If Democrats don't mess up, both short and long term look good
by Leigh Pomeroy
A revolution? Not quite. But the first paragraph of an editorial from a southeastern Minnesota newspaper chain speaks volumes about the change that has overcome the American electorate, at least as represented by a small-town newspaper publisher in a chiefly rural area in the upper Midwest.
David Phillips of the Bluff Country Newspaper Group writes:
A majority of the people finally said in this election, "That's enough trusting. Time for a change." Some Republicans, of course, will look at 2006 as an aberration to their hegemony, will flagellate themselves for making some terrible strategic decisions, and will gear up to try to trash the Democrats whenever they can. Backed by their right-wing Christian and big-money supporters, they will do everything possible to regain what they feel is their God-given, hereditary right to be in charge — actual governing be damned.
As I've said, the macrocosm, including electoral history, indicates otherwise. A recent chart in NEWSWEEK tells why.* Looking at the years from 1953 to 2009, the Democrats will have been the majority in the House for 21 sessions, the Republicans for 7. That's not the key, though, as for many of those years the Democratic Party was bolstered by its alliance of southern conservatives and northern liberals, an alliance that is now kaput. What is the key is the trend factor. If a party gains a majority in the House, its chances of retaining that majority for at least one more term are 9:1, as there have been only 3 turnovers in the past 28 terms.
In other words, the Democrats have a strong opportunity to hold the House in the next election, if not longer. How can they guarantee that? Well, the public has put up with an awful lot in the last six years — a failed war, a loss in real earnings for the middle class, rampant corruption, and an arrogant White House that doesn't tell the truth. But it finally took, on top of all this, a Capitol Hill sex scandal involving a congressman and House pages (of the same sex, no less) for Americans to say, "Whoa! Maybe we should try a different horse."
Yes, Americans are willing to trust. And they don't like change. That's why Democrats should be in the driver's seat for some years to come — provided, of course, they don't mess up.
*The accompanying article is online here. The chart, unfortunately, is not.
A revolution? Not quite. But the first paragraph of an editorial from a southeastern Minnesota newspaper chain speaks volumes about the change that has overcome the American electorate, at least as represented by a small-town newspaper publisher in a chiefly rural area in the upper Midwest.
David Phillips of the Bluff Country Newspaper Group writes:
The voters' mandate for change reached all the way down to the bottom of the state as Democrats made strong inroads within Minnesota and the nation. When January rolls around, it will be the first time that I have been represented by DFL members in the state House and Senate since I moved here 25 years ago. For many people living in this area, it will be the first time they have ever been represented by DFL party members in both chambers in the state as well as the U.S. House of Representatives all at the same time.That's the microcosm, which offers an inkling of the future in a traditionally conservative district. But the macrocosm as well speaks of the possibility of a new long-term trend. Generally, if nothing else, Americans are (a) trusting and (b) wary of change. This is why they have tended to believe their leaders in the White House and Congress when they have insisted that (a) the war in Iraq is going fine, (b) big deficits don't matter, (c) one-party rule is the best way to govern, (d) government is the enemy of the people, and (e) global warming does not exist — among many other issues.
A majority of the people finally said in this election, "That's enough trusting. Time for a change." Some Republicans, of course, will look at 2006 as an aberration to their hegemony, will flagellate themselves for making some terrible strategic decisions, and will gear up to try to trash the Democrats whenever they can. Backed by their right-wing Christian and big-money supporters, they will do everything possible to regain what they feel is their God-given, hereditary right to be in charge — actual governing be damned.
As I've said, the macrocosm, including electoral history, indicates otherwise. A recent chart in NEWSWEEK tells why.* Looking at the years from 1953 to 2009, the Democrats will have been the majority in the House for 21 sessions, the Republicans for 7. That's not the key, though, as for many of those years the Democratic Party was bolstered by its alliance of southern conservatives and northern liberals, an alliance that is now kaput. What is the key is the trend factor. If a party gains a majority in the House, its chances of retaining that majority for at least one more term are 9:1, as there have been only 3 turnovers in the past 28 terms.
In other words, the Democrats have a strong opportunity to hold the House in the next election, if not longer. How can they guarantee that? Well, the public has put up with an awful lot in the last six years — a failed war, a loss in real earnings for the middle class, rampant corruption, and an arrogant White House that doesn't tell the truth. But it finally took, on top of all this, a Capitol Hill sex scandal involving a congressman and House pages (of the same sex, no less) for Americans to say, "Whoa! Maybe we should try a different horse."
Yes, Americans are willing to trust. And they don't like change. That's why Democrats should be in the driver's seat for some years to come — provided, of course, they don't mess up.
*The accompanying article is online here. The chart, unfortunately, is not.
Powered by Blogger
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home