A Winner, And A Loser
Obviously, the two parties and the respective candidates came out on one side or the other last night, but what about some less apparent victors and vanquished?
First, the victors: the pundits and pollsters. The overwhelming consensus among professionals in both camps was that the Democrats would win…big. If Charlie Cook’s constant refrain of a ‘wave’ election didn’t completely come true, it came damn close. Here’s what he said on November 6:
Going into Election Day, we see a 20-35 seat gain for Democrats in the House, a four to six seat gain for Democrats in the Senate and a six to eight seat gain for Democrats in the governor’s races.
The losers? The Nutroots®. Oh, I know, I’m biased against them, and despite their humiliating loss to Lieberman, they’re no longer 0 for whatever. Despite their protestations to the contrary, though, the voters signaled their desire for a change by mostly moving towards the centrist Democrats. And the powers-that-be in the Democratic Party are getting the message. Here are Rahm Emmanuel and Nancy Pelosi:
Nancy Pelosi, who is set to become the next Speaker of the House of Representatives – and was attacked by Republicans during the campaign for her “San Francisco values” – pledged “to work together in a bipartisan way for all Americans.”
Rahm Emanuel, who ran the Democrats’ election effort for the House, declared: “we extend a hand of co-operation to the president, our colleagues across the aisle.”
Harry Reid, from today’s Washington Post:
“We have learned from watching the Republicans — they would not allow moderates a voice in their party,” Senate Minority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) said in an interview as he waited to see if Democrats would take control of the upper chamber as well. “We must work from the middle.”
And from the same article:
The complexion of the Democratic presence in Congress will change as well. Party politics will be shaped by the resurgence of “Blue Dog” Democrats, who come mainly from the South and from rural districts in the Midwest and often vote like Republicans. Top Democrats such as Rep. Rahm Emanuel (Ill.) see these middle-of-the-road lawmakers as the future of the party in a nation that leans slightly right of center.
In private talks before the election, Emanuel and other top Democrats told their members they cannot allow the party’s liberal wing to dominate the agenda next year. Democrats will hold 30 or 35 seats that went for Bush in the past, meaning that Democratic candidates such as Brad Ellsworth in rural Indiana are likely to face competitive races again in 2008. Still, their interests are likely to collide with those of veteran liberals such as Reps. Henry A. Waxman (Calif.) and John Conyers Jr., (Mich.), who will chair committees.
Even the far left rag The Nation gets it:
…[R]egardless of the remaining results and recounts, the fact is the netroots’ favorite candidates did not perform as well as the Democrats targeted by party leaders. And they were never supposed to. Many of the bloggers’ picks were aggressive Democrats in long-shot districts who were neglected by the Beltway establishment. There is no doubt that bloggers leveraged money and political buzz to make races more competitive and put Republicans on the defensive, but it was simply not the decisive factor in the elections .
This election, in fact, represents a significant repudiation of ‘progressivism’ by mainstream Democrats. And as his influence diminishes, “it’s all about the winning” Kos is sure awfully worried about ideology…
sounds like the dems are telling the blogs, we got our seats and houses back, now you can go away.
The spin starts here? You’re really gonna tell me that the real message of this election was a repudiation of progressive values?
No not progressive values, ‘progressive’ values. The quotes are important. I’m distinguishing, as I often do, between true liberalism and the venom-spewing Jane Hamsher variety. Nevertheless, it is quite true that many of the Southern Democrats elected are, for example, pro-life, pro-2nd Amendment, etc.
It’s also quite true that the Democratic establishment is distancing itself from the Kossack branch of the party (did you not read the many, many quotes and links I provided to back up my thesis?)….
I’ll grant you this, though, Fargus: the defeat of, for example, the abortion law in South Dakota, to use a prominent example, showed that the voters are not happy with conservatism that is too ‘aggressive’, either…
Obviously, the election represents a leftward tilt…just not as far left as the Greenwalds and Hamshers would like…
Nor as far left as they are pretending today…
Mark,
I’m sorry, but you couldn’t possibly be more wrong about this. Sure, Lamont lost, but he was hardly the only candidate backed by the netroots. How do you think candidates like Tester and Webb got to be the nominees in the first place? These guys were not the candidates annointed by the Democratic establishment. They were the candidates backed by the bloggers. And they they beat the candidates endorsed by the establishment in the primaries. The same is true in a number of key House races that the Democrats picked up.
You’re falling for a GOP talking point here that has no basis in reality. The “nutroots” as you call them may be strident, but they aren’t particularly ideological. The “centrist” candidates you mention are the very ones the bloggers supported whole-heartedly. They’re very practical. They backed Lamont in Connecticut because it was such a safely Democratic seat. They would never have done the same thing in Montana or Virginia. Indeed, the candidates backed by the netroots generally did better, both in the primaries and the general election, than the candidates hand-chosen by Rahm Emanuel. I’d encourage you to go to MyDD or Kos and actually look at the candidates they backed, both in the primaries and the general, and see how they fared. I think you’d be surprised. This “rupidiation of the netroots” meme is just total garbage, divorced from all facts.
I’m not surprised you would say that…and if you’ll note, I linked to Kos, MyDD, etc., arguing the very points you made. Nevertheless, if you are trying to tell me that the American people voted for ‘progressive’ ideas such as impeachment of Bush and immediate withdrawal from Iraq, I’d suggest your talking points are the ones divorced from reality.
Here’s another example for you:
I go to firedoglake, Greenwald, Kos – I see nothing but negativity and animus towards the Republicans. There is a palpable sense of panic that the far-left agenda will not be ‘recognized’ as the savior of the Democratic Party.
But the proof is in the pudding. Let’s see if the Democrats move to the center, as Rahm Emmanuel, Harry Reid, and Nancy Pelosi insist they must. I suggest to you that they better…
I go to firedoglake, Greenwald, Kos – I see nothing but negativity and animus towards the Republicans. There is a palpable sense of panic that the far-left agenda will not be ‘recognized’ as the savior of the Democratic Party.
There’s always going to be some bickering with the establishment types, but it’s pretty clear that all of the people you cite above were ecstatic about the election results, as they should be. And again, I think you’re badly mischaracterizing the “netroots agenda” to extent there is one. I don’t think any of the sites you’re talking about are calling for or expecting that Bush be impeached or that we immediately withdraw from Iraq as opposed to set a timetable for withdrawal.
The “American people” didn’t vote across the board for one thing. Liberal candidates won in liberal areas (like the Northeast) and more “moderate” candidates won in redder areas. That’s not at all surprising and it says absolutely nothing about the “netroots.” You’re attributing to the netroots a kind of ideology that just doesn’t define it. These aren’t ideologues. If they were, they would not have jumped to support Jim Webb or John Tester or any number of other candidates they supported enthusiastically. They don’t have some rigid “progessive agenda” they’re trying to promote. They’re just left-leaning people who think that their ideas will be better served by having more Democrats in power. When it comes to the actual beliefs of those Democrats on discreet issues, they are far more flexible.
The Nutroots® aren’t ideology-driven? Please…
From firedoglake today:
Hmm…doesn’t fit very well with your pragmatic Nutroots® thesis, does it?
Here’s the ‘pragmatic’, ‘non-ideological’ Greenwald today:
Yep, no agenda to impeach Bush there, is there? Good thing Greenwald never traffics in strawmen…what planet is he from, that he thinks that was the message of the election? It sure ain’t Earth…
How about Kos?
He devoted an entire post to trumpeting how liberal the new Democrats were to combat the ‘talking point’ that centrist Democrats were largely favored…I thought ideology didn’t matter? Talk about trying to have it both ways…
The big winner, I’d submit, is actually Thomas Frank. This election proved out his latent thesis: if Dems avoid the culture wars and run on economic populism, they’ll capture the electorate overwhelmingly.
From what I’ve gleaned of the “conservative” dems in the midwest, that’s their MO: culturally conservative, economically populist (I’m an economic Liberal [free trade, etal] and culturally wacko-liberal, so I don’t really see this as a good thing.)
Here’s an interesting hypothetical. Let’s suppose that there is a recount in Virginia or Montana and things get dicey. Lawyers are able to find votes to dispute. Both sides have a plausible claim of victory. The Constitution states that “Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members.” Since the Republicans have a majority in the Senate, does that mean they can pick the winner?
and two amusing quotes:
“Casey’s campaign style was sleep apnea—periods of breathless gasping interrupted by occasional incoherent snorts.”—Time’s Joe Klein on Bob Casey beating Rick Santorum.
“He completed something.”—Keith Olberman on Heath Shuler the former professional football quarterback winning in North Carolina
“And again, I think you’re badly mischaracterizing the “netroots agenda” to extent there is one. I don’t think any of the sites you’re talking about are calling for or expecting that Bush be impeached or that we immediately withdraw from Iraq as opposed to set a timetable for withdrawal.”
This comment makes clear that the poster has never read any of the sites listed previously in any length or duration – indeed, you’d have seen just these memes repeated ad nauseum over the past few weeks on all of the sites Mark mentioned. Please get a grip on reality, son – that dog won’t hunt.
You would think that after almost two decades in the US Senate, Harry Reid might have met some of his colleagues, like Arlen Specter, John Warner, John McCain, Olympia Snowe, Lincoln Chafee, Susan Collins, Mike DeWine . . .
The contrast between the party’s treatment of Chafee and Lieberman in their respective primaries should make it clear which party wants to include moderates. (There is no discontent among the Democrat ranks against their new congressmen-elect, but after they cast a few votes against the far-left measures that make it out of committees, there will be.)
Mark, you’re making my point. None of those people are calling for impeachment and none of them are demanding ideological conformity. Greenwald and Kos were simply making a descriptive argument about what actually happened in the election. You can disagree with them if you want, but they’re just making descriptive claims. The Firedoglake post was taking issue with the conventional wisdom that it the Dems need to muzzle the most left-leaning members of their caucus. She wasn’t demanding that every democrat or democratic candidate be just like Henry Waxman.
Of course individual bloggers have beliefs about issues. But my point was that the “netroots” aren’t demanding ideological conformity. They’re backing all sorts of candidates, depending on the region. And it’s hard to see how they came out “losers” in this election. They’re candidates largely won. The party they support made major strides. This meme just doesn’t make any sense.
One more thing, Anonymous…we’re all friends here, so I respect the fact that we disagree, but nothing in the world was more predictable in the face of a Democratic victory than the fact that the Nutroots® would claim credit for it.
I saw it coming, you saw it coming, anyone who keeps up with blogs saw it coming….but here’s the deal. Most Americans DON’T keep up with blogs, and they could care less about all that Hamsher/Kos/Greenwald crap. They just know that Republicans were doing a lousy job, and they thought it was time to give the other side a shot…
And I take issue with your assertion that Greenwald is not calling for impeachment – he doesn’t say it out loud very often anymore, but it’s an ongoing theme of his, and to read his post I quoted as anything other than a ‘coded’ call for removal of the executive is to deny words their proper meaning…
Time will tell if their rhetoric matches their actions. My biggest concerns are amnesty for illegal immigrants and Iraq. I don’t think they will impeach. It is a loser issue. Plus they have no way of convicting.
From my perspective the elections did not go that badly. My congressional representative, Graves, won big. State Senator and State Representative won without a problem, and Amendment 3 on a cigarette tax failed. The only downer was Talent not winning. We had actually turned off the TV last night thinking he was going to win and the Repubs holding the Senate. The local stations were painting a very positive scenario for him on the 10:00 news. Turned on the TV this morning and found out he lost. I had already anticipated the House takeover.
Win some, lose some. Everything went right in ’04 and we got two good Supreme Court Justices in the last two years plus some other good legislation. Don’t like the outcome but will deal with it. This is the greatest country in the world. Wouldn’t live any other place.
I saw it coming, you saw it coming, anyone who keeps up with blogs saw it coming….but here’s the deal. Most Americans DON’T keep up with blogs, and they could care less about all that Hamsher/Kos/Greenwald crap. They just know that Republicans were doing a lousy job, and they thought it was time to give the other side a shot.
Mark, no one is claiming that the awesome power of the netroots directly produced the Democratic victory. But the netroots did play an important role in selecting and backing candidates in the primaries (see Tester, Webb) and helping funnel money and attention to them so they could win their party’s nomination and be in a position to win last night. That’s important, and they deserve some credit for that. They also deserve some credit for their judgment in backing solid candidates. My point wasn’t that all the credit should go to the netroots, but only that your charge that the netroots were somehow the “losers” of this election was silly.
As for Greenwald and impeachment, I’m pretty sure he has explicitly said he does not support that. He’s a practical guy. What would impeachment accomplish? Put Cheney in power? Who wants that. If you mean to suggest that Greenwald thinks Bush deserves to be impeached, that’s an unremarkable claim. I feel that way too. So does roughly 50% of the population. That doesn’t mean we think the newly Democratic Congress should waste its time to trying to impeach him, though. That would be politically and practically stupid.
“What would impeachment accomplish? Put Cheney in power? Who wants that.”
Yeah, but if we could get both of them, then Nancy Pelosi would be President…
(just kidding, of course)
“So does roughly 50% of the population.”
I assume the Troll – Bot’s referring to the infamous Newsweek poll, which The Daily Kos incorrectly stated as such; here is actually what Newsweek reported:
“Other parts of a potential Democratic agenda receive less support, especially calls to impeach Bush: 47 percent of Democrats say that should be a “top priority,” but only 28 percent of all Americans say it should be, 23 percent say it should be a lower priority and nearly half, 44 percent, say it should not be done. (Five percent of Republicans say it should be a top priority and 15 percent of Republicans say it should be a lower priority; 78 percent oppose impeachment.)
Do you understand how to do basic math, or should we start with the multiplication tables first?
“Greenwald and Kos were simply making a descriptive argument about what actually happened in the election.”
Lawyer – speak for the plain English of “I can’t prove my points here, so I’ll just speak gibberish in the hopes that no one will notice my intellectual deficits on display.”
I call shenanigans on this commenter – he offers up no cites and no proof for his contentions, but is more than happy to bloviate away into the night.
Uh, if 28% of Americans think that impeaching Bush should be a top priority, and another 23% think it should be a lower priority, then 51% of Americans think Bush should be impeached.
I’ll restrain myself from snarky comments about basic math skills.
Uh, if only 23% think impeachment should be a lower priority, what does that tell you about their feelings about the idea of impeachment in general? A high crime of this magnitude is deemed a “lower priority?” Come on…you’re reading tea leaves here, Peter.
It tells you that they want Bush impeached, albeit with a lesser degree of intensity than those for whom it is a higher priority.
If you want to use the terminology of basic math: the set of people who want to see Bush impeached includes the subset of people who support impeachment as a lower priority as well as the subset of people who support impeachment as a higher priority.
Anonymous, you may be right about Greenwald and impeachment; I did a cursory search, and found him supporting Feingold’s censure resolution from ages ago, but not explicitly calling for impeachment…so I’ll back off that claim unless I find otherwise…
Point taken, Peter – but for someone to use a Newsweek poll as an accurate barometer of how the American Public feels about a given issue is hardly exemplary. This is, after all, the same operation that printed outright falsehoods (remember the “Korans being flushed down the toilets” scenario?) as well as many other discredited stories over the past few years. Bah.