THE definitive election analysis

[underpants]

Two great articles are floating around here and I thought that they need to be noted and compiled.

one is by EJ Dionne
http://www.workingforchange.com/article.cfm?itemid=21639

and the one in The New Yorker
by Hertzberg
http://www.newyorker.com/talk/content/articles/061120ta_talk_hertzberg

Both say basically the same thing (I don't think this is just cocktail party conventional wisdom either)

The candidates that the Dems won may have been to the right of what the conventional wisdom on Dems (think Murtha) but they were easily to the left of the candidates the Republicans ran.

The Dems won seats in places they had no business winning not only because they were "red states" but because the computer gerrymandering SHOULD HAVE locked those seats in for the incumbents and anyone they endorsed until the end of time. The candidates and the 50 state strategy should be given most of the credit here.

Theft and fear no longer add up to any plausible calculation of a Republican "win" as they have for the last three elections.

The country wholly and completely rejected them, their Republican title, their association with anything Bush, AND their failed conservatism.

The numbers don't lie.

P-E-R-I-O-D

[texpatriot2004]

1. I like the sound of that nm