« Serena's Fashion Faux Pax | Main | Kos has Perfect Record »

The New Minority Party

Given the history of presidential elections, it appears that a Democratic candidate gets 40% of the vote for just showing up. Republicans historically did not have that kind of built-in base. GOP candidates had to reach out to Independents and continuously expand the GOP base in the face of the larger Democratic vote machine. Building on the success of Ronald Reagan's Dixiecrats (conservative Southern Democrats), the GOP has converted large swaths of former Democrats and Independents into Republicans.

The defeat of John Kerry proves that the historic equation has reversed. Democrats now cannot win a national election without drawing from a conservative/libertarian pool in the red states. The 40% Democratic base is not enough to win - period. Winning both costs without turning some Republican states. The last two Democratic presidents who won the White House needed to capture a good percentage of that socially conservative vote and win a few Republican leaning states.

That's what make the various liberal post mortems even more fun to watch. The emerging consensus among the lefty blogs is that the activism and liberalism have to be ratcheted up even more in 2008. Markos Moulitsas (Daily Kos) likes to point to Republican Barry Goldwater's shellacking by Lyndon Johnson as a point from which the GOP majority was built.

Personally I'm hoping that things like Howard Dean for DNC Chairman pan out. Keep pinning your hopes on P. Diddy, Michael Moore, George Soros, et. all. If they continue down that path they'll know exactly what Goldwater and his supporters felt like in 1964.

Update: That was fast - I found two petty and hate filled posts that agree the with my math. One from Eric Alterman and the other from Atrios.


TrackBack

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference The New Minority Party:

» Feste...a foolsblog linked with Mandate?

» The Astute Blogger - a "no nuance zone" hosted by reliapundit linked with Count the counties

» Feste...a foolsblog linked with Mandate?

» casinos linked with casinos

Comments (20)

- One of the things coming ... (Below threshold)

- One of the things coming out of this mess, aside from the point you made in the swich over in base demographics, will be a serious rethink of the whole Democratic approach by the centrist and moderates in the party. Hillery, assuming she emerges as the party leader, will see to that, moving things back toward a Clinton like center, which has both a proven track record and certainly reflects a larger portion of the general populations feelings. It's a given, judging from the numbers, that there are not a few Dem's who voted for the other guy this time around, unconsciously shifting to a more independent viewpoint. The left is just too damn extreme to appeal to a large enough base without alienating moderate values. To the extent that any of the polling was actually based on real data, it would be interesting to know just how many Dem's said one thing and voted another. To some extent that very well could have some bearing on the bad polling that has happened twice now in a row. Imagine the effects on focused samples if just 5% actually lied about the way they intended to vote.....

“reality-based community” <... (Below threshold)
Paul:

“reality-based community”

Yeah like- there will be a draft, they won Florida and Bush lied about the weapons.

DEEEEEE-lusional

Congrats from a liberal to ... (Below threshold)

Congrats from a liberal to President Bush on his victory, and to his supporters here at Wizbang! I like to give credit where it's due.

Good win.

Let them rant and rave thei... (Below threshold)
jmaster:

Let them rant and rave their way into inexistence.

This Independent voted a straight Republican ticket for the first time since 1984. I worry about the Christian right elements becoming too strong now, but I understand why they are in the party. I hope Bush, et al, really do stay toward the center (domestically, that is) this term.

I absolutely fear what the screaming wackos of the left would do if their party had control. The poor Dems are just out of control. It looks as if the inmates are literally running the asylum now.

This independent voted spli... (Below threshold)
Dan:

This independent voted split, with the libertarian at the top of his ticket. Had Bush truley been in danger of losing my state (got 60%) I would have voted for him.

I like many democratic ideas, have campaigned and donated for some democrats, but can't stomach the radical side of the party which seems to have taken over. John Kerry? Howard Dean actually has a better record as a moderate.

Bill Clinton won the 1992 p... (Below threshold)
Jim:

Bill Clinton won the 1992 presidential election because Ross Perot took votes away from Bush 41. Clinton won with 43% of the vote to Bush's 38%. Perot received 20%. Clinton was better at being a conman than Kerry. And when Clinton came in like a bat out of hell and tried to move left, he was slapped back in 1994 when the Dems took over the House and Senate. Clinton was always a sneak. He did things with executive orders that contributed to 9-11. I could write a book about the things Clinton-Gore did and were able to hide and maintain a facade of being moderate, with the help of an adoring MSM.

<a href="http://lifetrek.bl... (Below threshold)

American Morals

The morals issue - thank the radical gays and activist courts for a Bush win is what I keep hearing!

But even deeper then that is the pure and simple moral fact that you don't attack a sitting war time president as a liar and thief!

The moral bankruptcy that the media highlighted by CBS and it's Rathergate fiasco. The comments I made about Moveon and Moore-on and Senator Kerry's attacks on our troops in battle were reflected in the "morals" vote!

When your a Senator you don't obstruct - you take action not fostering inaction! When your a judge you don't legislate from the bench!

Don't get me wrong, the religious right was a key to victory. Anti gay marriage was important but when it comes down to it the morals issue was more a result of the American belief - which we saw in Australia just last month - that it is IMMORAL TO ATTACK YOUR OWN COUNTRY! The American belief that the pledge of allegiance is a good thing and there is right and wrong, black and white! America is what is good in the world and since his days as an activist Kerry has been wrong on these key issues!

Was morals another word for American values and patriotism - I think so!
DKK

they are completely coming ... (Below threshold)
OneDrummer:

they are completely coming unglued over there.... just one 60 second read of Atrios' comments will make me wonder why they didn't all fly down to Guyana this morning and drink the really good kool-aid.....

Eric Alterman: The reason ... (Below threshold)
Steve L.:

Eric Alterman: The reason we lost is that we are too smart. The average American is an idiot who refuses to let us tell him what's good for him.

Hey! Nimrod! The problem is that, if you were half as smart as you think you are, you would be twice as smart as you are. Of course, you believe that the people confused Kerry's nuanced approach to policy with pandering to whatever crowd he was in front of. When a vast majority of Americans say that they are god-fearing, church-going people, you can't try to win them over by asking them to abandon their beliefs.

When the best you have to offer is Michael Moore, you are in big trouble. Moore thought he could slip his sleaze past people and they would automatically believe it since he is soooooooooooooo much smarter than they are. Fortunately, there are a few of us red-staters that somehow managed to graduate third grade, so we were able to see through his bull.

Dems, please, please, please follow the suggestion to move further to the left. We could use another 50 years of Republican rule.

life trek-But e... (Below threshold)
scott:

life trek-

But even deeper then that is the pure and simple moral fact that you don't attack a sitting war time president as a liar and thief!

I didn't care if they called Bush a liar or a thief-or anything else.

But they also called whoever supported Bush things like "insane", "clueless", "homophobe", "warmonger", "fascist", etc.

I hadn't voted for a Repub presidential candidate since 84- until this year...

I think it's been proven that 'the left' is more vocal, but there were more people on the center-right who just kept their mouths shut -til they got in the voting booth.

Great point, Steve L.... (Below threshold)
Jim:

Great point, Steve L.

BTW, speaking of P Diddy, I... (Below threshold)
Jim:

BTW, speaking of P Diddy, I don't get it. This guy isn't even a good hip-hop performer. I saw him doing his version of Led Zepplin's "Kashmir" and thought to myself that there must be some real dolts out there if he's a top entertainer.

What about the fact that th... (Below threshold)
Tom:

What about the fact that the 3% difference could have been a large chunk of Democratic voters who believed in Bush and did not believe in Kerry?

Tom,THat's easy. Ke... (Below threshold)
Steve L.:

Tom,
THat's easy. Kerry painted himself as the anti-Bush. Most people that said they would vote for him were actually casting "anyone-but-Bush" votes. Kerry never gave them any reason to vote FOR him.

When the wafflers went to the polls, they pulled the lever for the devil they knew rather than the devil they didn't know.

Reading Alterman's piece: ... (Below threshold)
JFH:

Reading Alterman's piece: If you replace "don't care" with "don't believe" or don't think" in his screed, he'd be right.

That's the problem with the left they believe their opinions are facts and confuse our opinions (based on conclusions of actual facts) as apathy.

I have to smile. I'm one of... (Below threshold)
mshyde:

I have to smile. I'm one of those scary 'invisible' christians that the Left is deathly afraid of.
Hey guys, the premise of christianity is this...."Render unto Caesar what is Caesars, and render unto God what is Gods". I think they now call that seperation of church and state don't they?
If ALL christians strictly follow Jesus' path, the rest of you have nothing to be worried about. We are in the world, and NOT of the world. So what's to be scared of?
Our morals? Our core values? Or the fact that we stand on a simple solid foundation of principle and not one that is a facade of complexity and nuanced. The left has invariably built all of their arguments on quicksand, and then stand off with their jaws dropped when it all comes tumbling down like a house of cards based on wet toilet paper.
I really do have to chuckle.

Oh and by the way, the moral majority is on the upswing and has decided to stop being voyeurs when it comes to the governance of our country
Go and seek how many of us silent and invisible christians there are, it will probably make the hair stand up on the back of your necks. :)
GOD Bless America.

Jim: about P. Diddy, he wa... (Below threshold)
-S-:

Jim: about P. Diddy, he was the recipient of a few millions of dollars of "invested" money from CA's large teacher's union's pension plan, with CA (D) Senator Dianne Feinstein arranging to have her husband, a financial/investment professional, make the arrangements. The "investment" in P. Diddy was done with the published reason being that the union wanted to "reach out to minorities and women" in some rallying effort...getting P. Diddy to do that as spokesperson.

I just read an overview article about a month or so ago about this so am only parroting the information I read as to source, method and P. Diddy, but the basic points seem accurate as reiterated here...meaning, I have no idea if P. Diddy has some incentive or obligation to repay the monies, but I got the impression that he didn't, that the union considered it an "investment." I don't know, beyond that, but that explains why P. Diddy was suddenly launched upon the public as unofficial, "unaffiliated" voter rallying guy. But, the source of the funding to P. Diddy was quite considerably from a Democratic Party affiliated CA teachers union pension fund.

Also, it seems to me that the desired goal as stated -- "to reach out to minorities and women" -- could have been done more smartly given the considerable amount of money involved. A month's free groceries goes a long way to make a great impression, but instead, they paid (or "donated to" or "invested in") P. Diddy a few million dollars and he made media appearances.

I'm not so sure of a certai... (Below threshold)
-S-:

I'm not so sure of a certain witness here, this thread.

About Eric Alterman, he's a very intelligent man with a penchant for writing about and through a film of emotional disturbance. He applies a high level of emotionalism and "feelings" to interpret the U.S. as a feeling, freaking out thing and makes the mistake of not devoting that same energy to his own psychoanalytical experience instead. After all, after you're internationally known, unless circumstances force you to self analyze, you aren't as likely to as someone might be otherwise, such as well describes to me writers like Eric Alterman, and Alterman himself.

Along those lines, also, I never, not once, heard or saw one, not even one, "Democratic/DNC Spokesperson" on television during the last year (err, much longer, actually) who hasn't been a raving lunatic under any other circumstance other than that they're in a highly controlled, privatized environment. I mean by that, imagine encountering Mary Beth Cahill or Lannie Davis or Alan Dershowitz acting like they do on television at your local market, sounding off about the cereal aisles, the injustice of the Cocoa Puffs on the lower shelf while the Cheerios get the entire top two.

It was only today that I heard a quiet, composed and approachable Lannie Davis, Rev. Jackson and others on FOX, actually sounding sane. Speaking normally, displaying personal humility, manners even. But, up until this Nov. 03 result, they've been so hideous before the public that there is no way that they can blame "conservatives," the "faith based community" and "Republicans" for all their ills...I mean, just listen to them, these are people who lack emotional well being, who seem entirely and completely troubled in their personalities.

Same thing with Ted Kennedy in the Senate, others similar. The Democrats today are people who don't have a plan, don't wage a plan but simply ventilate what is "wrong" with everyone else's plan, and then try to destroy everyone else's plan because they don't "like" it or thereabouts.

These aren't people a responsible business person would even hire, or, if hired, would keep around for very long. But, they're writing columns, the are paid to "advise," they are in the Senate, House, elsewhere.

I do believe that people with emotional issues gravitate toward the Democratic Party because that's where they are comfortable: where they can become official in some capacity of ventilating their emotionalism.

About KOS, I don't read the site, and do not understand the appeal of the site. I remember once trying to read and considering joining in once on Howard Dean's blog when it first appeared, but after reading the other comments there, I could not relate, and so did not participate, nor ever return.

But, that was about the time that the blinders fell from my perception, that I realized that these were people on a plunge into greater disorder, perhaps intended.

So, rather than try to focus in on just what Democrats are and why they are who they are and behave as they do, I think it's more productive to look at what sort of personality is attracted to what sort of peer group and why, why some people feel more comfortable bringing down others and tearing up things, than not.

Last thing is all the harassment by the left about "the religious right," as a very offensive characteristic, something that is a big part of the left's own demise: their intolerance of religous freedom, their repugnancy about our Freedom of Religion right under the Constitution. If a person is intolerant, they will seek out others who are intolerant inorder to reinforce their perspectives and then go about finding whatever reason they can to "enforce" their intolerance on others, on whomever. And that's who I think is a lot of today's Democrat: people with spiritual and emotional and intellectual intolerances who attempt to formulate by any possible method the suppression and control over others. Thus, the penchant by the Left for sarcasm, trolling, false I.D.s (I notice a lot of the left sites never provide actual identities and tend to nearly all use screen I.D.s with fake emails), ridicule...

And, predictably, they now begin with the various demands and requirements for and about everyone else (again, just a different stage) as to what everyone else needs to do, should do, ought to do, inorder to somehow save or right or passify the Left. It's just another chapter in the same language, except for this day we've been able to "read" it at lower volume on the television, some on the internet. As the day grew to night, the Left has again started howling. I don't expect them to stop but I do expect to improve and correct America's public school system, which is what I blame for allowing this sort of massive dysfunction to grow to voting age, with Marx as hero.

The exit polls show 37% Rep... (Below threshold)
Dave:

The exit polls show 37% Rep 37% Rep and 22% Ind. So I do not see how that is a majority. Clearly, Republicans gained since 2000 by about 4% over Democrats but they are far from a majority.

In addition, if you look at exit polls in terms of Conservative vs Moderate/Liberal is 34% vs 66%. It is fals to say that Conservatives are a majority.

Again, conservatives are in the minority not the majority. They created a majority in this election by combining their 34% with anothe 18% of terrorism voters.

The exit polls show 37% Rep... (Below threshold)
Dave:

The exit polls show 37% Rep 37% Rep and 22% Ind. So I do not see how that is a majority. Clearly, Republicans gained since 2000 by about 4% over Democrats but they are far from a majority.

In addition, if you look at exit polls in terms of Conservative vs Moderate/Liberal is 34% vs 66%. It is fals to say that Conservatives are a majority.

Again, conservatives are in the minority not the majority. They created a majority in this election by combining their 34% with anothe 18% of terrorism voters.




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy