The Democrats moved to the center before, and ended up getting killed. And recently they moved to the left, and they ended up getting killed.

Here's the trick: you can be compromising on wedge issues without "going to the center."  The Democrats can be as solid-left as ever on workers' rights, civil rights, welfare, the environment, and so forth, while taking compromise positions on abortion, gay marriage, and gun control.  In fact, they already do take a compromise position on gay marriage (no amendment, allow states to recognize civil unions, no recognition of gay marriage).

The Republicans are so successful in part because they are very good at using wedge issues to their advantage.  If the Democrats can neutralize that, they can erode the GOP base.

That's a good point. I heard somewhere that Reid is pro-life. If that becomes widely known, it might disappoint some pro-choicers, but on the whole I think it would be good. We need more pro-life Democrats.

[the single-party control is not unprecedented, but the single-ideology control is]

If memory serves didn't Democrats control the House for 40 years before 1994?  Except for a few years during the Reagan '80s they had the Senate too.  I don't see House control changing anytime soon due to redistricting.  Senate either because of political changes in the South and Prarie States.  As far as the Presidency goes, we will probably go Dem in 2008.  Depends on the candidates.  History does say 8 years is enough for one party in the White House.  of course 1980-1992 and 1932-1952 are the exceptions to this.

Yeah, but how long did the Democrats control the House, the Senate, and the White House in that time?  For two years?  It's a very, very difficult position to hold in American politics.  The fact that the Republicans will have done it for six, and maybe eight years?  An amazing accomplishment.  But it simply can't last.

What's really unprecedented is not control by the Republican party per se, but control by conservative ideology. Yes, Democrats controlled the House for 40 years, and during those years they also controlled the Presidency for a sum total of 14 years (1961-69, 1977-81, 1993-95).

However, during that time the Democrats were an ideologically diverse party. Its strongest base remained the conservative Southern constituency, of which included many evangelical Christians. However it certainly also had a liberal Northern wing. It also had a rural, midwestern farm belt wing. This coalition was based mostly on interests, and, with the brief exception of the 89th Congress, generally not fashioning some society based on ideological foundations. The current Republican party (and Democratic party) are recognized broadly as ideological, hence the single-party control is not unprecedented, but the single-ideology control is.

Reid has 30 committed votes. He wins.

If so, that would be a very, very smart move on the part of the Democrats.  They need to make a move to a more compromising, inclusive position on wedge issues.  The big challenge is how to do this without alienating the hard-left.  They will have to keep their commitment to the poor, workers, minorities, the environment, etc.  Because if they don't, they will continuously get killed by third-party candidates in Presidential elections.

Not an enviable position to be in, but the Republicans will eventually self-destruct.

The Democrats moved to the center before, and ended up getting killed. And recently they moved to the left, and they ended up getting killed. No matter where they move, they end up getting killed. It's like the Eisenhower phenomenon... you can elect an Eisenhower or Clinton, but in the end you are left with a weak, hollow party base and complete lack of momentum. Actually political decisions are more complicated than deciding between appeasement and radicalization. All of the winners in past decades who have actually built on their wins, to the extent that they have, have been people who have brought new ideas, or at least new ways to frame those ideas, to the table. However I do agree Reid would be the better choice.

Please stop playing games.

Kerry is a liberal (at least in the current meaning of the word).

The Americans for Democratic Action and the American Conservative Union agree on this point.

True, but he would not have governed as a liberal, and even if he wanted to, he would be unable to.

Found it.

I agree that the Democrats need to get rid of their "bad moral values" viewpoint with some good spinning. However, some of your states are odd choices. Ohio and Florida are obviously capable of switching over. As for the others - I agree.

well, they went for Bush both times......... as for Clinton he is about 75% less lliberal than kerry, and Somewhat less than gore. And even with Clintons Extreme Lack of Morals, He was just a person everbody liked, Myself included.

They went for Bush both times, but Florida went for Bush by about 500 votes at most. That's hardly a solid win.

I don't think this pertains to any regions, other than the west and northeast being somewhat less likely to determine based on this, but I agree it is a problem nationwide. There's no lack of morals, really, it's just perceived lack of morals. After all, if you asked me who is more moral, Bush or Kerry, I'd probably have to say that I don't really know. Bush had problems early on, but he seems to have recovered from them. Both of them are somewhat vulgar. And they're both politicians, which is a major hit.

Again, it's perceived.

I don't think it's necessarily about Bush or Kerry per se. People's perceptions of one candidate vs the other probably tend to balance out. People suspected Kerry didn't always say what he thought, but they also suspected Bush may have exaggerated the case for war. The real issue with "moral values" is not personal integrity but issues and positions. People think of Republicans as the more moral party, and the Democrats as the party of atheists and secularists. Of which there is some truth, but most Democrats are Christians, actually an overwhelming majority are. So yes it's partially perceptions but there is also some basis on issues. The biggest conservative advantage comes from which issues are emphasized (abortion, gay marriage, over poverty, inclusiveness) and the light they are shed in (the argument for abortion rights, for example, is always framed in a relativistic standpoint, and the position is always a hardline defense of Roe, which seems pretty indefensible with modern technology about the late term fetus).

If they want to win there going to have to get someting except the fringes of the map!! There going to have to stop with some of there crazy ideas, Because Places like Ohio, Florida, Texas, Arizona.... the Carolinas and Virginia's will not go for some of these moral Lack of values the modern Democrat has! It will just not happen.

I agree eversole. If this election showed one thing, it is that the Democrats have a values deficit... actually, it that has always been known by many people, but the "values" issue was never coming up more than around 4th or 5th place as the most important issue in polls... until the exit polls this year, there it was discovered to be the top issue. Also, a fact that had also been known before, but that was not widely recognized... people who list moral values as the #1 issue repeatedly go 80% Republican.

In my view, "liberal" values are summed up in my signature, but its undoubted that the party as a whole has completely lost the values issue under McAuliffe (it is absolutely amazing he did not resign after 2002) and Daschle. In that sense it is the silver lining to Daschle's loss, but only if Reid or Dodd turn out better, which there is no reason to believe so far.

Glad to see you back, Beet! I hope you stay.

It's a good point....hopefully someone will at least look into it.

Thanks Nym. Congratulations on being elected to the Senate. I said I might be back around the election. I am pretty politicked out right now though.

I recall those who said President Clinton received a mandate in '96 despite not receiving a majority of popular votes. If Clinton had a mandate then I would have to say Bush received one yesterday.

Clinton's mandate was more in the weakness of the opposition than the strength of his own position. Bush had a bigger victory by 2 points, but Kerry got about 8 points more than Dole.

There is also one on CNN.

I was really disapointed by MN & WI.  Suprised more by WI but I thought we had a really good chance of pulling MN off.  After the 2006 election, I'll have to determine if Republicans are really gaining in MN or if 2002 was a blip.

I was really surprised by WI. I felt sure it was going Bush.

Yes, all my other candidates won as well, except for one school board member. Three ballot initiatives I voted against lost.

I just need to see ONE swing state where Bush did well that used overwhelmingly paper ballots.

Then we can talk about how the exit polls got it wrong.

[1. Andrew (UAC-NY)]

Before I leave entirely-

1B-
1. Andrew (UAC-NY)[/u]
2. Handzus26 (IP-PA)
3. Keystone Phil (R-PA)

2A-
1. Akno
2. MAS117

Goodbye to Nym, ILV, Boss, Al, Fritz, millwx, John F Kennedy, NixonNow, Hughento, BRTD, NickG, ChopFL, htmldon, Texasgurl, MarkDel, Bandit, Akno, Nation, John Ford, Wildcard, supersoulty, Dazzleman, Brambila, Gustaf, Auh20, Stevennick, Pbrunsel, and basically everyone else. Basically I must say that the summer is over and I am going away from a long time. I don't think I will ever be back. Good luck on Nov. 2.

If Kerry is elected (dont think it will happen, but if...), he will basically just have to spend his entire presidency cleaning up Bush's mess, and get blamed when Iraq & the Middle East in general doesn't turn into the magical democracy-land the neocons promised. He will get blamed while Iran tests nukes while the US looks impotent. He will get blamed while North Korea tests nukes while the US looks impotent. He will get blamed when he tries to do something to balance the budget. He will get blamed when the housing bubble inevitably bursts. The right wing smear machine will still be around and smear him into the ground. He won't get any legislation passed, it will be a gridlock but worse than the '90s. And progressive groups will be unmotivated by this president, we will just fall asleep and the threats will go underground again instead of making fools of themselves for everyone to see.

On the other hand the Republicans will still control both chambers of Congress, the majority of Governorships, the majority of State legislatures, the talk radio waves, the think tanks, their fringe media which sneaks things into the 'mainstream' media, and they'll still have their cable network, and while the Democrat party will continue lumbering on thinking it can count on the manufacturing unions forever; thinking it can just be the same old industrial party that is dying and hemorraging members. Most of all the Bush administration will be unexposed and they won't have to face the consequences of its choices. Bush's defeat will just be like his daddy coming to rescue him in the old days, to save him just as he's about the face the hot water. That's not what I want.

Plus, if Bush won, the Dean people would be vindicated. The establishment would be fatally weakened, and the progressives could come in and do a hostile takeover of a dying party-- before it's too late. A new progressive party with new ideas for a stronger and better America in the 21st century, not one tied to the same old ideas of the New Deal past. A clean break, something Clinton tried but not with passion or vigor; something he never got off the ground.

The only thing holding me back is thinking how bad it would be for America if Bush was re-elected, what it would mean for our liberties and many many other things. But part of me wants Bush to get what he deserves which is 4 years of waking up and realizing he would have been better off going down in defeat in '04.

I would like to consider myself somewhat similiar to Bill Clinton. I recognize the benefits of government-reducing reforms and the passing of the era of unions, but feel that it is still possible and desirable to have a policy that gives the poor and an equal opportunity to succeed. On foreign policy, I am no isolationist but also feel that the neo-cons are foolhardly ideologues whose strategy is doomed to fail and do unspeakable damage in the process.

Luis De Silva.

*Ford puts his fist through the monitor in a blind rage*

Why is this campaign filled with negative attacks? This is one of the worst races to watch.

What about me?

Luis De Silva.

Well one thing is certain: Bush runs his campaign the way he runs his presidency-

Chavez is the worst president since herbert hoover. He completely destroyed Venezuela. The country is kaput. Finished over. Nada. In another 4 years they will have to start rebuilding from the stone age. The only thing keeping them afloat is oil reserves.

1936. Highest percent of electoral votes won by any candidate since the Feel-Good Era, biggest difference in the two-party vote percentages (with a unified party) among the years listed, and the most complete blowout in Congressional races in history.

["Craving Votes, He Draws Sustenance From Crowds; Throngs Turning Out for Mondale Energize His Campaign Despite the Polls."]

"Craving Votes, He Draws Sustenance From Crowds; Throngs Turning Out for Mondale Energize His Campaign Despite the Polls."  -1984 Presidential campaign headline by Milton Coleman..

The Washington Post, November 3, 1984, Saturday, Final Edition, First Section; A7.