« I guess the fat lady's about to sing | Main | a little bird humor »
November 04, 2004
in the aftermath
I get a copy of Todays Papers in email each morning. It's a little synopsis of what was in the major papers for the day. Today's title was, amusingly, Dubya Dubya II.
I also read a couple of William Saletan articles this morning that may be of interest to Democrats who are in a particularly foul mood after the re-election of Bush. The first one is called Democratic Values, and discusses how best to win some of the red states back. The second is called Simple But Effective, and proposes that we change our stance and message yet still keep the values we have now, to a degree. Obviously we need to look at what we are doing here. Saletan is a big Edwards fan, and he has an excellent point in pushing Edwards up and avoiding emotional hot-spots like Hillary. Edwards can do the job, he says, and appeal to the average man. He may have a point, there. We don't have any business alienating anyone else. It's all a matter of perspective. We don't think ourselves far lefties, but the neo-cons do. It's worth looking at what we are saying, how we get our message across, and what we really want and need from our government. We have 4 years to get our act together.
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834204a9153ef00d8343bf52653ef
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference in the aftermath:
Comments
I may check these articles out. The good news if you ask me is that we aren't that far off. The problem (and it feels strange calling it a problem) is that the Republicans had their act together just as well as we did. In fact, they "got out the vote" just a little bit better than we did and therefore won.
I think next time when it's not an incumbent we'll take the White House back by about the same margin.
Posted by: Joe at Nov 4, 2004 8:49:26 AM
I agree with Joe (and I also haven't yet had time to sit down and read the articles). Now is not the time to change our values, but rather bring them to the forefront and express our ideas clearer and in ways that can hopefully not only help us get our own to vote, but to change the minds of others who might be leaning our way, or perhaps even those who are not.
Posted by: David at Nov 4, 2004 8:57:47 AM
I think you are right, Joe. And one of the things that bugs me most, when we look at the way the system is set up to have checks and balances, is that while not by much, the Reps have control of Congress and have their boy in the hot seat. While some people think "oh good, we can finally get something done," I just prefer to have it be a little more balanced than that.
I also read people telling the Dems to get over ourseves, that America is obviously conservative and doesn't want any of our "liberal ideology." Yup, 51% is the whole pie, and we liberals, libertarians, and democrats need to get a clue or start packing.
Note: I'm not going anywhere. I can't do any good from another country. :)
Posted by: Alicia at Nov 4, 2004 8:58:14 AM
Right, David. It isn't a change in values he is calling for, but a rewording of them so people understand. You'll see when you read the articles, they are well written.
Posted by: Alicia at Nov 4, 2004 8:59:39 AM
I just read both articles and couldn't agree more with them. In fact, one of the things I think hurt this election the most was the fact that John Kerry did really seem like he couldn't just pick something and go with it. He did flip-flip, and when he tried to convince americans of something all he did was reiterate statistics, which bored most people who wanted to know, in simple terms, how these numbers affected their lives. In the end, I actually think Ann Coulter wrote the words that best describes why John Kerry lost:
-Campaign slogan ideas: "John Kerry won't just take a stand on the tough issues – he'll take two or three of them!"-
Republicans and neo-cons are great at making things boil down into those few simple words. That's how they hook people to buy into things like tax cuts for the rich or war in Iraq. But what they lack is the ability to move past those few words and actually do what they said they were going to. The democrats may lack the ability to tell us all in simple terms what they plan on doing, but at least they end up doing it when they're elected.
I'm reminded of a great episode of The West Wing where President Bartlett is preparing for a debate against his Republican challenger and his staff is trying to figure out the "ten words" on the economy he needs to say in order to win the people over. His opponent beats him to it, and so Bartlett pauses and then says: "There it is. That's the ten word answer my staff has been looking for all day. But, tell me this, what's the -next- ten words, tell me what comes after that and then we're in business." His challenger couldn't, and that's exactly where are now. The Daily Show once said that everything Bush says sounds great, but he never actually does any of it. Bush is an "ideas" president, they said. And therein lies the problem. He's got the simplicity and the ideas, but he lacks the action to actually be that "compassionate conservative, uniter not divider".
Posted by: David at Nov 4, 2004 9:27:48 AM
Hmm... should I?
Nah...
;)
Posted by: *Name Hidden* at Nov 4, 2004 9:57:59 AM
Edwards is an empty suit. He was a stupid choice for Veep, and will be a disaster for the Dems in 2008, as would Hillary. Evan Bayh (sp?) is a MUCH better choice.
Posted by: mbl at Nov 4, 2004 10:06:55 AM
And in case there was any doubt, I meant should I engage in the conversation as to why the Republicans won and where the Democrats need to go from here. Just didn't want to be falsely accused of gloating.
Posted by: *Name Hidden* at Nov 4, 2004 10:10:28 AM
I knew what you meant, Name. :)
I have read some other articles now that say that Edwards isn't our best bet. I will have to do some more research and thinking on that. Hillary is obviously not a good idea, much as many of us would like to see a female Prez. The fact of the matter still remains that changes must be made for the Democratic party to be a viable opponent for the Republicans in 2008. The country is fairly evenly divided. I hope we can come up with a solution that fits a true majority of Americans without giving in to what we see as non-values.
Posted by: Alicia at Nov 4, 2004 10:28:25 AM
I should go on record stating that I don't believe Hillary or John Edwards are good choices. I believe the Democrats need a fresh face. Also, I should probably say that I'm not a registered Democrat, I'm a registered unspecified. I don't have a problem voting Republican, as long as the candidate represents things I believe in I will vote for them. Whoever that is in 2008 gets my vote. But, out of fairness for the political process, I would like to see the Democrats get even more together and energized so the race next time can be just as close, if not closer. Or, perhaps the pipe dream, that a candidate from one side unites the country despite party differences, and brings us all closer together.
Posted by: David at Nov 4, 2004 11:04:02 AM
I'd like to see Hillary run in the primary even if she loses. She's good at ruffling feathers and isn't nearly as liberal as some may think. as I've heard on NPR during coverage I believe a southern Democrat would be the best bet. A centrist moderate who doesn't want to legislate against guns and bibles and ALSO does not want to legislate against gays and abortion.
One wonders if such a person does exist?
Posted by: Joe at Nov 4, 2004 11:22:42 AM
I think Hillary blew her non-ultra-liberal image in 1993 with her version of Health Care Reform. I think that would stick to her, regardless of her senate voting record.
Posted by: *Name Hidden* at Nov 4, 2004 11:35:31 AM
For once I completely agree. While it's regrettable - because she really is quite moderate, a damned smart and shrewd cookie, and probably one of the more highly qualified women to come along who'd have a chance of becoming the first female president - she's damaged goods politically - mostly because of the '93 health care package and what that did to her image as well as common misconceptions about the "it takes a village" concept and a large percentage of people thinkng she's a commie pinko socialist lesbian witch.
She'd certainly stir things up in a primary, but she'd get torn to pieces in a general election.
And Edwards...man...while he has the potential to be inspiring and if I close my eyes he's just fine, watching him on tv just makes me feel dirty.
I'd vote Republican for John McCain - hell, everyone seems to love the guy on both sides of the aisle - but he's getting on in years and I don't think his party's going to let him get to a general election.
Maybe we'll see Obama on a ticket someday.
Posted by: 'Dancer at Nov 4, 2004 2:04:26 PM
...and on a non-political note:
http://www.worldofepic.net/ep3.mov
WOOHOO!!! This gave me chills.
Posted by: *Name Hidden* at Nov 4, 2004 6:02:08 PM
Anyone seen this map blending the red and blue votes - we're all purple!
http://www.boingboing.net/images/Purple-USA.jpg
Posted by: Leslee at Nov 4, 2004 9:14:01 PM
I just saw this on another site. Fantastic. I feel the need to listen to a little Jimi, Purple Haze anyone?
Posted by: David at Nov 4, 2004 10:27:25 PM
*watches teaser*
*twitch*
*twitchtwitch*
Posted by: 'Dancer at Nov 5, 2004 8:17:19 AM
Leslee -- thanks for the link to that map! The usual red/blue map is useful up to a point, but unfortunately also reinforces this fatalistic idea that no one can set foot in the "red states" again or whatever (which I totally don't agree with).
Posted by: Ana at Nov 5, 2004 12:01:03 PM
It would be cool to see the "purple map" county by county.
On my blog, I have one of red/blue county by county if anyone is interested.
Posted by: *Name Hidden* at Nov 5, 2004 12:44:40 PM
Just for a little perspective:
* This is the largest number of people who have ever voted AGAINST a president.
* 1% more than 50% is not a mandate but a bare, thin, majority.
* Assuming Bush gets New Mexico and Iowa, he will have gotten the lowest percentage of electoral votes (54%) of any incumbent running for reelection since Wilson. If those two states should swing Kerry's way (NM might), it'll be even lower.
And this is a war-time president, after 9/11.
Posted by: Leslee at Nov 5, 2004 12:57:38 PM
This is the largest number of people who voted against a president, but it is also the largest number of people who voted for one. Voter turnout was huge this time. We thought it would work in our favor, but they were doing the same thing, making sure everyone they could get to voted.
The percentage of electoral votes is an interesting fact, though. And yes, that purple map is great. Thanks, Leslee :)
Posted by: Alicia at Nov 5, 2004 1:21:57 PM
Now here's some "persepctive spin" in the OTHER direction...
* Bush got move votes than any presidential candidate in history.
* Bush is the first president elected since 1936 whose party also gained seats in the House and Senate.
* 9 million more people voted for Bush in '04 than in 2000.
* Bush is the first president in 16 years to win with over 50% of the vote.
* Bush is the first president in history to lose the popular vote in his first term, but still get re-elected.
* Clinton won the election in 1992 with 43% of the popular vote, and many on the left considered it a mandate.
Posted by: *Name Hidden* at Nov 5, 2004 1:23:45 PM
Fine, but let's agree that when nearly half the country votes against you, you don't have a mandate - except to honor ALL the people you represent, not just half. To think you can ignore the will of 55 million people and do whatever you want is, in my opinion, deeply against the democratic principles this country was founded on.
Posted by: Leslee at Nov 5, 2004 7:41:18 PM
Do you believe that Clinton ever had a mandate? In my opinion, he ignored the MORE than half of the country that didn't vote for him much more than Bush did in his first term. I don't consider a $350 billion perscription drug benefit or letting Ted Kennedy practically write the education bill ignoring what those who didn't vote for him wanted. The democrats have to have realistic expectations to Bush's "reaching out". They have to reach back, which I hope they do. In fact, given what they did to his father (convincing him to raise taxes, then using the recession it caused as fuel to get him out of office), I would make THEM reach out FIRST before giving them anything.
...But that's just me.
Posted by: *Name Hidden* at Nov 6, 2004 11:45:00 AM
And in one of my final political posts in a while...
Bush says he's going to reach out to Democrats AND Democrats say they are going to work with Bush.
Lets hope they BOTH are true to their words.
Posted by: *Name Hidden* at Nov 7, 2004 4:00:50 AM
