In the wake of their “thumping”, GOP and conservative talking heads, apart from wringing hands and pointing fingers, have been outdoing each other on the preposterous nature of their explanations. For instance, there was Michael Savage on talk radio with the mind-numbing analysis that George Bush, the liberal, intentionally threw the GOP under the bus in 2006 (I presume by invading Iraq and botching it).

Now we have Ramesh Ponnuru (who was left spluttering on the Jon Stewart show), a later entrant to the brown-noser hall of fame (home to such luminaries as Dinesh D’Souza, Bobby Jindal), with this beauty in the New York Times:

The real message of the last few elections is that, for the most part, social issues help the Republicans and economic ones the Democrats.

To understand what Ponnuru means by economic issues (during an election cycle where the GOP, among the usual techniques of hate-mongering and so on, ran on the economy) you have to read through the dicing and slicing of 2006 election results data that he offers in the article.

A look at the issues polls, exit polls and the election results suggests the voters chose, in essence, a reality-based world, in opposition to GOP and Bush policies and activities. While the numbers (and the pronouncements by the pundits) are rosy on the economy, the public voted (mostly) for reality on minimum wage (and a Nov 9 Newsweek poll finds increasing minimum wage a top priority for 68% of the population — more on the findings of this poll in a separate post) and health care. Abortion and stem cell? Only about 5% and 3% respectively considered this the most important issue that contributed to their choice. This despite polls (Time, Nov 1) showing that voters favour Republicans on “moral values”.

Distracting and rallying the public using fear and social issues as tactics help the Republicans and a return to reality helps the Democrats.

(Which is not to say that the Democrats are a great hope for mankind!)

The big idea in Democratic circles is the 50 state strategy, attributed to Howard Dean and a few others. This is the idea espoused by Dean during the 2004 Democratic primaries, in characteristic bluster, that he wanted to appeal to the southern guy in the pickup truck with the confederate flag. This idea, running counter to the seemingly patent loss of the South, has been picked up by online liberal bloggers (who use the word “netroots” to refer to their activism) who provide their version of the 50 state strategy, along with the reasoning behind their prescription.

I believe that as in most such things, the reasoning behind these two positions is not contradictory. Here is Thomas Schaller, from AlterNet on winning without the South:

How Democrats Can Win Without the South

[…]

Whatever the magnitude of the coming changes, two things are certain: The Democrats are going to gain seats in the 2006 midterms, and those gains will come from outside the South.

[…]

Republicans won every southern state in the past two presidential elections and now have 18 of the region’s 22 senators and two-thirds of its House seats. In 2004, despite Bush’s two-and-a-half-point defeat of John Kerry, outside the South the Democrats actually gained congressional seats in both chambers. That’s right: If the five House seats produced by the re-redistricting of Texas orchestrated by former majority leader Tom DeLay and the five Senate pickups made possible by those southern Democratic retirements are held aside, the Democrats won the 2004 congressional elections.

Rather than a 50-state strategy, he suggests we whistle past Dixie with this approach:

To forge a House majority, the Democrats will need to convert the purple Midwest states to blue, make the blue states of the Northeast bluer, and snag the odd seat here and there in the interior West. The Washington Post’s Dan Balz and David Broder confirm that top Republican strategists, speaking off-the-record about their party’s prospects, are predicting doom: “Republicans face potential losses in every section of the country, but the area that concerns strategists most is the arc of states running from the Northeast across the Midwest.”

The netroots bloggers justify their approach by pointing out that it is the 50-state strategy that yields unexpected pick-up opportunities, such as the seat vacated by congressperson Mark Foley. While that may be true, we cannot premise our planning (and use of limited resources) on the unexpected, nor can we hope for the monumental level of blunders (to put it mildly) perpetrated by the Bush administration before the South starts questioning its faith-based loyalty. They are at best foul-weather friends as Schaller’s data suggest. The netroots are right in forging a message that is national and putting up candidates in all regions at all levels, where possible. However, Democrats interested in winning control of Congress and the White House (short of righting the undemocratic electoral system — a bigger pipe dream) are better off ignoring the South in their arithmetic.

Not satisfied with my earlier attempt to use Frappr I created a very simple Google Maps API based map of our beloved representatives. Click on the image below to view it:

Keep checking the Crittr page for updates!

Update: I have created a blog category called “Crittr” (see sidebar menu on the right). You can now visit that category to see updates to the Crittr map. You can even subscribe to its RSS feed!

URL for category: http://platosbeard.org/tag/politics/crittr/
URL for feed: http://platosbeard.org/tag/politics/crittr/feed/ or feed://platosbeard.org/tag/politics/crittr/feed/

Just so we don’t lose track of the wonders that are our representatives: Frappr Map.

Bruce Bartlett writes in the NYT Op-Ed that the right-wing has no need to panic about the upcoming Democratic take-over of Congress:

No Spoils for the Victors - New York Times

With liberals like New York’s Charlie Rangel in line to head important House committees like the tax-writing Ways and Means Committee, some investors are starting to worry about tax increases on the rich and business bashing-legislation. Needless to say, Republicans are doing what they can to stoke such fears.

As a Republican, I have a message for those fearful of Democratic control: don’t worry. Nothing dreadful is going to happen. Liberals have much less to gain than they believe.

Business-bashing legislation? I wonder what that would look like? The “Exxon is Mean Act of 2007″? Bruce has more goodies to offer in his analysis:

In 1994, after Republicans took control of Congress, my fellow conservatives and I met to plan a legislative agenda. My colleagues were ecstatic. In one fell swoop we were going to do all the things that Democratic control of Congress had effectively blocked since 1954 […]

I didn’t make myself very popular by reminding people that Bill Clinton was still going to be president for at least another two years. How were we going to get these measures enacted into law over his all-but-certain veto? […]

Within a year, the conservative revolution was all but over. When Republicans forced a showdown with Mr. Clinton over the budget, they ended up blinking. […]

My Democratic friends no doubt feel the way we Republicans did in those heady days of 1994 before political reality came knocking. Many probably think they will finally get the truth about what the White House knew about Iraq before the invasion. They may think they can use the power of the purse to force a withdrawal. Some may even imagine that articles of impeachment can be brought against President Bush, while others plan to enact national health insurance and other pet liberal schemes.

To all this I say: Ain’t gonna happen. For starters, President Bush will still occupy the White House for the next two years. And although his veto pen may have been misplaced for most of the last six years, he found it again this summer.

[…]

Good try Bruce, but perhaps you overlooked this:

Clinton was a popular president at that time and the public perception (correctly) was in his favour during the budget face-off (in contrast, when it came to such things as “Immigration Reform”, “Welfare Reform” Clinton got by only by co-opting the right-wing agenda).

On the other hand, Bush is one of the most unpopular presidents, coming in at or below 40% for most of this year. His own actions contributed greatly to the impending GOP losses. Moreover, the public is solidly behind many of the projects listed (getting to the bottom of Bush lies, withdrawal from Iraq) and again is rejecting the GOP for these very reasons.

Bruce is probably correct about Bush employing the veto, which I predict will further lower his popularity and expose him to lame duck punishment by his own party.

Oh, and regarding Bruce’s assumption that investors may worry about a Democratic win, the situation seems quite the opposite as indices have quite nicely tracked (positively) Democratic likelihood of winning the house.

[ Link ]

Blogs such as MyDD have pointed out the irrational hold that DLC centrism has had on the agenda and voice of the Democrats, causing them not to put up a vociferous, confrontational front against GOP excesses. Something that the people can rally around. Scoop reports the following poll:

Scoop: Zogby - Voters Question Outcome Of ‘04 Election

How confident are you that George W. Bush really won the 2004 presidential election?

Very confident that Bush won fair and square…….. 45.2%
Somewhat confident that Bush won fair and square… 20.0%
Not at all confident that he won fair and square…… 32.4%
Other/not sure………………………………………. 2.4%

More than 50% of the people are not sure that the elections were won fairly. I do not of course expect this to change the nuanced avoidance of this issue by the Democrats.

[ Link ]

So the DLC wants to recruit Bloomberg in the face of the polarizing option of Hillary Clinton on one hand and the positive name recognition of McCain and Giuiliani on the other. Plus they (DLC) are probably peeing in their pants with worries of the return of Al Gore. On another front we have Colin Powell finally making some noises (this is a man who, at least in 2004, had a 71% positive image, and only a 10% negative one — WSJ/NBC). Can presidential hopefuls afford to not have Powell on their ticket? Could we see something as weird as a Democratic ticket of Bloomberg/Powell? Nah!