watch the donut, not the hole

[sanpaku_backup]

Actually, we won. The "Emerging Democratic Majority" people poke their heads up so we can laugh at them.

(No, this isn't meant to make you hyperventilate about voting problems in Ohio. I will reiterate that even if we took Ohio, and lost the rest of the country by 3.5 million votes, it would have been worse than losing, in the long run.)

But actually, I more or less agree with them. When all is said and done, you don't need anything fancy to understand this election. The meta-analysis guy has it about right: the economy's not all that bad, and there's some residual loyalty to a wartime president. As I said all along, taking out an incumbent is extremely hard to do, even in peacetime. Bush I, Carter, Hoover... that's just about it in modern U.S. history. The relevant comparison is '72 or '84. 48% is quite good in that context. And I know we all think this is the worst. administration. ever. But that is only self-evident to Democrats.

And overall not much has really changed. The Democrats didn't lose Congress -- they didn't have it before: they lost some seats in Congress. The losses in the House were really zero without the Texas gerrymandering. The Senate losses were rough, but one of them was Zell Miller (no loss), and the others were all open southern seats, versus pickups or close calls in "swingier" places. And yes, Dubya won more votes than Kerry, so he has a "mandate," but it's not as though not having that "mandate" slowed him down the past four years. There's no way to break a filibuster in the Senate.

In the meantime the Left is in much better shape than I would have thought possible a year ago. There will be a swing of the pendulum at some point. This is as close to an iron law in American politics as you can get. We just have to stay focused and work on the grass roots and making the blue states as blue as possible. For example, I was looking at the NARAL Web site today and saw that my very own, ultra-Democratic Rhode Island is one of the worst states in the country when it comes to abortion laws -- they rank it lower than Texas. So there's plenty of work to be done closer to home.

And the Steelers are winning, and the Red Sox won, so anything is always possible. Just not all at once.

The only thing that gives me pause is that I was in this same, hopeful post-election mood four years ago this time...

Comments

[msmidge.livejournal.com]

There's no way to break a filibuster in the Senate.

Is that what the Republicans are referring to when they say they might 'go nuclear' or something by rewriting the rules? They've threatened it before when the Democrats weren't doing what they were told, and they have brought it up again recently too.

[sanpaku.livejournal.com]

Oh yeah. Well, they're PO'd about the various failed nominations of the past couple of years (Pryor, Owens). However, when the idea of rewriting the Senate rules was floated, it went nowhere. I think the reason is that 2/3 of the Senate is needed to rewrite the rules. Plus both sides recognized that with the election coming up, having a big fight over the arcane issue of Senate rules would hurt both sides.

I think the Dems might let some appeals nominations through now and save the big guns for a Supreme. Certainly everyone will be watching. A popular nominee will probably break through a filibuster, but a Bork probably will not.

[sethg]

If memory serves, the "nuclear option" involves getting a formal ruling from the presiding officer of the Senate, i.e., Dick Cheney, that you don't need sixty votes to close debate. The Republicans have held back from using this so far because (a) Democrats have only filibustered judicial nominations that they really really really don't like; (b) when that happens, Republicans can score some points with their own base by fulminating about "obstructionist" Democrats; (c) some Republican Senators realize that some day they may be in the minority party again and they might find it convenient to filibuster some Democratic bill they don't like.

Every time I am tempted to think "but the Republicans surely wouldn't be dumb enough to do that", I am reminded that before the war, I was sure that Saddam must have WMDs stashed somewhere, because the White House surely would not have told a lie that could be so easily disproven. So no bets on how this is going to turn out.

[sanpaku.livejournal.com]

You're right, and there's also this worrying article from JMM (http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2004_10_31.php#003940) that says the option is already being considered by Republicans.

I dunno, though. I wonder if fundamentally changing the rules of the Senate to make it like the House, with things rammed through by party-line votes, will go down well with all of the remaining Republican moderates. It's hard to envision Specter or Chafee going along. There's also still Snowe and Collins.

Yes, the Republicans will be playing with fire to do it. Yes, they might be crazy enough to give it a shot. But the same reason they are tempted is the same reason they might have some pause: this election was the high water mark. Should they ever be in the minority someday, they will be sorry to have made the change. And in the meantime, excesses invite reaction. It would be sad to lose the Court, but that's a dam we've been plugging fingers in for so many years now -- this election by itself is just one phase in that much larger problem.

Republicans have a long history of shooting themselves in the foot. As my father likes to point out, they got the two-terms amendment through after FDR, only to then have Eisenhower, who could have easily won a third term.

[yobachi2003.livejournal.com]

I started a community for social and political moderates: youngmoderates.

If you're interested please add to your journal. Opposing/divergent views are also welcomed for discussion.

[sanpaku.livejournal.com]

I was just looking for Providence folks on the RI communities and saw you were very active there. (I'm in Cranston.) Thought you might be a person to follow. Add me back if you'd like.