tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6859126.post2334142525757747629..comments2023-10-28T06:41:07.069-07:00Comments on Ambition, Impatience and Sloth: Davidhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06427208386709900367noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6859126.post-61854815212507106352009-01-29T17:00:00.000-08:002009-01-29T17:00:00.000-08:00No, both good points, particularly #2. The thing a...No, both good points, particularly #2. <BR/><BR/>The thing about the Dems in Congress over the decades between the '60s and when they got wiped out in '94 is that, as you well know, those majorities were ideologically compromised: they included dozens of southern Democrats who were either irreplaceable--as in, when they retired, the party lost the seat--or anachronistic. Richard freakin' Shelby was a Democrat until 1994; Phil Gramm was one until, I think, 1982. Those guys talked like Republicans and, often, voted like Republicans; they just didn't call themselves Republicans until Gingrich et al made it safe for them to do so. <BR/><BR/>The point about Pelosi is interesting too. She's not popular nationally, and she's never been popular; it's been awhile since I spent time on Daily Kos, but IIRC she wasn't even all that well liked over there. But her unpopularity, and that of the even less lovable Reid, paled in comparison to that of Bush and the congressional Republicans. <BR/><BR/>(To bring this all the way back around, Boehner and McConnell are even less popular--and they're squaring off against a president who, for the moment at least, has all the wind at his back. They're counting on Obama to fail, and to come back into power by default. I don't think it's gonna happen that way.)Davidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06427208386709900367noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6859126.post-33878881601897772802009-01-29T15:38:00.000-08:002009-01-29T15:38:00.000-08:00I'm also deeply skeptical of that party ID chart -...I'm also deeply skeptical of that party ID chart - I'm pretty sure it shows Oklahoma as leaning Dem, but what the hell does that mean? OK votes for crazy (literally, crazy) right wingers at the national level, and even in 2008 OK was one of the few states that got even redder.<BR/><BR/>To the extent the chart depicts a shift blue-ward from past survey results, I guess that means something, I just don't know what.<BR/><BR/>Don't get me wrong - I'm like Fox Mulder here: I want to believe.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6859126.post-72259242307261715132009-01-29T15:34:00.000-08:002009-01-29T15:34:00.000-08:00Hmmm... I'm not sure whether or not this undermin...Hmmm... I'm not sure whether or not this undermines your point at all, but it's interesting that you talk about the Dems doing poorly from the late 60's through the early 90's, then doing better when Clinton moved toward laissez-faire. That's true at the presidential level, but in Congress it was more like the opposite: except for the Senate 1981-1987, the Dems held both houses of Congress that whole time, then got swept out for 12 years in exile in 1994. Clinton's moves helped him personally, but didn't seem to do much for the party's fortunes elsewhere.<BR/><BR/>I'm not trying to assert any grand defense of old-line Dems here; I just think we should bear in mind that the Dems retook the House under Nancy Pelosi, by no means a New Dem. I suppose one could argue that New Dem ideas had, by 2006, profoundly influenced the agendas even of proud liberals like Pelosi. True, her agenda is considerably different from a typical 1976 Dem agenda. But one could also make the case that the Dems were in near-permanent eclipse until bailed out by the GOP and through no doing of their own 2 years ago.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com