Official Post your 2006 Senate Election Prediction Maps

[Rob]

Here's my guess as to your question: it is perceived that Brown backstabbing Hackett was a liberal backstab of a communitarian, and feeds into the argument that liberals only tolerate communitarians in the Democratic Party and will seek to get rid of them the second they don't need them. And those of you on the left certainly act that way. Liberals are thus ecstatic that a liberal won out instead of a communitarian, while conservatives and libertarians alike would've supported DeWine over a Democrat from any quadrant.

Thanks for the response, WMS- I was genuinely interested, not just baiting you. This is pretty much what I was thinking, although it still doesn't make perfect sense (like I said, Brown and Hackett weren't that different on most issues...).

I don't like Brown at all, and I'm not a communitarian.

I wouldn't expect a conservative to care much for Brown.

[WMS]

Here's my guess as to your question: it is perceived that Brown backstabbing Hackett was a liberal backstab of a communitarian, and feeds into the argument that liberals only tolerate communitarians in the Democratic Party and will seek to get rid of them the second they don't need them. And those of you on the left certainly act that way. Liberals are thus ecstatic that a liberal won out instead of a communitarian, while conservatives and libertarians alike would've supported DeWine over a Democrat from any quadrant.

Thanks for the response, WMS- I was genuinely interested, not just baiting you. This is pretty much what I was thinking, although it still doesn't make perfect sense (like I said, Brown and Hackett weren't that different on most issues...).

Well, I decided to give you a real reply and not be a smart-ass. And I bolded a word up there for ya.

Also...this little thread gives some good background on why communitarians might be suspicious.

[Rob]

I bolded a word up there for ya.

I wasn't saying that your dislike of Brown doesn't make sense (I know why you hate him, and it isn't necessarily because of his political beliefs)- I was referring to communitarians in general. Image really does matter. Sad, but true.

this little thread gives some good background on why communitarians might be suspicious.

This is a fascinating article, but I don't entirely agree with it. I see no reason why the old-school communitarians ("lunch-pail Democrats") shouldn't be able to coexist with the social liberals and doves that McGovern brought in. What will unite them? Economic populism. Hell, for US Senate in Pennsylvania, I supported some joker who wants to overturn Roe v. Wade and opposes embryonic stem-cell research (albeit with serious misgivings ).

I'd also note that while liberals may be intolerant of communitarian Dems, they often have the same attitude toward us. They should recognize that they are now a distinct minority in the party, and admit that social liberalism has netted impressive gains for the party across the Northeast and West Coast.

[WMS]

I bolded a word up there for ya.

I wasn't saying that your dislike of Brown doesn't make sense (I know why you hate him, and it isn't necessarily because of his political beliefs)- I was referring to communitarians in general. Image really does matter. Sad, but true.

Well, I wanted Ryan to run myself. But noooo...

this little thread gives some good background on why communitarians might be suspicious.

This is a fascinating article, but I don't entirely agree with it. I see no reason why the old-school communitarians ("lunch-pail Democrats") shouldn't be able to coexist with the social liberals and doves that McGovern brought in. What will unite them? Economic populism. Hell, for US Senate in Pennsylvania, I supported some joker who wants to overturn Roe v. Wade and opposes embryonic stem-cell research (albeit with serious misgivings ).

I'd also note that while liberals may be intolerant of communitarian Dems, they often have the same attitude toward us. They should recognize that they are now a distinct minority in the party, and admit that social liberalism has netted impressive gains for the party across the Northeast and West Coast.

Ah, but what the article pointed out was that it was the lefties who decided to end coexistence (something I think they've been paying a price for for decades now ).

Actually, that is not quite true. (source: 9-23-2006 National Journal, sorry, paid site so no direct link) Among (before this election, anyway) Democratic voters (not registered Democrats) were mostly two groups, 60% "the socially and economically" disadvantaged, and 40% "upscale Democrats" (who are via PEW only 19%** of all registered voters) who wield highly disproportionate influence in the party (i.e., pro-abortion or bust on judicial nominees). This puts the Dems at a bit of a disadvantage* usually (2006 was a very big anti-Republican backlash year - whether it changed the underlying orientation isn't certain until 2008 ) because those two groups are not enough to win majorities.

*For another take on the Democrats' need to shift the underlying partisan leaning of the country, go here and, when the site is working, click on Ten Stories About Election '06. The examination of Dean's 50-State Strategy is the most salient part.

The strength of social liberals is also overstated by redistricting and the bloc voting of a great many non-social liberals amongst minority communities. If the Democratic party insists on remaining staunchly social liberal and doesn't agree to more of a social moderate position (note I am not suggesting they become social conservative) they risk losing the blue-collar votes that were responsible for their victory this year.
Or to put it another way, as a whole the Democratic Party members are moderate-with-a-liberal-wing, whereas the Democratic Party leadership is liberal-with-a-moderate-wing.

**And I'll bring up another point, how I see the balance of the four ideological quadrants amongst the American voters. I will compare my estimate with what Michael Barone did in the 1982 Alamanac of American Politics, since it turns out I am not the first to have done this.
Ideology - My % - Barone's %
Communitarian/Populist: 30% - 30%
Libertarian: 25% - 25%
Conservative: 25% - 35% (note: Barone, in his Retrospective 20 years later, said he overestimated this)
Liberal: 20% - 10% (note: Barone also said he underestimated this)

If the liberals don't realize that in a two-party FPTP system the Democratic Party needs to be a coalition and instead insist on dominant rule...you won't establish a lasting majority. I am waiting to see how pragmatic the Democratic leadership is going to be after 12 years in the wilderness.

[Gustaf]

Here's my guess as to your question: it is perceived that Brown backstabbing Hackett was a liberal backstab of a communitarian, and feeds into the argument that liberals only tolerate communitarians in the Democratic Party and will seek to get rid of them the second they don't need them. And those of you on the left certainly act that way. Liberals are thus ecstatic that a liberal won out instead of a communitarian, while conservatives and libertarians alike would've supported DeWine over a Democrat from any quadrant.

Thanks for the response, WMS- I was genuinely interested, not just baiting you. This is pretty much what I was thinking, although it still doesn't make perfect sense (like I said, Brown and Hackett weren't that different on most issues...).

I don't like Brown at all, and I'm not a communitarian.

I wouldn't expect a conservative to care much for Brown.

You actually think I'm a conservative or just throwing in rethoric? I'm a proud liberal.

[Rob]

You actually think I'm a conservative or just throwing in rethoric? I'm a proud liberal.

I always thought of you as a moderate-conservative who only identified with the US Democrats because the GOP is so batshit crazy. Also, your worst disagreements of late have been with liberal "hacks."

I don't know much about your ideology, to be honest.

[Gustaf]

You actually think I'm a conservative or just throwing in rethoric? I'm a proud liberal.

I always thought of you as a moderate-conservative who only identified with the US Democrats because the GOP is so batshit crazy. Also, your worst disagreements of late have been with liberal "hacks."

I don't know much about your ideology, to be honest.

That is because there are more liberal hacks than conservative ones and because of THAT there are plenty of people to take care of the latter without me having to worry about it. I'm not at all conservative, I'm liberal, but probably on the right of the liberals.

I'm basically slightly left of centre on social issues and slightly right of centre on economic issues (though I'm not really centrist on every single issue - I'm far right when it comes to school vouchers and free trade, for instance). But if you look at my endorsements I endorsed mostly Democratic candidates for both senate and guberntorial elections.

[So the Heroes Fall]

as for santorum, he is 1. smarter than casey, 2. a muuuuuuuuuuuuch better campaigner, 3. has a very dedicated group of supporters (look at phil).

And all that didn't mean jack sh!t.

[Gabu]

as for santorum, he is 1. smarter than casey, 2. a muuuuuuuuuuuuch better campaigner, 3. has a very dedicated group of supporters (look at phil).

And all that didn't mean jack sh!t.

[So the Heroes Fall]

as for santorum, he is 1. smarter than casey, 2. a muuuuuuuuuuuuch better campaigner, 3. has a very dedicated group of supporters (look at phil).

And all that didn't mean jack sh!t.

eh, I just ran across this.

Let's face it though, if there wasn't so much "SANTORUM IS A CAMPAIGNING GOD AND THE KING OF LATE COMEBACKS, THERE IS NO WAY HE CAN LOSE TO POPULIST MORON CASEY" type crap posted, we wouldn't have so much material to bump.

Anyway, this is just something to note about Walter's predictions.