Why America May Keep Getting Bluer
Tweet
The minority party, the Republican party, is learning the wrong lesson of 2006. Already they are fighting over how much further to the right they should go. This is not a conservative nation, in the way the GOP defines it. America is a moderate nation, conservative on some issues, liberal on others and straight down the line on others. The Democratic party is a center-left party, while the GOP is a right-wing one. The future of this country will be decided in the center and not at the fringe. As the Democrats occupy the center, the GOP is moving to the edges.
Arlen Specter, a Republican knows this. So does Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, a Republican, who just romped to re-election in a state where his party is in the minority.
As a Democrat, I hope the GOP doesn’t listen. Means more of us. Onward, blue.
20 Responses to “Why America May Keep Getting Bluer”
GOP Rep. Spencer Bachus Facing House Ethics Probe For Insider Trading
Jennifer Aniston Reportedly Pregnant With Twins
PHOTOS: Tamara Ecclestone At The Langham Hotel
Red Front? “Center For American Freedom” Logo Echoes Communist Style
Romney Calls For Defunding Planned Parenthood, Wife Was A Donor
GOP Fundraising Email Asks Supporters To “Knock Out” Obama
Romney Comes Up Limp In Nevada
Obama Opens Lead On Romney In New Poll
Latest Entries
Why Do Liberals Support Drone Strikes?
Weekly Standard Rolls Out The Iraq Argument For Iran
Equal Polarization, My Ass
Some Crazy Stuff That Happened In World War II
Maryland Republican Campaign Funds Used To Defend Voter Suppression
The Obama Jobs Record In One Graph
Martin O’Malley All In For Marriage Equality
Newt Gingrich, Filled With More Excrement Than Your Average Politician
New Year, Powerline Still Stupid
Thanks Again
Meta
Blogroll
Disclaimer
The views on this site are mine and mine alone, and do not reflect the views of my employer, Media Matters for America
© 2000-2011 Oliver Willis
AP and NBC say WEBB WINS!!
Oh Allen, eat some macaca pie.
Oliver, the only problem with your theory is that the Democratic leadership is not anywhere near the center.
In the Senate, you’re going to have Patrick Leahy, Ted Kennedy, Diane Feinstein, and Chuck Schumer heading up committees.
In the House, it is going to be Charles Rangel, Nancy Pelosi, John Conyers, and Henry Waxman.
No matter how you slice it, the above Democrats are not part and parcel of the wave that won elections yesterday. They are left wing liberals. It’s as simple as that. The majority of the wins yesterday were by moderate Democrats in the vein of the old ‘Blue Dogs.’ The only candidate that was most like the above was Ned Lamont and he was trounced.
Fact is, if the Democrats give us two years of Jim Webb style governing, then they’ll do fine. If they give the country two years of Charlie Rangel and Ted Kennedy governing, you’ll kiss that majority goodbye.
And you would say the Republican leadership was thoughtful moderation?
I see your Ted Kennedy, I raise you Bill Frist and Trent Lott. I see your Chuck Schumer, and raise you Tom DeLay. Diane Feinsten just had 4,000,000 Americans vote for her. I don’t think any other members of the Republican caucus can come close to that.
By comparison we seem like middle of the road Americans.
Oliver, we’re not talking about Bill Frist or Trent Lott. Remember, they’re no longer in power.
And no, Ted Kennedy Henry Waxman, and Pat Leahy do not seem like middle of the road Americans.
Again, the one candidate who ran the kind of campaign that falls in line with the way the Democratic leadership is set up was Lamont. Beaten. Easily.
Only to people on the right, do people like Kennedy, Pelosi, Waxman, et al, seem like raging liberals. In fact, compared against the “true” American center, their opinions are quite reasonable.
This “Dems won by shifting conservative” is nonsense. Plenty of their candidates were more conservative; plenty were not. It just doesn’t explain it.
I’m comparing the relative radicalization here. You’ve got to step out of the right wing echo chamber on these things, where every four years the Democrats supposedly nominate the most liberal human being alive only to have millions of people vote for them (and in 3 out of the last 4 contests, the majority of those millions).
The caricature is of Democrats who are going to declare socialism the minute they get into office, but compared to the Republican officeholders who have extolled the virtue of annointing oils or a fondness for segregationism, the Democrats are not outside of the mainstream. Our caucus in the senate, on a per vote basis represents more Americans even before this election.
Again I give you this example – Hillary Clinton is supposed to be the ultimate liberal machiavelli (this is what we’ll hear the minute she declares she’s running for president) and yet last night 2.8 million people voted for her – more than any Republican in the Senate.
We represent more people. Now we represent more states. We represent America, and the numbers are now reflecting that.
Oliver, I am wondering what your take is on the idea put out there today (I forget by whom – I think it was either Scarborough or Pat Buchanan) that America is now going to experience a new poitive “blue” version of nationalism?
In the Senate, you’re going to have Patrick Leahy, Ted Kennedy, Diane Feinstein, and Chuck Schumer heading up committees.
In the House, it is going to be Charles Rangel, Nancy Pelosi, John Conyers, and Henry Waxman.
No matter how you slice it, the above Democrats are not part and parcel of the wave that won elections yesterday.
All of the House members you mention were re-electorated yesterday. Some of the senators, too. If they won by large margins (and I’m thinking a few of them did), then how were they not part and parcel of the wave?
Again, the one candidate who ran the kind of campaign that falls in line with the way the Democratic leadership is set up was Lamont. Beaten. Easily.
Where exactly did you get this from? Lamont got very little support from the Democratic leadership. How can you say Lamont’s campaign falls in line with the Dem leaders when they wouldn’t fully support him after he won the primary?
It’s quite probable (see this article, though I disagree on the idea that it’s “nationalism”) the big win by people like Sherrod Brown, and the success of folks like Jon Tester says I think that the Democratic caucus who supported Clinton and NAFTA is dead. As someone who supported NAFTA I can’t say I completely disagree. The idea that we send jobs away and have no upgrade path for the newly unemployed sits poorly with the American people. The Republican alliance with big business prevents them from really putting this issue up front, whereas Dems and labor can whale away at it – and it probably helps economic populists like John Edwards.
RE: Lamont
I’m probably going to write more on this later, but Ned Lamont did not lose because of the war. Joe Lieberman won because he’s been a reliable vote to bring the bacon home for CT. I’m pretty sure the Democratic-leaning independents and Democrats who voted for Lieberman hate that he voted for the war, but they love that he’s kept bases open, etc. Considering their vote either way would have been a vote for the Dem leadership (I don’t think Lieberman would have won if we was going to caucus with the GOP) they felt okay to give him their vote. And the Dem establishment – in my opinion – was justifiably more interested in picking up new seats in TN, AZ, MT, VA, MO, etc.
Oliver, I can’t say I disagree with your thinking, but belonging to the pary of “None of the Above” I do see a trend toward a new type of nationalism that is remeniscent not of the McCarthy era (scary stuff), but one with a more high school football game against the old rivals where all the alumni show up and the band is on key kind of feel.(Sorry, long analogy.) Everyone I’ve talked to post-election isn’t all about the Dems so much as they are all about getting America back – less casualties, clear plans, getting jobs back in the US, putting the school system back together, fixing medicare, better fiscal discipline, restoring all aspects of the Constitution, and getting rid of the illegals (this is the land of NIMBY). I consider the mix more “nationalism” simply because it is the purple view of issues. It’s not red or blue – it’s Joe Avereage American.
On another note, I find it hysterical that Rush Limbaugh actually was taking pot shots at PA today in his right-wing asshole way. The argument that because there are a Hell of a lot of old people here they don’t care what happens to America and that this is a liberal state were absurd. Obviously he’s never visited here, because while the state has trended left lately, I remember a time when I was in gradeschool this was all Reagan country – and mostly Bush the First country. After all, Rick Santorum was high up on the Republican list for a reason, and it wasn’t just because they liked his beastiality fantasies…
Yeah I guess when I hear nationalism I automatically think of the negative version of that – America First brigades and the like. But because of the twin issues of trade and Iraq, there is a definite sentiment here that while we know the world is flat, we don’t think we need to be at its mercy either.
People want the social safety net and even though the GOP will argue “nanny state”, the wind is in their faces.
The “nanny state” thing is laughable already – by both sides.
Has it occurred to anyone that we wouldn’t need the safety net if the Republicans put money into the things that prevent us from being a completely service and import-based economy via subsidizing corporations interest before the common man’s, and therefore doomed to economic failure? I’m not trying to play socialist or anything crazy here, but it stands to reason that when you start having an imbalance in import/export with emphasis on import eventually things will collapse. We use more crap in just about every aspect than anyone else, so the least we can do is make a healthy amount of it. I also take issue with Bush’s assertion that guest workers will do jobs Americans refuse to do – that’s a load. The matter of the fact is if there aren’t guest workers SOMEONE’s going to do it.
Conversely on the conservative side, I think the American people as a whole are growing lazy and complacent. There’s nothing wrong with actually breaking a sweat and working for a living – I’ve done it for years and so has my husband – not because we’re not intelligent or educated enough to do something else, but because honestly we enjoy it. It is offensive to be the working lower-middle class and see some twit with a college degree who’s perfectly capable of working sitting on their laurels and getting more in food stamps than I can afford to spend of my hard-earned cash on food, or see people lining up at the HUD office with overdue electric bills that they want the country to pay when they just spent their money on buying a case of beer and takeout. I know people that do that stuff all the time, and when I say something to them about it because it pisses me off I get the well it’s not my fault you’re too stupid to work the system. What happened to personal pride and responsibility? This would be where I am more conservative, because while I see the absolute dire need for this stuff (especially for single parents and the elderly), I also see so much rampant abuse and stupidity in its management that I get really frustrated. Welfare reform needs to be re-reformed again, big time.
Only to people on the right, do people like Kennedy, Pelosi, Waxman, et al, seem like raging liberals. In fact, compared against the “true” American center, their opinions are quite reasonable.
Uh, no. They’re not. Those of us here on planet earth recognize this. They seem reasonable to you.
You’ve got to step out of the right wing echo chamber on these things, where every four years the Democrats supposedly nominate the most liberal human being alive only to have millions of people vote for them (and in 3 out of the last 4 contests, the majority of those millions).
Actually, that is not correct. Both times Clinton ran, he gained a plurality of the votes, not a majority. He failed to gain 50% each time. Gore should have trounced Bush. He should have won easily. John Kerry was the first candidate probably in history to lose to an incumbent whose approval rating going in was under 50%. Again, had the Democrats run a true moderate (like a Governor from a southern state), they probably would have won.
The caricature is of Democrats who are going to declare socialism the minute they get into office, but compared to the Republican officeholders who have extolled the virtue of annointing oils or a fondness for segregationism, the Democrats are not outside of the mainstream.
The problem with this poor analysis is that the GOP doesn’t have a ‘fondness’ for segregation. And please, don’t whip out your quote here or quote there that supposedly supports such a dumb argument. If the GOP truly supported segregation they wouldn’t win at all, so please, stop with the idiotic arguments like that.
Again I give you this example – Hillary Clinton is supposed to be the ultimate liberal machiavelli (this is what we’ll hear the minute she declares she’s running for president) and yet last night 2.8 million people voted for her – more than any Republican in the Senate.
Oliver, this proves nothing. It’s a pointless factoid. You should be concerned that Elliot Spitzer garnered 71% of the vote in his election whereas Hillary got 67% against a candidate that was a joke. It goes to show that that even in liberal states like NY, 1/3 of the electorate will not vote for her. Try and extrapolate that out across the nation.
We represent more people. Now we represent more states. We represent America, and the numbers are now reflecting that.
Time will tell.
Where exactly did you get this from? Lamont got very little support from the Democratic leadership
Right. He only had the backing of the DNC, prominent Democrats like Al Gore, and more media coverage than a candidate could ask for and he still lost.
I’m probably going to write more on this later, but Ned Lamont did not lose because of the war. Joe Lieberman won because he’s been a reliable vote to bring the bacon home for CT.
Oh please. Here we go with the excuses again. Do you really think people went to the pols thinking, “Man, we’d better vote for Joe! He’s going to get the state more federal funding than Lamont!” Lamont lost because voters in Conn. rejected that type of candidate.
I stand corrected – Clinton didn’t get a “majority”, he got “more than everybody else” which includes the Republican candidates, which is why he was elected the damn president. Gore was “supposed” to do a lot of stuff, but what he did do is get more votes than George Bush. Kerry lost, yes, but he still got 59 million people to vote for him – less than Bush – but not exactly a fringe political number either. That’s my point, Jay, you keep trying to say Democrats are on the fringe and yet even when they lose elections millions of people are voting for us.
Jay, you claim that people like Sen. Kennedy are in the fringe, yet we are in the majority. I know it doesn’t compute, but try.
And are you really saying the very recent GOP Majority Leader in the senate DIDN’T expresss a fondness for segregation? How soon we forget.
Lamont lost because Ned Lamont lost. If you don’t think the Iraq war was a factor in Tuesday’s election, please go help Donald Rumsfeld fill out his resume.
‘scuse me sir, but republicans lost this time because they spent like drunken sailors, punted on immigration, were surrounded with scandal, and are in a stalemate in Iraq.
This country is no more liberal now than it was a year ago.
If repubs wake up and listen to their constituents, they’ll be back in power in two years.
Actually, this might not be bad. it’s a wake up call for them. We’ve given dems two years to prove to everyone that they’re the party of high taxes, appeasment, and social perversion, race-baiting, and political correctness.
I assume they will not dissapoint.
And again, just to drive it home, if Ted Kennedy were so on the fringe or outside the box of the mainstream, he wouldn’t keep getting re-elected.
*Most* people in this country want abortion to be legal, at least in the first trimester, even if they personally find it unethical. Regulation is ok, but an outright ban is not.
*Most* people in this country approve of gays serving openly in the military. Not quite 50% approve of gays adopting, and *most* are ok with civil unions, but don’t want to call it “marriage” (a distinction w/o a difference IMHO, but folks have different comfort levels.)
*Most* people in this country want the government to negotiate with drug companies for lower prescription pricing in Medicare.
*Most* people in this country think immigration is a benefit, and would give undocumented workers already here a chance to earn citizenship.
*Most* people in this country think the income tax they pay is fair. They don’t care about the estate tax and capital gains tax (not surprising, since it doesn’t affect them) and see the dems and repubs as about the same on taxes.
*Most* people want prisoners at Guantanamo Bay to be charged formally and treated as POWs.
So, help me out here, which party represents the mainstream again??
http://www.pollingreport.com
You’ve got it quaker. I’ve been asking cons here for months what “far left” views the Democrats have, and I either get no answer or they tell me one of the things you listed which, as you pointed out, are very mainstream views.
I’ll also add torture to your list. Republics claim that the country supports torture, but the fact is we don’t. Note that the surveys taken about the subject always question using Republic party framing.
Jay, that’s horseshit. Lieberman won on incumbancy, and Republican support and votes. Period.