The REAL problem for Democrats is that DLC thinks like who backs them...private business. The DLC arose from the union of high tech companies and free trade oriented merchants who saw the Clintons as pliant on an agenda of deregulation and rolling-back worker protection in the name of fostering growth because these new industries were "different" and not like manufacturing.
On the other hand....the unions who were far more confrontational lost the money race for the Party's soul.
That's where all the frustration is...because the Boomers didn't respect the need for unions in the 80s and 90s and now we have an hourglass-society based on a few wealthy people, a lot of people living beyond their means, and giant underclass just waiting for the next batch of rioting to begin.
This ain't about nat'l defense, it's about understanding that the Democrats won by being aggressive, and confrontational when they were successful. This goes from the lowest union captain to Strom Thurmond's filibusters.
But understand the Republicans don't have as much regionalism anymore to cause primaries surprises. McCain isn't not going to win, Giuliani can win if the economy (to the GOP) appears to be in the toilet.
Republican voters are reactionary. If they perceive the economy to be bad/good or if they perceive Iraq to be bad/good...it will switch who is the nominee. And probably no candidate can win under different circumstances.
While it's true that Mike Huckabee would be able to use the "Clinton defense"...that will probably be unnecessary because the national GOP will want to run not on a domestic agenda but on an international one of "stay the course". (Crazy though it may sound.)
Missing is C-dog Hagel who I think would be a nightmare candidate for nearly all the Democrats and I think Hagel wins the nomination if the GOP base is convinced the economy is going in the right direction (for them) whilst Iraq is a mess (again in their eyes)
If Iraq is going great, and the economy is great: Allen or similiar inflatable man wins.
If Iraq is going great and the economy reeks...that's Giuliani's cue.
If both are seemingly in the shitter..the Party will let Romney spend his own money to lose to pretty much any Democrat outside of George Galloway.
Democrats in Congress aren't talking enough about issues Latinos care about. If they do, Latinos often find themselves in gerrymander districts where they are not dispostive in terms of an electoral race. Do we really want to see Kerry try to place soccer?
The only person who should read these findings carefully is Arnold Schwarzenegger. He finds himself at the crossroads of Latino political involvement in Califoria. Right behind him is Rick Perry who has a split Republican base and plenty of ways for Chris Bell to cause problems for him. And just behind him is Jon Kyl who is getting a boost from Arizona's own D governor, Grace Napolitano. If not for her tough stance on immigration, Latinos might be getting for energized (within the state).
Still, too many operatives are wasting time trying to crank out the Latino vote when it's clear from '04 where teh party has to go...women.
Again, I think this is pretty hysterical and not very meaningful. Lamont's opposition to Lieberman is really about making Vichy Democrats responsible for the Iraq War pay. However...personally Lieberman doesn't fit the VD mold.
But Lieberman is a fool. The three way race is a guaranteed way to ensure that something unpredictable happens. Schlessinger has no chance if the Dems unite around a nominated Lamont. But if Lieberman continues to rile the Democrat base by running as an independent....God help us.
I can already hear the spin now...about how the Republican's ascension will be a testament to why you don't cut and run...etc...etc....and if Joe wins the primary...it will be about moral values and "staying the course". And if Lamont becomes the next senator?!? The Democrat insiders will just get that much more defensive and afraid that in '08 the "liberal fringe" is going to take out the trash.
The liberal blogosphere and the radical right-wing have the same problem: both their parties are run by corporate whores who are far more interested in making deals and getting paid that about establishing some sort of...uh...agenda.
You are right but you neglect to mention the real pressure in the cooker.
Right now, educational costs alone have been the driver for a widening gap in wealth. But it's also that immigration and even women's rights movements overexpanded the labor supply far too quickly for the job creation. So for years, we've seen little or no growth in the real wage and an appalling willingness to pass on structural financing issues to our children.
But the demographics indicate that already, this is changing. The Boomers and their parents are dangerously close to death to hold all our nations wealth. But they do, and as no workers are being created to fill their absences...already there is such a push that in my Los Angeles neighborhood...many retail establishments need new workers and can't find them. So the inevitable outcome will be that suddenly young people will find themselves commanding more and more money because labor competition will be gone. And when the dollar declines and collapeses the "wealth class" will see their means evaporate while wages will rise.
So much as people are struggling now because they didn't take education seriously or because they really belived the conservative or DLC economic propaganda...soon the real dilemma will be what this younger generation does with it's new found status and a nation of old, decrepit people requiring the majority of the government's largesse?
If there is going to be a big shift in NE-3 the pollster's own bias as to reliable voters means it won't show. Instead of sampling non-voters, they will take those who are registered and those people right now will still say the Republican. But if Kleeb distinguishes himself, it becomes the Republican and Scott Kleeb.
Except Lieberman is actually a very moderate Democrat and his position on the war equates with where other almost-Republicans put themselves in places like the West and South.
But yes, the Connecticut Senate primary is beginning of '08 because of Lamont's willingness to attack an incumbent in the primary. Up to now, no one was directly challenging incumbents, choosing instead to have proxy-fights in open seats--(re: Tammy Duckworth).
And for that reason, the Clintons should be very worried.
In the 2002 vote, there were three stripes of Democrats. Those who refused to support the authorization of force because they didn't want to go to war. The Feingolds and Boxers if you will. At the other end were the hawkish Dems....the wannabe Scoop Jacksons and Max Clelands like Blanche Lincoln, Mary Landrieu, and Ken "purple mountains" Salazar. (Lieberman falls here.) And then there are people like Hillary Clinton who voted for the war because they wanted to look strong on defense: John Kerry, Tom Daschle, Chuck Schumer, Byron Dorgan. These Vichy Democrats are where the party is vulnerable. Democrats can likely win nationally with Blanche Lincoln or Russ Feingold's stance but Kerry's has already proven to be too improbable.
So Lamont's zeal is misguided I think in that Lieberman always has been a closet Republican...but not really a Vichy Democrat. Nevertheless I think primary battles are good for the grassroots....good for everyone except the insiders. And should Lamont lose, he shouldn't kick himself too hard...Joe didn't vote for the war before he voted against it.
Though I have to give Warner and Feingold serious credit for basically doing the right thing. (Find candidates they like and handing 'em checks)...this is sort of getting out of hand because of the internecine war between Dean and Rahm.
Everyone is so concerned about spinning the '06 results to help themselves personally (outside of Dean himself maybe) that we are in real danger of appearing directionless and a cacophony of madness.
After all, if the Dems pick up governorship and state legislature seats...(which is probably going to happen en masse) Dean can pump his chest and thumb his nose at Rahm and Chuckles.
But if the Dems do take back the Senate or House you can imagine the DCCC and DSCC will want all the credit for any gain...from the mayor's win in Paducah, Kentucky to Jack Carter's surprise defeat of John Ensign. And even if they don't do much, Rahm's already arguing his own ineptitude is the reason he should replace Nancy Pelosi as minority leader....ughghghgh.
So add Warner and Feingold's exploits onto that and it's going to be nauseating. Soon Jerome and others will be quick to point out how dominant Warner's pet MapChangers were in their '06 results, and Feingold's decision to allow voting for his Progressive Patriots meant that he's already interjected himself into the California gubernatorial race.
Those sort of high profile races are bad news...(and why much as I support Angelides I didn't vote for him to be a PP).
The August recess is almost here and then there's one month to adjournment. Let's hope the Dems don't bring the cart before the horse.
The mistake here is that one is often made about China.
Political beliefs can be broken down into two axes...on involving non-economic behavior and one invovling economic behavior.
Liberals and conservatives usually take their moniker based on non-economic behavior ... because that's the propoganda people read in fifth grade about the founding fathers...
But economic behavior is equally important, and that's where the libertarian-totalitarian axis comes in.
Most people who call themselves liberals would agree with the libertarians more than the totalitarians...but that's just because we are Americans and we are still a "frontier" nation.
In China, it's the same deal...economic freedoms are increasing...but non-economic ones are not.
So it's not that libertarians need special treatment in the "new majority". It's understanding that in the 1990s most of the Democrats didn't respect the common ground they might share with Republicans on issues...and now that the tables have turned...guys like Paul have no ability to stop the DeLay-Bush-Roberts troika.
So sure, you can damn well bet when the GOP is on the ropes will come to our aid faster than others...but it's our responsibility to nuture the relationship for the long haul.
Having just been to Mexico to work on a master's thesis for a state there, I can say without a doubt that while the state in question was a place where the PAN dominates...there is some sentiment that Fox wasted his six years by allowing NAFTA to be so one sided.
It just tickles me pink that after Bush thought he was going to overthrow Chavez that Latin America has responded unequivocally to toss out conservative regimes in all but Peru and Colombia.
The totals on Sunday were a sample of the total ballots. Unlike the United States, Mexico has a federal agency count votes for its federal offices and there is a special jurisdiction court just for electoral challenges.
I'm one of those people eager to see a Mexican President willing to question NAFTA, for their sake.