Category: Elections 2006

The post-mortems abound …

It’s fascinating watching the debate going on within the GOP about who “lost” the election. Everyone has their own axe to grind in this, and the answer is almost certainly less clear-cut than presented, but the main schools of thought seem to be:

1. The Republicans compromised too much. This is the “Hugh Hewitt/James Dobson” school of thought. If the GOP had stuck to their guns and presented a united front and actually gotten their agenda enacted — passing judges, passing laws, reforming this, banning that, winning all over — then that ideological purity would have been a shining beacon that the electorate would have flocked to. Instead, too many Republicans tried to play to the left, blocking the President’s actions on
the war and security, blocking the social conservative agenda (or, depending on which conservative branch you looked to) becoming too much tax-and-spendy like the Democrats.

After all, the story goes, didn’t the GOP take power in the first place based on their ideological purity, leading away from the center?

2. The Republicans didn’t compromise enough. This is the moderate/centrist line of reasoning. They argue that the GOP lost because it was too beholden to the social conservatives, too unyielding and secretive and unilateral in its actions (led by its presdient). As a result, it scared the public at best, alienated them at worst.

After all, the story goes, didn’t the GOP take power in the first place based on revulsion by the public of the far Left, and by attracting voters in the center?

3. The Republicans just couldn’t shoot straight. This school of thought basically says that the party neither led (built consensus and mind-share) for its actions, nor did it actually act in an effective fashion. The War in Iraq is usually pointed to here, something that, no matter how one feels about its justification, was mishandled almost from Day 1. This ties into #1-2 as well, since the GOP never did manage to get much of its agenda pushed through (except for security measures)
— a national energy policy, social security reform, immigration reform, all major subjects trumpeted by the GOP leadership as crucial issues they would resolve, and yet always foundering on Democratic opposition, internal squabbles, and (depending on whether you fall into the #1 or #2 camp) excessive or insufficient compromise.

After all, the story goes, didn’t the GOP take power in the first place as better, more effective managers than the Dems?

4. The Republicans became too mired in corruption. This one is either blamed on the media for their liberal slant (the media isn’t really all that liberal, it just likes forming public opinion) or on a few bad apples (not few enough), or even just on the dangers and snares of power. Whatever, there was a clear public perception that GOP power attracted too many corrupters and too many folks willing to corrupt.

After all, the story goes, didn’t the GOP take power in the first place as the party of virtue and morality?

The problem, of course, is that what actions the GOP decides to take will depend on which of these explanations becomes the received wisdom. Moderates think the Reactionaries lost the election. Reactionaries think it was the moderates. And, in private, they all complain about both how things were mismanaged and about the corruption that toppled the party from its purported moral high ground.

Will the GOP return to its far-Right roots? Or will it return its right-of-center ones? And to which will the citizenry respond better — extremism with a pure message, or moderation muddled with nuance?

It’s not just a GOP thing, of course. The Democrats face the same issue — especially in the battle between the ideologues (#1) and the moderates (#2). Some say the party has to both present and act on a strong Left agenda, to counterbalance the Right of the past decades and to create a clear alternative. Others say the party has to govern from the center, to compromise, to not dwell so much on the past as lead toward the future. Some want impeachment hearings; others are scared to look
like (gasp) Liberals.

In some ways, the challenge is even greater for the Dems. Their purchase on power is tenuous, their boost in Congress fueled in part by factors (corruption, disdain for the GOP) that may not be in place next election cycle. Both sides (on both sides) can make strong cases for ideological purity vs. moderation and compromise. Which way they go will determine their parties’ political future, and our nation’s as well.

All of a sudden, it’s looking pretty likely that the Dems will be declared the winner in the Virginia Senate race, giving them the Cinderella Story majority … barely. Which makes it a whole new ballgame again some more, and makes me feel a whole lot better about any Supreme Court nominations the next few years.

(I think it’s still too early to call it, but the coverage seems to suggest that Allen, still looking to the future, is afraid of being seen as a sore loser or someone who’d drag Virginia into a Florida-style election struggle. I think the stakes for the GOP are still too high, even with that, but …)

Not that it’s all smooth sailing. Ginny suggests that “Joe Lieberman just became the second most powerful man in the Senate,” capable of turning a 51-49 Senate into a 50-50, with Cheney to break ties, any time he wants (a la Jeff Jeffords). The reality is, of course, that’s going to be true of any Senator, and on any issue. Party politics aside, there are conservative
Dems who will cross over on some issues, just as there are liberal Republicans who will do so. Even without the cloture rules (and we’ll see how long it takes for the Dems to talk about “going nuclear” and the GOP to squawk no fair), the Senate is going to be a very tenuous balance of power.

The main thing the count will provide is the ability of the Dems to arrange the agenda and control the committees. It will be interesting to see, too, if the GOP starts bitching about the processes they put in place over the last several years that shut the Dems out of much of the picture. I’m willing to enjoy a bit of shoes being unexpectedly on other feet.

Regardless, neither side is going to be able to take anything for granted in the Senate. Which, frankly, suits me just fine.

For as long as I’ve been blogging — it’s still only been five years.

That’s one less year than this Administration. During my entire time at this site, the GOP have owned the White House, and both sides of the Capitol Building.

There have been times I’ve been more on the White House side of things (leading up to the War in Iraq), and (more) times I’ve been against. But it’s always been in a backdrop of GOP Majority, Democrat Minority.

Now, all of a sudden — the Dems have the House, and are one seat (probably not resolved until next month) from the Senate.

It’s a whole new ballgame.

Aha! The reasons the Republicans lost the House (and, maybe, the Senate) wasn’t because of Tom Delay, or Bill Frist, or Mark Foley, or Karl Rove, or Jack Abramoff, or George W. Bush! It was … John McCain!

The long and short of this bad but not horrific night was that majorities must act like majorities. The public cares little for the “traditions” of the Senate or the way the appropriations process used to work. It demands results. Handed a large majority, the GOP frittered it away. The chief fritterer was Senator McCain and his Gang of 14 and Kennedy-McCain immigration bill, supplemented by a last minute throw down that prevented the NSA bill from progressing or the key judicial nominations
from receiving a vote. His accomplice in that master stroke was Senator Graham. Together they cost their friend Mike DeWine his seat in the Senate, and all their Republican colleagues their chairmanships. Senator McCain should rethink his presidential run. Amid the ruins of the GOP’s majority there is a clear culprit.

The GOP lost because they didn’t go along with Bush on everything, pass whatever legislation they wanted, and do whatever they pleased. They wrangled internally! How can such a nation, or party, endure?

If only we’d had real one-party rule one-party rule over the last six years, we wouldn’t be waking up to a Democratic majority in the House, I can tell you!

Here. Weep for our nation.

If this Internet analysis is correct, the Moonbats are a lot more passionate this year than the Wingnuts. Will that follow through to the election results? We shall see.

Margie IMs:

They had a mix of old and new machines

Only trouble I had was that a group of 3 arrived just before me and they filled the 2 standard booths and were slow.

One of the double check appears to involve filling out a slip of paper with your name and address, also had to write my driver’s license number in the book – think that has beed standard for a while.

I’m pretty sure they’ve asked for the DL in the past. Colorado does require some sort of personal ID check. I can understand why that can be a problem for some people, but I also understand the need for doing something to validate voter eligibility.

This is one of the longest ballots in Colorado history; I expect there will be delays in getting folks routed through the booths. I plan on bringing a book.

This will, at least, make you chuckle.

(via BD)

I know it is rank superstition, but I have been very, very, very reluctant to express my predictions for this particular election — since I am certain that as soon as I do so, I will be grossly disappointed at every turn.

That said, I think it pretty likely that the Democrats will retake the House of Representatives. To my mind, that counterbalance will be more than sufficient to put the brakes on a lot of the current Administratoin’s shenanigans. The chances of taking the Senate are much more slender, and I suspect (though hope otherwise) that the GOP will hold onto that chamber, barely.

To the extent that the Dems succeed, it will still be by a fragile majority, and the result of some election year “throw the bums out” mentality and scandals that cannot be counted on for 2008. The Dems will need to solidify their hold by showing that they are the party of something other than Anyone But Bush — showing that they can lead, not just mill about and throw rocks at the windows.

And it’s worth noting that even that fragile majority may not hold together on all issues. A lot of the Dems have been running toward the middle and even beyond. It can’t be assumed that the traditional liberal agenda will somehow be unanimously pursued, party loyalty or not. And, of course, regardless, Bush still holds the executive and will for another two years.

It will be interesting to see if the Dems maintain or escalate the partisan processes that the GOP themselves escalated — the exclusion of minority involvement in the legislative process or paying even lip service to compromise and bipartisanship. I hope the Dems are better than the GOP in that way, even if the temptation to go the eye-for-an-eye route is a strong one.

And the GOP? It depends, to some degree. If fully out of power in the legislature, they become the opposition, and can more afford to simply shill for the White House. They can also squawk hypocritically over being left out of the process.

If they do retain power in the Senate, or even [insert conspiracy theory here] both houses, what’s the next step for the GOP? Do they grab while the grabbing is good, suddenly aware of their political mortality and realizing that if they’re going to get an agenda through, it had better be soon? Will they delusionally take any sort of minimal victory as a declaration of unbridled support from the people? Or will they accept this squeaker as a lesson learned, a wake-up call, a reminder that
2008 is just a couple of years down the line, and that they’d best clean up their act and broaden their base if they want to lead in the future?

Regardless, neither side is going to have a “mandate” — and that’s probably just as well. The electorate is tired of what the GOP has been doing for the last decade, but they don’t necessarily expectthe Dems to do much better. If both parties are smart, they’ll work on building up trust in themselves. If they’re both dumb, they’ll continue the partisan knife-fighting of (especially) the past twenty-five years and turn off all but the most rabid of their supporters.

I wait with bated breath.

In case you forgot or misplaced your paperwork, this site will link you to the local elections office’s web sites for confirming your polling place.

Oh, and don’t pay any attention to issue fliers and phone calls you’ve gotten in the last day or two — especially if they really made you start to change your mind because, well, I Didn’t Know Candidate X Did That To Puppies.

Now, one of two things is going on there. It’s pretty unlikely that Candidate X really did do that to puppies, and it only came to light a day or two before the election. So either it’s a smear campaign from Folks For Candidate Y … or it’s meant to be so infuriatingly crass and obvious of a smear that it’s a covert smear campaign from Folks Against Candidate Y And Really For Candidate X.

You can’t believe any of it.

Use your head. Vote wisely.

Because I’d rather see a 100% turn-out and be on the losing side than see a 20% turn-out and be on the winning side.

Of course, I’d rather see a 20% turn-out and be on the winning side than see a 30% turn-out and be on the losing side. I’m principled, but not crazy.

No, really — if the matters before the electorate in this mid-term election — the war, civil liberties, values traditional and otherwise, the size of government, the environment, homeland security — aren’t enough to get you off your fat ass and into a polling booth on your way to/from work tomorrow (even if it’s just to vote on a ballot proposition or the local assistant deputy coroner or even just against someone) then you might as well turn in your citizenship card and move someplace where they
don’t bother to let folks vote.

Yes, it’s that important, no matter what party (or blend thereof) you belong to.

Vote.

(And if you really want some advice, I’m a big believer in the conservative value of government inertia — the government is best that governs least. Meaning neither party has the majority in the legislature and the executive. Sure, I have my pet issues — feel free to peruse this voting guide for Colorado — but regardless, I think we’ve had enough years of one-party rule, don’t you?)

If you remain utterly undecided on congressional races, might I point you to voting attendance records, votes cast by subject, and power ranking. And if you’re outraged about something congresscritter X did based on an ad you saw, you probably owe
it to yourself to check out FactCheck.

But just vote, dammit.