Belated, Random Thoughts About The Election

[jerseyhoya34]

These thoughts don't necessarily fit in any of the current threads, so I'll start a new thread that will probably be disjointed at best:

1. It is a shame that it is easier to be re-elected these days in the House than it is in the Senate. My view of the Senate is that Senators should be more like members of the House of Lords than public servants who serve a term or two and are defeated or move on. In this sense, I am critical of Obama as well as situations like Coleman/Franken.

2. In a similar train of thought, who on this Board believes the Founders would have evaluated VP candidates on the Republican side this year and chosen Palin as the most appropriate for the VP nomination?

3. Howard Dean is a forgotten hero of Democrats and, perhaps, the country for devising a 50 state approach that defeated the old thinking of the Clinton campaign and gathering support in non-traditional areas for the Obama ticket. Hillary may have won the nomination on Super Tuesday in the "winner take all" approach that was used in 2004, but the Dean rules allowed Obama to gather delegates where Dems had refused to campaign before. Think it paid off?

4. The Republican Party is in a true danger zone right now. If the Obama administration implements successful policies that turn around the economic crisis and keep the country safe, they will have won the trust of many, including Republicans, and may be rewarded electorally. The Republicans would do well to sit on their hands for a little while in the face of their stunning defeat in 2008 instead of turning so quickly to 2012 jockeying.

5. What kind of country do we live in when Michelle Bachmann is re-elected but Chris Shays is not?

6. I have been disappointed by the Clinton for SoS rumors, particularly because my Obama votes (primary and general) embodied an anti-Clintonism as did many others. I'd rather see Dick Lugar selected. His public service has been much more distinguished than that of Hillary.

7. Otherwise, I think Obama's transition has been smooth thus far. I think some of his decisions on transition have been better than others, but that is just a function of my opinion of certain people. I am pleased to see that Ivo Daalder is part of the WH Exec Office transition and expect that he will receive strong consideration as National Security Advisor.

8. Obama's campaign will be remembered as one of the strongest in American history in terms of its efficiency and the quality of its operation. Rare are the campaigns where grassroots politics succeed, and this was one of them.

[TC]

Couple of things :

- Lugar ruled himself out for the cabinet, so it wasn't really a Hillary-at-the-expense of Lugar situation. I don't know what to think about the Secretary of State job - I want it filled by a Democrat this time because the SoS is going to have to represent us at whatever conference supplants Kyoto and Kerry or Biden would be a better choice for that conference, but Kerry might be a poor choice for the other roles the SoS might have. I do think Hillary as SoS buys us some more good will because other countries remember Clinton fondly.

- Keeping Hillary in the Cabinet eliminates any possibility of her in 2012, so it's a good move politically for Obama.

- Everyone keeps crying about Chris Shays, maybe he should be in the Cabinet. If he's so great, maybe he can knock of Lieberman in 2012.

- Watched T. Boone Pickens on the Daily Show this week - great appearance, he's convinced we're going to tackle the energy issue now, Gore is pushing for us to tackle it now, almost everyone except the "don't spend any more money crowd" wants that to be how we get out of this recession because it is spending money on something that will be a productive asset for years to come. Also, during T. Boone's appearance on the Daily Show, he talked about natural gas, wind, and solar and never once mentioned drilling.

[theexorcist]

Sigh.

1. Palin was poorly managed. None of the Founders would have chosen her because none of them thought a woman deserved a place at the political table. Remember that the Republicans had a fair degree of momentum before the economic crisis put the stake in McCain's campaign. And they probably wouldn't have chosen Biden as the best option.

Really. Give up the anti-Palin stuff.

2. Hillary probably would have won the general election by a larger margin because she would have resolved the concern about Obama's lack of experience (she probably could have played off her lack of likability by emphasizing competence). Dean's primary strategy allowed for a brutal war between Clinton and Obama that could have torn the party apart. The strategy didn't really matter in the general election - Obama won every contested state.

3. You underestimate Republicans at your peril. We've just about finished stabbing everyone we're going to stab on this election - much of the blame is being laid at the feet of McCain, who conveniently has no chance to run in 2012 due to age concerns, so everybody else is a blank slate. Republicans care about 2010 midterm elections.

And remember the obituaries that were being written about the Democratic party four years ago. Four years later, and the donkey is invulnerable? The only place where four years yields greater change is college basketball, and Roy Hibbert, Jeff Green, and Jon Wallace aren't running for elected office yet. America fundamentally prefers a split system, and the balance will be restored.

And don't underestimate the ability of the whacko leftist wing of the Democratic party to raise its ugly head and remind middle-of-the-road voters why Republicans may be evil, but they're at least better than the alternative. Also, as a coda to this, the Democrats only stand for change from the status quo - they're about to find out that there are a lot of different potential ways to approach change. The Republicans will hold a few more bloodenings, get some basics of the party approach in order, and then decide to unite on everything else to ensure that the Democrats don't win again.

Short version - the Republican Party isn't fully armed or operational yet, but when it is, it will be a sight to behold.

[FewFAC]

I refuse to believe the Republican Party is in a danger zone. Self-identification was less than half what it is currently in the wake of Nixon, and the Democrats could not even muster a two-term POTUS. A well-played Democratic government could, however, isolate Republicans to non-electoral college vote hinterlands, though. I also strongly doubt that the Republican move to reidentify with the Gingrich-Reagan-Buckley wing of conservatism will resonate for a long time given the abdication of responsibility in blindly supporting the policies of the last few years.

While I understand the anti-Clintonianism supporting Obama, I expect that the many Clinton-era WH refugees will serve a very good purpose in the early Obama years of institutional memory with regards to tempering overreaching and focusing on execution. Over the next couple of years, the key development to watch will be the passing of the torch of Clintonian experience to Obama proteges who have learned how the system of governance operates, especially with respect to a strong opposition. The real objection to Hillary as SoS is her real lack of interest and expertise in such matters.

Also, while the Scowcroft-Gates DOD line merits consideration especially in light of the existing military engagements (and in light of the true lack of Democratic thought leaders on defense capable of inspiring confidence), this is remains the area of true insight into the Obama presidency. While SoS sends a stronger message to the world of the primacy of diplomacy over military engagement, the DOD has many areas of concern moving forward that need to be addressed without even considering existing engagements, including a philosophy of action (full-scale military assualt vs. urban guerilla assault) and the state of readiness with respect to potential conflagrations as opposed to the recent past engagements. There are a lot of conventional threats remaining, and a military that is rapidly losing its ability and training to engage in conventional arenas because of its current focus.

Resolving the Lieberman issue will also remain a priority with respect to governance, though final decisions on how to proceed should probably be withheld while awaiting final returns in Alaska, Georgia, and Minnesota.

Democrats will also need to address the refocus of its boots on the ground for governors races in 2010 and maintaining advocacy for key policy positions facing congress over the next two years.

[The Stig]

Remember that the Dems looked like they were toast in 2002 and 2004. The party was fractured, had no issue to rally around, and no inspiring figures. I mean, the best they could do in 2004 was John Kerry.

But politics is cyclical. In 2 years we've gone from the GOP controlling everything to the Dems controlling everything. Eventually people will get tired of the Dems, and the GOP will rise again. The only question is how long that will take.

[hifigator]

I have way too much to say, and not nearly enough time or energy to say it. I will leave it for a more sober and coherant time. Yuck it up all you want. But a roughly 54-46 popular vote isn't exactly monumental, especially considering the fact that many of the "left coast" voters were already aware of the ultimate result. I refuse to take a "sour grapes" attitude, and, in fact hope that my fears will be disproven. But I must also warn you back-slappers to be very careful what you wish for.


I am HiFiGator and I approved this message.

[GIGAFAN99]

I'm a little perplexed by this "efficiency" of Obama argument. I guess there are very good recordkeepers or call centers in his campaign. And yes, I've heard the gushing from the media.

But if votes were money, wasn't he leading 64-36 in the "donation poll" to win 53-46 in the actual ones? This "fifty state strategy" was also only possible because of his cash on hand in the general. Even with all the wind at his back against the Republican party over the last two years, Obama still garnered fewer electoral votes than Clinton did in either of his elections.

I know when the press tells me his campaign is efficient, I should nod my head in agreement. But Obama spent a bazillion dollars to win an election by 7 in which a generic Democrat was polling +10.

[DanMcQ]

Mr. Olberman has a few belated, random thoughts as well:

www.236.com/video/2008/watch_keith_olbermann_in_a_min_10230.php

[EasyEd]

My random thoughts.
1. Despite Bush's approval in the low 20s and a large generic preference for Democrats, the presidential race was even or slightly in McCain's favor until the financial crisis hit the front page. Once this happened McCain was toast unless he did something drastic like opposing and campaigning against the bailout and explaining why. The financial crisis also dragged several Senate and House seats into the Democratic column over the last several weeks.
2. The major problem facing the Republicans as they attempt to recover is the Hispanic vote. Here they are faced with a dilemma: do they willingly agree and campaign on allowing illegals now in the country to become citizens? Or do they stick with principle and oppose it? If they cannot choose the first option, future demographics will make their near-term recovery almost impossible.
3. The Republicans need another "contract with America". In other words they need a well-thought-out plan for the future showing where they will take the country if given permission to do so. Accenting only Obama/Reid/Pelosi opposition will not fly.

[jerseyhoya34]

Nov 15, 2008 0:02:25 GMT -5 theexorcist said:

Sigh.

1. Palin was poorly managed. None of the Founders would have chosen her because none of them thought a woman deserved a place at the political table. Remember that the Republicans had a fair degree of momentum before the economic crisis put the stake in McCain's campaign. And they probably wouldn't have chosen Biden as the best option.

Really. Give up the anti-Palin stuff.

2. Hillary probably would have won the general election by a larger margin because she would have resolved the concern about Obama's lack of experience (she probably could have played off her lack of likability by emphasizing competence). Dean's primary strategy allowed for a brutal war between Clinton and Obama that could have torn the party apart. The strategy didn't really matter in the general election - Obama won every contested state.

3. You underestimate Republicans at your peril. We've just about finished stabbing everyone we're going to stab on this election - much of the blame is being laid at the feet of McCain, who conveniently has no chance to run in 2012 due to age concerns, so everybody else is a blank slate. Republicans care about 2010 midterm elections.

And remember the obituaries that were being written about the Democratic party four years ago. Four years later, and the donkey is invulnerable? The only place where four years yields greater change is college basketball, and Roy Hibbert, Jeff Green, and Jon Wallace aren't running for elected office yet. America fundamentally prefers a split system, and the balance will be restored.

And don't underestimate the ability of the whacko leftist wing of the Democratic party to raise its ugly head and remind middle-of-the-road voters why Republicans may be evil, but they're at least better than the alternative. Also, as a coda to this, the Democrats only stand for change from the status quo - they're about to find out that there are a lot of different potential ways to approach change. The Republicans will hold a few more bloodenings, get some basics of the party approach in order, and then decide to unite on everything else to ensure that the Democrats don't win again.

Short version - the Republican Party isn't fully armed or operational yet, but when it is, it will be a sight to behold.

With respect to Palin, I think it might make sense to look at this week's events. After a 3 month job interview, there's a need now to add another week to it? I thought her reaction to the election showed a lack of comfort with how she performed. The hasty press conference at the RGA looked like the Gong Show.

With respect to HRC as general election candidate, I simply don't see it. For one, she would have rallied the Republican base. For another, this campaign came down to an argument about change, with the experience argument largely drowned out after the selection of Palin. Notice that McCain/Palin ended up running on a change message. With HRC as the nominee, I think McCain/Palin would have had a more powerful argument as to change (and experience). I also think HRC's personal flaws, particularly apparent in the NH primary, would have been made all the more apparent in a rigorous general election campaign.

The last sentence of your post could be read in another way. I found the GOP for most of Bush's first six years to be a sight to behold, and that wasn't a good thing.

The Republican Party likely will come back as a force, but I do not see it as a guarantee, largely because of the schism between an east coast brand (Shays, Sununu, H.W. Bush, even McCain), the values brand (Palin, Santorum, et al.), and maybe even the neoconservative brand (Bush, Cheney, Rummy, et al.). I think this third brand may make for the easiest sacrificial lamb in this process, and that's for the better IMO. Its performance in government has been largely undistinguished. The second brand IMO may carry a lot of water for the Party given its ability to mobilize voters. I am not sure that they have shown ability in positions of government that inspire confidence should they be elected, but perhaps they can find a way with the forgotten corners of the party (east coast brand) to craft a unified message.

[jerseyhoya34]

Nov 15, 2008 0:28:49 GMT -5 The Stig said:

Remember that the Dems looked like they were toast in 2002 and 2004. The party was fractured, had no issue to rally around, and no inspiring figures. I mean, the best they could do in 2004 was John Kerry.

But politics is cyclical. In 2 years we've gone from the GOP controlling everything to the Dems controlling everything. Eventually people will get tired of the Dems, and the GOP will rise again. The only question is how long that will take.

Good points here... My counterargument, at least on the Presidential level, is that Obama's victory is the most impressive of any Democrat in the post-Vietnam era. Jimmy Carter is the only Democrat to have won in a 2 person race until 2008. Bill Clinton was helped tremendously by Ross Perot to break off Republican votes in what was essentially a 50/50 electorate. Even still, Clinton's most impressive victory (1996) was 379-159, which is basically equivalent to Obama's win in terms of the electoral college.

Now, one election is not a trend, but it could be the start of one should Obama succeed as many Americans hope he does.

[TC]

Heads in the sand. I really don't understand the "the Republicans were so incompetent for 8 years that they should have lost by 20, it's impressive that they stayed in it past their post-convention bounce" logic. It's not all that impressive - this was not a squeaker and the popular vote totals disguise the giant electoral college ass-kicking. Saying that the financial crisis was the only reason the Republicans lost is so short-sighted - the McCain campaign was terrible, Palin was a drag on the ticket like no other VP candidate in history, and there are demographic trends towards urbanization and increasing minority populations that are going to continue to be "headwinds" for the Republican party.

There's reasons why the Republicans lost here. When the Republican party decides to actually try to come up with solutions to the problems this country has (energy, climate change, economy) rather than try to campaign by distraction and smear, then maybe things will change.

[RBHoya]

Nov 15, 2008 0:02:25 GMT -5 theexorcist said:

Really. Give up the anti-Palin stuff.

Everywhere I go Republicans are saying this... Have ya'll turned on the tv lately? Can't turn it on without seeing her mug. As of right now she is the de facto leader of the party and probably the odds on favorite for a 2012 run (and of course thatll change a ton in the months and years to come, but at this moment, she is)... So, of course Democrats are going to rag on her. Yea, she lost, but it's not like she's about to fade into oblivion. She was still the biggest story on cable news this week other Obama/Cabinet. As long as she is in the news and remains a potential threat to Democrats in the future, they're not going to let people forget all the things they don't like about her (which are many).

[TC]

I don't know if anyone watched Face the Nation yesterday, but both Newt and Bobby Jindal were on and they were doing their best to deflate the Palin bubble without saying anything really negative. You got the feeling that neither of them were going to accept her having a leadership role.

[EasyEd]

Chris Cillizza had an interesting article "Myths About One Mythic Election" in the Washington Post yesterday:
www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/13/AR2008111303287.html

Among the more interesting findings were:

"Black voters made up 11 percent of the electorate in 2004 and 13 percent in 2008, while young voters (18-29) comprised 17 percent of all voters in 2004 and 18 percent four years later".

"... of the 60 percent of voters who told exit pollsters that McCain's choice of Palin was a 'factor' in their final decision, the Arizona senator won 56 percent to 43 percent".

"... you will see a heavy influx of moderate to conservative members in the incoming freshman Democratic class, particularly in the House".

[EasyEd]

Nov 17, 2008 8:55:34 GMT -5 TC said:

I don't know if anyone watched Face the Nation yesterday, but both Newt and Bobby Jindal were on and they were doing their best to deflate the Palin bubble without saying anything really negative. You got the feeling that neither of them were going to accept her having a leadership role.

Isn't it possible Newt and Jindal want that mantle themselves?

[TC]

Sure it is, but it's also possible that they think she's not qualified.

Jindal was making a big push for competence and mentioned about 5 Republican Governors (none of them being Palin).

[theexorcist]

Nov 17, 2008 10:38:04 GMT -5 TC said:

Sure it is, but it's also possible that they think she's not qualified.

Jindal was making a big push for competence and mentioned about 5 Republican Governors (none of them being Palin).

Jindal wants the job. His argument for becoming the front-runner is that he helped weather (no pun inteded) a massive hurricane, putting a stake in the Katrina monster that destroyed W.'s credibility. He is playing up the general depiction of Palin as clueless because she is a threat to him (no other governor is as big of a threat to him), because Palin remains in the public eye, and that framing the debate successfully helps to show her as incompetent and him as a steady hand.

Whether he believes it or not is irrelevant.