« Comfort Zone: Feeling (and Feeding) Good with Obama | Desidero's Blog | Female Voting & Exit Polls - Is This Accurate? »
Is That All? On Puppies and Burying Red vs. Blue
Dragged my daughter out of bed to watch Obama's speech live - of course she mainly cares about seeing his kids and finding out they'll be getting a new puppy for the White House. (Oh-oh, what's that daddy, can we get one too? Where's the remote, time to switch channels). But very exciting for her - got to show her the difference between a Democratic crowd and a Republican one, Biden's mother was great on stage looking confused, amazed, pleased all at the same time.
Obama's speech straight on - we've come so far, but here's where the tough part starts, bring us together, restore our prosperity. McCain - deep congratulations and pledge to work together. The McCain crowd - lots of boos.
But we've got a problem, folks. McCain won 47.4% of the vote as I'm writing this, Obama 51%. With McCain's rather poor campaign, a deeply unpopular President, a messy bungled war, a corrupt administration that just dropped the economy in the gutter, and the best organized opposition campaign run probably ever. A 4% difference, i.e. a 2% shift and they're tied.
Ah, but do we? It is true that that signals a rather conflicted, divided populace, and at first glance my stomach was sinking like with the very modest gains of 2006 despite all the scandals (like, what do these people have to do to lose office?) [Late upadate: a lot, looks like Ted Stevens as a convicted felon is likely to win office, but still 28% of precincts to support. Georgia looks gone, but very tight races in Minnesota and Oregon. Wait, Merkley got the late counting districts - she wins. Franken looks a winner but likely will be a recount. Georgia looks lost. Another "every vote counts" year. And we're still stuck with Lieberman. But still, that puts us at 56 + 2 in the Senate? 57 if Alaska goes our way? F'ing brilliant.]
But take a look at the house electoral map at say CNN. Some surprising things are taking place in our "Red vs. Blue" paradigm. Arizona - 5 of 8 Dem. Colorado - 5 of 7 Dem. Utah - 1 of 3 Dem (a lot of territory). New Mexico - 3 of 3 Dem. Idaho - maybe 1 of 2 Dem? Iowa - 3 of 5 Dem. Texas - 12 of 32 Dem. Georgia - 6 of 13 Dem. Iowa - 3 of 5 Dem. Indiana - 5 of 9 Dem. Arkansas - 3 of 4 Dem. West Virginia - 3 of 4 Dem. Tennessee - 5 of 9 Dem. Virginia - 7 of 11. And so on.
So while it's true there's some resistance out there, and it would be stupid to discount the organization abilities of the Republicans and the whacko far-right conservatives, the huge swaths of "red states" paraded around over the last 8 years has disappeared. Sure, some places have huge geographical areas under 1 congressperson, and even many of these house seats are about dead even, but that's the point - it's much more a populace divided than parts of the country vs. others. And the results are in - the Democrats are more inspiring by about a 2 to 1 margin in terms of districts won. Of course that doesn't mean each district is 100% blue either. But it's the core of our national political breakdown.
It doesn't look like we'll make 60 seats in the Senate, but a shift from 49 Dem 2 Ind to 56 Dem 2 Ind (fingers crossed) will still make life much easier for a Democratic president. I'm glad Obama focused on the fact that this is where the chance to make the dream starts, not where it finished - where all the new nuts and bolts have to fall in place, where a huge shift from campaigning to governing will take place. I hope the knee-jerk "let's just start compromising in the name of bi-partisanship" folks like Claire McCaskill get shoved aside, but I have no doubt that there will be a lot of compromise necessary. McCain is not our enemy - he's kind of a puppy on top of a volcano. Yeah, sometimes he bites and is ill-behaved, but there's a far uglier crew in the background that didn't like him and sure as hell doesn't like Obama. And they'll be doing their best to derail this administration from the beginning. Be prepared, pitch in. It's gonna be tough work, but we're in for the long haul.
Obama's speech straight on - we've come so far, but here's where the tough part starts, bring us together, restore our prosperity. McCain - deep congratulations and pledge to work together. The McCain crowd - lots of boos.
But we've got a problem, folks. McCain won 47.4% of the vote as I'm writing this, Obama 51%. With McCain's rather poor campaign, a deeply unpopular President, a messy bungled war, a corrupt administration that just dropped the economy in the gutter, and the best organized opposition campaign run probably ever. A 4% difference, i.e. a 2% shift and they're tied.
Ah, but do we? It is true that that signals a rather conflicted, divided populace, and at first glance my stomach was sinking like with the very modest gains of 2006 despite all the scandals (like, what do these people have to do to lose office?) [Late upadate: a lot, looks like Ted Stevens as a convicted felon is likely to win office, but still 28% of precincts to support. Georgia looks gone, but very tight races in Minnesota and Oregon. Wait, Merkley got the late counting districts - she wins. Franken looks a winner but likely will be a recount. Georgia looks lost. Another "every vote counts" year. And we're still stuck with Lieberman. But still, that puts us at 56 + 2 in the Senate? 57 if Alaska goes our way? F'ing brilliant.]
But take a look at the house electoral map at say CNN. Some surprising things are taking place in our "Red vs. Blue" paradigm. Arizona - 5 of 8 Dem. Colorado - 5 of 7 Dem. Utah - 1 of 3 Dem (a lot of territory). New Mexico - 3 of 3 Dem. Idaho - maybe 1 of 2 Dem? Iowa - 3 of 5 Dem. Texas - 12 of 32 Dem. Georgia - 6 of 13 Dem. Iowa - 3 of 5 Dem. Indiana - 5 of 9 Dem. Arkansas - 3 of 4 Dem. West Virginia - 3 of 4 Dem. Tennessee - 5 of 9 Dem. Virginia - 7 of 11. And so on.
So while it's true there's some resistance out there, and it would be stupid to discount the organization abilities of the Republicans and the whacko far-right conservatives, the huge swaths of "red states" paraded around over the last 8 years has disappeared. Sure, some places have huge geographical areas under 1 congressperson, and even many of these house seats are about dead even, but that's the point - it's much more a populace divided than parts of the country vs. others. And the results are in - the Democrats are more inspiring by about a 2 to 1 margin in terms of districts won. Of course that doesn't mean each district is 100% blue either. But it's the core of our national political breakdown.
It doesn't look like we'll make 60 seats in the Senate, but a shift from 49 Dem 2 Ind to 56 Dem 2 Ind (fingers crossed) will still make life much easier for a Democratic president. I'm glad Obama focused on the fact that this is where the chance to make the dream starts, not where it finished - where all the new nuts and bolts have to fall in place, where a huge shift from campaigning to governing will take place. I hope the knee-jerk "let's just start compromising in the name of bi-partisanship" folks like Claire McCaskill get shoved aside, but I have no doubt that there will be a lot of compromise necessary. McCain is not our enemy - he's kind of a puppy on top of a volcano. Yeah, sometimes he bites and is ill-behaved, but there's a far uglier crew in the background that didn't like him and sure as hell doesn't like Obama. And they'll be doing their best to derail this administration from the beginning. Be prepared, pitch in. It's gonna be tough work, but we're in for the long haul.
Advertisement
While its true that Obama ran a great campaign and in many ways was a great candidate in many ways he was a very weak candidate as well. That, I think, is why the election was so close in spite of Bush, the tarnished republican brand, McCain's poor campaign and his lack of gravitas in public. Obama had no record of actions he could weave in to a good narrative and a few pretty negative associations to drag him down.
In the long run though republicans are on the wrong side of history and its starting to catch up with them. Its hard for me to see a path for them to use to change direction.
They lost a lorge percentage of the blacks years ago and now they've lost the rest of them. They lost there one big chance to get hispanic support a few years ago. Even Bush tried to keep them with his support of the McCain Kennedy immigration reform but Tancredo and his wing won the battle and lost the Hispanic vote. If that wasn't enough he decided to run for president and pushed all the other republican candidates far to the right.
Obama and the democrats will probably pass something like that immigration bill and win the Hispanic vote for the democrats for years. In 8 years the difference between white to minority vote will be even less than now. How can republicans come back with virtually no minority votes and what can they do to get them?
Gay marriage might bite the dems for a bit longer but the republicans are on the wrong side of history there too. In 8 years lots of old people will die and lots of 10 to 17 year olds kids will be able to vote and most of them just don't care if gays get married. Even at its strongest gay marriage was not as strong a wedge issue as abortion.
That's the republicans last significant issue but they've staked out an extreme position that's not readily open for compromise. Where as the democratic position has room for maneuvering. The number of americans that support a position of no abortions ever at any time is small as is the number of people who will vote only on that issue. Its also very difficult to compromise from such an extreme place. Democrats won't lose much with the position they now hold and can easily compromise a bit on late term abortions to move to the center if they chose.
Republicans are going to have some difficulty convincing the people they are the party of small government and fiscal responsibility after these last years. All the democrats have to do at this point is bail out a sinking ship and make a little progress forward. Though given how deep we are that could be formidable task.
Unless the democrats face insurmountable troubles, which is possible, its hard to see how the republicans rebuild.
November 5, 2008 3:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
Primarily the experience part was Obama's main weakness, but of course everything from race to religion to passing acquaintances can be exploited. It's hard to imagine really what a "strong" Democratic candidate would be. And if you compare how frail and indecisive and confused McCain has looked of late, he just doesn't stack up to 4 or 5 top Democratic contenders. But their base doesn't care - they just go out and pull the lever.
But yes, the Republicans are on the dwindling side of racism - both towards blacks and Hispanics (see Texas) - and anti-abortion and anti-gay and a few other issues. After 8 years of Obama, they're not getting back their racial divide, so they indeed will come up with a new trick. And their money machine seemed pretty pitiful this year, and that's been one of their major strengths. We'll see how they react.
November 5, 2008 4:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
We know how they'll act. Obstruction, fear, and divisiveness, but as Oceankat points out, their on the wrong side of history on this. It's 2008, not 1958.
November 5, 2008 7:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ugh, I meant "they're" stayed up too late.
=D
November 5, 2008 7:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
"In 8 years lots of old people will die and lots of 10 to 17 year olds kids will be able to vote..."
Hey sweetie, lots of those "old" people were/are also known as dirty f**king hippies, and have NOT gravitated to the right wing! That is an unfair generalization. As a DFH myself, I can tell you that Obama looks just like my children and I look like his mother, and I have always been on the liberal live-and-let-live side of every issue. And I am NOT alone.
November 5, 2008 11:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
Lots, yes. A voting majority? Harder to tell. Although some polling data in CA suggested otherwise, I think it's reasonable to guess that younger folks, on the whole, are more tolerant of same sex marriage (to name one issue) than their older counterparts. If only by a few percentage points... which would have been enough to swing the Prop 8 election, if it had been held in, say, 2012 or 2016.
We in CA need to run a pro-same-sex marriage "anti Prop 8" initiative. Not in 2010, I think, but maybe. Or maybe 2012. The language needs to address the scare tactics used by the homophobes in this election (e.g. forcing those poor kids to learn that the sky won't fall down if men marry men or women marry women; bigoted churches losing their tax-exempt status; forcing ministers to marry same sex couples; etc.) Granted, they'll try to find some other issue to smear on, but we need to remove as many as possible.
"The right to marry shall not be infringed based on the gender of either party to the marriage. Nothing in this measure shall be construed to require ... or prohibit... [blah blah blah]." Let the lawyers work on it for a while.
November 5, 2008 5:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
As a DFH I know not all of us are against gay marriage. But statistically the younger the group is the more tolerant of gays they are.
I tend to be overly wordy so to keep my comments shorter I sometimes generalize a bit. I'm just worried I'll get the nickname, "the boring Quinn." People will see this long post and immediately think Quinn. After reading a paragraph they'll say, "Oh, not Quinn, its the boring Quinn."
November 5, 2008 5:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
1. The 11teenth law of thermodynamics has shown there can be NO such thing as a "boring Quinn." I believe Brian Greene provided the proof that no Q will accept the characteristic "boring," and that this Law holds across all dimensions. Boring Bosons, perhaps. Boring Desons, without doubt. Rather, I believe the long-commented are more likely to receive praise as being "Long-WINDED as QUINN, but THANK God the BASTARD doesn't CAPITALIZE every SECOND word."
2. I agree that demographics & the deeper cultural shifts are against the Republicans. 2% of voters die annually, and are replaced. On a lot of issues, that gives us a 70/30 incoming group replacing a 30/70 group. The key is to ensure that the young people coming in get a chance to connect with that new culture rising. The GOP's best hope was to keep people boxed up in megachurches, and hammered daily by (their own) monolithic media. With the Internet, that gets harder. And even the media can read the entrails, and not just the electoral ones. The GOP had everyone believing that the "Rise of the Religious Right" was unstoppable, but now even those numbers have been holed below the waterline. Add in some sensible methods of further opening & protecting the vote, and their game gets hard.
3. Do they attempt to become a new, modern party? Like the Blue-Green British Tories? I'd like to think so, but - as so often with humans - I'm not sure their rump will allow it. ;-)
November 5, 2008 6:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Long-WINDED as QUINN, but THANK God the BASTARD doesn't CAPITALIZE every SECOND word."
--------------------------------------------------
Well sure, that's how it will start. But you know how people like to abbreviate now days. Soon it'll be, "Long-WINDED as QUINN, but THANK God the BASTARD," and in no time you'll have "QUINN the BASTARD." I know what you're thinking, there's sure to be some cross over with people referring to you as, "QUINN, God."
That might sound good at first as all the long time posters will know which one is "God" and which "the BASTARD" but there's bound to be some confusion among the new posters and those that post sporadically. Newbies that have only heard of you but haven't yet read your posts might mistakenly think, "QUINN, God" was meant sarcastically and start calling you Quinn the BASTARD sinking oceankat farther into the world of the nondescript and inglorious anonymity.
Best if you nip this problem in the bud. Just an occasional mention of my name in your blogs would probably do the trick. Something like, "As I was contemplating an insightful comment by oceankat," or, "I'm reminded here of oceankat's wise comment, he's a bit verbose but worth the read for the gems buried within."
Just trying to help you out.
November 5, 2008 9:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
You could be sorry you suggested that. I now have permission to hang my ugliest thought on the good name of someone other than Des. Come to think of it, with this new editing software, I can wait to find which parts people find MOST irritating, go back, slap some quotes around it, and voila... oceankat = prick!
Sweet.
November 5, 2008 9:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your deviousness deserves wider pastures, Your Evilness.
November 6, 2008 2:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
Lots, yes. A voting majority? Harder to tell. Although some polling data in CA suggested otherwise, I think it's reasonable to guess that younger folks, on the whole, are more tolerant of same sex marriage (to name one issue) than their older counterparts. If only by a few percentage points... which would have been enough to swing the Prop 8 election, if it had been held in, say, 2012 or 2016.
We in CA need to run a pro-same-sex marriage "anti Prop 8" initiative. Not in 2010, I think, but maybe. Or maybe 2012. The language needs to address the scare tactics used by the homophobes in this election (e.g. forcing those poor kids to learn that the sky won't fall down if men marry men or women marry women; bigoted churches losing their tax-exempt status; forcing ministers to marry same sex couples; etc.) Granted, they'll try to find some other issue to smear on, but we need to remove as many as possible.
"The right to marry shall not be infringed based on the gender of either party to the marriage. Nothing in this measure shall be construed to require ... or prohibit... [blah blah blah]." Let the lawyers work on it for a while.
November 5, 2008 5:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Quinn, help - the puppy's not working. Boyce, tell me tell me, what's the secret? Babies? No one trusts me with their baby, I'll tell ya, almost as bad as kittens. Ah well, I am what I am, and I's got me spinach.
November 5, 2008 6:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
Des, I think it's the overall mix of exhaustion and jubilation.
I hope he comes out bold in the first months. Big problems, big ideas. He's got a lot of support across the world at this moment. I hope he uses it well.
November 5, 2008 10:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
Great post Des, but let's just say I'm hoping Obama extends unemployment benefits really soon because I am about to get fired for inability to focus and get anything done.
Short Dija: I hope McCaskill is wrong. I'll be back!
November 5, 2008 10:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
Don't count on UT for any help. Our one DINO votes more often with the Repugs than with the Dems. Still trying to oust him. . .
November 5, 2008 10:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
Don't count on UT for any help. Our one DINO votes more often with the Repugs than with the Dems. Still trying to oust him. . .
November 5, 2008 11:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
Democrats have a lot to look forward to, and we all know we have big problems to face. Having an inspirational leader, and being mobilized and organized is a huge plus. The mood of the country is one of change, an awareness America has been "on the wrong track" under Republicans, esp. Bush. My concern is that we don't mistake the victory as a mandate for progressive extremism. The country is ready to believe and hope, rather than fear and loathe, which gives Obama an opportunity. However, I think the election reflected a national "common sense" consensus that the Bush crowd is incompetent in all areas, as well as a questioning of the fundamental tenets of Republican conservatism, more than anything else. I hope that the country is ready to believe that government can work to the benefit of the people, and demands constructive, not obstructive, action on the part of Congress. Yet it would be a mistake to think that people are in the mood for a "progressive utopia". Trying to force this on the average American failed in the 60s. The Republicans have just failed in their attempt to create "a permanent majority" (Conservative utopia). A return to common sense culture, and the commonality of citizens, respect for each other and resposibility for improving the culture would be a vast improvement.
November 5, 2008 12:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think you need to flesh out the puppy a bit more. Right now it's pretty generic. You know, breed, color, a few cute stories. I'd suggest a Newfoundland dog, both because they're the only dog worth having, and to draw on the significant % of Bobby Kennedy backers amongst the readership.
I'd also suggest a few more PERSONAL "Des Loves Dogs" stories. Not only is your personal history with cats rather well-known (a mere ONE cat avatar "following" you, when the TPM cat-avatar brigade has already reached 37%), but - at this stage - it still smacks a bit of pandering. Slobbering. Drooling. Rolling over.
Shorter: Where's the puppy chow?
Manage this, and I'm convinced your Rec's will break through 20 - seemingly a new 'Glass Ceiling' - in no time.
November 5, 2008 4:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
"flesh out" a puppy??!!
OY. Calling PETA!! Quinn the Pie Monster is fleshing out puppies!
[damn, Desidero would probably kill me if I blogwhored...]
November 5, 2008 5:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
No no no, "flesh out" as in "Newfoundland puppy." Ever see how much those lunks EAT? I saw ours eat 20 double cans in one sitting. 20.
Des versus blogwhoring? Des who staked a puppy out in his title just to lure Recs from the unwary? Des who begs, threatens, cajoles & shows more leg than a chorus girl to get Recs? Des the unthinkingly violent? Hrrrrmmmm.
Ok, you may have a point there.
November 5, 2008 6:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
I always rec desidero. S/he's actually kinda sweet, although given to wanton violence on sudden occasions... ;) heh.
Nevertheless, nah, I'm willing to let it (the post) die. Too saccharin, anyway. Sappy too.
I really wanted to clear the buffer so my comments and rec's would show up.
Gotta go. Got more work to finish. Just came in to see how things were here. Ciao.
November 5, 2008 9:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Did someone mention lunch? Flesh? Puppies? The One who shall not be named? [Shudder....]
Forget it, it was just a passing phantasmagoria.
And let it be officially pronounced that no puppies were harmed in the making of this post.
[Newfoundland puppy? Not even a Rotweiler or Pitbull? How about an Afghan or Komondor? Oh yeah, this is an American movie. Perhaps I should play to the growing Hispanic demographic and get a Chihuahua. Scratch that. An Attack Chihuahua. There, I feel better.]
November 6, 2008 2:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
Great post, Desidero. Thanks.
November 5, 2008 6:17 PM | Reply | Permalink