Democrats and Republicans: losses, explanations, and excuses
It’s been shaping up for quite some time now—the Democrat explanation in the event of an Obama loss.
Of course, if Obama should win the election—a distinct possiblity—excuses will not come into play. It will be the Republicans who will have to regroup. But in the case of Republicans I think there will be no mystery: Bush’s enormous unpopularity, and the tendency of Americans to want change after many years of a single party in office, are explanation enough. Some will also feel that Republicans would do better to run a “true” Conservative, whatever that is. Whether correct or not, this is at least a theory that has to do with issues and political philosophy.
When Dukakis lost in 1988 Democrats seemed to be fairly realistic in their reactions, perhaps helped along by the fact that his loss was so definitive. At that time, many came to the conclusion that they were losing because they were nominating uncharismatic candidates who were too liberal. This led to the emergence of the most successful Democratic Presidential candidate since Roosevelt and Truman: Bill Clinton. He had charisma up the wazoo, and positioned himself as a “new” Democrat, more centrist than the traditional liberal.
It worked very, very well. But the general lesson was rather quickly lost on Democrats. This is at least partly (perhaps entirely?) due to the fact that the next two elections were so close that they lent themselves to claims of “we wuz robbed.” The 2000 race was such a photo finish that it featured the additional unfortunate and unprecedented situation of being decided by the Supreme Court, an event which furthered the lasting perception among Democrats that it was stolen.
The “stolen” meme prevented much soul-searching among Democrats for the causes of their loss—or at least, for the reasons they didn’t win definitively. The loss was actually due to the fact that Gore was not only tied to the embarrassed Clinton administration, but was another uncharismatic candidate. However, the 2004 election featured an even more liberal and even less personally compelling candidate, John Kerry. But when he lost (still closely, but a bit more definitively), the new explanation was not that he had weaknesses the opposition was able to exploit, but that he was unfairly “swiftboated” by cruel and vicious lies. And in both 2000 and 2004 the Democrats’ cries of election fraud on the part of Republicans (ignoring evidence of Democratic fraud) reached a thunder pitch.
In Obama, the Democrats seem to have found someone with charisma, so perhaps they’ve learned that lesson. But he is probably the most liberal candidate since Jimmy Carter, not to mention being exceedingly inexperienced and yet loaded with bad associates and heavy baggage.
Yellow Dog Democrats will vote for the Democratic candidate no matter what. Conservative Republicans will not vote for him/her, whether he/she be black or red white and blue. In order to win an election, a candidate must appeal to voters in the middle (this includes Democrats in the middle). But Obama’s aforementioned inexperience, liberal record, and shady associates are more than enough reason for some moderate voters to shy away.
However, the furor and rage that has been building all these years in the Democratic Party now gives us the fascinating although creepy prospect of an excuse for a possible loss being heavily pushed before a defeat has even occurred. This time the ever-present fraud allegations are combined with the far more toxic assertion that, if it occurs, Obama’s defeat will be the result of racism.
I don’t have to give you links; articles asserting this have been published in major periodicals at the rate of several a week for quite some time now. Sometimes they cite dubious interpretations of polls. Sometimes they merely state the case as though it is a self-evident fact. Sometimes they threaten—or fearfully predict, or both—race riots if Obama is not elected. But is there any question that, were Obama to lose, the main Democratic explanation will be that the perfection of Obama was rejected by the undeserving and racist American people?
These assertions tend to stir up the very trouble and anger they predict. But what’s even more important for Democrats would be that they would keep them from learning why they really lost, and profiting from it next time.
[ADDENDUM: You might find one of these helpful in the coming months.]
Neo,
Terrific analysis…
The one thing (really the only thing) that would please me about Obama’s being elected (and I now think it is virtually certain) is that it would obviate the possibility of the world-wide “America is too racist to elect a black man!” rant.
But then we have another problem: having seen this invocation of “virtual” racism work so well, the Democrats will then quickly take the next step. Any criticism of the Messiah, no matter how well-founded, is the outcome of “racism.”
Jamie Irons
My brother and 2 sister in laws have been Democrats all their lives and all 3 tell me they cannot vote for Obama and will not. there is not a racist bone in their bodies.
I have a different take: rather than excuses, this is a form of coercion. i.e. vote for BHO, or face the consequences of your racism: wide scale riots and general civil unrest.
Some of the statements I’ve read have been less thansubtle about what is promised if BHO looses the election.
physicsguy: that’s why I use the word “threat.” I absolutely agree that it’s coercion.
Jamie Irons: why are you so certain of Obama’s victory? I think it’s still very much a tossup, and that the debates could change things. Plus, the state polls seem to be headed in a good direction lately.
The use of the race card is in keeping with a world view that divides humanity into victims and oppressors. Any cause espoused by the victim class is a priori righteous; any support of the oppressor is motivated by the basest of all instincts. The same kabuki is played out in much of the world press regarding the state of Israel. Terrorist attacks are excused as self-defense by Palestinian freeom fighters; military responses by Israel constitute genocide.
There is no limit to the scapegoating and smearing currently underway in the MSM. Latest attack, though thankfully dwarfed by a real financial crisis, is on McCain/Palin for allegedly limiting access of reporters to meetings with world leaders. The campaign has astutely recognized an ambush in the making and averted it. Of course, it then leads to the charge of too much news management by the Republicans, because Palin clearly is a fool and only the diligence of the press will out her. Either way they win. Sooner or later the press will get their chance, and my belief is that Sarah Palin will be able to handle the pressure as well as anyone.
This is not the Democratic party of a couple of generations ago. Though their constituents may be habitually the same (Southern yellow dog democrats and Jewish progressives) the party is run by the extreme wing and they will brook no soul searching or self-criticism. It’s never their fault — it’s always racism, sexism, ageism, or some vast right wing conspiracy. No centrist Democrat still in the party has a snowball’s chance in hell of being chosen to the top of a national ticket. No moderate limited pro-choicer, no Lieberman, no centrist Democrat of any color, stripe, or pattern.
Irony: Sarah Palin wins converts every time she speaks. But she doesn’t, much.
Biden proves himself a semi-functional illiterate every time he speaks, and they won’t/can’t shut himself up.
Gift from Above: Michelle hasn’t been heard from in ages.
But what’s even more important for Democrats would be that they would keep them from learning why they really lost, and profiting from it next time.
I’d say that pearl is far more important to Republicans than Democrats…
daveg
Gift from Above: Michelle hasn’t been heard from in ages.
The ∅bama campaign got the message that anytime she spoke from the heart, without a script, she cost votes. Interesting that the same could be said of her husband.
Say 60 million people vote for Obama. That won’t matter. If McCain gets 61 million votes, this country is “racist”. If McCain gets 59 million votes, then we’re not.
So stupid.
Bill Clinton used an additional tactic which endeared him to the liberal base even when they were infuriated at some of his actions: he positioned himself as The Only One Who Can Save You From Conservatives. He played that fear well, and it was a huge part of his campaigns. It allowed him to govern more moderately with impunity.
With a Democratic Congress and Senate virtually assured, a reverse tactic would look at first to be a winner for McCain. Like me or not, I’m the only one who can prevent a liberal tsunami. Even though that formulation is more true for McCain than it was for Clinton, it still may not be as effective. Perhaps conservatives are less moved by that argument.
Since republicans aren’t goingn to vote for Obama anyway, the racists will have to come from the dems and independents.
Perhaps this isn’t post election strategy but still pre election strategy.
By posturing now rather than waiting till later are the Democrats attempting to restrain a possible Republican strategy of invoking deep seated White misgivings about a black candidate?
Are they sending this message to the Republicans: You go Willy Horton befor the election and we’ll scream racism for four years after the election? That would be my guess.
When The Chosen One has long time associates like Tony Rezko, Bill Ayers, “Reverend” Wright, and James Johnson,
When the Chosen One receives money from Fannie Mae lobbyists to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars,
When the Chosen One supports “post-birth abortion” (aka murder) of infants born as a result of certain attempted abortion procedures,
When the Chosen One has a history of flip flopping on issues specifically to cater to the audience of the moment,
When the Chosen One talks down about the uneducated “clinging” and “bitter” masses,
When the Chosen One considers a total ban on private ownership of firearms “reasonable” and “constitutional”,
When the Chosen One attempts to conduct foreign policy to delay military withdrawel from Iraq for his own political gain,
When the Chosen One exercises poor judgement in opposing the advice of US generals on the Surge strategy,
When the Chosen One manifestly has a complete lack of executive experience and,
When the Chosen One displays a general ignorance of basic information about the US (how many states are there again, how many memorialized soldiers are walking around on Memorial Day?),
What kind of an idiot would have to resort to something as stupid as racism to find a valid reason NOT to vote for this guy?!?!
The democrats need to find a new crutch as this racism card is worn out…
Interesting post and comments.
Assis Idiot: I think you are on the money. In my memory, as if through some type of electoral magic, voters tend to split their votes and not allow one party to control both Houses plus the Executive. So, whether or not this dynamic is obvious now, I expect it play out to some extent on election day.
Jam Iron: If Obama wins, I don’t expect the world to alter it’s fantasies about America. Maybe they will say: America is now only 49% racist…
neo – re: Repub appeal to the middle third of voters
I think Repubs also sometimes miss why they do not do better in elections. Repubs do better if they lead the middle third voters towards seeing the sensiblity of limited government and expanded opportunity. Repubs do worse when they pander to the middle third voters via supporting campaign finance reform, affirmative action, and other intrusive government policy.
I know McCain seemingly stands as the refutation of my theory. McCain exemplifies many Repubs in Washington who believe the way to win is to move “to the middle”. Those D.C. Repubs could not be more wrong.
Voters in the middle third are voters who are rightly busy living their lives, and thus are mostly disengaged from and less educated about politics and theories of how best to govern. Those voters are not firmly entrenched in any POLITICAL MIDDLE. Such is myth.
Instead, thoes voters are wide open to being educated and convinced about why limited government and expanded opportunity are superior. Rather than educating and winning those voters to their way of thinking, D.C. Repubs consistently try and pander to perceived “POLITICAL MIDDLE” thinking which does not actually exist. Instead of representing some fantasy “political middle” thinking, these voters represent busy people who are not obsessed with politics and theory.
I believe Governor Palin is evidence that my theory is correct. Even before she was picked, conservatives considered her one of us. She has the State of Alaska suing whatever agency recently declared the polar bear as an endangered species. She is one of us. That’s why such massive enthusiasm for her.
We’ve been missing conservative Repubs who would lead the middle third of voters. We’ve been stuck with D.C. Repubs who wrongly try to pander to that middle third – which pandering is frankly arrogant and condescending and angering – as it shows little confidence in the reasonability and intelligence of the middle third of voters.
Governor Palin is young and dynamic. Her appearance on the scene means conservative ideas will be championed over the next decade or more. Her appearance means relief from the condescending and wrongheaded Repub pandering to the middle third of voters. Governor Palin looks like a leader. This is a large part of what is driving the excitement which surrounds her.
If McCain loses, one of my fears is that many on the right will make the same mistake the Democrats did in 2000. They’ll see it as a sign from The Base that they need to be more doctrinaire in their conservatism and start expelling anyone who disagrees with the party line, as the Democrats did with Lieberman. And, sadly, some elements of the Republican base are every bit as crazy as their Daily Kos/DU counterparts. They just don’t have the same level of influence, for which we should all be grateful.
Immigration policy is a good example. I’m a fiscal and social conservative, yet I pretty much agree with Bush and McCain’s kinder and gentler approach. Some conservatives have this wet dream of millions of immigrants into trains headed for the border. That is simply not going to happen, and screaming “Amnesty!” every time we try to have a conversation isn’t going to solve anything.
Many people are very conservative on certain issues, but I don’t think most people are entirely conservative in every single issue Yes, McCain’s a moderate. So is Bush. So was Reagan, by many standards. So was Clinton. That’s why they won, for heaven’s sake.
Pingback:Fausta’s Blog » Blog Archive » The bailout, the terror warning, little Najoud, and the roundup
Bryan,
I used to think I was not “conservative on every single issue”. Then, during the 2004 election season, my (then “moderate”, now conservative) brother challenged me to declare which liberal positions I supported. I began an exhaustive look, and could only come up with green issues and gay marriage – both of which, in ensuing years, I have come to oppose.
I think in terms of one issue: Life, Liberty, Pursuit of Happiness. I often think of my issue as “maximizing opportunity.” This means – on whatever is the specific issue being discussed – my preference is to keep government out of the issue as much as is safely and humanely possible. My one issue loosely means I am conservative on every single issue.
On immigration, I believe the kind and gentle approach is to strengthen our nation via enforcing our border. Weakness and vulnerablility is not kindness. Once our border is strong, we can discuss solutions for people who have been here a long time.
I protest your “trains” characterization. If, as has been done in Arizona, we enforce immigration laws against employers: illegal immigrants will mostly be then leaving voluntarily, and on buses. They will mostly pay for their own bus tickets. They will be going to Mexico, not Buchenwald.
Asst. Village Idiot,
You receive a promotion. I don’t understand why the McCain campaign isn’t urging Blue Collar dems in particular to split their tickets. Vote McCain to keep Pelosi/Reid et al. in check. In addition to point out they truly have been a do-nothing congress.
It seems like the McCain campaign is in neutral. They need to get into gear.
The one electoral promise I firmly believe is that there will be riots and violence if Obama doesn’t win. The next few weeks would be a very good time to exercise your 2nd Amendment right, if you haven’t already done so.
Y2K2?
Racist? Where would we get that idea?
FredHjr Says:
September 22nd, 2008 at 4:35 pm
What hominid group did Obonga evolve from?
I bet you make this comment to all your black friends FredHjr.
kungfu Says:
“By posturing now rather than waiting till later are the Democrats attempting to restrain a possible Republican strategy of invoking deep seated White misgivings about a black candidate?”
By calling swing voters racists… great move. I have doubts about lefties, but most other Americans push back when attacked or told what to do…. Look how well the Guardian campaign in Ohio worked out…
I am in agreement with armchair pessimist. The sean penns and others are definitely throwing threat bombs out, speaking of the possibility of violence as they are.
For me, it has been no secret why libs want guns outlawed. They want total control through the courts and elections. They don’t want things broken and blown up. But make no mistake, they want total control, and they want everything. Gimme mine, and I’ll take yours.
I don’t see it calming down and straightening out. We are a nation divided. It doesn’t look good, from where I sit. I mean that.
Bryan C Says:
“Democrats did in 2000. They’ll see it as a sign from The Base that they need to be more doctrinaire in their conservatism and start expelling anyone who disagrees with the party line”
Maybe… but a lot of comes down to what style of conservative to be ‘more’ like. With the right flavor / type, more conservative might mean more appealing to the center… I think your western libertarian type conservative would do very well.
Great post neo..
and Armchair Pessimist:
I dont think your correct. though maybe that is wishful thinking. i can see incidents in different areas but i dont think full scale rioting.
I will say that things might be uncomfortable for a lot of people the day after the election depending on what views they keep inside.
I have never been able to follow the “racist” logic being deployed.
If Obama doesn’t get a majority of the white vote then we’re racist?
So, what particular reason do we ascribe to the fact that Obama was getting 90%+ of the black vote?
The Democrats are the ones constantly harping about racism so if amongst the traditional blue collar work- a -day world, some are prejudiced and simply won’t vote, then what – say that only Republicans are prejudiced? How can someone be labeled racist if they simply don’t vote because of skin color and dislike of McCain? I think the Dems will see a bunch of this.
armchair pessimist:
It’s not just Hollywood types. See this article in the Philadelphia Daily News by Fatima Ali:
Oh my there’s another Peter. I have now made myself more specific.
Just today someone at school said to me that it’s unlikely Obama will win because of racism in this country. And he said if Obama does win there will be a large risk of an assassination for the same reason.
Personally I think this country really has entered a post-racist era and I put no stock in any claim that states any significant portion Americans would vote against someone because of their “race”. I am however a little wary about suggestions of assassination. Somehow that isn’t entirely unimaginable…
Obama won’t get assassinated – he didn’t pick Hillary 🙂
Whoever it was up above that said Palin looks like a leader and that’s why she’s generating such enthusiasm – I say, amen.
If McCain loses, one of my fears is that many on the right will make the same mistake the Democrats did in 2000. They’ll see it as a sign from The Base that they need to be more doctrinaire in their conservatism and start expelling anyone who disagrees with the party line, as the Democrats did with Lieberman.
I don’t think this will happen. However, with respect to immigration, many moderate Democrats agree with the Republican base on the enforcement of immigration laws. It’s a popular view, except among hispanics and the far left.
hey, neo, incase you missed the end of THAT story:
here
I don’t buy the “racism” excuse and never did. I know people who do not have a racist bone in their bodies and who are lifelong Democrats too, but they are not going to vote for Obama because they don’t trust that he will do the right things in foreign policy, plus he exhibits not a clue about taxes and the economy. Admittedly, they are not Leftist Democrats. These are friends and people in my own family.
But people who are flocking to Obama’s Children’s Crusade Banner tend to be young males and young single females. Although a fair minority of young males are rallying to McCain. The Older Cohort Boomers who are unrepentent Sixties’ Leftists also carry the water for Obama. Younger Boomers tend more towards McCain. WWII Generation folks also favor McCain. There are also geographic factors at work as well as demographics.
I never voted for any candidate for office because I was tired of the prior holders of that office. That kind of reasoning emanates from idiots who never should be handed a ballot in the first place.
At least when the Mad Mullahs and other terrorists pick their targets during Obama’s years in the White House they are most likely to strike where the liberals and Leftists most congregate: in the cities on the coasts.
Neo.
You state:
However, the furor and rage that has been building all these years in the Democratic Party now gives us the fascinating although creepy prospect of an excuse for a possible loss being heavily pushed before a defeat has even occurred. This time the ever-present fraud allegations are combined with the far more toxic assertion that, if it occurs, Obama’s defeat will be the result of racism.
The furor and rage part is what worries me. Not because I’m afraid of riots if THE ONE doesn’t win. It’s more what it just does to people. I was living in New Orleans about the time the NAACP put out their ad accusing Bush of complicity if the dragging death of James Byrd. I knew a lot of black people and they knew me, and we were friends or at least friendly acquaintances. After that ad things were different in the interactions of many of my black friends and me. In most cases the disaffection was subtle. In a few, not so subtle.
Maybe they just wanted an excuse to act a little rude. Maybe not. In any event that ad was very wrong, hurtful and harmful and they should be ashamed. I hope we don’t see a bunch like it.
However, since you were kind enough to link to a GET OUT OF JAIL FREE card I offer one of a different sort – an amnesty from Dr. Walter Williams. It’s available at:
http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/wew/gift.html
Racism my a**. Just because i don’t own a Pit Bull doesn’t mean i don’t like dogs.
6/16/08: “Hey whitey, don’t be insulted”…inflammatory? no: it’s the “left’s” poor reading comprehension.
Frank Martin just put this up on his VariFrank blog:
I QUESTION THE TIMING.
“Is it at all reasonable to consider that the Democrats are willing to sink the economy for their own benefit?
I mean, wheres the downside for them? They get to nationalize everything, they get to return to the happy days of the Great Depression, its perfect. So why solve it? why not let it burn?”
After what I’ve seen so far, YES! It’s entirely reasonable, I’m afraid.
Paul Gordon,
thats been the plan since they were taken over by gramcians…
kadet, that story is long on fevered imagination, light on actual evidence for its claim. There are about a dozen other possible explanations for Malike’s report of his conversation with the Bush administration.
Thanks for the compliments, folks. I do my best to stay with the obvious, as it is so often neglected.
Obama played the race card. McCain was quick to denounce it. Now the MSM is playing the race card. The blogs should go after them for it.
Just wanted to say how much I enjoyed this thread! Thanks again.
Paul Gordon Says:
“I mean, wheres the downside for them?”
I’m not buying it… The Fed helped cause this crisis trying to avoid minor recessions (to the benefit of republicans). Ironically, the head of it knows more about stopping financial disasters in progress than accidently starting them… so he should stay on now that this is the current problem. I’m voting McCain btw, it’s just the way I see this.
Avoiding minor recessions are a benefit to Republicans?
Well yeah, given that causing recessions are a benefit to Democrats and a detriment to the poor and the middle class.
Ymarsakar Says:
“Avoiding minor recessions are a benefit to Republicans?
Well yeah, given that causing recessions are a benefit to Democrats and a detriment to the poor and the middle class.”
True, but what is that saying about no free lunch? Play today, pay tomorrow. We are at tomorrow. Its not all republicans and not all bad faith (like you said, who wants a recession)… but it is still time to pay part of the bill.