The Dude wrote:

TenuredVulture wrote:The other difference between Democrats and Republicans is that Democrats are far more willing to support moderates and even conservatives who can win in conservative districts than Republicans tolerate moderates. The ideologues on the Republican side would rather drive Specter out of the party than hold onto that seat.

By contrast, Democrats are by and large happy to have people like Mark Pryor in its party.

I don't know about that, especially after Joe Lieberman

I think the difference is a recognition that Connecticut, being more liberal than Arkansas, could have a more liberal Senator. Obviously, it was a miscalculation by the Ds.

BuddyGroom wrote:The Republicans have more than one problem, you see. Yes, they're in a real pickle with a huge swath of the electorate - they acknowledge that.

What they do not acknowledge - and may not be able to see - if that they are too tied in to their ideology. They push the "liberal Democrat" idea so hard because they want to frame every race as liberal vs. conservative. But the Democratic party - in large part, but admittedly not entirely - has thrown off a lot of its ideology.

This is what the Clinton presidency was about - and more people would understand that if the media had focused more on the policy and less on overblown and sometimes absolutely trivial scandals. The Clinton presidency was about moving the Democrats to a policy focused much more on pragmatism, and much less on ideology.
...
The electorate sent the Democrats a clear message in the '70s, '80s and '90s - put the nation's business ahead of ideology - and by and large the Democrats slowly got the message. Now, it is the Republicans' turn.

I agree with this, but I think you give too much credit to the Clintons and too little to a large number of local and state-level Democrats who were (also) basically pragmatists, not ideologues. Rendell's mayoralty in Philadelphia is a good example of what I'm talking about.

One problem for the Republicans is that they've demonized "liberalism" so well for so long that the word doesn't have very much meaning anymore.

To the point right now: is Barack Obama a "liberal"? National Journal evaluated him as such... in large part because he cast some good-government, reform votes that whoever sets up those dumbassed rankings chose to characterize as "liberal." But Obama and his advisors talk about "iPod government" that's essentially user-friendly; his big difference with the Clintons on healthcare is that he disdains mandates, and on a range of domestic policy issues (personal savings accounts is the first one that comes to mind) he's advocated choice mechanisms that run counter to the Government-Knows-Best approach of traditional liberals (and Hillary Clinton).

I think "liberal" as a political pejorative basically has come to mean "swishy metrosexual wind-surfing homo-lover." In basically prosperous times, Republicans can win elections by throwing that smear around; when they've comprehensively fouled things up, though, and people are feeling pain, it's a tougher sell.

Ultimately the electorate are pragmatists too, and they want problem-solvers. The Republicans, who could credibly present themselves as "the party of ideas" in the '70s and '80s, haven't come up with any new ones in at least 20 years. And it's probably going to take their getting their clocks cleaned another time or two before some new ones bring them back into relevance.

TenuredVulture wrote:

The Dude wrote:

TenuredVulture wrote:The other difference between Democrats and Republicans is that Democrats are far more willing to support moderates and even conservatives who can win in conservative districts than Republicans tolerate moderates. The ideologues on the Republican side would rather drive Specter out of the party than hold onto that seat.

By contrast, Democrats are by and large happy to have people like Mark Pryor in its party.

I don't know about that, especially after Joe Lieberman

I think the difference is a recognition that Connecticut, being more liberal than Arkansas, could have a more liberal Senator. Obviously, it was a miscalculation by the Ds.

Lieberman is a bad example because he has pandered so obviously to the right since 2006. Meanwhile, most Democrats have had no trouble embracing the Jim Webbs and Jon Testers.

dajafi wrote:
I agree with this, but I think you give too much credit to the Clintons and too little to a large number of local and state-level Democrats who were (also) basically pragmatists, not ideologues. Rendell's mayoralty in Philadelphia is a good example of what I'm talking about.

One problem for the Republicans is that they've demonized "liberalism" so well for so long that the word doesn't have very much meaning anymore.

To the point right now: is Barack Obama a "liberal"? National Journal evaluated him as such... in large part because he cast some good-government, reform votes that whoever sets up those dumbassed rankings chose to characterize as "liberal." But Obama and his advisors talk about "iPod government" that's essentially user-friendly; his big difference with the Clintons on healthcare is that he disdains mandates, and on a range of domestic policy issues (personal savings accounts is the first one that comes to mind) he's advocated choice mechanisms that run counter to the Government-Knows-Best approach of traditional liberals (and Hillary Clinton).

I think "liberal" as a political pejorative basically has come to mean "swishy metrosexual wind-surfing homo-lover." In basically prosperous times, Republicans can win elections by throwing that smear around; when they've comprehensively fouled things up, though, and people are feeling pain, it's a tougher sell.

Ultimately the electorate are pragmatists too, and they want problem-solvers. The Republicans, who could credibly present themselves as "the party of ideas" in the '70s and '80s, haven't come up with any new ones in at least 20 years. And it's probably going to take their getting their clocks cleaned another time or two before some new ones bring them back into relevance.

Not much to disagree with there. Yeah, I'll admit I'm in the tank for Bill Clinton. Maybe someday if I win the lottery and become self-employed I'll have time to do the research to try write a book proving what a great president (I think) he was.

But Ed Rendell and his dealings with the municipal unions is another great example. Without that record, could a Philadelphia Democrat have gotten elected governor of PA?

BuddyGroom wrote:Not much to disagree with there. Yeah, I'll admit I'm in the tank for Bill Clinton. Maybe someday if I win the lottery and become self-employed I'll have time to do the research to try write a book proving what a great president (I think) he was.

But Ed Rendell and his dealings with the municipal unions is another great example. Without that record, could a Philadelphia Democrat have gotten elected governor of PA?

Back in December (I think), Matt Bai in the NYT Sunday magazine had a great long piece about "Clintonism." It reminded me just how different and refreshing Bill Clinton's 1992 campaign was, in the face of Democratic orthodoxy of the time. I was really struck by the parallels between Clinton then and Obama in this cycle. The difference, and my preference for Obama, probably boils down to my judgment of the two men as individuals.

But it's true that Clinton's "Third Way" vision represented a badly needed self-correction on the part of the Democratic Party before it came to mean triangulation and self-preservation for the Clintons. And I think it's time for the Republicans to go through a similar process of internal reform and reorientation. When I wrote last night about it being a shame that McCain isn't ten years younger, I meant that in terms of political instincts, he'd be the perfect guy to lead that change, but he's probably just too damn old.

dajafi wrote:

Phan In Phlorida wrote:

Laexile wrote:

Phan In Phlorida wrote: If this area (and the blue collars and rurals in general) is up for play for McCain, the Democrats should be legitimately worried.

...
John Kerry got a lot of them to vote for him and he was perceived as a rich, liberal elitist.

But not enough of them. Dubya got enough of them.

I guess you haven't heard that Obama is about where Kerry was with white voters four years ago.

Obama's problem isn't with White people. It's with a segment of them. There's a difference between upper middle class highly educated urban White people and the working class.

dajafi wrote:And McCain will have the Bush albatross to struggle with.

Maybe America is smarter than you think. McCain's approval rating is way ahead of Bush's because America realizes that McCain would make a competent President compared to Bush's incompetence, that he stands differently on some issues, and that the way he'd implement those stances would be very different. The Democrats can keep fear mongering and make Americans afraid of a Bush third term, but America might not go for it.

Phan In Phlorida wrote:

Laexile wrote:

dajafi wrote:Who knows what will happen, but I have a lot of trouble believing that the usual Republican effort to feminize and otherwise smear Obama will work well enough to balance the (substantially accurate) charge that McCain is running for "Bush's third term."

Or maybe they can set aside the feminizing and the "Bush third term" and actually run against each other based on their stances on the issues.

If Camp McCain is smart, they (or some 527's) would paint Obama as being "too liberal for France". Middle America prefers moderate Dems, hates liberals.

Jon Stewart asked John McCain to comment on the Reverend Wright controversy and to say something negative about Clinton and Obama. McCain declined and said that both senators were fine people he had an honor to serve with. McCain has said that he wants to run a respectful campaign. If he goes negative, he'll come across as a liar and that'll cost him the election.

Pol Pot would have a better approval rating than Bush.

You what makes me laugh every time I hear it? The notion of a Republican "brand." That sounds so dumb, you'd think the Democrats came up with it.

momadance wrote:Pol Pot would have a better approval rating than Bush.

Then we know that Pol Pot wouldn't be in Congress, since Congress has been running way below Bush.

dajafi wrote:I'm honestly not sure whether you're a TomatoPie-like "concern troll" (except that TP usually admits when he's doing it), or just a sort of self-hating Democrat who particularly detests "liberals."

I've explained before...

I'm not a democrat, I'm not a republican. I am registered as "non-affiliated". I'm not a fan of either the far left or far right, as neither represents the majority of Americans or what's best for America as a whole. I'm roughly in the middle of the political spectrum... a little right of center on some issues, a little left of center on some issues. Maybe because I think common sense and reason and thorough research is often lacking in policy decisions.

Any "concerns" I post here are legitimate concerns of mine. Might also be my way of giving a little "advanced warning" of what can happen, inject a little temperance so that no one is shocked if things don't ultimately go the way they anticipate. I'm probably the only non-GOP'er here that dares post anything negative about Obama, and I get a bit of flack for it. There's really no need for me to post negatives about HRC since many posters here already take care of that. So I add some balance.

I truely believe that because of the GWB years, the GOP needs to lose the White House... both for the sake of the country and for the sake of the GOP (teach them a hard lesson). But in what should be a Dem slam dunk (and I think a lot of people assume it will be), I'm seeing signs that the Dems may actually blow it. Signs that leave me thinking the Democratic Party hasn't learned from history. Almost as if the DNC believes it will win by default solely because of the suck of the GWB administration. In reference to how pundits and Obama supporters have been calling for HRC to drop out for months, Carville (whom I kinda find amusing, in the sort of way a lunatic can be entertaining) said "What is it with the surrendercrats? It's like they have a severe case of quititis" (paraphrasing). I found that funny, but yet poignant to the big picture... you can't assume a White House gimme because of GWB suckatude, it's a fight.

Personally, I'm not a fan of any of the three that remain standing. Examining his state and national legislative record, Obama is too liberal (if he's too liberal for my taste, that should be a warning flag on how he'll play with moderates and "non-liberals" in the GE), and a non-cadidate-biased observation has me feeling he may not be electable (middle America ain't buying). And the messianic complex many of his most ardent supporters have for him is a major league turn off for a whole lotta people. I have no idea what McCain we'll be getting... the McCain attached to neo-con patootie or "Maverick McCain". HRC is, uh, well, a bit grating (and because I kinda liked Prez Bill Clinton, I kinda like him being the only "President Clinton", instead of "Which one?"). And her campaign was a disaster for a long time, should have canned Penn a long time before she did.

While I believe the GOP needs to lose the WH, the Democratic Party is giving me cause for concern. As I posted yesterday, we're talking about a party that treats their only candidate that put together a winning strategy and won the WH in the last 28 years as a pariah. Brilliant tacticians.

Matt Yglesias:

This business of Travis Childers winning an extremely Republican district on the heels of two other Democratic special election wins drives home how infuriating the idea of even having an extended "electability" argument about "who can win" is at this point. The reality is that given current conditions, either Clinton or Obama is very likely to win. That, I assume, is why Clinton is fighting so hard. There's no need to join David Corn in reaching for esoteric explanations, she's fighting hard for the prize of the nomination because it's a very good prize to have.

Objective conditions could, of course, change. Maybe some kind of spate of unexpected good news from Iraq or the economic picture will save John McCain. But unless that happens, he's looking to be in terrible shape. The GOP brand is so terrible that it's dragging candidates down in solid red districts, and McCain is currently doing not-so-hot in polling matchups even though Americans are now inundated in unflattering information about Clinton and Obama while most people have never heard sustained from-the-left criticism of McCain.

dajafi wrote:Matt Yglesias:

This business of Travis Childers winning an extremely Republican district on the heels of two other Democratic special election wins drives home how infuriating the idea of even having an extended "electability" argument about "who can win" is at this point. The reality is that given current conditions, either Clinton or Obama is very likely to win. That, I assume, is why Clinton is fighting so hard. There's no need to join David Corn in reaching for esoteric explanations, she's fighting hard for the prize of the nomination because it's a very good prize to have.

Objective conditions could, of course, change. Maybe some kind of spate of unexpected good news from Iraq or the economic picture will save John McCain. But unless that happens, he's looking to be in terrible shape. The GOP brand is so terrible that it's dragging candidates down in solid red districts, and McCain is currently doing not-so-hot in polling matchups even though Americans are now inundated in unflattering information about Clinton and Obama while most people have never heard sustained from-the-left criticism of McCain.

Right--the key for McCain right now is that he's basically coasting--and yet he still trails both Obama and Clinton, despite the fact that the Democratic primary has to be one of the most annoying political contests ever.

Twenty page memo by Rep. Tom Davis talks about the GOP's problems. Offers various solutions. Really kind of a fascinating read, considering the guy is a sitting member of Congress. He can't spell Obama's first name, though.

Our president thinks Chase Utley is the man.

Laexile wrote:

Phan In Phlorida wrote:If Camp McCain is smart, they (or some 527's) would paint Obama as being "too liberal for France". Middle America prefers moderate Dems, hates liberals.

Jon Stewart asked John McCain to comment on the Reverend Wright controversy and to say something negative about Clinton and Obama. McCain declined and said that both senators were fine people he had an honor to serve with. McCain has said that he wants to run a respectful campaign. If he goes negative, he'll come across as a liar and that'll cost him the election.

That's what "surrogates" are for... keeps your hands clean.

I'm sure there are (or will be) a buncha Republicans out there that just don't want a Democrat to win, and they'll put together some 527's (if they're not doing so already). Then there's the watercarriers (Limbo, Hannity, et al). Those are the ones I can see slapping a "too liberal for France" label on Obama. McCain's hands will be clean. The "too liberal for France" label will encourage the base to the polls, and McCain can go "polulist" with middle America.

Any GOP strategists out there... my ideas ain't free! 6, 7 figures baybee

Pip, why is Obama "too liberal" for you? What's he proposing that you take issue with?

Bush picks Utley

I have no idea how to link directly to the video, but our fearless leader said he'd take Chase as his position player to start a team with.

Swizzle sticks, awesome again today. Except I don't get the Doctor Zhivago one because I'm not cultured.

•Democrats' indecisiveness makes John Kerry a little misty-eyed.
•We're looking forward to Denver, when Chris Matthews will take to the microphone after Montana and announces, "Mr. Chairman, the great state of MSNBC casts all 14 of its anchor votes for Barack Obama."
•This campaign is like watching Doctor Zhivago on PBS, only with more frequent interruptions to solicit donations.
•With the Dem contest almost over and few months to kill before the conventions, can we get Bob Barr, Mike Gravel and Ron Paul going at it in an outcast primary?
•Asked why he decided to champion climate-change, John McCain said he identified with the unpredictable, often explosive, nature of weather.

Fox News is reporting that John Edwards will endorse Obama.

CNN has it too.

jerseyhoya wrote:Bush picks Utley

I have no idea how to link directly to the video, but our fearless leader said he'd take Chase as his position player to start a team with.

I couldn't find it on there but

I like Ottley from the Philadelphia Phillies.

Whoever wrote that transcript link