Democrats Win, But What Does That Mean?

Lot of boneheaded media analysis (but admittedly less so than usual) on what the Democratic victory means... For starters, no one on TV that I have seen is using the "mandate" word (heck, did even Pelosi use it?), when they couldn't throw it at the President quick enough two years ago. Heck, even I said it then. The Democrats swept the House beyond what most expected, took the Senate (which wasn't expected by most), and did not lose a single incumbent seat. Not one. If that's not a mandate to legislatively lead the nation I don't know what is.

Even the President understands (though he'll never say it directly) that they won the political battle over the war, choosing not to delay the inevitable on Rumsfeld. Yes, this election was for the larger part a rejection and repudiation of the Bush/GOP agenda (as it should be), but the Democrats wouldn't have gotten this far unless they had gotten their act together, which they did to the surprise of even many liberals like myself. They're a party again.

The other media spin/line of debate is trying to say that this isn't a loss for conservatives, because it was the conservative Democrats who won it for the party. After all, says the liberal media, liberals aren't mainstream and America hates them!! Progressives are quick to point out that the biggest takes of the night came from liberal Democrats. I agree more with that position, but the real answer is that it's both. The Democrats are the real big tent party-- liberals and conservatives welcome. The bitter teeth-gnashing I read today on sites like National Review and Michelle Malkin and Powerline prove to me that the Republicans are the party of the arch-conservatives only. They're not taking the loss well. Americablog has the bigger picture-

I don't think the election was a victory for conservative Democrats or liberal Democrats. It was a victory for Democrats across the board, and a repudiation of Republicans and conservativism.

Conservative Dems, like Bob Casey in PA, won. Conservative Dems like Harold Ford in TN lost. Liberal Dems like Sherrod Brown in OH won. Liberal Dems like Ned Lamont in CT lost. There was no absolute pattern, in my view, as to liberal Dems winning or losing or conservative Dems winning or losing. Democrats ran a variety of candidates, from left to right, and some won and some didn't. And that's the way it should be. I don't think you can win by only running conservative candidates (good luck in SF), or only running liberal candidates (good luck in much of the south). You need to run a bit of a rainbow, and that makes sense - America isn't left or right, at least not exclusively.

Having said that, think about Angie Paccione (D-CO), who got 43% of the vote in Colorado as compared to her Republican opponent, Marilyn Musgrave, who got 46%. Now, pay attention to who these two women are. Paccione is openly in favor of gay marriage. Musgrave is the religious right's top ally in the House, the author of the anti-gay Federal Marriage Amendment to the US Constitution. The race was in conservative Colorado. Yet, what happened? Paccione, the lady in favor of gay marriage, got seriously close to unseating Musgrave, the religious right bat from hell.

Let me repeat that. A Democrat openly in favor of gay marriage almost won in the heart of religious right America against the #1 religious right poster girl. That not only shows the diversity of Democratic candidates running, but it also shows the acceptance of diversity that exists even in the heart of conservative America. America is not black and white, red or blue. And I don't think our party should be either.

Now, that doesn't mean that I'm not going to push for Democrats to adopt positions that I hold dear. I will. And sometimes I'll agree with conservative Dems, and a lot of times I'll agree with liberal Dems. But my point is that Democrats won yesterday - not liberal Dems, not conservative Dems, but Dems.

The rather liberal Nancy Pelosi will be the next House Speaker. The rather conservative Harry Reid will be the next Senate Majority Leader. We are now a party that truly represents the diversity of America. And just as Harry Reid as Minority Leader is a mainstream Democrat, Nancy Pelosi as Speaker will be a mainstream Democrat. And don't let anyone, liberal or conservative, claim otherwise.

What he said.

They're too humble to say so, but Democrats do have a mandate. Pray they use it wisely.

Finally, the Associated Press has a good primer on the planned Democratic priorities in Congress: minimum wage increase, implementing the 9/11 Commission recommendations, widen the scope of terrorist intelligence along with greater oversight of it, more oversight in general (ie. detainee treatment), more funding for veterans, allow the Medicare program to negotiate directly with drug companies for lower prices, stem cell research, close the tax gap, work on alternative energy sources, etc etc... hard to argue with any of that. We'll see how much they can done, of course. The minimum wage hike is a done deal, though.

And Ivo Daalder looks at the foreign policy changes that Democrats should be demanding.

[PS- A final point... the Democrats INCREASED their base last night. They won back the meat-and-potatoes voters that once made up their base. Blue states got bluer, red states got more purple. The Republicans base has been pushed back to Dixie territory. Can they come back in 2008 or later? Of course. But it will only happen if they never again let the extremists control their party (this still needs work) and realize that issues will ultimately trump ideology.]