Democrats picked up a ridiculous GOP-friendly seat in Mississippi tonight. It seems that no seats are safe seats these days for Republicans.
« Clinton Wins WV | Main | Obama and Affirmative Action »
Mississippi
14 May 2008 03:05 am
Comments (41)
Unlike IL-14 and LA-6, Davis was a perfectly reasonable candidate: he's not a political neophyte, has no ties with David Duke nor a record of being well-known as an unsuccessful candidate and not terribly likeable to boot. I'd say that Davis was easily a B-List recruitment for the Republicans. To not hold an R+10 seat where Bush got 63% of the vote in '04 with a B-list candidate...wow. Just wow.
I guess even in Mississippi 8 years of Bush-style Republicans is enough.
The Democrat almost won the first election, with a turnout of 66,000. In this election, turnout rose to over 100,000, and the Democrat widened his margin. It seems dubious to expect the Democrat to survive the regular election in November, when turnout is likely to be 220,000+.
But, still it is interesting to contemplate the slow transformation of the Democratic Party in Mississippi from white supremacy plus populism toward bi-racial economic populism, and the awakening of political power this implies. Three of Mississippi's four Congress critters are now Democrats; the Mississippi House is solidly Democratic, and the Mississippi Senate very narrowly so.
Obviously, Mississippi Democrats are, by national standards, very conservative, but the Democratic Party appears to be alive and well in that State, thanks in part to the ability of the Party to morph and adapt to local needs and expectations.
It might also be noted that the eastern part of the Mississippi 01 district occupies the tail of Appalachia.
What's interesting is that this is yet another district where the GOP tried to turn Barack Obama into an albatross to sink the local candidate, and they're 0 for 2.
I worry somewhat about the GOP being able to play the 'don't give the Democrats too much' card. The one thing that seems likely to prevent a major Democratic landslide in November is concern that the Democrats might end up with too much power.
But more generally, the whole 'solid south' thing for the GOP has been very much a matter of inertia and groupthink. As long as racist talk and belathering about 'media elites' 'liburuls' and so on was acceptable talk, GOPpers could intimidate people into thinking that voting Republican was part of Southern culture.
Now the question 'what have you done for me lately' is very much being asked. And in fact 'what did you ever do for me' is being asked by some.
To anihilate the GOP, all Obama needs to do is:
1) Win in November
2) Withdraw from Iraq without catastrophe
3) Eliminate Bin Laden.
It is really hard to see how the GOP can construct a 'stabbed in the back' narrative if Bush has conspicuously failed to attempt, let alone succeed in eliminating the real source of concern.
It is really hard to see how the GOP can construct a 'stabbed in the back' narrative if Bush has conspicuously failed to attempt, let alone succeed in eliminating the real source of concern.
You underestimate their ingenuity, and overestimate their connection with reality
I rather suspect that (2) above will be really hard. Obama's theory is that we can get the "international community" to help keep Iraq stable.
Yeah, that "community" is likely to step up....
James: I'm not so sure. I think that the failure to achieve any sort of workable settlement in Iraq is as much a product of Bush's unwillingness to accommodate the interests of Iraq's neighbors and desire to make Iraq an American client state as an intractable opposition. It seems perfectly clear that all the external powers want an Iraq that is decentralized, with all three ethnicities receiving considerable autonomy. Given the degree of "ethnic cleansing" that's gone on, all that's really necessary is to persuade the Shia to accept Sunni and Kurdish autonomy - which an agreement with Iran would go far to accomplishing. U.S. withdrawal without a bloody civil war would remove the possibility of a "stab in the back" narrative.
But of course I acknowledge that I could be completely wrong (which is what makes me different from Republicans).
When Obama says its not just winning but why the Dem Party Should Win; interesting statistics from WV - where Clinton won her victory margin of 65% was a direct reflection of those who believed the gas holiday was useful, 65% of WV. That is sad for Clinton. its not necessary to hoodwink an electrorate and take advantage of their vulnerabilities.
This is the same Iran that is backing Hizbollah's destruction of Lebanon. Any "agreement" on Iraq that involves Iran will be a cluster****, without regard to the elegant theories held by people like Obama and Matt.
Unlike IL-14 and LA-6, Davis was a perfectly reasonable candidate: he's not a political neophyte, has no ties with David Duke nor a record of being well-known as an unsuccessful candidate and not terribly likeable to boot.
Posted by Mike | May 14, 2008 4:22 AM
Republican spin: Things are looking up, at least now we're finding candidates.
I'm starting to think that we'll see a truly interesting election year: large Dem gains in the House and Senate, with a White House loss if Obama is the candidate.
Will these three newly minted Democratic Representatives take office immediately? Does that make them relevant Super Delegates?
1) Looks like Howard Dean (with his push for a 50 state Democratic Party) was RIGHT and Rahm Emmanuel was wrong.
aleks, yes, all 3 new Dem Congressmen are SuperDels...
source: http://demconwatch.blogspot.com/2008/05/democrats-win-ms-1-special-election.html
Right now Republicans are chiefly concerned with constructing plausible explanations as to major differences in exit polling and actual precinct vote tallies in the November general election. When McCain wins several states by three % points yet exit polls show a five % point win for Obama they need to be ready to quash calls for an investigation into the disparity. Stories about their party being overwrought and fretting a loss are so much piffle. McCain has this in the bag. SCOTUS and the Justice Department will see to it if it ends up in a major fight in the courts.
"This is the same Iran that is backing Hizbollah's destruction of Lebanon. Any "agreement" on Iraq that involves Iran will be a cluster****, without regard to the elegant theories held by people like Obama and Matt.
Posted by James Robertson | May 14, 2008 7:12 AM"
Iraq and Lebanon are two different countries. When members of the French left said during the Cold War the US was evil and couldn't be trusted to help protect Europe because that was the same US that backed terrorist groups like Renamo and UNITA, they were talking out of their ass. We are backing the same proxies in Iraq as Iran. Many of the leading parties in Iraq were founded in Iran while their leaders were in exile there. Even Chalabi, the neocons' top choice to lead Iraq way back when, still owns real estate in Tehran. Recognizing reality is for adults. Demanding moral purity before moving forward is for children. The neocons are just the next generation of the Gucci socialists of old.
"It seems dubious to expect the Democrat to survive the regular election in November, when turnout is likely to be 220,000+."
Why is that?
The question is what will be the long term consequences of the collapse of the Republican Party? Is a comeback possible but very doubtful? Will the national Republican Party become something like the current State of Mass. Republican Party where they only compete in a few faces and have zero effect on governing? Or will the Republicans become the next Whigs and the U.S. will function with only one political party?
I'm starting to think that we'll see a truly interesting election year: large Dem gains in the House and Senate, with a White House loss if Obama is the candidate.
How do you figure? Why not wait until you have some polling data to back up that prediction?
Re: When McCain wins several states by three % points yet exit polls show a five % point win for Obama they need to be ready to quash calls for an investigation into the disparity.
If the GOP is capable of vote rigging, why are they losing so many elections (including some big ones in 2006)?
It also seems that even in very Republican counties, in the deep south, where supposedly racial fears exist, that GOP attacks on Obama do not work. Their lame smears using Rev Wright, or their use of the big bad "liberal" word, or using Pelosi as well, just do not work. And as daily kos asks, if they do not work in these areas, where will they work?
Obama is positioned to do very well in a general election, and this is one more indicator.
"If the GOP is capable of vote rigging, why are they losing so many elections (including some big ones in 2006)?"
Posted by JonF
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
JonF, you don't cheat in the regular season if you know you're going to the playoffs regardless. It's the championship that counts, not any one game.
Vote Rigging? Goodness, most of that happens in urban areas, run by political machines. Those machines used to be Republican, but they're all Democrat now.
As to the "collapse" of the Republican party - lots of people said the same thing about the Dems in the early 90's, pre-Clinton (and again after 1994).
I've been half expecting both parties to crash for 2 decades now; both are intellectually exhausted, and are propped up only via ballot access laws. Eventually, even those won't be enough.
The only thing I don't know is which party will die off first, or whether either actually will. I do expect transformation - The Democrats are now advocating policy positions very much like those of pre WWI Republican progressives, for instance. Republicans, like the Tories in England, will eventually react. Being stupid, it will likely take one more big electoral drubbing before the slow learners like Boehner figure it out.
Reality Man,
I think the French left had a point, don't you?
James,
The people who predicted the collapse of the Republican Party ignored the overwhelming support that blacks, Hispanics, Jews, and Gays give to the Democratic Party. Even when they were writing their books about the "Permanent Republican Majority" there were more Democrats running for office unopposed than Republicans.
When you realize that in 2008 less than half of the kindergarten student are white, it is easy to see that the chance of a Republican rebound are very limited. Is there any future in the U.S. for a conservative party when whites are shrinking as a portion of the population?
"Vote Rigging? Goodness, most of that happens in urban areas, run by political machines."
Evidence: Because Chris Matthews Says So.
"Reality Man,
I think the French left had a point, don't you?
Posted by Hector | May 14, 2008 9:52 AM"
On the moral issue of how it was wrong for the US to support Renamo and UNITA I agree just as I agree it is wrong for Iran to support Hezbollah. However, in terms of whether or not American support for those terrorist groups meant that the US would not abide by its NATO commitments, such an argument would be foolish because those two issues don't connect in any concrete way and only on a very subtle and academic meta-ethical way.
"Is there any future in the U.S. for a conservative party when whites are shrinking as a portion of the population?
Posted by superdestroyer | May 14, 2008 10:00 AM"
They could become the party for Fareed Zakaria-style conservatives, but that would require not being scared of brown people, Muslims, cosmopolitans and wine lovers, so the GOP don't seem to keen on that just yet.
reality man,
Exactly how would you describe a Fareed ZAkaria-style conservative?
The clusterfuck is, of course, the hostility to Iran. Negotiating an end to that will provide Obama with a double whammy - it will not only be a necessary condition for getting out of Iraq, but it will lower the price of oil. Oil won't go down to 10 dollars a barrel again, which was the underlying fact that made for the Clinton prosperity, but there is no reason that it couldn't go down to 60 to 80 dollars per barrel. You'll notice everytime a crackpot Bush official fans the idea that we should go to war with Iran, the price jumps on the futures market.
The U.S. won't ever be able to keep Iran and Israel and the Saudis from running proxies in Lebanon, and it certainly hurts us very little that they do. Basically, it is not a big U.S. problem. It is a big U.S. problem that the Pakistanis run their proxies, the Taliban, in Afghanistan. And it is a big U.S. problem that the Bush administration found it politically useful to allow al qaeda to re-establish itself in Pakistan, with the tacit agreement - and I'll give bin Laden credit for this - that al q. trained operatives wouldn't attack the U.S. domestically again. Al qaeda and the Bush administration are very comfortable with each other, and have a symbiotic relationship that will be a problem for the U.S. - since, after Bush finishes his ignominious reign of petty and international crime, bin Laden is faced with the possibility of an American government that might actually take action against him. In which case, his tacit agreement with the Bushies is off.
"Exactly how would you describe a Fareed ZAkaria-style conservative?
Posted by superdestroyer | May 14, 2008 10:22 AM"
Basically an update of a Jeffrey Hart (if I'm remembering his name correctly, the conservative intellectual at Dartmouth's English department) conservative, basically libertarian, open, rather class-conscious and unashamedly upper-class and elitist. I think one can say that Eisenhower and Rockefeller Republicans were a bit of this mold. Zakaria's economic views basically are a mix of the two Friedmans, Milton and Thomas. His foreign policy views are a softer version of realpolitick. His social views are moderate and he's open to things like gay rights.
Not only is the white proportion of the population shrinking among the young, but young people in general, including whites, are see really nothing to love in the GOP social platform (homophobia and the war on drugs aren't exactly red meat for people just turning 18). Even young white evangelicals are becoming disenchanted with how the GOP has manipulated their faith to being all about politics. Their economic programs are basically borrow from the Chinese and spend in Iraq and on Paris Hilton, which means younger people will pay higher taxes in the future than if the GOP hadn't enacted their platform. When the GOP complains about rap music, they complain about what is on just about every College Republicans' iPod.
In the long-term, the main way out of this dilemma for the GOP is to embrace things like diversity, gay rights, drug legalization and return to things like foreign policy realism and fiscal prudence, including being willing to raise taxes when necessary. So far, they've basically only been able to win over (relatively) recent immigrants with residual anger at the left in their former homes (Vietnamese-Americans, Cuban-Americans). They could build on this by being a party about openness instead of fear and conservative Christianity, but they likely won't because the GOP basically became the party of angry white cultural populism. Voting Republican could become an aspirational good that is open to immigrants of every background if they make it, but the GOP would rather run around scared of Muslims.
Reality man
What you are proposing is the Democratic-Lite version. There is not enough difference between what you would propose and the current white-wing of the Democratic Party to create any differences.
The party you are describing is the current. Mass. Republican party and is completely irrelevant to politics.
superdestroyer, is this some kind of personal obsession of yours? You leave these EXACT same comments every time the subject matter points vaguely in this direction. And you keep asking the same questions. Over the years, I would have guessed you'd have made some conclusions by now.
Over the long term, national parties will carve out at 50/50 niche for themselves, even though they might be quite isolated regionally. Voters, too, will reinvent themselves, changing their personal/cultural identification to be more in line with the party they want to vote for in a given cycle.
tyro,
One can find oneself in a rut sometimes.
However, I always find it odd that Democratic Party leaning blogs can post about the huge number of problems facing the Republicans but never seem to carry it to its natural conclusion even though many of them live in cities where the Republican party is irrelevant.
Many Republican bloggers talk about making a come back while ignoring the huge demographic changes that the U.S. is experiencing. Do they not realize that California has been lost to the Republicans due to changing demographics more than anything else?
One thing that has caught my interest in how after the Baltimore Democratic Primary for mayor, that Sheila Dixon gave a victory speech and started putting together her transition. The media did not even bother to cover the general election. Is that the future of the U.S.?
The Republicans have already tried a few make overs and failed miserably on everyone. I just do not see middle age blacks who have never voted Republicans somehow switching their vote. I also just do not believe the Karl Rove nonsense about how Hispanic are natural conservatives.
I wish more blogger would comment on possible splits/break ups of the Democratic Party. Would the white urban, educated whites really split off to a green party and leave the minorities behind?
Also, one of the possible changes in Mississippi is that moderate and conservative whites saw a vote for a Republican as a wasted vote and moved over to the Democratic candidate? What will the effects be if large number of former Republicans start voting in the Democratic primary?
superdestroyer, I apologize for that cranky retort of mine. In any case, I don't think that the local or regional one-party dominance can replicate itself on a national level. one-party cities and states only function because those shut out of the political process are able to move elsewhere. On a national level, demographics will shift their political identities over time to line up with appeals that parties are making to them. First-past-the-post electoral systems always result in a two-party system. Even though the Tories in the UK looked like they were on the verge of disappearing in the late 90s and early 00s, they're still doing pretty well after reorganizing.
"What you are proposing is the Democratic-Lite version. There is not enough difference between what you would propose and the current white-wing of the Democratic Party to create any differences.
The party you are describing is the current. Mass. Republican party and is completely irrelevant to politics.
Posted by superdestroyer | May 14, 2008 11:39 AM"
This is largely a product of how far to the right the GOP has gotten on some issues with regard to generational change(gay rights) and how insane its gotten on others (foreign policy, the budget deficit). Over the long term on social issues, there isn't really anywhere for the GOP to go to be able to replace older voters who die off. It's harder to justify things like criminalizing marijuana, railing against rap music, being scared of brown people and atheists or banning gay marriage when younger generations see such views as creepy, a greater percentage of the population is non-white and/or non-religious and young evangelicals start becoming apolitical once again. Pounding away on the immigration-bashing drum will also ensure that Latinos, who will likely grow as a portion of the population no matter what tinkering is done on immigration laws on the margins, grow and remain Democrats as they get richer. In addition, being a global warming denialist is the equivalent of saying you're a crazy person who thinks the moon landing was faked. Nobody trusts the GOP on economics anymore, the neocons' reputation is in the gutter and the GOP elite has only cultivated a younger generation of more neocons, not realists. Abortion is just about the only issue where they can maintain a clear conservative position that has some relevance to a critical mass of younger people to maintain a movement.
However, in politics, every trend has an end point. Even the LDP's monopoly on power in Japan was interrupted at one point. No political trend is a perpetual motion machine that can move off into infinity. In all likelihood, the GOP make the changes necessary that they will hold onto some relevance at the national level for the next generation, but the question is whether they will make so few changes that they will be mostly a Southern party at the national level that can be a spoiler but can't accomplish anything, a viable contender with the Democrats or often in power.
In addition, a near-random event can change politics for the medium-term in major ways. Bush was heading for being a one-term burnout before 9/11 allowed himself to wrap himself in the flag. New issues will also likely emerge that we don't see now, but it's not for certain they will be easy enough to fit onto a liberal vs. conservative spectrum.
I want to know why the GOP is having trouble attracting the white, non-college educated working class cracker vote.
Re: JonF, you don't cheat in the regular season if you know you're going to the playoffs regardless. It's the championship that counts, not any one game.
The 2006 election was a lot more important than just a "regular season" play. By losing control of Congress the GOP lost control of effective governance-- at best, they can gridlock the government but can't accomplish anything to further their own agenda. Worse, gridlock works against them at the presidential level, since it makes Bush look even more incapable than he is (if that's possible) and forces unpopular vetos (see SCHIP veto, and the looming housing rescue veto). Losing Congress in 2006 was like the South losing control of the Mississippi in the Civil War: a major strategic disaster that spells big trouble for future success. If the GOP was capable of rigging elections the Democrats would have made only minor gains in 2006, barely taking the House and capturing only a couple Senate seats.
I can't imagine corporate america allowing the GOP to go down the tubes. I expect that the lower my taxes bail out my mistakes platform of the superrich, which is the GOP program, was supposed to be hitched seamlessly to the anti-Darwinist anti that (all too alluring) gay sex and marriage wing. The evangelicals, though, played jihad in so many GOP districts that a good percentage of GOP-ers who make it through the primaries have that spaced out, bugged eyed look of Dobson babies, and have a tendency to want to torture illegal immigrants even before they come into the country (that'll show em!). So, they scare sane people. And by the poetry of association, the idea that you should get rid of the capital gains tax and that you should rescue poor braindead Schiavo have started to hang together. Just like being anti-gun and pro-abortion, issues that aren't logically tied together get tied together in our ideological profiling.
So, an interesting time is coming up - as the Corporate stooge Republicans turn on the Evangelical Feeb Republicans in a battle royale. Since Evangelical Feebs could easily become anti-Free Trade types, this is going to be interesting. Huckabee may be the wave of the future.
Reality Man -
I totally agree wit you about the future of the GOP, if they choose it. Social conservatism is dying, at least as it exists today and 2008 will be its burial. There will still be people on the right and left that disagree on social matters. I don’t see the USA turning into the Netherlands anytime soon. But the social conservatism of the future will be so different than that of the present, so eclectic on certain issues, that no apparatus today would be capable of running on it politically. For example, young people today are far more accepting of gay marriage than their parents but at the same time, less accepting of unrestricted abortion rights. What pol out there today could possibly run on that and win? Basically, a Ron Paul style Libertinism seems to be taking hold here. Do as you wish in life, just as long as you don’t hurt anyone else.
On the other hand, I fail to see how fiscal conservatism, one that is smart and honest, has been damaged beyond repair. Bush has governed as a big government conservative; differing from big government liberalism in its incompetence and its corruption. I’m 28, a solid Democrat and definitely left-leaning but even I raise an eyebrow or two when I hear Dems talk about “ending poverty”. Reducing poverty is one thing, as is making the condition of poverty in the US more humane but ending it is something entirely different. And there are plenty my age much further to the right than me on issues like this, many don’t really care much at all. Basically, I guess some think that if you weren’t born into abject poverty, you might be able to get rich someday. I like to think that I know better than that though.
Comments closed May 28, 2008.
| 
Heads in the Sand
Watch out Hillary!
Posted by Natascha | May 14, 2008 4:20 AM