The Democrats in decline

National Post ^ | November 9 2002 | Andrew Coyne

[ChadGore]

How bad was the loss ?

Today's democrat party is disconnected from leadership power at every level of government.

1) The democrat party doesn't have the White House.(1R-0d)
2) The democrat party lacks a majority in the Senate.(51R-48d-1)
3) The democrat party lacks a majority in the House of Representatives.(226R-209d)
4) The democrat party lacks a majority of Governors seats across the 50 states.(25R-25d)
5) The democrat party lacks a majority of State Houses across all 50 states. (25R-22d)

Today's democrat party doesn't enjoy majority leadership at either the state or federal level.

[knighthawk]

Ping

[ChadGore]

This is sooo right ! This is not even the first time a Republican president has governed with the help of a Republican House and Senate. That happened in 2000, for the first time in nearly a century, though it was overlooked in all the Florida madness.

[tet68]

Until it is completed, the Democrats will be on the defensive.

I don't want them on the defensive,
I want them on the run!
I want their leadership routed and broken!
I want their dispirited followers slapping their heads and crying,"How could we have been so BLIND !"

[gcruse]

bttt

[aspiring.hillbilly]

Aint that great,,,but they need to be obliterated long term,,,pieces of crap like hillary, schumer, and lautenburg, dirtbin, etc. getting elected is still problematical..

[Jhensy]

Perhaps the most concise and clear essay I've seen that captures what's really been happening. Save this one for posterity.

[537 Votes]

People were concerned about terorrism and saw Bush as doing something about it. Bush chose to campaign for Republicans. His popularity carried over.

In the meantime, the Democrats tried to run on 'Economy, Stupid' but it didn't amount to anything, because people knew the ranting was overblown. The economy is weak, but except for certain regions (where I live, gag!), it's not that bad. And no one this side of LewRockwell.com and Democrats Underground actually believes we're living in the early years of Great Depression II.

The economy should improve by 2004, and in that year, Republicans should be running on that.

[fatguy]

Bump for after dinner

[jdege]

I don't want the Democrats obliterated, I want their ideas obliterated.

When they wake up and realize that they were wrong, I'll welcome back into the fold.

[uncbob]

Just two years later, the GOP took both the Senate and the House, on the strength of the famous "Contract With America."

When is this MYTH going to quit being propagated

The CONTRACT was an excellent idea and a good thing but exit polls showed very few GOP voters even were aware of it or knew what it containted

It was the GUN OWNERS and CHRISTIAN CONSERVATIVES who angered bt Clinton's first two years either switched to the GOP or turned out in droves

Clinton and dem congressman even admited his gun control policy cost the dems the house

[arielb]

Here's something else that has changed. It used to be that the democrats could rely on the media which was ABC, NBC, CBS and CNN. Talk radio came out in force giving conservatives a voice, the internet leveled the playing field and Fox News is now the major news channel. So while Dan Rather is still an idiot and the NY Times continues to hide its bias, it's clear that the dems don't have the media advantage-the so called 4th branch of govt-that they used to rely on.

[Ann Archy]

You would have to be one of the STUPIDEST people NOT to have known about the Contract With America!!! Newt was smart enough to even put the whole thing in the TV GUIDE!!!
Man, I just PRAY that Pubbies were just yanking those pollsters chains.......

[Illbay]

Few FReepers seem to recall how during the 2000 elections Mr. Bush was routinely dismissed as a "lightweight," as "the shrub."

Oh, and that wasn't just on TOMPETERDAN or CNN. It was on FREE REPUBLIC.

Here are a couple of threads from during the 2000 campaign, showing the venom of the Buchananites, one of the most virulently anti-Bush factions. There were TONS of similar posts, many even worse in their disdain for our President.

Like it or not, that disdain continued on to the general election. There were people, conservatives, who were just NOT going to vote for Bush, period. Their reasons were outlined by those of them who participated on FR, time and time again.

Then came 9/11. And things changed, A LOT. You saw it here on FR. Even some of the worst critics of Pres. Bush here began to change their view of him.

And I think that this, too, was reflected in the enthusiasm for which conservative voters turned out last Tuesday in support of Pres. Bush's call to return the Senate to Republican hands.

That and (IMO) the new voting procedures implemented after the Florida debacle (which Dems hadn't yet figured out how to circumvent) turned this into a juggernaut for the GOP.

And for that reason, I think that Bush will win in 2004, because he will have his constitutency of loyal conservative as well as more moderate Republican voters, and likely some increasingly-disaffected "Reagan Democrats" who like the cut of Bush's jib.

[Illbay]

And the LewRockwell.com types have been saying it for 50 years.

[Illbay]

I disagree wholeheartedly. Yes, conservatives Christians, etc., joined the coalition, but conservatives WERE energized by the Contract with America. And voters HAD heard of it and knew what it was and what it meant.

Remember that not all the voters who put the GOP into power were necessarily conservatives; some were simply sick of the Democrats and the way they had run the House bank, etc.

As far as the gun owners are concerned, btw, they had more effect in 2000 than at any other time previously. Even Bill Clinton grudgingly admitted it was so.

[Wolfstar]

Thank you for posting this thought-provoking article, Knighthawk. I fervently hope the author's analysis is correct.

[Dark Watch]

"There were people, conservatives, who were just NOT going to vote for Bush, period. Their reasons were outlined by those of them who participated on FR, time and time again."

Some on the list weren't satisfied with being "force fed" a candidate and not given a chance of debates, choice, etc.  It turned out well in the long run but it has cause me to watch, even more closely, what is going on in the Republican Party.

You may think this tactic is kosher but it is leaving the individual the decision to voting for the "lesser of two evils".  Again, we got the same thing here in North Carolina with Elizabeth Dole.  Will it turn out good?  Well, we just have to wait and see won't we?

 

[AFPhys]

Then came 9/11. And things changed, A LOT. You saw it here on FR. Even some of the worst critics of Pres. Bush here began to change their view of him.

One of the funniest things about the phenomenon is that although many people changed, President Bush and Laura were pretty much the same people they have been for years. It was only then that many could finally understand the value of his steadiness and leadership, and appreciated his wife for the classy First Lady she is.