The Emerged Democratic Majority

There are many stories to be told regarding last night's results.

But the most important politically is the Emerging Democratic Majority has now fully emerged.

In a political climate where an incumbent President should have been vulnerable, the continued growth of the non-white electorate and its allegiance to the Democratic Party is the story today.

Coupled with the fact that even among white voters, Republican appeals is concentrated among older white males, the future should be progressive. But delivering good policy now is essential. More on what that means later this week.

< Inmate Voting | Wednesday Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    The GOP is in danger (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by indy in sc on Wed Nov 07, 2012 at 12:11:22 PM EST
    of losing the Hispanic vote for several generations the way they have lost the black vote (which may be irretrievable at this point).  Sununu and his ilk will try to make a lot of hay about black voters going 93% for Obama this cycle, but the black vote went 90% for Gore in 2000--that battle was lost a long time ago with the policies and rhetoric of the GOP during the civil rights movement (and frankly before and after that).  

    The rhetoric and policies of the GOP towards hispanics and all immigrants is driving them into the arms of the Democrats and once there, it will be very hard to shake for some time to come (if it ever can be shaken).

    There are no permanent friends, only permanent interests, so they can figure it out, but right now they are hopelessly beholden to a faction in their party that has no interest in figuring it out as it relates to any minority group.

    Be interesting to see what happens..... (5.00 / 3) (#7)
    by magster on Wed Nov 07, 2012 at 12:24:20 PM EST
    ... after Puerto Rico voted for statehood last night.

    Now it is up to Congress (none / 0) (#89)
    by Amiss on Wed Nov 07, 2012 at 09:33:26 PM EST
    and that really scares me.

    First I want an amendment that says... (none / 0) (#118)
    by unitron on Thu Nov 08, 2012 at 03:32:40 PM EST
    ...if they come in as a state the official pronunciation is "pwerto", not "porto".

    With a (none / 0) (#123)
    by Zorba on Thu Nov 08, 2012 at 09:14:28 PM EST
    rolled "r."

    This is the South yankee (none / 0) (#125)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Nov 09, 2012 at 10:05:27 AM EST
    It's Purda Rico (Rico like those gangster laws)

    Well, I do live (5.00 / 1) (#126)
    by Zorba on Fri Nov 09, 2012 at 11:00:18 AM EST
    South of the Mason-Dixon Line, so I'm not entirely sure that I can be called a Yankee.  LOL!

    If I am a Yankee (none / 0) (#127)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Nov 09, 2012 at 11:04:57 AM EST
    And I'm told regularly that I am, you must certainly at least be a Yankee spy :)

    Will the hateful base they have nurtured and (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Nov 07, 2012 at 12:24:33 PM EST
    Grown stand for a national embrace of Latinos?  What is the core of the Republican ideology?  At this time I see it as the Southern Conservative and that is wedded to racism.  If they embrace Latinos, many Conservatives that are currently their base will not stand for it.  Their strength will be halved again.  This is the reaping of the wedges.  They have a whole section of America getting out of bed every morning for cynicism and hate.   Those are powerful moods, and their base isn't going to give it up without a hell of a fight.  They literally have people addicted to the energy of hate.

    Just keep telling yourself that, (1.50 / 2) (#10)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Nov 07, 2012 at 12:39:20 PM EST
    I guess it makes you feel better.

    It doesn't make me feel better (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Nov 07, 2012 at 02:16:44 PM EST
    My daughter went to school here and she is quiet about her opinions unlike her mother.  She called me this morning very upset about what was happening in her age group this morning.  One of her friends from school posts "assasinate the n-word", many of her other friends "like" it.  My son-in-law's best friend is black and he went to school with all of them too.  My daughter said he posted under the post "take me off your friend list and I have some n-word for all your a$$e$ the next time I see you".  She was practically in tears.  

    Not good. I'm sorry your daughter was put (none / 0) (#45)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Nov 07, 2012 at 02:41:00 PM EST
    in that position, thank you for your reasoned response.

    Sounds like... (none / 0) (#119)
    by unitron on Thu Nov 08, 2012 at 03:33:36 PM EST
    ...she needs a better class of friends.

    huh? (none / 0) (#14)
    by DFLer on Wed Nov 07, 2012 at 12:49:45 PM EST
    I hate (none / 0) (#17)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Nov 07, 2012 at 01:10:32 PM EST
    to tell you this but the GOP is increasingly in touch with the southern conservative view of the world which is also a view that is very much out of touch with the rest of the country.

    As John Stuart said (none / 0) (#107)
    by BackFromOhio on Thu Nov 08, 2012 at 09:24:06 AM EST
    Mitt Romney won the Confederacy.

    On the other hand, I heard Tues. very late that Cuban-American vote in South Florida went for Romney.  So Latino vote not entirey a monolith?


    The Cuban-American vote (5.00 / 3) (#113)
    by indy in sc on Thu Nov 08, 2012 at 10:27:16 AM EST
    has long been solidly republican.  There are various reasons, but the ones most often pointed to are (i) JFK lost them forever after Bay of Pigs and (ii) having lived through communism under Castro, Cuban leaders in the US equated democrats with communists and they don't ever want to go back there.  Massive generalizations, but you get the point.

    The interesting thing is that this cycle, 47% of the cuban vote actually went to Obama, which was completely unexpected.  The traditional reasons for Cuban-American loyalty to the Republicans are less visceral for 2nd and 3rd generation cuban-americans.  


    I thought it was expected (none / 0) (#114)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Nov 08, 2012 at 11:04:49 AM EST
    that this election was probably going to split the Cuban demographic in Florida?

    My next door neighbor is Cuban and is a (none / 0) (#117)
    by Angel on Thu Nov 08, 2012 at 02:49:21 PM EST
    devout Republican.  He and his family took a "vacation" to Florida in 1968 and never went back to Cuba.  

    He hates Mexicans and blames them for a lot of America's  problems, and is opposed to easing our immigration laws to allow them to take advantage of any type of amnesty program.  Mr. Angel and I laugh because it's so hypocritical.  


    Ya "Latino" is not a homogeneous group. (none / 0) (#132)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Nov 09, 2012 at 01:18:29 PM EST
    For example, growing up in NJ I saw that the Cubans and Puerto Ricans did not at all look at each other as "Latino brothers and sisters." The same also goes here in LA, CA, for the Salvadorans and Mexicans, for example.

    My point is that my neighbor does not see (none / 0) (#134)
    by Angel on Fri Nov 09, 2012 at 02:04:48 PM EST
    the hypocrisy in his beliefs.  He was able to immigrate with no sanctions or repercussions but he thinks all Mexicans (from Mexico) need to be deported regardless of their situation.  

    Oh, my neighbor's dislike of other (none / 0) (#136)
    by Angel on Fri Nov 09, 2012 at 03:23:03 PM EST
    "Latinos" applies only to Mexicans.  Loves everyone else.  

    Ask him about Salvadorans, Guatemalans (none / 0) (#141)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Nov 09, 2012 at 04:39:50 PM EST
    or Hondurans. If he's cool with them, but not Mexicans, he must have some specific reason, no?

    I think he just believes that Cubans (none / 0) (#142)
    by Angel on Fri Nov 09, 2012 at 08:04:52 PM EST
    are superior.  He's also quite sexist so I have a really hard time being around him.  He's also a gun nut.  The list goes on...

    Bob Moser has a piece up, (5.00 / 6) (#5)
    by Anne on Wed Nov 07, 2012 at 12:13:11 PM EST
    here, that is well worth reading in its entirety, but here's some of it to get you in the mood for what's ahead for us:

    Americans made foundational choices in this election. We decided that we do not support the wholesale demolition of government. We rejected the wealth-first economics that Romney represented--and embodied. We affirmed our belief in a social contract and our wariness of the "fend for yourself" philosophy of Ayn Rand Republicanism. We loudly insisted that women's economic and reproductive rights are essential. We dismissed the idea that immigrants are a drag on the country's future.


    ... Until Tuesday night, it remained possible that a Republican Party supported almost exclusively by conservative white people could win one last time and could then proceed to dismantle the social-welfare system so thoroughly over the next four or eight years that it would take decades to rebuild it again.

    But Americans didn't let it happen. The president ran, and won, on the most resonant pro-government message Democrats have offered in four decades. He did it by assembling the most diverse political coalition in the nation's history--huge majorities of young people, African Americans, Latinos, Asian Americans, women, and highly educated whites.

    That is a coalition of the future. It is also a coalition that is far and away more liberal, in terms of both economic and social views, than the supporters cobbled together by any Democratic president in history. Franklin Roosevelt depended on conservative whites from the South for his victories; so did Truman, Kennedy, and, to a lesser extent, Johnson, Carter, and Clinton. Obama did not. Going forward, future Democratic presidents will not either. This opens up a politics of progressive possibility that, just two days ago, few were envisioning.

    Here's the $64,000 question:

    Will the president govern accordingly? Will he translate a campaign that he built around an affirmation of good government and the social contract into a second term far different from the cautious centrism of his first? Liberal skeptics will believe it when they see it. But consider this: The president now knows, as he did not in 2008, that a majority of Americans believe in a government that works to make the country more equitable and less cruel. The winds of history that favored his candidacy in 2008 now favor his governance in 2012 and beyond.

    I think this - seeing this election as an affirmative turn to the left - is what needs to be the takeaway from this election, and the challenge for all of us should be to make sure that's the self-fulfilling prophecy, and not the tired, old and anemic message the media and the sore losers will want to get out, that this is an evenly divided electorate that requires all that post-partisan unity crap.

    If we don't take advantage of this opportunity...

    There was a 'resonant pro-gov't message'? (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by RonK Seattle on Wed Nov 07, 2012 at 04:00:58 PM EST
    Didn't hear one resound around here.

    Didn't see a resounding victory either. Saw a status-quo election where one side's standard-bearer edged out the other side's standard-bearer ... a race that turned on the timing of random events.

    In Washington State, D's mostly swept the statewide offices - but four of four major statewide ballot measures passed, and all of them were anti-govt by nature. Three pro-govt technical measures (referred non-controversially by the legislature) failed, while one arguably anti-govt technical measure (lowering a debt limitation) was ratified.

    We elected a D governor, but he ran a better anti-tax, pro-biz campaign than his R opponent


    Jay Inslee's your Gov.- elect? (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Nov 07, 2012 at 04:34:36 PM EST
    Well, that's certainly welcome news -- except maybe to state residents east of the Cascades.

    I'm only just now looking at other states to see what the final results were. I've noticed that Montana, in adition to re-electing Sen. John Tester, has also elected a new Democratic governor, even as that state was decidedly pro-Romney.


    I am in Montana (none / 0) (#133)
    by athyrio on Fri Nov 09, 2012 at 01:55:38 PM EST
    and we are pleased and happy to have won Testers seat back for him as well as our Gov and several other seats for Dems...Was wonderful...Rehberg wasn't well liked here and Tester is a "good ole boy" that had to get on his tractor to cut his wheat before he could start campaigning...thus the attraction IMO....Rehberg is wealthy and arrogant kinda like Romney...

    p.s. from local alt-weekly The Stranger (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by RonK Seattle on Wed Nov 07, 2012 at 05:18:24 PM EST
    Overheard in the office:
    "Oh, so you're telling me that you can pass a landmark civil rights law but you can't figure out how to send me a link?"

    Rush Limbaugh's having a meltdown today! (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by shoephone on Wed Nov 07, 2012 at 12:22:49 PM EST
    Really flipping out on his show. It's hilarious, and, of course, pathetic. The whining, the screaming, the denial, the visceral hatred of women, Latinos, the poor, Obama, and all things black... it's a meltdown of major proportions. He actually sounds like he's a having a mental breakdown. Foaming at the mouth about everything under the sun.

    His prescription for Republicans: Go full-tilt conservative. Flog the same old wacko cr*p, just flog it harder next time!

    I think he may end up giving himself a heartattack by the end of his show.

    I've long ago found Limbaugh pathetic. (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Nov 07, 2012 at 01:30:54 PM EST
    I appreciate that you're listening to him, so that others like me don't have to. I think it's very important that we know what Rush Limbaugh and his ilk are saying.

    But honestly, I grew up in a family that talked in variations of his various themes all the time, just not in the unhinged public fashion you hear from the Loud & Corpulant One and his brethren on the airwaves. And as I've gotten older and wiser, I'm finding myself increasingly annoyed at having to be subjected to wingers like Limbaugh and some of my own relatives as they wax poetic about their particularly noxious brand of politics.

    That act so smug and superior and are so damned sure of themselves while doing so, and yet it's painfully evident from their own demonstrable lack of basic knowledge about the size, role and function of government that they have absolutely no friggin' clue what they're talking about.

    That's why I refused to be shocked, shocked by Mitt Romney's ignorant "47%" comments. Honestly, and I'm probably not telling you anything you don't already know, this is the way most of these tighty-whitey conservatives have always talked to one another behind closed doors, ever since I can remember.

    They've both repeated and heard their own crackpotted socio-economic Ayn Randian bull$Hi+ so often and for so long, it's really no small wonder how they've managed to convince themselves of its veracity. And if that isn't a prime-time example of pathetic, then I don't know what is.

    In my opinion, the GOP's perpetual celebration of its own in-house wankerdom has proved to be no small factor in the gradual coalescing and rise of what BTD and others have rightly identified as the "emerging Democratic majority." And if this election proved anything, it's that the Republican pool of political consensus has shrunk to the extent where it can now reasonably be labeled "incestuous."



    Believe me, Yeats was thinking of (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by jondee on Wed Nov 07, 2012 at 01:43:20 PM EST
    the Rushes of the world when he said "the worst are full of passionate intensity

    A certain contingent of the (justifiably) overwrought and angst ridden great outourced and downsized seem to appreciate, on some visceral level, Rush redirecting their attention away from the "too big to fail" and onto those lower down on the barnyard pecking order.


    one can always (none / 0) (#90)
    by Amiss on Wed Nov 07, 2012 at 09:58:27 PM EST
    hope :) (definitele snark) perhaps he and Rove could be roommates in the same institution.

    Reid vowing today that (5.00 / 7) (#9)
    by magster on Wed Nov 07, 2012 at 12:26:45 PM EST
    there will be no messing with social security in the "fiscal cliff" negotiations.  Nice to see.

    Hope the story doesn't (5.00 / 1) (#108)
    by BackFromOhio on Thu Nov 08, 2012 at 09:27:07 AM EST
    change tomorrow in some conference committee with lobbyists or whatever.  Given history of last 4 years, I now follow the "Show me" line of thinking.

    Old Coalition (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by koshembos on Wed Nov 07, 2012 at 12:42:41 PM EST
    Will Rogers said: "I am not a member of any organized political party. I am a Democrat." Democrats always were a medley of groups, organizations, communities, etc.

    African Americans, Asians and Jews were members of the coalition for a long time. Hispanics have been slowly increasing their power in the last 20 years.

    For many reasons, e.g. southern strategy, resentment of the civil war loss, religious right, cannot but define themselves as the white party. They got 60% of the white men vote and 54% of the white women vote.

    Reagan and W Bush tried to break the Republican straight jacket. Romney didn't. When and if that will change is unknown.

    Looks like we're headed for a super majority (5.00 / 4) (#20)
    by nycstray on Wed Nov 07, 2012 at 01:29:55 PM EST
    here in Ca :) We won't need no stinkin' R votes . . . .

    Wisconsin Dems, unfortunately, (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by Anne on Wed Nov 07, 2012 at 02:57:38 PM EST
    lost their hold on the majority in the State Senate; this means Republicans there hold the governor's office and both houses of the legislature - and you know what that means: more ugliness.



    Needed because it takes a (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by MKS on Wed Nov 07, 2012 at 04:28:43 PM EST
    supermajority to pass a state budget here.

    Understand you spent a billion more (2.00 / 1) (#88)
    by Rojas on Wed Nov 07, 2012 at 09:17:18 PM EST
    on incarcerating people last year than you did on higher education...
    Just keep patting yourselves on the back....

    Perhaps that's why we passed prop 30 (5.00 / 3) (#99)
    by nycstray on Thu Nov 08, 2012 at 12:22:49 AM EST
    (and many local ballot measures) and revised the 3 strike law . . .

    Keep throwing out your crap . . .  We won't talk about the last admin and the R's in this state who are now kinda powerless . . .


    The 3 strikes law (none / 0) (#124)
    by Rojas on Fri Nov 09, 2012 at 03:19:08 AM EST
    Well now that is a good thing. Hard to believe this signals an end to the zero tolerance dem policies of the past.

    Considering that on this issue, this so called "progressive state" was forced into action by the most regressive Supreme Court in a generation, I tend to remain unimpressed.  


    I don't believe I was around (none / 0) (#131)
    by nycstray on Fri Nov 09, 2012 at 12:09:49 PM EST
    when those "zero tolerance dem policies of the past" were brought about, so I looked it up.

    Might want to scroll down a bit to his tough on crime bio


    We have one here in TN (none / 0) (#46)
    by me only on Wed Nov 07, 2012 at 02:48:54 PM EST
    first time since Reconstruction.

    Oh wait, the Republicans have a super-majority here.


    Bill Nelson (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by Amiss on Wed Nov 07, 2012 at 11:01:14 PM EST
    is the ONLY Democrat statewide that Florida has. I remember when I was a teen-ager him pulling up beside us in his Yvette. All of the astronauts had them.
    We had one man that stood in line in Miami-Dade for 7 hours to vote. He is 101 yrs. old and of course he is a Democrat.

    I am not certain what your definition (none / 0) (#103)
    by me only on Thu Nov 08, 2012 at 08:21:37 AM EST
    is of a statewide office.  TN has two Republican senators and a Republican governor.  7 of the 9 US Reps are Republicans and the statehouse is so Republican now that it doesn't need the Democrats for a quorum.

    Six years ago we had a Democratic governor and statehouse.


    I prefer parties... (5.00 / 3) (#40)
    by unitron on Wed Nov 07, 2012 at 02:17:53 PM EST
    ...that decide where they stand and what their principles are to parties that are always trying to figure out what they should pretend to be in order to get or keep political power and position.

    Then you prefer a political party ... (5.00 / 3) (#47)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Nov 07, 2012 at 02:49:57 PM EST
    ... that has heretofore never existed in our nation's history.

    150 years ago, as the Civil War entered its second year with ever-increasing casualty lists and general carnage, the Republican Party had clearly emerged as the progressive antidote to a Democratic Party which had heretofore represented the conservative status quo,, until it had finally splintered into acrimonious regional factions during the 1860 election over the subject of slavery.

    100 years ago, even as the GOP was increasingly being held captive by the country's vested corporate interests, most African Americans still tended to vote Republican because most white racists who oppressed them tended to be Democrats.

    80 years ago, the third largest political party was the Communist Party and the Ku Klux Klan had an estimated 20 million members who tended to support the Dixiecrat wing of the Democratic Party. Meanwhile, Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt were building the political coalitions that would sweep them into Washington the following year and commence the rebranding of the Democratic Party to reflect that generation's emerging consensus.

    Suffice to say that both major political parties have evolved accordingly to meet the times as its members saw fit. Nothing remains static in politics, nor should its factions, if they seek to remain at all relevant in the ongoing national conversation.



    Congratulations to Heidi Heitkamp. ... (5.00 / 3) (#57)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Nov 07, 2012 at 03:58:14 PM EST
    ... the new Democratic senator from North Dakota, who's succeeding the retiring Kent Conrad. She upset Republican Rick Berg, who just conceded the race a little while ago.

    I'd say very few people if any would have ventured ten months ago that the Democrats would actually gain two U.S. Senate seats this cycle, especially when they were defending 23 of the 33 seats up for election.

    Ari Fleicher said that they do not have to change (5.00 / 2) (#83)
    by coigue on Wed Nov 07, 2012 at 07:33:25 PM EST
    their positions to appeal to non-white voters because the baby-boomers will soon be old enough to be in the key GOP demographic.

    LOL. So funny. Like people switch sides on their 65th birthday. He has no clue that the one generation has had a completely different upbringing and experience than the other.

    Ari is a dumba$$ and he's also too young to (5.00 / 4) (#91)
    by Angel on Wed Nov 07, 2012 at 10:53:11 PM EST
    understand Baby Boomers and our issues.  

    Are they (none / 0) (#84)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Nov 07, 2012 at 07:54:26 PM EST
    know going to turn into the great defenders of Medicare and Social Security? I mean that's the only reason I could think that they might attract those voters.

    Nope (none / 0) (#85)
    by coigue on Wed Nov 07, 2012 at 08:26:50 PM EST
    He was trying to explain why they did NOT have to change their ideas

    No, Ari's mostly right! (none / 0) (#122)
    by RonK Seattle on Thu Nov 08, 2012 at 06:06:05 PM EST
    Today's oldsters had much more liberal/progressive/radical upbringings than today's young voters, who will become predictably more conservative as they become more established (in households, communities, careers, etc).

    The GOP will have to change, though, and parties always do! (Even if the GOP imploded tomorrow, we wouldn't get one-party progressive politics. We'd see the political ecosystem organize itself - rather rapidly - into two opposing factions, and one of them would coalesce around wanting government to do less, change less, and tax less.)

    The alternative is yet another "End of History" fantasy ... and that's a pastime best left to conservative fantasists.


    "More conservative" (5.00 / 1) (#128)
    by jondee on Fri Nov 09, 2012 at 11:48:10 AM EST
    as in Hannity-Limbaugh conservative, or more conservative like Clinton-Obama conservative?

    Coming out of college owing a shite load of money, or becoming an established member of a community doesn't necessarily automatically translate into becoming a member of Milton Friedman's Army of the Living Dead.


    Hannity, LImbaugh, Friedman ... (none / 0) (#138)
    by RonK Seattle on Fri Nov 09, 2012 at 04:18:55 PM EST
    ... are only surface manifestations of underlying attitudes. Their perches will be occupied by birds of a different feather in 2062, say, but they'll fill the same ecological niches.

    When you dismiss the idea that many voters embrace the sentiment "government should do less", you are out on a farther limb than climate change denialists.

    And again: the younger generations grew up on a diet much richer in libertarian koolaid, and much poorer in demonstrations of positive government performance, compared to their New Deal, WW II, Civil Rights, and Great Society elders.


    Today's oldsters are more liberal/progressive? (none / 0) (#140)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Nov 09, 2012 at 04:27:49 PM EST
    Bull$hit.  This is what happens, someone I've known forever puts on facebook they don't want to pay for some $lut$ birth control and then I have to remind them that I knew them when they were a $lut.  My daughter, same thing happened to her that happened to me growing up.  My Liberal grandparents made me crazy until I had to pay my own bills and make my own way in this world and deal with the oligarchy....then I got it, but not before then.  I was tired of hearing about all of it.

    What??? (none / 0) (#143)
    by RonK Seattle on Fri Nov 09, 2012 at 08:22:31 PM EST
    First, what I said is that today's oldsters when they were young were more liberal  than today's young voters. Empirical fact.

    Second, your individual case - as you describe it - seems consistent with this generality.

    And finally, if you became more liberal later in life it doesn't refute the general trend - anymore than a cold snap refutes global warming.

    I don't know why this offends you. I'm just pointing out that we had our work cut out for us this year, and we'll have our work cut out for us in 2014, and in 2016, and whoever's around after I'm gone will have their work cut out for them too.


    America is becoming more liberal (none / 0) (#145)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Nov 10, 2012 at 10:09:30 AM EST
    "Voters embrace the sentiment.." (none / 0) (#146)
    by jondee on Sat Nov 10, 2012 at 11:58:47 AM EST
    SOME voters are embracing a PARADIGM foisted on them that they haven't fully thought through. Mainly because smart aleck pundits, talk radio hosts, think tanks and foundations do too many people's thinking for them these days. That state of affairs needs to be radically altered -- somehow.

    This every-man-an-island-on-his-own-frontier-outpost autoerotic fantasy is the conceit-luxery of the people who bankroll the Cato Institute -- and doesn't jibe with any sane, sustainable reality that I can see.


    I think some of those bubble people (none / 0) (#147)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Nov 10, 2012 at 12:10:31 PM EST
    are having to think a few things through now, this election hit them like a freight train.

    *sigh* You keep talking about ... (none / 0) (#148)
    by RonK Seattle on Sun Nov 11, 2012 at 10:13:41 AM EST
    ... how people SHOULD think.

    I was talking about how people DO think.

    If you don't think there's a difference, or if you refuse to think about how people DO think, this exchange is pointless.

    Limbaugh, CATO, the Laffer Curve, the red menace, Ayn Rand, "job creators", the debt menace, like the current alignment of demographic and ancillary interests (guns god gays etc) are all just disposable tools wielded by a much more robust and permanent community of interest.


    I also don't buy (5.00 / 1) (#129)
    by jondee on Fri Nov 09, 2012 at 11:56:11 AM EST
    your "Government doing.." paradigm. "The Government" is supposed to be a covenient tool weilded by the people.

    Government over here and the citizenry over there is, imo, little more than a right wing meme established in the mainstream as recieved wisdom. The way "liberal" now means "the Left" (which is more bullshite.)


    wooo...you been in the legal dope already? (none / 0) (#130)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Nov 09, 2012 at 12:02:22 PM EST
    It takes awhile to build up a tolerance, you might want to take it easy at first :)

    Do you have any rational basis ... ? (none / 0) (#137)
    by RonK Seattle on Fri Nov 09, 2012 at 03:57:23 PM EST
    ... for thinking that everything that happens everywhere and always in human society will magically not happen here tomorrow?

    Or do you disagree with any of the generalities I've alluded to?

    Who's trippin'?


    It's enormous.... (5.00 / 3) (#104)
    by masslib on Thu Nov 08, 2012 at 08:36:53 AM EST
    In my lifetime, I would never have dreamed North Carolina and Virginia would be deemed "swing states".  This is a very good thing.  I think the Republicans slit their own necks when they hung George Bush out to dry on comprehensive immigration.  I can not fathom how they win a national election again without some serious soul searching and already I'm hearing the Romney was just a weak candidate bit.  One Republican commentator argued Romney couldn't convince the electorate his plans would help the middle class, and he couldn't dispel the notion that his plans were aimed at helping the wealthy.  Well duh.  It ain't the messenger it's the message.  

    Also, I love how analyst continue to say the country is divided.  Actually not.  White men, particularly older white men, and to a lesser extent white women, are divided from the rest of the electorate, which pretty unanimously supports Democrats.  I don't see how they can continue to talk about the country as divided without talking about race.  I think I read 89% of Romney voters were white.  Amazing.  

    here's your majority (1.00 / 4) (#86)
    by diogenes on Wed Nov 07, 2012 at 09:02:39 PM EST
    1.  Those of the 53% who are voting with their pocketbooks.
    2.  Latino voters who somehow think that opening the gates for millions of NEW immigrants is in their economic interests.
    3.  Black voters whose interests are ignored (except for affirmative action) by Democrats.  Can you say "charter schools in inner cities"?  And how will the millions of NEW immigrants help the unemployment rate of unskilled blacks?
    4.  Government workers who massively support Democrats because, well, Democrats support non-privatized government workers.

    That Comment Pretty Much... (5.00 / 2) (#111)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Nov 08, 2012 at 09:45:06 AM EST
    ...sums up why the right lost.  

    Uniformed blather that fails to address their problem, while simultaneously denigrates the very blocks that cost them the election.


    You DO realize that ... (none / 0) (#105)
    by Yman on Thu Nov 08, 2012 at 08:37:54 AM EST
    ... the 53/47% theory is a myth, right?  That 8 of the 10 states with the highest percentage of "takers" are southern/solid Republican states ... that a huge portion of the "47 percent" are elderly SS recipients who payed into the system their whole lives and poor children ... that a large percentage of that 47% votes Republican, and a large percentage of higher income taxpayers vote Democratic, right?

    Income        Obama         McCain
    <15K            73%            25%
    15K-30K        62%            36%
    30K-50K        55%            43%
    50K-75K        50%            48%
    75K-100K       52%            47%
    100K-150K     50%            49%
    150K-200K     50%            48%
    >200K           53%           45%


    Off topic (5.00 / 1) (#106)
    by MO Blue on Thu Nov 08, 2012 at 09:12:14 AM EST
    Glad you are safe.

    Thanks! n/t (none / 0) (#116)
    by Yman on Thu Nov 08, 2012 at 01:44:53 PM EST
    Ah, nice to see you back! (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by sj on Thu Nov 08, 2012 at 09:42:06 AM EST
    I think you were the last remaining TLer to check in post Sandy.

    That I know of, anyway.  You should know that your name came up recently and that people were thinking of you.


    Thanks - didn't see that (none / 0) (#115)
    by Yman on Thu Nov 08, 2012 at 01:43:36 PM EST
    We got through the storm unscathed, although much of our small, beach town was hit pretty hard.  No power or heat, so we headed up to the Poconos.  10 days later and we still have no power/heat, so we've been doing some long commutes and trying to work from here, but cell service and internet is sporadic and slow.

    Yman, you're back and safe. Yea! (5.00 / 1) (#120)
    by caseyOR on Thu Nov 08, 2012 at 03:34:08 PM EST
    I am so glad to see here. We've been thinking about you.

    Sour grapes, Diogenes...the sourest of grapes. (none / 0) (#139)
    by christinep on Fri Nov 09, 2012 at 04:21:28 PM EST
    Hufpost: One of the Most Futile Elections (none / 0) (#1)
    by Mr Natural on Wed Nov 07, 2012 at 11:21:11 AM EST
    Such bitterness from Mr. Black! (5.00 / 2) (#12)
    by jtaylorr on Wed Nov 07, 2012 at 12:43:18 PM EST
    Someones been sucking on sour grapes.
    I loved this line:
    He is the only president to be reelected to a second term with fewer electoral votes than in his first election
    And? Winning is winning. How earth does Obama losing NC and IN have any bearing on how he will govern?


    he may not have as many votes as Governor Romney
    Wrong! Mr. Black is a sad, sad man.

    Woodrow Wilson (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by ding7777 on Wed Nov 07, 2012 at 03:01:01 PM EST
    1912 - 435 EV

    1916 - 277 EV

    And then there is FDR. Although he had more EVs in his 2nd term, he had fewer in his 3rd and 4th term


    mr. black is identified as a (none / 0) (#95)
    by cpinva on Wed Nov 07, 2012 at 11:25:01 PM EST

    based on his screed, i must ask, what "history" is he a "historian" of? given his lack of knowledge, about things that happened only last week, one wonders just how accurate he could possibly be, with anything that happened a month or more ago?

    also too, he seems quite upset with us proles, how dare we elect a non-republican president? i note as well his lack of critical math skills, as he conveniently includes the deficit of the last bush budget, into the obama administration. addition and subtraction are clearly not his forte.


    Ari Fleischer (none / 0) (#2)
    by lilburro on Wed Nov 07, 2012 at 11:32:01 AM EST
    "The big issue that Republicans are going to have to wrestle with is the Hispanic issue," Ari Fleischer explained after President Barack Obama's defeat of GOP hopeful Mitt Romney made it clear that the country was more liberal than he had expected.

    "It's not the social issues," he insisted. "You're not going to make the party pro-choice and pro-gay rights and think you've made the Republican party the party that's the popular party. We have a party like that. It's the Democratic Party."


    I wish they would give up on the gay stuff but I guess they never will.  Sigh...

    As long as they believe these are (5.00 / 4) (#3)
    by Anne on Wed Nov 07, 2012 at 11:45:03 AM EST
    "gay" issues, instead of human/civil rights issues that ultimately affect how ALL people are treated, the GOP will continue to be the party of the Dark Ages.

    That they refuse to evolve means they are likely to go the way of the dinosaurs.  Now, maybe having dinosaurs around now would be a good thing - we'll never know - but I wouldn't waste one tear mourning the death of a party that has become all about repression and fear.  Not one.


    Yes, the reasons keep on (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by KeysDan on Wed Nov 07, 2012 at 01:06:17 PM EST
    coming.  First it was Candy, then Sandy.  And, what about Nate?  When all fails, there is always hate.

    Uh, no, Ari. Actually, what he is seeing (none / 0) (#13)
    by Towanda on Wed Nov 07, 2012 at 12:49:10 PM EST
    and saying but cannot bring himself to recognize is that the big issues that Republicans face are  women's issue.

    After all, need we point out that most Hispanic voters, like most voters, are women?  (I.e., to use another term, that most voters called "Latinos" are Latinas?)

    And I wonder -- I'll have to go see stats -- whether most gay voters are women, too?  

    Btw, one of the most intriguing reads of late was on a major source of Tammy Baldwin's funding, which allowed her to actually compete with the incredible amounts poured into the Wisconsin race by the Kochs and their like again, as with all things Wisconsin lately.  That major source of funding for Tammy Baldwin was the gay community nationwide, which gave many millions to her campaign.

    Remember to thank a gay today! including many in our TL community -- and many in Wisconsin who have cause to celebrate today but still live in a state that became even more Republican at the state level yesterday, so there is no hope for repealing the same-sex marriage ban in the state that just sent Tammy to the Senate.  Go figure.  


    It wouldn't surprise me. (none / 0) (#33)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Nov 07, 2012 at 02:00:06 PM EST
    "And I wonder -- I'll have to go see stats -- whether most gay voters are women, too?"

    Admittedly, I'm speaking anecdotally here, but it's been my considered experience from 25 years in local Democratic Party politics that some of the most committed and passionate advocates for liberal and progressive causes are middle-aged lesbians and older gay men.

    They are true warriors, and I've found them to be a lot better than most people when it comes to networking. Further, because they tend to be childless and / or without dependents, they also tend to have more disposable income than many others, and they aren't at all afraid to put their money where their mouths are.


    I remember (none / 0) (#38)
    by lilburro on Wed Nov 07, 2012 at 02:16:37 PM EST
    hearing at some point that the ideal target for advertising is the white gay male because he tends to be more affluent with more disposable income than other demographic groups.

    That's probably true to some extent. (none / 0) (#52)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Nov 07, 2012 at 03:19:28 PM EST
    However, since we're talking about politics rather than the accumulation of physical possessions, it's been my considered experience as a Democratic Party activist that lesbians tend to become more active politically at an earlier age than do gay men.

    While, again, this is strictly my own observation, I see lesbians at numerous party organizational and district meetings who are in their 30s and 40s, while I'd observe that gay men tend to start becoming more active in party politics when they reach their late 40s and early 50s. But once lesbians and gay men do get involved, they also tend to remain actively engaged throughout their lifetimes.


    Just curious, Donald, but are your (none / 0) (#54)
    by Anne on Wed Nov 07, 2012 at 03:40:35 PM EST
    observations a result of superior gaydar, or are all these people you encoounter wearing badges identifying themselves as gay?

    All the people about whom I'm talking ... (none / 0) (#60)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Nov 07, 2012 at 04:24:08 PM EST
    ... in the Hawaii Democratic Party are already self-identified as gay and lesbian, and are out of the closet.

    Otherwise, I'd have to admit that my "gaydar" has probably never been very good, unless of course, the subjects in question so happen to be channeling the late Paul Lynde and Charles Nelson Reilly. (Even then ...) After all, I'm someone who's readily admitted here to having once married a lesbian, and then never seeing the rest coming.

    And even if my gaydar was working at optimum level, I honestly try to respect other people's privacy and personal situations, and I would never willingly seek to identify anyone publicly as gay, even by indirect inference, unless they've already taken it upon themselves to do so first.

    By and large, I feel that coming out to others should be a matter of personal choice, and that gay people should not be outed by others as a matter of principle.

    (Unless, of course, they are an anti-LGBT gay homophobe, whose blatant and obvious hypocrisy on such issues is causing harm to the LGBT community, and is simply too much to ignore. See Craig, Sen. Larry and Haggerty, Rev. Ted.)



    You're making a distinction I did not make (none / 0) (#65)
    by Towanda on Wed Nov 07, 2012 at 04:38:10 PM EST
    -- fun as it is to read about your life again.

    I was not talking about gay activists, or even out gays.

    I was talking about gays, period, as they don't need to be activists or even out to contribute to or otherwise support gay politicians.

    That is, the point needs to be answered biologically or statistically or something, not politically.

    The answer would be that gays, like the population in general, are more likely to be women as well, I imagine.  That there would be more likelihood of women among gay activists also could follow, then, statistically even before considering other reasons.

    Btw, in Wisconsin, I would say that there have been more gay men among prominent activists.  It's that sort of state for women in many ways, all women and not just lesbians.  That state culture makes Baldwin even more remarkable in her career -- although, of course, Madison is in Wisconsin but not of Wisconsin; that career could not have occurred anywhere else in the state, believe me.

    Oh, and btw2, about men among gay activists:  In another race yesterday, Baldwin bequeathed her House seat to a gay guy.  


    No, you're right. They don't. (none / 0) (#68)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Nov 07, 2012 at 05:28:50 PM EST
    Towanda: "I was talking about gays, period, as they don't need to be activists or even out to contribute to or otherwise support gay politicians."

    But I think my observation about their networking skills, even though anecdotal from a political standpoint, is also relevant to your point. Their abilities in that regard can sometimes give them an outsized influence and impact which often belie their actual numbers.

    We have a very active LGBT caucus in the Hawaii Democratic Party, and their networks have proved instrumental time and again when it comes to our organizing efforts, especially whenever we've put together political fundraisers and district-wide mailings for prospective candidates. They generally follow through on their commitments, they make the necessary phone calls and send / forward e-mails to all their friends and acquaintances, and they show up ready to roll up their sleeves and get to work.


    Studies show (none / 0) (#78)
    by lilburro on Wed Nov 07, 2012 at 06:22:37 PM EST
    there are more gay men than women but of course that doesn't really say anything about political participation.  Williams Institute.  I would guess more women than men are involved in Dem politics but honestly I don't know.

    the supreme court may end up doing that. (none / 0) (#96)
    by cpinva on Wed Nov 07, 2012 at 11:45:01 PM EST
    so there is no hope for repealing the same-sex marriage ban in the state that just sent Tammy to the Senate. Go figure.

    if obama isn't successful in getting DOMA repealed, it may well end up in the USSC. so far, it has been rejected, on equal protection grounds, by two or three circuit courts. eventually, the house republicans will find at least one court that will uphold it (on what rational basis, i have no idea.), which will inevitably result in it being appealed to the USSC.

    of course, since the house republicans have access to unlimited taxpayer funds, they will appeal it, even if every federal circuit court of appeals tosses it. have to keep the nutjob base happy. to uphold DOMA, the USSC will be required to perform the same pretzel logic they did in gore v bush. i'm not sure roberts is enough of a social ideologue, to be willing to completely trash his legacy, by signing on to that opinion.


    I wonder who will emerge as a leader in the GOP (none / 0) (#15)
    by ruffian on Wed Nov 07, 2012 at 01:03:33 PM EST
    I never saw Romney as a real party leader - I think it has to be someone that has more recently held elective office. Changing the tone of their anti-minority rhetoric would be a good start, but they seem to abdicate the tone-setting to Fox news and Limbaugh. Standing up to that crew will be the only way to get taken seriously by anyone who currently sees Dems as the only party on the side of minorities.

    It is going (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Nov 07, 2012 at 01:12:08 PM EST
    be someone like Newt if not Newt himself.

    Wow. I suppose I should be happy since that (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by ruffian on Wed Nov 07, 2012 at 01:27:31 PM EST
    would be the demise of the party....but the toxicity of the whole mess is really getting to me. I would really like to see someone reasonable denounce the hate-machine, for the good of us all. But you are probably right and it won't happen.

    Maybe Chris Christie could (none / 0) (#22)
    by ruffian on Wed Nov 07, 2012 at 01:38:34 PM EST
    give it a shot anyway. His bridges seem to be well and truly burned - time for new infrastructure.

    Chris Christie, (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by NYShooter on Wed Nov 07, 2012 at 05:07:04 PM EST
    in his eleventh hour, has shown that he's not willing to sacrifice his sanity to further his political career. From where the Republican Party has decended, Christie may just be the conduit to a more pragmatic Party, and for a first step, that should be welcome news.

    I wonder if Gov. Christie didn't end up voting (none / 0) (#102)
    by DFLer on Thu Nov 08, 2012 at 07:50:33 AM EST
    for Obama, in the privacy of the booth.

    DIdn't Christie speak at Dem (none / 0) (#109)
    by BackFromOhio on Thu Nov 08, 2012 at 09:37:28 AM EST
    convention?  And he's going to lead the Republican Party????

    Judging (none / 0) (#112)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Nov 08, 2012 at 09:59:13 AM EST
    from what I see around here Christie will never get the GOP nomination because 1. they see him as "sucking up to Obama" in the aftermath of Sandy and 2. I think he's socially liberal.

    Hasn't Luntz kind of attached (none / 0) (#23)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Nov 07, 2012 at 01:40:01 PM EST
    Himself to Newt?  Seems like I read that someplace.

    I think Newt's big idea (5.00 / 5) (#41)
    by KeysDan on Wed Nov 07, 2012 at 02:19:34 PM EST
    of having poorer school kids clean  the toilets of their richer classmates needs some work if he is to be the new national leader and not just another loser.  

    Yeah (none / 0) (#43)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Nov 07, 2012 at 02:25:15 PM EST
    the whole country thinks he's a whacko but the GOP base thinks he's great.

    Paul Ryan will be the new leader of the GOP. (5.00 / 2) (#44)
    by caseyOR on Wed Nov 07, 2012 at 02:38:49 PM EST
    Unfortunately, the people of his district did not see the wisdom of putting him out of office.

    I expect Ryan to double-down on his ridiculous budget and use his leadership position in the House as a bully pulpit from which to launch his 2016 campaign. Trust me, this man has learned nothing of value from his failed campaign with Romney.

    Maybe Ryan and Christie will fight for the party's mantle. I've got 10 bucks on Christie if they mud wrestle for it.

    The party will wash its hands of Romney.


    Not at (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Nov 07, 2012 at 03:45:31 PM EST
    least from what i'm hearing from republicans here in GA. They're pretty much washing their hands of Ryan.

    Well, considering they practically kept him in a (5.00 / 5) (#62)
    by Angel on Wed Nov 07, 2012 at 04:29:08 PM EST
    closet the last month of the campaign, I kind of doubt he will be their new ideological leader, his reelection not withstanding.        I think he hurt Romney big-time, and he won't be forgiven that.  

    Did you see the SNL (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by MKS on Wed Nov 07, 2012 at 04:36:02 PM EST
    skit with the Christie and Bloomberg interpreters?

    Truly funny.   You can tell the cast wants Christie to hang around--so they can have more skits.


    Just as Democrats saw fit to ... (none / 0) (#50)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Nov 07, 2012 at 03:05:26 PM EST
    ... wash their hands of Michael Dukakis after his 1988 defeat at the hands of George H.W. Bush.

    With a few notable exceptions, there have generally been no second political acts on the national stage for failed major party presidential nominees. Fairly or not, political history is neither very kind nor very gracious to its big-ticket losers, except in the obituary columns.


    Nixon got a second chance. (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by caseyOR on Wed Nov 07, 2012 at 03:09:54 PM EST
    Reagan lost the primary in '76, got the nomination in '80. I don't know if this counts since his loss was in a primary.

    Adlai Stevenson lost the election to Eisenhower twice, in '52 and '56.

    Okay, that's all I can think of in my lifetime.


    Nixon and Stevenson are ... (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Nov 07, 2012 at 03:47:15 PM EST
    ... the only ones I can think of from our own lifetimes, too. (And no, Ronald Reagan doesn't count, because Reagan didn't win the REpublican nomination in 1976, President Gerald Ford did.)

    Your comment peaked my curiosity, so I did a quick review of nominees from earlier in American history and have identified:

    • Andrew Jackson, 1824 Democratic nominee who lost to John Quincy Adams when the election was thrown into the U.S. House of Representatives, but then won the presidency four years later;

    • John Quincy Adams, who lost his bid for relection in 1828 to Andrew Jackson, and then later became a respected member of the U.S. House of Representatives until his death in 1848;

    • Grover Cleveland, who was first elected president as a Democrat in 1884, lost his subsequent bid for re-election to Republican Benjamin Harrison in 1888, but then came back as the 1892 Democratic nominee to oust President Harrison;

    • William Jennings Bryan, who remains the only man other than FDR to win the Democratic Party's presidential nomination three separate times, in 1896, 1900 and 1908.

    • William Howard Taft, who was elected president in 1908, lost his bid for re-election in 1912 quite badly (winning only 8 electoral votes), but was later appointed in 1921 by President Warren Harding to serve as the 10th Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, a position he held until his death in 1930.

    • Thomas Dewey, New York Governor who first carried the GOP's standard against President Franklin Roosevelt in 1944, and then again four years later in a far more notable and ignonimous turn against President Harry Truman.


    Thinking about JQ Adams serving in the House (none / 0) (#93)
    by caseyOR on Wed Nov 07, 2012 at 11:14:26 PM EST
    after leaving the presidency ( JQ was a much better representative than he was a president) got me wondering if any other president had served in a political office after leaving the presidency. There is one other.

    Andrew Johnson, who became president after Mr. Lincoln's death, served in the U.S. Senate from March of 1875 until his death that July. As was the law at the time, he was appointed to the Senate by the Tennessee legislature. The 17th amendment, which provided for the popular election of senators, was not ratified until 1913.

    I was surprised to learn this about Johnson. I had always thought that after he was impeached, and acquitted by only one vote in the Senate, Johnson just faded from view.


    President Monroe Cole (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by CoralGables on Wed Nov 07, 2012 at 11:21:00 PM EST
    won election as Mayor of Mooseport.

    Jeb Bush...not least because of (5.00 / 2) (#25)
    by Anne on Wed Nov 07, 2012 at 01:43:40 PM EST
    his connetions to the Latino community.

    And he's a Bush.


    And he's got that (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by jondee on Wed Nov 07, 2012 at 01:45:03 PM EST
    Confederate "Jeb" working for him.

    the thing (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Nov 07, 2012 at 01:56:04 PM EST
    is though I don't think the GOP really wants to reach out to the Latino community. Truly I don't just from reading my local GOP blogs. These Latinos are people that need to be exterminated or rounded up and hauled off because they are a "drag on society" just like African Americans are in their book .

    Well then they are consigning themselves (none / 0) (#32)
    by ruffian on Wed Nov 07, 2012 at 01:59:27 PM EST
    to the dustheap. I guess I am assuming they actually want to win another national election.

    I think (none / 0) (#35)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Nov 07, 2012 at 02:05:29 PM EST
    when they are hit in the face with the fact they are going int the dust bin is the only time that things will change. Right now they think that Romney was not conservative enough. Let them run a few "true believes' and let them get the boot and then it will start to sink in.

    Works for me! (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by ruffian on Wed Nov 07, 2012 at 02:11:27 PM EST
    If I can stand another round of stupid.

    Well, they did have Paul Ryan (5.00 / 4) (#42)
    by KeysDan on Wed Nov 07, 2012 at 02:24:31 PM EST
    this time around, although it is true that he did not have enough time to explain his policies, even to FOX news, not to mention the distraction caused by his pants being on fire.

    Oh, yeah (none / 0) (#53)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Nov 07, 2012 at 03:34:02 PM EST
    they think Ryan is a "breath of fresh air" even though like you say his policies are laughable.

    And he does seem to be genuinely uncomfortable (none / 0) (#27)
    by ruffian on Wed Nov 07, 2012 at 01:50:19 PM EST
    with the crazy-talk.

    But I actaully (none / 0) (#31)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Nov 07, 2012 at 01:57:47 PM EST
    think that does not help him. I think they are going to want someone like Newt. Read what the conservative base is saying: they're saying things like Romney didn't go after Obama hard enough etc.

    What the rubes want and what the smart strategists (none / 0) (#34)
    by ruffian on Wed Nov 07, 2012 at 02:00:35 PM EST
    tell them they need are probably going to be two different things for a while. Gonna be fun to watch - sell popcorn!

    Long term (none / 0) (#36)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Nov 07, 2012 at 02:08:19 PM EST
    the strategists will win out. Short term the rubes are not going to listen to them and are going to feel that they've had enough of being told who to vote for by said strategists.

    That is my guess also. (none / 0) (#59)
    by MO Blue on Wed Nov 07, 2012 at 04:12:29 PM EST
    I have thought it would be Jeb in 2016 for quite some time.

    If the party can live up to its name... (none / 0) (#28)
    by Dadler on Wed Nov 07, 2012 at 01:53:31 PM EST
    ...we might be in for something. Let's see what leadership from the top follows.  A good start would be creating a fair economic game with enforced rules and ENOUGH QUALIFIED REFEREES to enforce them. A game where it is not acceptable for any American to work their honest 40 and still not have enough to live on reasonably and safely, where every American should have that starting piece in the game -- a job with a future.

    But that's for tomorrow. Hooray for today.

    I'm going to play some poker tomorrow and hopefully win enough to play next week in a few bigger tournies. I am way over due. Show me the money.

    Peace, y'all.

    "...leadership from the top follows." (none / 0) (#29)
    by Dadler on Wed Nov 07, 2012 at 01:54:31 PM EST
    Egad, such a Freudslip.  

    If you understand this graffic, (none / 0) (#69)
    by oculus on Wed Nov 07, 2012 at 05:29:53 PM EST
    please explain:

    Nation moves right

    Okay, that graphic just looks creepy. (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by caseyOR on Wed Nov 07, 2012 at 06:03:05 PM EST
    Those red squiggly things look like bugs, lots of red bugs.

    And, seriously, Oregon is turning red? Obama won here. All four statewide offices on the ballot were won by Democrats. Democrats won control of both the state senate and the state house.

    Additionally, both of our U.S. senators and four of our five House members are Democrats.

    Portland voters approved a school bond measure and a special city-wide tax that will funnel money to public schools for art and music and provide some money to local arts organizations.  Multnomah County voters approved the creation of a special tax-levying library district.

    Where do they see the red in this state?

    I'm sorry, but I'm not seeing the sea of red squiggles the NY Times sees. Is it possible the Times is on drugs? Did somebody find an old tab of window-pane?


    I'm thinking that (5.00 / 2) (#77)
    by shoephone on Wed Nov 07, 2012 at 06:06:35 PM EST
    Ross Douthat and David Brooks got into the NYT liquor cabinet. "Heyyy! Let's make a map!"

    Didya see California?! (none / 0) (#79)
    by nycstray on Wed Nov 07, 2012 at 06:40:41 PM EST
    We just got a super majority (uh, that would be a D one!) yet we have all those lil' red thingies move towards the right coast . . . .

    Is our reputation in danger?!

    Haven't heard "window pane" in eons, lol!~


    It was a big night for CA Democrats. (5.00 / 2) (#82)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Nov 07, 2012 at 07:01:26 PM EST
    Not only did they win those supermajorities in both the State Assembly and the State Senate which you mentioned, they also picked up four congressional seats, ousting longtime GOP Congresscritters Dan Lungren, Brian Bilbray and Mary Bono Mack in the process.

    The GOP's marginalization of themselves in California is an amazing political story, especially when one considers that at this same time only 18 years ago, the GOP held the governor's office, five of the other seven statewide offices, and majorities in both houses of the state legislature.

    Of course, 1994 was also the year that Republicans foisted the infamous Proposition 187 upon the state's Latino community, an act of profoundly bigoted foolishness to which the current GOP death spiral can be directly traced and attributed. As of last night, they are now all but irrelevant.


    Unfortunately, Rep. Issa (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by oculus on Thu Nov 08, 2012 at 12:30:42 AM EST
    won handily.

    Dan Lungren is gone?! (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by nycstray on Thu Nov 08, 2012 at 01:42:49 AM EST
    Missed that! I almost moved to his district when I came back (parents cabin). I started working to get rid of him back when I was in NY. Cabin sold earlier this year and I settled elsewhere, so I kinda forgot about him :)

    The insane side of the GOP has put my 76yo R mom firmly in the D camp here in CA. Heck, she voted straight D this year :D and has pretty much denounced the Party of R(ape freaks along with other "issues").


    interesting graphic. (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by cpinva on Wed Nov 07, 2012 at 11:58:11 PM EST
    it took what, a half dozen nyt's people, to create a graphic making no sense at all. wonder how many it would take, to create one that did make sense. in their world, republican losses mean a dramatic shift to the right, for the country as a whole. also in their world, the higher you go up, the farther it is you are actually going down. also too, the country is turning red, because all that empty space, in places like montana and wyoming, is now republican leaning parcels of land. "land is people, my friend!"

    I saw that this morning (none / 0) (#71)
    by shoephone on Wed Nov 07, 2012 at 05:39:16 PM EST
    and had a similar reaction. Mine was, "Huh??"

    All those little red dot/slashes in WA State did not compute as accurate to me.


    Thanks. I spent awhile late last night (none / 0) (#72)
    by oculus on Wed Nov 07, 2012 at 05:40:47 PM EST
    trying to figure out how Obama won, Bilbray lost, Filner won, and so on.  

    I think someone learned how to make graphics (none / 0) (#73)
    by Angel on Wed Nov 07, 2012 at 05:40:49 PM EST
    graphics and evidently likes arrows and the  color red.

    Dang iPad. (none / 0) (#74)
    by Angel on Wed Nov 07, 2012 at 05:42:17 PM EST
    I thought you wanted to make sure I knew (5.00 / 2) (#75)
    by oculus on Wed Nov 07, 2012 at 05:59:19 PM EST
    how to spell "graphics."  

    Jesse Jackson's Rainbow Coalition (none / 0) (#70)
    by Coral on Wed Nov 07, 2012 at 05:30:31 PM EST
    The Obama victory, and his victory speech reminded me of Jackson's Rainbow Coalition. It seems to have come to fruition with this election.

    Wer lucked out. Plain and simple. (none / 0) (#80)
    by tigercourse on Wed Nov 07, 2012 at 06:43:17 PM EST
    I predicted Obama would get elected again because this country now always gives a party 2 chances, but it was closer then I expected. Romney was a really weak candidate (Mr. Tax Shelter Moneybags in the middle of a recession!) with an incompetent campaign (with the exception of one debate). And yet he was only down a couple of percentage points in the popular vote.

    Yes, demographics are on our side but if the Republicans put forward a non Gingrich in 4 years, I think they'll win. Sandoval, whatshername in New Mexico, Rubio and even surprisingly Christie are quite strong candidates for them.

    Tired of moving goal posts comments (5.00 / 2) (#87)
    by Politalkix on Wed Nov 07, 2012 at 09:15:25 PM EST
    Romney did not look like a "weak candidate" to many here till just some months ago. Follow this TL thread.
    John McCain looked like a formidable candidate to many here (revisit the threads from 2008)till BHO knocked the stuffing out of him.
    My prediction is that Sandoval, Rubio, Christie and Martinez will also look like "strong candidates" to people like you till they get their b*tts kicked.

    I didn't move anything, My biggest praise (none / 0) (#98)
    by tigercourse on Wed Nov 07, 2012 at 11:59:38 PM EST
    or Romney was that he was better at seeming like a human being then his primary opponents. That was and still is true. The list of names there are all much stronger then the horror show the Republicans put forth this year. The winner of that group is going to be stronger then Romney.

    You know things have gotten weird... (5.00 / 1) (#121)
    by unitron on Thu Nov 08, 2012 at 03:51:09 PM EST
    ...when the Romneybot 9000 is the most human seeming of the primary field.

    BTD (none / 0) (#81)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Nov 07, 2012 at 06:52:56 PM EST
    i think we were talking about this emerging majority ten years ago when I first met you. Kind of strange to think it's been that long and that back in 2004 I remember a bunch of people throwing the book away thinking it was bunk/