservative

"Why Oh Why Can't We Have a Better" Democratic opposition?

Brad, I'd come here often if I could learn in a congenial atmosphere, but rage and anguish often overtake insight and blind you to the honest but different view others offer that wisely might be woven in with your own.

I come back from time to time, to see if things have changed. I'll check back again.

How many Marines have an appointment in Falluja?

Jim Glass: "The #1 domestic issue is the $50 trillion entitlement funding gap. Bush named a Democrat-led commission to explore options to close the Social Security part of it.

"Kerry had no, zilch, nada, ideas towards that goal of his own -- then falsely named one of the Commission's options as Bush's and bashed Bush with it, falsely saying it would cut Social Security benefits by 45%. (Right after Bush brought back the draft.)

"There's Courage on the Big Issues of the day!"

Yep. Just as much courage as Bush showed by announcing that (A) he favors partially privatizing Social Security; (B) there will be no cuts in current or near-future benefits to anyone; and (C) he isn't going to raise any other taxes to provide the funds to allow A and B to occur simultaneously. Sen. Moynihan, who actually led that commission, was not amused. As Robert Samuelson said, Bush and Kerry have both had their heads firmly stuck in the sand on this issue -- just as they've both been telling us absurd fairy tales about Iraq (Bush that things are going splendidly as is; Kerry that he can magically persuade huge numbers of foreign troops to join us), in order to avoid facing the very real choice that the President will be faced with in a couple of months: either pulling out or massively increasing the number of US troops and the amount of US spending there (which, as Phil Carter agrees, is very likely to require a draft, given the fact that potential volunteers and re-ups have now caught onto the fact that they're being royally screwed by this administration).

Nor have either of them said what they're going to do to prevent Iran from acquiring the Bomb if finger-wagging doesn't work (although the possibility that Iraq might get it in the much more distant future was, for some reason, a matter of burning concern for Bush, requiring an immediate if abysmally planned invasion), or to cope with the likely and deadly near-future crises resulting from the fact that North Korea and Pakistan already have it.

Thus my decision to vote for Kerry on the grounds that (A) I vastly prefer him on other domestic policy issues (starting with his determination to reverse Bush's massive and unproductive tax giveaway to the rich); and (B) he is unmistakably smarter than Bush, raising at least the hope that he would be more willing to reverse himself when he sees he's headed for a cliff.

There's a thread at Democratic Underground that is worth looking at - some of it is just angry, but some is very moving:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x2587059#2588933

Miz Vix---

You make it clear that you're not interested in forming a consensus within your own Democratic Party, let alone with the nation as a whole. It's your way or the highway.

This is tyranny, the thing you hate most and accuse your enemies of.

Please know that doesn't make me think you're a bad person. We all do what we gotta do.

"Two of the knocks on Senator Kerry that may have been key to his defeat were his ranking as the #1 most liberal of all Senators, based on his voting record (Edwards ranked #4); and his reputation as a flip-flopper on issues." - This is all labeling. The Democratic party has become increasingly centrist in its policies, so calling Kerry the "most liberal" has to take into account of that fact. It's like someone saying 'oh my god, today was the coldest day ever,' but they're in Honolulu. Also, don't you see the logical fallacy in accusing Kerry of being the 'most liberal' and of also being a 'flip-flopper'?

"but I think Mr. Kerry came across as trying too hard to please at the cost of his own expressed beliefs." - Why is Ronald Reagan known as the great compromiser, but Kerry is punished for being the same? Why should you laugh at Kerry's belief that there is a solution that is better than all the alternatives? That we can keep our own beliefs, not betray them, but also not encroach on anyone else's at the same time? If you're cynical, then just say it, don't knock the other person for trying.

"Hate to tell you this, but you won't be able to elect someone who is totally acceptable to your party's most-liberal elements, any more than we could elect one who reflects our most conservative ones." - You've been spun, my friend.

"I am very confident that Ralph Reed, head of the Christian Coalition, will never be the Republican candidate for President." - Ralph Reed really is not comparable to John Kerry. For one, Kerry has friends on both sides of the aisle.

The thing here is, you've already made up your mind about the man, based on god knows what. I don't have a TV, so I see very little of how Kerry is portrayed on TV. The Kerry I see is a very fine man. He's got a lot of pride, pride that he's won and gained for himself, pride well-deserved. That's something, especially in this day and age. I'm old fashioned, so I believe in looking up to our leaders, not have to feel like they can chit-chat with me standing around the kitchen counter. I think we've lost something here - a chance for a good man, a responsible man, someone strong who doesn't need faith to kick a habit, a family man, an open-hearted, tough-minded, strong-willed, conscientious and intelligent man, to become our President. I cannot help but think of Kerry as Esau to Bush's Jakob, and this nation as blind and ailing.

"but I think Mr. Kerry came across as trying too hard to please at the cost of his own expressed beliefs."

- Why is Ronald Reagan known as the great compromiser, but Kerry is punished for being the same? Why should you laugh at Kerry's belief that there is a solution that is better than all the alternatives? That we can keep our own beliefs, not betray them, but also not encroach on anyone else's at the same time? If you're cynical, then just say it, don't knock the other person for trying."

---Sorry, but Henry Clay was known as The Great Compromiser. He fashioned the doomed Missouri Compromise of 1820, which worked only to postpone the end of slavery.

Your argument for John Kerry actually deflates him, and many would say it certainly defines him. He does not let his beliefs interfere with his politics.

(Ronald Reagan was The Great Communicator.)

The Missouri Compromise was actually pretty successful. It kept the nation together while the strength of the slave holders went down, and the strength of the industrial north went up. A civil war in 1820 would have led to slave holding success, and two nations would have been the subject of European meddling.

Bad things that were necessary to get it to pass: the Fugitive Slave act required returning escaped slaves. In practice this was routinely circumvented. Slaves excaping had to get to Canada. With canadian documents they could return to the US. To move them further the abolitionists greatly expanded the "underground railroad".

Slavery still exists. We call it "Graduate School", "Taxation", and "mandatory public service" now. The Arabic word for slave refers literally to a black man.

A good point about the North needing to build up its strength.

Peace. I'm out.

The only vote that we Blue state folks can cast now is with our dollars. I for one will not buy anything from most of the red states, or from those that financed GWB ....

I am interested in how we can band together and vote with our dollars

information on oklahoma

Doll collection

I agree with what you say - makes sense to me. Looking for some propecia?

I agree with what you say - makes sense to me. Looking for some propecia?

Doubt 'til thou canst doubt no more...doubt is thought and thought is life. Systems which end doubt are devices for drugging thought. Albert Guerard

3294 http://www.top-texas-hold-em.com

texas hold em

There are more fools in the world than there are people. Heinrich Heine (1797 - 1856)

http://www.online-generics-store.com/aids-drug-generic-hiv.html Aids drug generic hiv http://www.online-generics-store.com/generic-drug-listing.html Generic drug listing

You ar the the one I love honey where are you now just come back we will live very happily

You ar the the one I love honey where are you now just come back we will live very happily