« Election Returns and Alternative Energy | Main | The Next Open Thread: Election Politics »

November 09, 2006


One quick note: Lois Murphy conceded yesterday. It's a shame because Rendell and Casey at the top of the ticket each got around 59-60% state-wide. The Dems won't have an opportunity like this again to take PA 06.

I have a question about CT: how did Lieberman and Chris Shays survive?

Shays survived because the D city areas underperformed (Bridgeport especially but also Norwalk). Shays won the suburban vote in most of the smaller well to do towns and the city suburbs. This is an anti-tax area.

Lieberman won by convincing indie voters that his nonartisam emssage and his experience and name recognition were more important than his hawkish support for the war. he blurred the differences before lamont could define him to the non-partisans.

Lamont's campaign ? Mistakes were made. Joe made fewer, and when you're the incumbent that's all you need.

Lieberman won because of the enduring appeal of supposed "bi partisanship" or nonpartisanship. He's above the fray. Plus incumbency, plus mistakes post primary by Lamont. But the appeal of the (phony) nonpartisanship angle is underplayed in post election analysis.

My home computer is still useless for posting on this site, so forgive me if I spew all pent-up reactions here.

The night looked for a while like it was going to be the too-traditional letdown: first it seemed it took forever to count the votes in Indiana, some bellwethers in KY went significantly against us, and, of course, Lieberman was an early splat. I thought pretty early we'd get the House, which was "not nothing", but, given the environment, taking it 220-215 would have been pretty small beer. The projection of 234 was immensely heartening. But then almost immediately it was on to the unlikelihood of grabbing the Senate. By 11PM, the MSBNC folk were correctly saying we'd need to run the table to succeed. It seemed a replay of 2004, where Kerry needed to take all the remaining possible states to win (and of course fell one short). A day and a half later, I still can't believe all the cards fell our way.

And because of that elongated, agonizing process, it's taken me some time to grasp just how immense this victory was. As strong as our gains were, it's more significant they were achieved from what was a deeply unfavorable field position. To wit:

Dems came into the year defending more open Senate seats than the Pubs (2-1). 2000 had been a GOOD year for our side; in normal circumstances, we should have been on defense. Instead, we took out six incumbents (we actually lost the open seat). (Republicans in 1994, by contrast, mostly picked up seats of retired Dems) Fine, the last three wins were close; so were Martinez/Bunning/Thune for the GOP in 2004. This was a beyond-superb showing.

We didn't have spectacular luck in the House races, and still picked up c. 30. My rough scan shows us losing about 15 seats by 4% or less, with another 5 still undeclared. Mimikatz is our resident maven on House races; I hope she can confirm this, but I don't recall the Pubs leaving anything like that on the table in 1994. Plus, as so many have pointed out, we were competing on a field radically redrawn to favor GOP incumbent protection; the '94 Pub class was aided by Southern redistricting that concentrated minorities in a limited number of districts, pushing the rest of the areas bright-red. The silver lining to this: Dems don't have to view '08 as a pure-defense year; they have plenty of ongoing targets, and fewer near-sure-losses to contend with.

Also, despite all the close losses, we find the Dems already at a numerical total about where the GOP peaked post '94. Not bad for a party allegedly gasping for air.

As far as Governorships: all our embattled Midwesterners won easily, we made six big gains, and barely lost (as in, 1%) races to incumbents in MN and RI.

And then, state legislatures, which were an unalloyed triumph (except in NY).

Those are the stats. My view of what it all means a bit later on today.

"Opposition to the Iraq war appears to have helped the Democratic cause"


If not for the Iraq war, the rest of the events would have just been the usual (normal and expected) wash of corrupt politics and inept government.

The Democrats should be very disappointed that they couldn't harvest even more seats and greater margins.

In 2008, the Democrats will have bought into responsibility for the Iraq war situation. They will have had power for two years, and will not be able to "stand outside the building and throw rocks at the windows." They will have been inside and will have in the public's eye assumed some responsilibity.

What do they say "be careful what you wish for!"

''The Democrats should be very disappointed that they couldn't harvest even more seats and greater margins.''

That's a ridiculous statement. 98% of incuments win and that's no exaggeration.


you are trying to put the brave front on it.

98% win normally.

This was no normal year.

3000 dead. 30000 wounded.
The national debt increasing at record rates.
Lobbyists running amok.
Leadership covering up.
etc., etc.

A golden opportunity was muddled through.

The NEW DEMOCRATs are not like the OLD LEADERSHIP.

You have a new breed of Politicans in Washington. It remains to be seen if they can be pressed into the old mold.

I hope not. The old type politicans, Republicans and Democrats, are eating America's lunch, eating America's young.

DemFromCT, you might note that I am a bit cynical. I am at my grandmoms, with my mother, and we are consoling each other for the pride of our family, the first grandson, the first son, my eldest brother who made sure his little sister was safe, Our Hero has gone back to that cesspool.

So much for Election Changes!

Correction: Richard Pombo was targeted by "the Democrats" 18 months ago. Just not the DC Dems. The ones here in CA and in the environmental community have been working on this one for a very long time.

In 1994 the Pubs indeed won 54 seats, but they netted 230 seats, and I believe that the Dems will surpass this. Joe Courtney is ahead in CT-02 and if he survives, will be the 29th Dem for 231 confirmed. In FL-13 the R won by 386 votes, but it appears that a highly improbable 18,000 voters had no vote recorded in that race. We could win that one too. I think there are recounts in NC-08 and WY-AL where the R's won. They are reportedly still counting in NM-01.

In 1994 it was a realignment of the South and according to Joe Scarborough, many of them won by margins of 10-15% in the end. Nothing like that here, as the moderate NE vote is not Dem for keeps. I think the Rove dirty tricks may have tipped as many as 5 or more races for them, like PA-06, OH-02 and OH-15 and a few others. Hard to say.

The real test is whether the Dems can keep the independents and the suburbanites. They can do it with a good dose of bipartisanship and common sense approaches to problems like improving energy efficiency, encouraging conservation and innovation, expanding college and other opportunities and starting a commission at least on health care (remember, Dems are congenitally different from the current GOP leadership because they are more interested in policy and government).

There could be a deal on immigration relatively quickly, since that is an issue where the Dems and Bush are more on the same page, and Hayworth's and Graf's losses in AZ will have some effect on the GOP House folks. I see this as like education was in early 2001. They could even have a deal on Soc Sec if Bush abandons private accounts or accepts some voluntary add-on private account as a face-saver, plus gradually raising both the earnings cap and raising the retirement age.

Pelosi has a lot of discipine and ego-strength, is good at sharing credit, and really cares about governing well. Bush likes strong women if they don't criticize him personally too much. Who knows--this could be better than most people imagine.

Jodi, I have my own people there. Blaming this on Dems is stupid. Suggesting dems are disappointed becuase we should have done better is misinformed(that's Ann Coulter territory).

Bush sent your brother (and the folks I know) to Iraq, and he's the C-in-C for two more years. That is the disappointing part, but his daddy's consigliere is on the case making things right again for that miserable failure.

Next steps are the ISG and a bipartisan approach. There's more grown-ups in DC than there are in the bush WH.

We need to be very careful about the "bipartisan" meme. If the Democrats want to be successful, they need to stay as far away as possible from what the Beltway punditocracy defines as bipartisan. The Democrats in Washington need to a good look at the polls and the election results and draw the obvious conclusions. The American people want real reform of the corrupt political system. The Democrats can deliver that, but it means alienating some of K street. Any Republicans who want to sign up should be welcomed with open arms. We don't need bipartisan protection of the lobbyist gravy train. The people want a new course in Iraq. The Democrats are limited in what they can do there. They should applaud moves in the right direction, but if the Administration refuses to make substantive course corrections, the Democrats will have to confront them. Obviously, there are 6 years worth of oversight hearings that need to be packed into the next few months. Finally, the Democrats need to move quickly and substantively to restore the rule of law and constitutional government. The Military Commissions Act needs to be repealed. The Administration must be forced to live up to our treaty obligations under the Geneva conventions and obey laws restricting the abuse of executive power (FISA, the War Crimes Act, etc.). If the administration doesn't start an investigation of Donald Rumsfeld for authorizing the use of torture and other illegal interrogation techniques, the Congress will need to have hearings on that. I don't imagine that the administration or the rest of the inside the beltway crowd will see that as bipartisan, but it clearly is.


I am not blaming the Democrats for anything. I am only saying they should be disappointed even though they have attained the two houses.

Their margins, votes, and seats weren't near enough for the opportunity given them.
There has been massive media effort to promote them and even Prosecutor lended effort. And the war, the war, the war.

And that is the best they can do.


In 2008, there will be a white knight on the Republican side, and I don't mean McCain. He is too old. Who will the Democrats push. Hilary? Oh, my God. She can only attain 35% to 40% of the vote on her best day, in a bad year. I think in 2008, the record turnouts will again be beaten, and she won't even be an also ran.

Kerry - Ha. Finally he has shown his a** in an unforgettable manner.
Gore ? Bull. He should be out to pasture.
The Black Hope? No, not yet.
Edwards? Probably the best chance you will have in two years.

Give me 3 candidates that will warm my heart, DemFromCT.

And don't ask me for 3 Republicans. I can't think of any.


(... and DemFromCT, you have the annoying habit of comparing my comments to those of people you don't like. Talking Points. Ann Coulter. Bull.
If you are interested in who I like, read, and listen too, look to David Brooks at the NYt. That is someone I read. Someone I download the Opinions of. But you probably don't like him either. But at least compare my comments to someone meaningful.

Pelosi really cares about good government, as I said. She will move quickly where she can, as in reforming the House Rules. I do think (hope) some Dems learned the lesson of 1992 and will get behind her in implementing the voters' desire for less corruption.

If we are lucky, the Baker-Hamilton Comm'n will provide a framework for getting out of Iraq, and Gates is known for believing we should scale back in Iraq and negotiate with Iran, despite his past faults. I expect some schizophrenia from Bush as he is dragged screaming toward reality.

More interesting in many ways than some of the speculating about things that can't happen until next year is what happens when the Congress convenes for the lame duck session next week. There are 9 appropriations bills that haven't passed. The Congress shifted $5.3 billion to defense ion October, meaning that money has to be taken from domestic programs. Expect the Pence-Shaddegg scrooges to talk about taking it all from the poor, college students etc as if the election had not been about the middle class wanting its share. Also, the estate tax repeal passed the House. What will the Senate do? Will the GOP try to ram as many last-minute goodies through as possible (ANWR?) or punt it all to the Dems in January? Watch this carefully. The GOP is having its own dsicussion about bipartisanship or partisanship.

VA: turnout up 59.5%

Just a note -- VA didn't have a Senate race in 2002, so that makes this number less shocking than it might appear.

I think the meaning of "bi-partisan" has changed from "whatever Bush wants" to "Whatever Nancy Pelosi wants, within reason". Bush isn't in a position to demand ANYTHING.
The threat of investigations and possible impeachment hangs over Bush. At the moment, impeachment is not a realistic posssibility, but if the investigations find a lot of dirt that could change. However, I think Pelosi is much more interested in governing than punishing. Isn't it possible she will hold back on the toughest investigations to get Bush to play ball with her agenda?
I don't think that would be a bad idea at all.
We do need investigations, but we also desperately need some good governance from DC. There are many urgent issues.

jodi must be a delusional comic, not a serious commentator

the adults are in charge now, and george is gonna have a temper tantrum real soon. I'm sure george's little fit will impress Americans immensly (cuz george is soooo popular lately)

george doesn't like answering questions, and we have a whole shitload of questions to ask

Mr Conyers, Mr Waxman, and Mr Obey are going to be committee chairmen in January

we have a lot of fertile territory to investigate

george bush just picked the scab off of Iran/Contra, so we get to irritate that sore spot, and bring up a lot of dreck from the 1980s, which just feeds into the "Incompetent Repuglican" theme There are a lot of bush officials who were also a part of ronnie raygun's criminal administration

Iraq is a repuglican fiasco from start to finish, and Saddam is an extension of the repuglican party. I seem to remember some repuglican talking head blaming the sum total of Iraq on ronnie raygun, george H W bush, dumsfeld cheney (Osama was a raygun-bush creation too, as I recall)

and the bonus is that the current repuglican congress is cupable for ignoring the current bushite crime wave in Iraq, and previous repuglican congresses were responsibile for Bill Clinton's inability to solve the Iraq fiasco

in the 2008 election, 21 repuglican senators will have to defend their inability to exercise oversight on the bush administration, and defend themselves for their involvement in 26 years on mismanaged forign policy in Iraq

jodi thinks the Democrats will have a share of responsibility for the military failure in Iraq. What a joke. That puppy belongs to george bush and the 109th Congress, just as Saddam belongs to ronnie and bush 1

2008 looks REAL BLEAK for the repuglicans, and we haven't even begun to shine the lights on the repuglican cockroaches

you just keep on thinking jodi, that's what you're good at

Mr. Conyers, you may call your first witness

Just to make myself clear, I do think that Congress should vigorously investigate Bush.. but why not wring some concessions from him first, after giving him some false hope about bipartisanship and comity?
Fleece him, then fuck him, then forget him.

The price the Republic Party paid for the extremes to which they went to re-elect an incompetent no-nothing as President in 2004 over a hard-working veteran and lifelong civil servant was losing both houses of Congress in 2006. Karma's a bitch.

Jodi's anger is just a reflection of the bloodletting that is going to take place on the right. Limbaugh has already set the tone: "I feel liberated... I no longer have to carry the water for people who don't deserve it."

Jodi, there's room for you in the Democratic Party. There's no room for liberals in the Republican Party, but there is room for career-military conservatives in the Democratic Party (think Jim Webb). All you have to do is admit that there is such a thing as the truth and that lying about it is a bad thing. There's also room for religious conservatives, as long as they can accept that not everyone in the tent is as sure as they are about religion, and that science is telling the truth in a limited way.

Democrats have a big tent. We always have, and we will continue to do so.

I am sending a letter to each and every chairperson of each and every committee letting them know that this is only Step #1. If they want this Indie voter to rejoin their party they need to hit Step #2 out of the park.

Step 2 = Pelosi's 100 hours plus more. Populist middle class legislation that is popular across the political spectrums, ie. raising the minimum wage, instituting hard core ethics reforms for congress, fixing the Medicare fiasco, instituting 9/11 commission recommendations, and undoing the Constitutional damage allowed by the Rubber Stamping Congress of Shame. And of course, forcing W to deal with the mess that is Iraq and US foreign policy. Congress writes the legislation and I expect them to put good legislation on the President's desk. Force him to sign good populist middle class legislation or further weaken the GOP.

Then Step 3: investigate, investigate investigage. Waxman and Conyers already have rooms full of credible evidence against the unAmerican fucks who coopted this country for 6 years. Shine a bright light on every unethical act committed and let the chips fall where they may.

The above, imo would lead to a popular, productive Congress leading into the 08 elections (Step 4) and give us every opportunity to complete the mission. Being a fan of the Dean/Pelosi part of the Dem. party, I want nothing to do with Hilary come 08. Give me Gore, Feingold, Clark, Edwards in any combination.

I'm busier than expected today, but a few big-picture comments:

In the short run: taking the House was a fine opportunity...but getting the Senate, too, was dynamite. For starters, it grants Dems the chance to present full legislation (minimum wage, etc.) that GOPers are free to oppose -- and Bush to veto -- at their party's future peril. But above that, it gives our side one great strength -- blocking egregious judicial nominees in committee (bye-bye, Gang of 14) -- and takes away one of Bush's greatest privileges -- Pat Roberts will no longer serve as the Gatekeeper of all the Intelligence secrets. Many have been disappointed in Jay Rockefeller for his less-than-strenuous opposition; I'm hoping he was simply keeping his powder dry, and Bush/Cheney will finally suffer serious exposure on these issues.

As far as what Dems must do over these two years...I'm very dubious about Bush having it in him to actually bend to the opposition. This Gates pick is being press-trumpeted as a return to his old man, but, for those of us who were around during Gates' confirmation hearings, it's the one acknowledgement of GHWB most apt to annoy Democrats. Gates was noted for having been given proper intelligence on the Soviet Union, and routinely changing it to make it sound more belligrent (which is to say, he was the dry run for Cheney on Iraq). The true horror of Shrub has given people too much nostalgia for his Dad, who, recall, was a horribly defeated president.

I'd also say the apparent intent to renominate John Bolton is a bad sign -- as well as Bush's suggestion that a lame-duck session of the current Congress ram through GOP-preferred programs. Honestly, I think, press fantasy aside, Bush is just too pig-headed to really work with an opposition party, especially an energized one.

I'd like to see Dems take some serious steps on ethics. We may realize the Pubs are ten times worse than most Dems, but too many out there buy into "They're all crooks". Couldn't we see something as asign of faith? And electoral reform -- above all, paper trails -- is another non-ideological item that would help push a good-government image and appeal to swing voters. (Plus, it's a good idea)

As for the long run...granted some of this is hopeful thinking, but it strikes me the blue wave which had already made its mark on the country in previous elections (remember, Gore and Kerry failed to be president by only one state each) has only progressed. Blue states have got bluer (my god, New Hampshire -- surely some ambitious Dem is already suiting up to challenge Sununu), repeated knocking on Ohio's door has finally achieved success, and both MO and VA appear to be at least sometimes-blue.

In line with that, I think the two most-feeling-vidicated guys in the US are John Judis and Ruy Teixeira, whose Emerging Dem Mjaority has been sneered at for four years. Not only did things finally go much the way they forecast, but in just the WAY they forecast. Both Talent and Allen held leads well into the night, until the areas J&T highlighted -- the ideopolis counties around cities and universities -- came in with huge Dem numbers. Yes, Dems have always carried Northern/midwestern cities; but now those cities include Virginia research/college areas...and Dems carry not only the metropolitan areas, but the suburbs around them. It took huge margins -- like 70/30% -- to enable Webb and McCaskill to get totals they needed to offset the GOP rural vote.

Whether all this blue-migration continues may depend more on one element than any other: the state of the economy over the next two years. There was already, in the midwest, anxiety right below or even on the surface over pensions and health care. If the economy tilts into recession -- as it shows every sign of doing -- I wouldn't want to be Bush, or a GOP surviving member, trying to push Health Savings Accounts or 401(k)'s to replace pensions, or resisting calls for negotiating prescription drug prices. However conservative some of our new electees on isoltaed social issues, they seem to be brashly populist, which I think will be ever more popular as the Bush economy decays.

Lots of people are viewing this election as a one-off, like '94, half-likely to redound to the GOP's advantage a la Clinton '96. But there are other, less GOP-promising analogies -- 1930 and 1932, which of course brought about the great Dem realignment; and even 1918-1920, which saw Dems lose the House and Senate in the first, then lose the presidency in landslide the next time around. The Wilson inter-regnum of 1912-20 in fact eerily tracks with the Bush era -- election in a fluke; recession early first term; bare re-election margin (in fact called the reverse early in the evening); a righteous push for involvement in a less-then-popular war; infringements on civil liberties; a bitter partisan campaign ('18) that loses both houses. If the pattern continues to follow (Wilson had a horrible economy late on), Bush could put his party down for a long time.

Wilson also screwed up the 1918 pandemic. nice, demtom.

And Jodi, I will have more patience for "they're all the same" if the Dems prove it true. This is a moderate/centrist win, and I applaud that because those folks belong in the Dem party.

you are trying to put the brave front on it.

In a word, no. I'm thrilled because I share the analysis demtom, and agree on Judis and Teixeira. This is a marathon and not a sprint. but it really represents the return of reality-based politics.

Teixeira is also vindicated for advocating spreading the field over a year ago. His isn't the 50-state strategy or the run-435-House candidates strategy, it's the mount a serious campaign in 75-80 districts strategy that worked so well this time between the targeted efforts of the DCCC and the wide-ranging efforts of the netroots and other locals.

The poll breakdowns should be cautionary for the Dems. This was clearly a tidal wave election. The Indys broke heavily to the Dems. Additionally the white vote is instructive - 53% men and 50% women voted Repub. The African-American, Asian-American and Hispanic vote went significantly to the Dems. The below $50K income group went heavily to the Dems. The no high school and the post-grads went to the Dems. The 18-29 yr olds went 60% to Dems. The unmarried men and women went 60%+ to the Dems.

If the Dems are to continue with this coalition then they need to reinforce those that voted for them.

IMO, they need then to focus on:

- economic populism - wage and income disparity. Fair trade, minimum wage, tax cuts for those under $100K and return to Clinton rates for those over, education opportunities for those disenfranchised, healthcare support for those at the bottom end, remove corporate subsidies to big oil, pharma, etc.

- better governance - ethics and lobbyist rules tightened and enforced. Transparency in legislation. Who influenced what!

- Voting rights tightened and enforced - paper trails, voter education, tough voter suppression prevention, reach out to the minorities.

This would be payback to the key voters who voted their hopes.

Then, they should focus on the "libertarian" strain on social issues that was evident in the mountain west. That means keeping government out of peoples personal lives. Issues such as -

- privacy laws strengthened

- reaffirming constitutional protections in the Bill of Rights - cleaning up habeas corpus, due process, warantless wiretaps. Getting out of issues like gun control. They should not bring any legislation on choice, marriage, etc. Let states decide.

- stand tough on idealogical judicial nominations. No more Scalitos, Roberts, etc.

The Dems should not forget that those that voted for them DO NOT belong to the corporatist class! There is absolutely no point in trying to woo them. If they did not support the Dems in this wave election they never will. They should legislate with those that made this wave happen in mind and they will be in a strong position to consolidate and possibly increase their seat count.

Bush is just too pig-headed to really work with an opposition party, especially an energized one.

at least one person agrees with me about something

turn their strenghts against them. Use the Gates nomination to show America where Osama and Saddam got their start

force george to sign OR veto good strong bills, and tell george to Fuck off and stop nominating judges all together, cuz we ain't approving any of your choices anymore

george is due for a major meltdown, probably before the SOTU Address

stock up on popcorn if you enjoy just desserts. We got an asshole presnit, and karma knows where he lives

TenThousand, thanks for the sentiment. I vote the candidate. Webb seems good. :) Hates Fonda like my father. He likes that.


you dont' see the Independents and Republicans like I do. They are my people. They moved a bit this 2006 election out of disgust for this war, for Bush, for some Republican charlatans. They are not generally excited or happy with their Democratic choices. It is one of those "any port in a storm" type things. A fleeting change. To keep them or me voting Democratic requires some solid plans and efforts. We are waiting.

I voted John Kerry in 2004. I detest him. I just hated Bush.

I can agree with what Pelosi has said on some issues.
I agreed with what the Republicans said too, but not with what they did.
Now I watch Pelosi, and the Democrats as well as Bush. We shall see.

"strangers in a strange land" is what we (independents, conservatives, socially responsive Republicans) are DemFromCT.

A quite painful experience.

Gore? Bull. He should be out to pasture.

Would you have said that of Nixon in 1966? I'm not saying that Nixon's election was a good thing---it was a very bad thing---but he looked just as dead in 1966 as Gore may look to you now. [Of course, Nixon only got elected because of Sirhan Sirhan, but that sort of consideration should not be part of this discussion, surely...]

``"strangers in a strange land" is what we (independents, conservatives, socially responsive Republicans) are''

Just remember that some of us independents feel a bit more estranged than that, because we are independents to the left of the D's. If I had my druthers, the late Paul Wellstone would have been as far to the right as I would have been willing to go. One of the few figures in US political history that I really identify with is Eugene V. Debs. Since he died in 1926, you can see what my predicament might be.....

you dont' see the Independents and Republicans like I do.

You're right! I see them as completely different. In CT the indies outnumber the Rs (double ). And in the election the Rs voted R by some bizarre number (93%) just like the Ds did for D's. IOW, my pre-election analysis (pats self on back) was correct... it was the indies voting 3:2 for Dems that won the election and created the wave, and campaigning for R votes was a waste of time.

But you don't see the D's and the progressives as I do... progressives are pragmatic, not the mirror image ideologues that the Bush neocons are. That's why Tester, Webb and other populist moderates are fine. Had Lieberman not been so arrogant, we'd have made our peace with him, too (the rest of the voters in CT have).

And all the fears of radicals and impeachment proceddings on jan 2 were so much GOP talking points. Now, as Kagro has pointed out, if Bush refuses subpoenas for routine oversight, then we'll see.


Nixon is a historical figure like Kennedy ,or Reagan, or Ike, or FDR.

Interesting for my generation, but not compelling like Bush 41, Clinton 42, Bush 42. They take up 18 years. We weren't aware of politics before that, and then some segments only vaguely.

2000 was the first election I was able to vote in. I was 18 after the 1996.

you are immersed in this culture, with special descriptors for every nuance. neocon, progressive, pupulist moderate, indies, etc. Presumably this shorthand allows you to communicate quickly to your assoicates who are also in "the know."

We, mere beginners, have to listen to what they say, and if we can, find out what they did. Personally I believe that the politicans change from year in to year out, and the "descriptors" are usually wrong except for some of the real old guys.
Bush 43 sure didn't do what he preached in 2000.

Gore, and Kerry looked to be false. Bush proved he was.

This doesn't give me much confidence.

Lieberman doesn't tell us that much, given that he really isn't a moderate. He is actually rather liberal, beyond supporing the war and a few other, more tangential issues. As such all he proved that a pol like him could win when Republicans voted for him instead of a nobody GOP candidate.
That situation is hardly the norm nationwide . Also there was the factor of the Jewish vote, which went the other way (88% democratic) elsewhere. That too is unique to CT.

hey jodi, george bush lied to you, so you should never trust another huiman again, EVER

cuz george bush is the model of human morallity, right ???

you really are a twit

just because george bush is a lying scumbag DOES NOT MEAN that every human being is a lying scumbag

The comments to this entry are closed.

Where We Met

Blog powered by Typepad