Republicans are laying out an agenda for permanent realignment.
As for the Democrats, with moderate Martin Frost out of the picture, Howard Dean is wrapped up in an inevitability cloak. This National Review editorial on the subject teeters on the line between childlike glee and cackling.
The 2004 elections should have awakened them in a way that previous losses didn't. 1994 could be explained as a reaction to Clinton overreaching in his first term. When they failed to regain what they saw as a natural majority in Congress in 1998, that was just the curse of the off-year election. 2000 was the weakness of the Gore candidacy and lingering dislike of Clinton. 2002 should have made them suspect that major renovations were needed, and 2004 should have clinched it.
Instead, many are blaming the weakness of Kerry's candidacy. And somehow, the fact that voters rejected the 1st and 4th most liberal members of the Senate means that voters are hungry for. . . a MORE liberal Democratic Party.
A layman's definition of insanity is repeating the same action and expecting different results.
There is some soul-searching going on. Dem pollster Stan Greenberg, along with Carville and Shrummy, have put together this analysis of Dem and Republican advantages and weaknesses. Fun reading for politics junkies. (Hat tip: Real Clear Politics.)
Posted by Discoshaman at février 3, 2005 12:23 AM | TrackBack