Well said Anita, but don't expect too much from the "inteligentsia," they're all attending pity parties about now.

can't say that I'm part of the intelligencia(or however the hell you spell that)...thank goodness...but I do have one objection to your post. I live in Virginia Beach, VA and I live 15 minutes from the ocean...I think this is eastern seaboard. Maybe I'm wrong...but I do agree with just about every other word you said and I honestly believe it's the best explaination for the democratic debacle I've seen so far. Well done Ms. Campbell!

Well said.

Vic

The main issue with the Democratic party to Ohio voters is that it simply is not in touch with how the majority in the "great red America" feel.

This is true right now. But 88% of Bush's support came from white voters. In 50 years, America will no longer have a white majority. The point being this great red Amerika you talk about, won't be the voice of the majority for much longer.

There are nearly 300 million Americans -- 200 million of them of voting age. We only lost by three and a half million! That's not a landslide -- it means we're almost there. Imagine losing by 20 million.

Finally and most importantly, over 55 million Americans voted for the candidate dubbed "The #1 Liberal in the Senate." That's more than the total number of voters who voted for either Reagan, Bush I, Clinton or Gore. Again, more people voted for Kerry than Reagan. If the media are looking for a trend it should be this -- that so many Americans were, for the first time since Kennedy, willing to vote for an out-and-out liberal. The country has always been filled with evangelicals -- that is not news. What IS news is that so many people have shifted toward a Massachusetts liberal.

[These points taken from 17 reasons to not slit your wrists.]

Anita, exceptional job - every person disappointed with the result of this election should read this. It is a very reasonable and logical description of reality. Thanks!

BCB, First Kerry did a pretty good job of p;aying down being a "liberal" in the campaign, so I would not take his 48% showing as an endoresement of liberality by any means. And in your demographic projections you are really talking about hispanics, who are nothing close to monolithic and are the single lowest-percentage voting group in the nation.

Well spoken, Anita. This is the best post-election advice I have seen written so far.

The best way the Demos can lose their often annoying condecension is to develop more leaders from their base in the heartland states, but these must come from beyond organized labor and public employee unions, IMHO.

Anita, the post-election analyses of the vote disagree.

Many voters for Bush simply don't know what his policies are on how severely they've failed. For example, they focused on Bush saying he supports education. But, they don't realize that the high school dropout rate is higher, No Child Left Behind underfunded, Pell Grants smaller, etc. all under the Bush regime. His Texas education miracle was a fraud. The Texas education agency redefined 'dropout' so as not to include most of students who dropped out. For example, students who went to prison were said to be continuing their educations.

About a week ago, some of our more mentally challenged participants threw a huge tantrum because of a discussion of hunger in America. They kept insisting there is no hunger among Americans. The most recent data released by the Census Bureau, Agriculture Department and other agencies reveal more than eleven percent of the American population had insufficient food in 2002. (There is a later study that should be out now, but it is being withheld by the Bush administration. The figure is doubtlessly higher.)

A large part of the people who voted for Bush were those whose grasp of the issues is shallow. People who think it is a good thing more students qualify for Pell Grants (if they even know what they are) or insist that no one in America has a problem with hunger because they say so.

The analyses of the vote in Ohio show that far Right Bible Belt voters made the difference there. They came out in droves to vote for the gay marriage amendment and Bush. So, it wasn't the TV ads or Democratic literature that motivated them most. It was disdain for gays.

I see no evidence intelligence had anything to do with Bush winning this election. Just the opposite, considering Democrats are better informed about the issues. What I do see is ignorance and bigotry carrying Nov. 2. too many places.

I did find your remark about Cleveland revealing. Despite your dismissal of the city, it is representative of much of America -- urban, huge minority population, a loss in jobs that pay living wages. I fail to see how the residents of Cleveland are any less legitimate citizens with legitimate concerns than those of Darke County. Yet, you seem to think they belong in some other world.

To summarize, I would have to say the Right Wing voters of Ohio have shown us what is wrong with the American electorate.

Note to Steve (Boom): Notice that I didn't say anything about white people wishing people of color were in another world not being exactly new. I told you I'm being reticent these days-:).

I'm adding this link to analyses reported in the NYT to support the point that voters in Ohio favored Bush mainly because of bias against gay marriage. Anita's belief that they are some kind of great, white, enlightened polity the Democrats need to embrace is not supported by the data.

So, I believe the real question is how the Democrats should repond to the unschooled, bigoted voters who formed the margin in Ohio.

~ Should it try to move closer to their positions?

~ Should it try to educate that part of the populace?

The latter, I think. The Democratic party in the South has tried the first route. It fails to confront the minority of neo-Confederates who remain in its ranks and tries not to annoy the bulk, which fled to the GOP. It is wary of being tied to unions in a region long hostile to labor. It fails to emphasize its support for public education, despite the Southern states having the worst education records in the nation. The effect of the Democrats' kowtowing to ignorance and bigotry in the Southern population? Zell Miller. A more Solid South. So, I don't think trying to out GOP the GOP would do any good at all.

This deserves more thought and analysis. I'm throwing the basic choice out for other people to consider.

Mac Diva, I don't know which way the Democratic party will go. I hope more to the left, but I think societies pressure to them to go more to the right is greater than my voice. :-)

I wanted Howard Dean. I loved the motivation, the grassroots, the passion for change. I want a party more to the left.

I stood behind Kerry and supported him this election because I consider myself a Democrat and because I thought he was the best chance to beat Bush. But I am dismayed at the constant lack of support for gay issues, from Democratic voters. 70% of those who supported the Missouri amendment were Democrats. I don't have the statistics for others, and I do see the conservative spectrum as more intolerant, but the Democratic party has it's share of bigots too. The Democratic party going more to the right will only further that divide for me. I am sensing that it might be time for me to move on, I don't know, it depends on what the Democrats decide. I hate to say this about the party that has been mine, my whole life, but while going for the second option in your comment 8, I'd have to also recommend we educate those millions within the Democratic party too.

The bottom line is the Democratic party needs to decide what it wants and then go for it. If it decides to go to the right because of peer pressure, and the concept of 'our way is more popular', then that means the Democratic party didn't have it's ideology very strongly to begin with, and so maybe it's for the best.

I support humanitarism, tolerance, diversity, acceptance, compassion, and these are the values of the left (not necessarily of all Democrats though apparently). I will go radical left, when the moderate base crumbles under the pressure and goes right. But I hold out hope the Democratic party comes to practice the ideology they believe in, as well as convince others of it as well.

Great post, Anita. You really highlight the communications failure of the Kerry campaign to reach voters like you. Kerry won the 48% that he started with -- those who were sick of Bush and couldn't stand anymore -- and didn't secure and expand his base or connect with swing voters.

That is all.

I think Kerry's greatest failure was his inability to convince swing voters he had a better plan for Iraq or for the economy: he said a lot of "what" but very little "how"; and I agree this is a great post

how do you like us now? nov 2, 2006