What does it mean?

[ThePhysicist]

The election is over, the dust is settling, and it's clear the Republicans just suffered a decisive defeat. The Democrats have taken the House, possibly with a margin larger than any the GOP has had since well before 1994. It aslo appears at the moment that they have taken the senate as well. They have also taken a strong majority of Governorships and state legislatures, a first since 1994.

But what does it mean?

Simply put, it means this (with the usual "in my analysis" qualifying statement)-
*The George Bush version of the GOP is dead, and Rove's theory of politics has been thoroughly discredited. The Republicans will most likely end up in a mini civil war, which they will come out of before 2008. Their new candidate will not be like George Bush, not at all. He or she most likely will rely less on the politics of division and base tournout, as this tactic, though persued successfully for 3 cycles, has blown up in the faces of the GOP. There is a middle in this country, and they do not have partisan loyalties.
*This majority is important. Republicans can spin things as much as they want, but this election's results will last. The House of Representatives doesn't switch very often (Only about 5 times in the last 110 years). The Democrats will hold the house for a good while if history is any judge. The Senate too, is likely to remain theirs for a while. The next two cycles will see Republicans defending 40 of the 64 seats up for vote. It's possible that they could pull off an upset, but all things being equal the GOP will lose senate seats over the next two cycles, not gain. But, not only is this majority tough enough to last, we need to look at where it comes from. The Democrats have formed a majority using the North and the West. This is the first time in around 50 years IIRC that a party has built a majority while simultaneously losing a majority of southern house seats. If you ignore the short lived GOP majority after Truman, this goes all the way back to 1932. So basically, we've just witnessed an important power shift away from the south.
*Look at how the Democrats won. Did they start saying God or Jesus in every other sentence? No. Did they move right on national security? No, they actually moved left. Did they concede on the issues of gay marriage and abortion? No, they just kept people focussed on issues that actually matter to their lives. But isn't that funny? The media prescibed a rightward movement for the Dems after 04, but they won after staying put. In fact, Harold Ford Junior, the most conservative Democrat running for senate this cycle, was the only failed pickup of the close races, while Bernie Sanders (a Socialist) won in a landslide for Vermont's senate seat.
*As things stand (could change) not one Democratic incumbant representative, senator, or governor has lost. This may be the first time in American History that a party has pulled that off, it is certainly the first time since FDR. This election was a blowout, don't let anyone convince you otherwise.
*The Democratic Party couldn't ask for a better set up for 2008. All they need is the right candidate, and they will be propelled into a majority a la Lincoln, McKinley, FDR, and Reagan. Funnily enough, this may be a tall order for them, considering some of the campaigns they have run before, but it looks like they are figuring things out. Don't expect a repeat of a Kerryesque nominee at the very least.
*Politics have changed. We have entered a new age, the age of the internet and youtube, of bloggers, and a return to grassroots democracy. This goes for both parties. Things are changing, I think for the better. American Democracy may return it's power to the people again.

And lastly, for comedic relief:
-The GOP frontrunner for 2008, John McCain, will not be running. As promised, he will commit suicide when/if Webb's victory becomes official. He is expected to end his life just as Harry Reid is sworn in as Majority leader. With his death, the republicans are at a loss to find a leader for 2008 that can win a middle that has turned against them. Pundits say that Rudy Guiliani may now have a shot at the nomination, as he will gain the most from McCain's hasty action


Anyways, that's what I've got to say. But maybe other have some signifigant things to point out. Let's hear it all. What will this election mean, if anything?

 

[Masquerouge]

That's a nice post. It gives a lot of useful information, thanks!

 

[willemvanoranje]

Well, isnt democratic domination potentially just as bad as Republic domination? If the next president is a democrat, then it could turn out to be the same sh*t as before; push the policy through easily, since you owe all the institutions anyway. Not great for checks and balances. Of course this is only a bad thing, if the next president would come up with stupid policies like George Bush did.

 

[ThePhysicist]

Well, it could, as other have pointed out the government seems to keep it's spending under control only when one party holds the executive branch and one the congress. But realize also, the greatest presidents and governments in American History (Think Washington, Jefferson, Jackson, Lincoln, TR, FDR, JFK) were in fact unified governments. Unified governments are when we see real change, and real change is what we need right now.

 

[willemvanoranje]

Change is what is needed indeed.. just hope it's not going to be another idiot in the white house.

 

[Irish Caesar]

*The George Bush version of the GOP is dead, and Rove's theory of politics has been thoroughly discredited. The Republicans will most likely end up in a mini civil war, which they will come out of before 2008. Their new candidate will not be like George Bush, not at all. He or she most likely will rely less on the politics of division and base tournout, as this tactic, though persued successfully for 3 cycles, has blown up in the faces of the GOP. There is a middle in this country, and they do not have partisan loyalties.

Disagree. Base turnout is essential, and getting the base out to vote will win elections. The problem here is that since the current Republican Congress is nothing but corrupt crooks, only the base would consider voting for them. With good (relatively honest?) candidates and an energized base, any party could put a good showing.

*This majority is important. Republicans can spin things as much as they want, but this election's results will last. The House of Representatives doesn't switch very often (Only about 5 times in the last 110 years). The Democrats will hold the house for a good while if history is any judge. The Senate too, is likely to remain theirs for a while. The next two cycles will see Republicans defending 40 of the 64 seats up for vote. It's possible that they could pull off an upset, but all things being equal the GOP will lose senate seats over the next two cycles, not gain. But, not only is this majority tough enough to last, we need to look at where it comes from. The Democrats have formed a majority using the North and the West. This is the first time in around 50 years IIRC that a party has built a majority while simultaneously losing a majority of southern house seats. If you ignore the short lived GOP majority after Truman, this goes all the way back to 1932. So basically, we've just witnessed an important power shift away from the south.

Of course the majority is important; I figured that was a given in a democratic system. However, it's worth noting that in the midterm elections of a second term president, his party typically loses seats. Reagan lost seats in 1986. Didn't stop a Republican president from succeeding him.

But again, I'll disagree with your main point. If the Democrats do something with Congress now that they've got it, they'll keep it. If they are only the anti-Republicans (because that's why they won, because the Republican Party is a bunch of corrupt crooks), they won't be able to do much with it, and fresh un-corrupt conservatives have a shot at taking Congress right back.

I do think that the South is no longer the seat of power in the country; consider the potential candidates who have been suggested: a Senator from New York, a Senator from Illinois, the former mayor of New York City, the former governor of Massachusetts, and a Senator from Arizona. Perhaps a Senator from Massachusetts and the former governor of Vermont. Electoral vote-wise, there's a pretty even split between the South/West and the North/Midwest/California. The South will be very important in the next election; since both candidates will be Northerners (sorry, McCain, I'm counting you out), whoever gets the South wins. But it's no longer calling the shots.

*Look at how the Democrats won. Did they start saying God or Jesus in every other sentence? No. Did they move right on national security? No, they actually moved left. Did they concede on the issues of gay marriage and abortion? No, they just kept people focussed on issues that actually matter to their lives. But isn't that funny? The media prescibed a rightward movement for the Dems after 04, but they won after staying put. In fact, Harold Ford Junior, the most conservative Democrat running for senate this cycle, was the only failed pickup of the close races, while Bernie Sanders (a Socialist) won in a landslide for Vermont's senate seat.

The Democrats won because the Republican Party is full of corrupt crooks. If the Democrats win in 2008, you'll have something there. Until then, it don't mean a thing.

*As things stand (could change) not one Democratic incumbant representative, senator, or governor has lost. This may be the first time in American History that a party has pulled that off, it is certainly the first time since FDR. This election was a blowout, don't let anyone convince you otherwise.

The Democrats really should have won more seats, when you think about it. They did come very close to losing two incumbent Congressmen in Georgia, too. (I can't comment on the political climate of the rest of the countrry, but Georgia moved more Republican this election. I imagine it's one of the only states to have done so.)

*The Democratic Party couldn't ask for a better set up for 2008. All they need is the right candidate, and they will be propelled into a majority a la Lincoln, McKinley, FDR, and Reagan. Funnily enough, this may be a tall order for them, considering some of the campaigns they have run before, but it looks like they are figuring things out. Don't expect a repeat of a Kerryesque nominee at the very least.

Disagree. If there was a presidential election this year (assuming Bush vs. anti-Bush), there would be a Democratic president and much greater majorities in both houses. A better set-up for 2008 would be not having both houses. That would make them much hungrier and more sure to win big. As it is now, they desperately need a good candidate for president in 2008. Otherwise, it's pretty unsure. A good GOP candidate can still win and bring back some Congressional seats with him. The Democrats may keep the majority, and maybe that is a good thing for the time being, but unless they prove that they are something more than the anti-Republicans, they won't stay in power too long.

*Politics have changed. We have entered a new age, the age of the internet and youtube, of bloggers, and a return to grassroots democracy. This goes for both parties. Things are changing, I think for the better. American Democracy may return it's power to the people again.

And I think for the worse. It's good to have media coverage of our elected officials at all times. They should never be out of the public eye. But because of this intense coverage at all hours, video clips out of context, more information, and unsubstantiated claims (blogs, Swift Boat ads, etc.), American politics is just able to throw more mud and reach wider audiences with it.

And lastly, for comedic relief:
-The GOP frontrunner for 2008, John McCain, will not be running. As promised, he will commit suicide when/if Webb's victory becomes official. He is expected to end his life just as Harry Reid is sworn in as Majority leader. With his death, the republicans are at a loss to find a leader for 2008 that can win a middle that has turned against them. Pundits say that Rudy Guiliani may now have a shot at the nomination, as he will gain the most from McCain's hasty action

Mitt!

Anyways, that's what I've got to say. But maybe other have some signifigant things to point out. Let's hear it all. What will this election mean, if anything?

It doesn't really mean anything, until the Democrats do something with their newfound majority. The ball is in their court. They have two years.

Go!

 

[shortguy]

The Democratic party as a whole didn't move right, but they incorporated some more rightward elements in order to win some tight races, especially in the heartland.

 

[ThePhysicist]

1. On Rove's strategy: You are right, base tournout is was and will continue to be important. But Rove took this to the extreme. In Rove's theory of politics, base is literally everything. He has viewed the 21st century electorate as increasingly polar, with basically no middle. Thus, the key to him was to more or less ignore the middle and get your base to turnout. This is how Bush was re-elected. John Kerry won independants, unaffiliateds, and moderates. He won Democrats. But Republicans came out and made up the difference, because Kerry's wins amongst the middle were not decisive even though he put considerable effort into courting them. For 3 cycles, the strategy worked. Democrats went for the middle (although they did it incompetently and thus sometimes looked like they were playing the base game too), the GOP went for the base. The republicans won with tiny but healthy majorities. Now it's different. The middle has solidified against them, and that's what knocked the GOP out for the count. Rove's devisive polital strategy of increasing polarization, partisanship, and ignoring moderates is discredited.
Regardless of what happens to the Democratic Majorities, this result will remain. The middle exists, and it is fluid. Independants are necessary for a governing majority.

2. On the Democratic Congress: The Dems have staying power, even if they sit and stare for two years. Only waves break House majorities, and waves don't come in opposite pairs. The only time a house majority has been defeated 2 years after first being sworn in (in modern times) was the Republican takeover during Truman's presidency. Of course, the Dems could lose a good bundle next cycle if they don't do what the public expects of them, but keep this in mind: being a minority in the house sucks. A number of GOPers in congress will likely retire next cycle now that they've lost most of their control. And open seats are dangerous for a party. And again, the House majority is strong. This is not a one seat victory, the Dems will probably have 230+ seats.

3. On the Democratic message: Yes, 2008 is the real test. But everything I see from this election, like the examples I cited, point this direction. There are many examples in the House races that back this up aswell.

4. As for the political change, think of it this way: people were already too obsessed with stupid gaffes, but now they get to pick which things they want to pay attention to rather than having the media telling them what watch. If people vote on gaffes, that's their choice after all. Plus, the internet incourages a bottom up, grassroots democracy where cable TV has always pushed a top down punditocracy. The change is good I think.

5. Mitt Romney: To tell you the truth, I think it would be fun to see him win the nomination. It would make things more interesting, shake things up a bit. I doubt I would vote for him, but I would be intersted in listening to what he has to say. He would be a non-George Bush Republican, and could take the GOP where it may need to go. Of course, there are problems for him there too. For instance, he is a Morman correct? The GOP does not have a history of nominating people from religions other than your typical protestant IIRC.

 

[Irish Caesar]

1. On Rove's strategy: You are right, base tournout is was and will continue to be important. But Rove took this to the extreme. In Rove's theory of politics, base is literally everything. He has viewed the 21st century electorate as increasingly polar, with basically no middle. Thus, the key to him was to more or less ignore the middle and get your base to turnout. This is how Bush was re-elected. John Kerry won independants, unaffiliateds, and moderates. He won Democrats. But Republicans came out and made up the difference, because Kerry's wins amongst the middle were not decisive even though he put considerable effort into courting them. For 3 cycles, the strategy worked. Democrats went for the middle (although they did it incompetently and thus sometimes looked like they were playing the base game too), the GOP went for the base. The republicans won with tiny but healthy majorities. Now it's different. The middle has solidified against them, and that's what knocked the GOP out for the count. Rove's devisive polital strategy of increasing polarization, partisanship, and ignoring moderates is discredited.

In other words, energize the base without alienating the middle. I agree with you on that.

2. On the Democratic Congress: The Dems have staying power, even if they sit and stare for two years. Only waves break House majorities, and waves don't come in opposite pairs. The only time a house majority has been defeated 2 years after first being sworn in (in modern times) was the Republican takeover during Truman's presidency. Of course, the Dems could lose a good bundle next cycle if they don't do what the public expects of them, but keep this in mind: being a minority in the house sucks. A number of GOPers in congress will likely retire next cycle now that they've lost most of their control. And open seats are dangerous for a party. And again, the House majority is strong. This is not a one seat victory, the Dems will probably have 230+ seats.

Again, I agree that the Democrats are sitting pretty, but as we saw this election, if the people aren't happy with Congress, being an incumbent is no advantage.

3. On the Democratic message: Yes, 2008 is the real test. But everything I see from this election, like the examples I cited, point this direction. There are many examples in the House races that back this up aswell.

I think they should be able to stay in power, but they need to do something now that they have Congress. Simply being the anti-Republicans while they've got the majority in both houses isn't going to cut it when they need to run a strong presidential campaign. I suppose it all hinges on the success or failure of Pelosi's "100 hours."

4. As for the political change, think of it this way: people were already too obsessed with stupid gaffes, but now they get to pick which things they want to pay attention to rather than having the media telling them what watch. If people vote on gaffes, that's their choice after all. Plus, the internet incourages a bottom up, grassroots democracy where cable TV has always pushed a top down punditocracy. The change is good I think.

I dunno, I think having too much information can be a bad thing. I mean, it's certainly nice to have a variety of sources to get news and such from, but the 24-hour media and YouTube and the like can really blow a bad thing out of proportion. While it may force politicians to stay on their toes, it may also cause the public to become more disillusioned with the choices of parties and politicians and simply stop caring. Overall: undecided.

5. Mitt Romney: To tell you the truth, I think it would be fun to see him win the nomination. It would make things more interesting, shake things up a bit. I doubt I would vote for him, but I would be intersted in listening to what he has to say. He would be a non-George Bush Republican, and could take the GOP where it may need to go. Of course, there are problems for him there too. For instance, he is a Morman correct? The GOP does not have a history of nominating people from religions other than your typical protestant IIRC.

I think he is what we need; he'd run the country like a businessman. But yes, he is Mormon, and that might be a death sentence in the current Republican Party. How the Republican Party might change in two years remains to be seen...he'd probably be popular in most of the country that isn't Southern Baptist. He could be paired up with Congressman Mike Pence as a VP pick to try and get the "Christian" vote.

 

[Whomp]

Interesting to note from a historical perspective president's war parties (Civil War, WWI, WWII, Korea and Viet Nam)lost on average 37 house and 7 senate seats.

 

[Irish Caesar]

Interesting to note from a historical perspective president's war parties (Civil War, WWI, WWII, Korea and Viet Nam)lost on average 37 house and 7 senate seats.

And if you include Reagan's Cold War 1986 election, the GOP lost 5 House seats and 8 Senate seats.

 

[Mark1031]

I am not as confident as you are about Dem prospects. Not to sound like a Rep. But what do the Dems stand for? Republicans stand for lower taxes. Candy for the electorate. Do the Dems stand for even lower taxes, no so by default they stand for higher taxes than Reps. Forget the complexity of who gets the Rep tax cuts it is just something that the Reps. own and as I said it is candy. Dems stand for the Constitution. Many people don’t know what is in the Constitution and when enlightened it sounds rather subversive to them. Reps. stand for toughness on anything and everything military and crime related. You want to run with the ACLU, Reps. have managed to promulgate the view that civil liberties are a communist or now terrorist plot. I think the Republicans have lost the competence and low spending cards but I’m not sure the Dems are considered better. They better show competence. Social issues. OK look at gay marriage. People don’t like it and they will get out and vote on it. I won’t even call it bigotry, some will always oppose it but really it is just a generational thing and will change over the next 20 yrs. But strong stands for gay rights is not a big winner now. Religion. OK the Repubs are the party of Jesus. The Dems are the party of the Constitution- Separation of church and state. There is a very strong secular streak in the Dems. However, 90% of the US is religious and many strongly so. So again not a winner. So really what do the Dems have in their favor that they can proudly state and stand for strongly? Something that is simple and can be stated in one short phrase.

 

[HawkeyeGS]

Really good post. We really are seeing the return to more democratic systems. GOP tactics to intimidate voters (esp. Virginia lol) have failed. Maybe the country as a whole has overcome the mass hysteria that followed 9/11 and are less vulnerable to fear mongering. Regardless of who you support you cannot ignore the fact that this election signifies a shift in the balance of power to it's rightful owners - the people.

 

[Godwynn]

I can only hope Rudy Giuliani is nominated. I would throw my support behind him.