Did I read that correctly? Ken Mehlman is licking his chops over the chance to give head to the former gvernor of Vermont?

Big tent party indeed.

I believe it's to be a mutual head giving.

The most significant thing here is that when it came down to the final decision there was no vote, because no one was contesting Dean for the spot anymore. That means the fix was in, the deals were made, and the Dems are ready to work together.

Dave

I think it's presumptuous -- at the least -- to think that Dean will do a "bad job" and that Republican leaders are happy to see him installed as DNC.

To be honest, I don't see a lot of value to this post. I get the point of it, but why don't you combine your sense of humor with an analysis of why you think Dean is bad for the Dems and good for the GOP?

bush is lost he does not know real life anyway and its his last term anyway he going to fuck up the economy anyway.

Would any of the Right leaning people on here care to reflect on the abrupt decline of the Conservative party in the UK after the abrupt fall of Margaret Thatcher?

After 17 years as leader, she was torn down by her own people and now the Conservative Party is struggling to come 3rd in the forthcoming elections.

Neither the United States nor the Republican Party is immune to the forces of Balkanisation, so it might be prudent to adopt a little more humility and a little less hubris...

Who ordered the DNC to commit suicide by swallowing poisonous Howard Dean? Was it the same person or group who ordered Kerry to lose November 2nd?

...but why don't you combine your sense of humor with an analysis of why you think Dean is bad for the Dems and good for the GOP?

analysis isn't really my strong point. there are many other people here way smarter than myself who could do a much better job of that than i ever could.

i just find it funny that the republicans are more excited about dean being the new chairman than the democrats are.

Alienboy - Now that's analysis -- great stuff, well said.

Emigre - What leads you to believe that Howard Dean is "poisonous"? Because he screamed during an enthusiastic rally once upon a time? Because he believed the war in Iraq was wrong and said so?

Yeah, Eric. I don't see Dean being anywhere near as disastrous as some Republican wishful-thinkers would like to believe. I think it's a case of them reading their own PR and believing it. Dean seems fairly reasonable in a lot of ways. The real question is whether he'll be able to work with the Clintonistas. But clearly they think he can or he never would have gotten the position uncontested.

Dave

Dave - I think the not-so-secret secret is that the Dems are about as down right now as it is possible for them to be. They've already been nearly knocked out of the South (outside of highly urban areas) and redistricting in places like Texas have now taken all the toll intended.

Immigration patterns, demographics, and population growth foretell Democratic success in the future, not failure.

In Presidential politics, the GOP may hold a nearly unbreakable base in the Mountain West and South at the moment, but the Dems have a solidifying blue hold on the Northeast, West coast, and important states like Illinois and Michigan. Not so long ago, California and Illinois were considered battleground states, but no longer.

Add to that recent Democratic victories in bright red states such as Kansas, Montana, and the not as red Arizona, and the long-term outlook becomes very interesting.

Howard Dean inspires grassroots support and brings new people into the democratic process. He has been innovative in the use of technology, raising money, and political organization -- all vital parts of the DNC position. Further, he was a successful Chairman of the Democratic Governors Association when he was the Gov of Vermont.

I think Howard Dean will do a great job as DNC. But my overall point is that the Dems really can't do much worse than they have over the last six years (dating to the '98 midterm elections) and trends show they're likely to make gains in the future.

Eric Berlin
Dumpster Bust: Miracles from Mind Trash

I see Dean being elected as a good thing for Democrats. He certainly can energize the movement for change, which Democrats need right now.

Scott - Well said, and shorter said, than I said!

There's always room for the Dems to do worse, Eric. All they have to do is move to the left instead of moving to the center and they lose ground across the board if the Republicans are smart enough to take advantage of it with a moderate candidate in 2008.

The leftist wing of the Democratic party has some agendas which will just never fly with mainstream America, and if they become core issues for the party then the party will do even worse. The one time recently when the Dems have done really well is when Bill Clinton stole some moderate Republican ideas and put a Democrat spin on them. They ought to look to that model if they want success on a national level any time soon.

A perfect example of how the party is failing can be seen in the area of Social Security. Instead of denying the blatantly obvious problems with the system, they could take the initiative and propose a real solution rather than a half-measure like Bush's proposal. Either a full-out privatization if they had any real sense of responsibility, or at least a plan to make the system solvent without increasing taxes - something as simple as raising the income cap might do the job. But they just don't have the will to innovate at all. It's like they've taken on a loser mentality and can't get out of it.

Dave

Dave - The same is true of the "leftist" and "rightest" elements in both parties. I disagree with your premise that the Democratic Party must move rightward to survive. It's been lurching right for years and has seen steady losses in recent years for it. Everyone says that the Dems must "stand for something." Moving rightward seems more like a capitulation than a stand.

By rightward I just mean in the general direction of the American people, not off into Republican land. If they don't occupy that territory while they can, they leave it to the Republicans and then it's all over.

People are getting sick and tired of extremism. One of the two parties is going to embrace its extremist minority and one is going to move away from that minority towards the middle. Whichever makes the move to the middle more effectively will end up winning in the next two elections.

Dave

Dave, that seems like a reasonable prediction to me, but I could (and perhaps do) argue that the Dems did occupy the middle ground on many issues in the '04 election and were still handed rather significant losses for it. Perhaps the circumstances: 9/11, incumbent president, security-security-security, and swift boats can be called out for some of it, but I think much credit must go to Karl Rove for relentlessly drumming up GOP base support.

Will that ever work again? I hope not. I think the country is better served by parties that cater to Great American Middle's best interests.

Well, we know there are some issues where they definitely aren't willing to take a moderate position as a party, social security reform being one of them and taxes being another. The moderate majority in the country wants lower taxes and more control over their money. The Dems understood this at one time, but they seemed to lose track of it in the last election and I think that cost them. Attacking Bush on his economy and tax cuts was just suicidal.

Dave

I think that the Dems have hit the wall in the way the GOP did in the early 60s. Remember Goldwater's role- he didn't win the battle, but he helped bring the Republican party around to set the table for Reagan. It is certainly possible that Dean could be the one to set the table for the next Democratic superstar 8-15 years down the road, repeating the Goldwater-Reagan history.

"bush is lost he does not know real life anyway and its his last term anyway he going to fuck up the economy anyway."

That's deep...

"and now the Conservative Party is struggling to come 3rd in the forthcoming elections."

Not likely.

2nd? Likely.

1st? Improbable, but possible.

3rd? Not going to happen...

"Immigration patterns"

If the GOP can continue to win increasing numbers of Hispanic/Latino voters, then immigration becomes an issue OWNED by the GOP.

"recent Democratic victories in bright red states such as Kansas, Montana, and the not as red Arizona"

Kansas, on the national level, is a solid Red state.

Montana, on the national level, is likely to remain a Red state. But if it doesn't? Who cares? Montana only holds 3 or 4 Electoral Votes anyway...

Arizona has a lot of Mexican-Americans and elderly people. The Dems are making a play for the elderly, but then again, they always do.

Re: Mexican-Americans, they tend to vote for Democrats, when they bother to vote (often illegally). But the GOP is doing what it can to garner more of their votes. Social issues are at the heart of this strategy.

So, I say Arizona is still a "swing" state, but likely to go Red at least in the near future in national elections.

Because of their strong work ethic and upward mobility I think the hispanic vote could easily start to get seduced over to the GOP. That's certainly a pattern here in Texas. Hispanics who've been here a long time and not done terribly well stay with the Dems, but newer immigrants seem to be more interested in the party of personal enterprise and success, the Republicans.

Dave

Very few are going to bother to vote illegally (and you saying so shows where your head is at). What a huge red herring. They're not going to risk deportation just to vote for Bush or Kerry, much less gov. or senator.

Common sense tells us that.

RJ: "The Dems are making a play for the elderly, but then again, they always do."

Well, they do on Social Security and on prescription drugs, but then, the Bush Admin hasn't exactly been silent about these either. We also know that as voters get older, they tend to become more conservative, so it's for the Dems best interest that they make such pitches.

In my own Libertarian campaign, I will be courting the immigrant Hispanic vote. These are people who embrace the American Dream. They get the message, "You came here to improve your lot in life and to better provide for your family. You did not come here for the purpose of making a stronger Federal, state, or local government, or for the purpose of surrendering close to 50% of your income." It's going to be fun!

"Montana, on the national level, is likely to remain a Red state. But if it doesn't? Who cares? Montana only holds 3 or 4 Electoral Votes anyway..."

If Montana goes blue, some of the other Mountain west states could go that way as well. And that starts to add up...Who's to say?

Arizona, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico...those are all fair game for either party I believe (despite all 4 going for Bush in 2004).

"Arizona, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico...those are all fair game for either party I believe (despite all 4 going for Bush in 2004)."

Nevada? Leans Red, but could go Blue.

New Mexico? Leans Blue, but went Red last time around.

Colorado? Leans Red, and would take a serious effort by Dems to go Blue.

Arizona? Red state, could go Blue in the relatively near future, but probably not tomorrow (2008)...

Nevada, Colorado and New Mexico all became more blue in the 2004 election (I know that's confusing since Bush actually won New Mexico this time around, but percentage wise, Kerry got a bigger chunk than Gore did in 2000). Arizona was the only state of those four where Kerry got a smaller percentage of the vote than Gore received in 2000.

I agree with your assesment RJ...Personally, I think in 2008 we're going to see all 4 of those states as battlegrounds.

I agree that it's quite possible that the Southwest could become a major battleground in '08 and beyond. The Midwest has kind of settled into Michigan/Illinois for Dems, Ohio/Indiana for the GOP, with Wisconsin and perhaps even Minnesota as the remaining battlegrounds there.

A tiny shift in voting in the Southwest -- say, if Arizona and Nevada shift firmly blue, let's say -- the entire national picture is altered dramatically.

"A tiny shift in voting in the Southwest...the entire national picture is altered dramatically."

Indeed. If New Mexico, Colorado and Nevada had gone blue, we'd be discussing President Kerry right now.

I think the GOP would be happy to trade Nevada and New Mexico for Wisconsin and Minnesota... ;-)