What the 2004 Election means

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

November 2, 2004 was one of the best nights for the Republican Party, ever.  Monumental.  Bigger than 1972, bigger than 1980.  The big picture:

-Not only did the Republicans hang on to the White House and both houses of Congress for the third straight election, but they expanded their lead in all three.  No party has had this sort of success since the Democrats in the Depression.

-President Bush, the most embattled President since Nixon, legitimized his presidency.  Not only did he win the popular vote; he won a straight-up majority of the popular vote.  The first to do so since his father in 1988.  He can now claim that a majority of Americans supports him.  A huge, huge demon of the GOP has been exorcised.

-The GOP essentially scored a regicide against the Democrats in the defeat of Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle.  Not only are is the GOP by far the dominant party in Washington, but they rendered the Democrats headless.

So, what happens next?

The Republicans are on the clock.  George W. Bush and the Republicans will, quite justifiably, either get the credit or the blame for the state of the nation in 2008.  Kerry can't take credit for an economic recovery, should it come.  But if the economy is still in the crapper in 2008, Bush can't pin that on Clinton.  If there's another terrorist attack, that was a Bush intelligence failure.  If we can't capture OBL, that's a Bush intelligence failure.  If Iraq is a thriving Democracy and Al Queida is utterly destoryed, that is a Bush triumph.

This is a very good thing for America.  I think that, when 2008 rolls around, we're going to have a pretty good idea whether the Republicans have done their job, or need to be sent home.

In any event, don't count on the Republicans having this much power for much longer.  History tells us that no party can have this much of a hold on things for any amount of time.   A pendulum swing to the Democrats is inevitable.  EVERYTHING that happens from this point on is the GOP's responsibility, and unless we get an absolutely utopian United States this term, Americans will start handing things over to the Democrats.

[No more McShame]

If memory serves didn't Democrats control the House for 40 years before 1994?  Except for a few years during the Reagan '80s they had the Senate too.  I don't see House control changing anytime soon due to redistricting.  Senate either because of political changes in the South and Prarie States.  As far as the Presidency goes, we will probably go Dem in 2008.  Depends on the candidates.  History does say 8 years is enough for one party in the White House.  of course 1980-1992 and 1932-1952 are the exceptions to this.

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

If memory serves didn't Democrats control the House for 40 years before 1994?  Except for a few years during the Reagan '80s they had the Senate too.  I don't see House control changing anytime soon due to redistricting.  Senate either because of political changes in the South and Prarie States.  As far as the Presidency goes, we will probably go Dem in 2008.  Depends on the candidates.  History does say 8 years is enough for one party in the White House.  of course 1980-1992 and 1932-1952 are the exceptions to this.

Yeah, but how long did the Democrats control the House, the Senate, and the White House in that time?  For two years?  It's a very, very difficult position to hold in American politics.  The fact that the Republicans will have done it for six, and maybe eight years?  An amazing accomplishment.  But it simply can't last.

[Beet]

If memory serves didn't Democrats control the House for 40 years before 1994?  Except for a few years during the Reagan '80s they had the Senate too.  I don't see House control changing anytime soon due to redistricting.  Senate either because of political changes in the South and Prarie States.  As far as the Presidency goes, we will probably go Dem in 2008.  Depends on the candidates.  History does say 8 years is enough for one party in the White House.  of course 1980-1992 and 1932-1952 are the exceptions to this.

Yeah, but how long did the Democrats control the House, the Senate, and the White House in that time?  For two years?  It's a very, very difficult position to hold in American politics.  The fact that the Republicans will have done it for six, and maybe eight years?  An amazing accomplishment.  But it simply can't last.

What's really unprecedented is not control by the Republican party per se, but control by conservative ideology. Yes, Democrats controlled the House for 40 years, and during those years they also controlled the Presidency for a sum total of 14 years (1961-69, 1977-81, 1993-95).

However, during that time the Democrats were an ideologically diverse party. Its strongest base remained the conservative Southern constituency, of which included many evangelical Christians. However it certainly also had a liberal Northern wing. It also had a rural, midwestern farm belt wing. This coalition was based mostly on interests, and, with the brief exception of the 89th Congress, generally not fashioning some society based on ideological foundations. The current Republican party (and Democratic party) are recognized broadly as ideological, hence the single-party control is not unprecedented, but the single-ideology control is.

[JNB]

   By numbers alone, the Democrats had complete control of congress + the presidency from 1933-47, 49-53, 61-69, 77-81 and from 93-95, though from the 30s to the 60s, that number included many Wallace style sountren Democrats.

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

If memory serves didn't Democrats control the House for 40 years before 1994?  Except for a few years during the Reagan '80s they had the Senate too.  I don't see House control changing anytime soon due to redistricting.  Senate either because of political changes in the South and Prarie States.  As far as the Presidency goes, we will probably go Dem in 2008.  Depends on the candidates.  History does say 8 years is enough for one party in the White House.  of course 1980-1992 and 1932-1952 are the exceptions to this.

Yeah, but how long did the Democrats control the House, the Senate, and the White House in that time?  For two years?  It's a very, very difficult position to hold in American politics.  The fact that the Republicans will have done it for six, and maybe eight years?  An amazing accomplishment.  But it simply can't last.

What's really unprecedented is not control by the Republican party per se, but control by conservative ideology. Yes, Democrats controlled the House for 40 years, and during those years they also controlled the Presidency for a sum total of 14 years (1961-69, 1977-81, 1993-95).

However, during that time the Democrats were an ideologically diverse party. Its strongest base remained the conservative Southern constituency, of which included many evangelical Christians. However it certainly also had a liberal Northern wing. It also had a rural, midwestern farm belt wing. This coalition was based mostly on interests, and, with the brief exception of the 89th Congress, generally not fashioning some society based on ideological foundations. The current Republican party (and Democratic party) are recognized broadly as ideological, hence the single-party control is not unprecedented, but the single-ideology control is.

I'm not sure that is quite as accurate as simply the fact that the GOP has, quite successfully, picked and chose the right "wedge issues."  Like I said on another thread.  They have three or four pet issues that resonate with many, many Americans.  But I don't think this means that there is a single-ideology control.  The Republicans are still predominantly the party of business, management, and capital.  The Democrats are still primarily the party of labor.

The Democrats' job, I am becoming more and more convinced, is to erode the GOP's stranglehold on these pet issues, while still staying true to their leftist roots.

[Beet]

   By numbers alone, the Democrats had complete control of congress + the presidency from 1933-47, 49-53, 61-69, 77-81 and from 93-95, though from the 30s to the 60s, that number included many Wallace style sountren Democrats.

Yeah, not to sound like a broken record, but the Democrats even then, as soon as the New Deal euphoria passed in the late 30s, were a very diverse, split party based on interests. In many ways they still are. That's a huge point to understand. The Republican party today is a diverse party, but not nearly as diverse as the Democrats were and are much more united in their actions and goals. Actually, there is a recent book out called "Culture War? The Myth of a Polarized Electorate" that has some great insights onto how the political elites and leaders have become much more polarized in recent decades; especially compared to the electorate, and how they are slowly pulling the electorate apart. In parties today are driven by "ideologues" rather than "professional politicians"... a trend that has been going on for decades.

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

   By numbers alone, the Democrats had complete control of congress + the presidency from 1933-47, 49-53, 61-69, 77-81 and from 93-95, though from the 30s to the 60s, that number included many Wallace style sountren Democrats.

Ok, I didn't realize there was the 61-69 period.  So one-party control to this extent is not unprecedented.  It still is usually fleeting, and the Democrats will claw back into it sooner or later.  If anything, the Republicans will self-destruct under their own hubris - they'll go too far, and Americans will say "enough is enough."

[JNB]

If memory serves didn't Democrats control the House for 40 years before 1994?  Except for a few years during the Reagan '80s they had the Senate too.  I don't see House control changing anytime soon due to redistricting.  Senate either because of political changes in the South and Prarie States.  As far as the Presidency goes, we will probably go Dem in 2008.  Depends on the candidates.  History does say 8 years is enough for one party in the White House.  of course 1980-1992 and 1932-1952 are the exceptions to this.

Yeah, but how long did the Democrats control the House, the Senate, and the White House in that time?  For two years?  It's a very, very difficult position to hold in American politics.  The fact that the Republicans will have done it for six, and maybe eight years?  An amazing accomplishment.  But it simply can't last.

What's really unprecedented is not control by the Republican party per se, but control by conservative ideology. Yes, Democrats controlled the House for 40 years, and during those years they also controlled the Presidency for a sum total of 14 years (1961-69, 1977-81, 1993-95).

However, during that time the Democrats were an ideologically diverse party. Its strongest base remained the conservative Southern constituency, of which included many evangelical Christians. However it certainly also had a liberal Northern wing. It also had a rural, midwestern farm belt wing. This coalition was based mostly on interests, and, with the brief exception of the 89th Congress, generally not fashioning some society based on ideological foundations. The current Republican party (and Democratic party) are recognized broadly as ideological, hence the single-party control is not unprecedented, but the single-ideology control is.

  I forgot who said this, but up untill the 70s, there were the equivlent to 4 parties in congress. One was the Conservative Southren Democrats, one was the labor-liberal northren Democrats, the conservative main street Republicans and the business friendly by otherwise liberal NorthEastren Republicans.

[Beet]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Beef, I completely agree with you on wedge issues, but I see the GOP's positions on social and economic issues as (however unlikely) tied together rather effectively in a vision for the nation. It's hard to say Bush does not have a vision of what he wants America to look like. I'm not saying Democrats do not have a vision. But when their presidential campaigners speak, they generally tend to speak to self-interest (people getting more health care, people getting social security, etc) rather than to "values" (the "ownership society").  Economic self-interest was the most effective thing for the Democrats in the 1930s to 1970s, but the average middle class American today is pretty well off, and perhaps have more time to worry about what cultural values society is going to look like than their own poverty.

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

  I forgot who said this, but up untill the 70s, there were the equivlent to 4 parties in congress. One was the Conservative Southren Democrats, one was the labor-liberal northren Democrats, the conservative main street Republicans and the business friendly by otherwise liberal NorthEastren Republicans.

Of course, by similar analysis, you could say there are four parties today: The Christian moralist Republicans, the labor-liberal northern Democrats, the Libertarian Sagebrush Republicans, and the wealthy, old-money liberal-elite Democrats.  Although in actual voting, you would find much more party unity than you would in, say, the 1950s.

[Sam Spade]

What I noticed (because I lived in Texas at the time) today is how similar this election was to Bush's re-election in Texas in 1998.

Then, the Republicans took every statewide office, took the Senate for the first time since Reconstruction and placed the Democrat party as a secondary party, which hasn't changed since.

We'll see whether this follows according to plan this time.  I really don't know.

[JNB]

   It is hard to compare this election to others. The numbers most match the 76 election of Carter, but Carter won mainly because of Watergate still lurking in the background, also his coat tails were very short(though after the 74 mid terms the Democrats had an almost 2-1 majority in congress).

    In terms of raw votes and electoral votes, it is not a landsilde in the least, also unlike his fathers and Reagans victories, Bush victory here like 2000 is more regional than national in nature. Reagans strength was in every region, Bush is more or less limited to the stated in the big-L.

   Overall though, in terms of winning a percentage of votes, and in terms of coat tails, this victory is similar to 1980, where one has to remeber Reagan got barely over 50% of the vote against Carter and former liberal Republican Anderson.