This WAS a tsunami, and it WASN’T thanks to a “new breed” of "Conservative Democrat".

[Brotherjohn]

It was thanks to the good old-fashioned, rank and file Democrat (of every stripe) that won EVERY SEAT they were defending, and many more.

EVERY seat in the House was up for grabs, and Democrats captured at least 27 Republican seats, almost twice what was needed for control. They lost ZERO seats. Very few Democrat-held seats were even threatened. Democrats have gained strong control of the House.

Only a third of the Senate seats were up for grabs, and Dems take at least 4, and lose ZERO seats (considering Joe Lieberman will caucus with the Democrats as an Independent). But more: Democrats have likely gained 6 Senate seats, gaining control of BOTH houses of Congress.

Democrats have also swept in six new governorships, leaving the country with a majority of governors being Democratic.

To me, there’s no other way to classify that than a massive “landslide” election victory by the entire left.

Yet now, as a way of rationalizing and minimizing a CLEAR Democratic LANDSLIDE, we’re getting all these pundits saying “Democrats need to remember who won this election for them: Blue Dog / pro-gun / socially conservative Democrats”. They’re saying that because of this, Dems need to govern towards the center.

Pardon me, but BULL%*#@!! The ones who WON this election are the nearly 200 “more liberal” Democrats whose seats were not even AT RISK this year, who won HANDILY. A few moderate seats switching wouldn’t matter if a few others switched back. But most Democrats had their seats LOCKED DOWN! The water was only flowing (rushing) in one direction. As I said, this was a tsunami.

Conservative Dems may be the ones who won many of the 27 new seats, but that’s how it works when power shifts. The districts in the political middle are the ones that are going to flip. And they are not going to go from moderate on one side to flaming radical on the other. This time, they went to moderate/conservative Democrats. And those voting for them understood that they were voting for Democrats, and that all Democrats aren’t pro-gun, anti-choice Christians like their candidate. Hell, they’ve been told for weeks by negative ads and robo-calling that they were voting godless heathens into power, that they were destroying the very fabric of America! But they’re smarter than that. They knew what they were voting for and why. They were voting for the Democratic Party to take back power.

Exit polling shows that these results were a clear repudiation of the Bush administration for the Iraq war, and an overall disapproval of the scandal-ridden job he and Republicans in Congress have done. The entire country has shifted left, and of course this includes a few seats in conservative districts. Conservatives were voting more Democratic AND Democrats were voting more liberal.

I Repeat, and the mainstream media should be repeating:
This was a victory by the DEMOCRATIC PARTY. By LIBERALS. By the LEFT. THE ENTIRE COUNTRY HAS SHIFTED LEFT.

[jackbourassa]

1. I think this whole "conservative Democrat" thing is being...

...overplayed.

It's true that Rahm recruited many conservative Dems to run. But most of them lost. The netroots and other progressives did just as well.

Also, I love how they are taking credit for Webb and Tester when they were our candidates from the beginning. After all, weren't the Washingtonians supporting Morrison in Montana?

[TheWraith]

2. Everybody won--the new Democrats, the old Dems, and the defectors.

It's pretty obvious when you look at the breadth of Democrats who won, from most liberal to moderates like Webb and many of the new House Reps, that it's straight up: Democrats win, Republicans lose. Chafee was as moderate as many of our new people, but he had an R after his name, so he got bludgeoned.

The reality is, though, that we couldn't have done this without bringing home the Reagan Democrats, and bringing in the Goldwater Republicans, a.k.a. the new conservative Democrats. That's what having a big tent means, and it's what Dean said last night: we're a centerist party. Center left, yes, but we have to accept the presence of the center, which is a very good thing, not a bad thing.

[Brotherjohn]

7. We couldn't have done it w/o ANY segment, though. In the past, the anti-war stance...

... and other left-leaning positions of more liberal members, would have lost them a few seats. And it would have been a wash.

Not this time, b/c people are realizing that being anti-war isn't so bad. Being pro-stem cell research doesn't mean you're killing babies. And maybe killing living, breathing, "born" people by the thousands is important too.

i.e. as a whole, the people voted more liberal. Even the people who voted for "Reagan Democrats".

[GetTheRightVote]

3. I heartly agree with you, the citizens want more freedoms not less

but we must temper ourselves for a short time until we can step forward with the truth so that all will listen to it and not turn away. Patience for a few days will not harm us but strength us as a party of concern and of listening to the public who have had no voice until now.

:kick:

[Fluffdaddy]

4. We all can thank the DLC............Say it..You know I'm right

:P

[karynnj]

5. That's for sure

I live in a red country in an affluent NJ area. the people doing the phoning were not a new breed of conservative Democrat - they sound like people here. If anything, the people I met doing the phoning were as radicalized as I've seen since the early 70s - after several placid decades.

Many people called yesterday - answered that they had voted and went on to share experiences of yelling at the TV in 2004 or feeling exhilerated by their vote. It made calling easier. (The "leadership" of the party may find they are out of step with the party itself - we are the party! Those that decided that Lieberman was better for the party than Lamont - may find we disagree.)

[ProSense]

6. Exactly!

You nailed it and the media's spin! This says it all:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2943638&mesg_id=2943638

[blm]

8. Polls showed it was CORRUPTION that drove the vote. Media is spinning this new Dem

thing because it distracts from the TRUTH that people WANT corruption in government investigated and exposed and jailed.

[Zodiak]

28. Hold on to that idea and keep it, blm

because it will take all of us to counter the spin. The corporations want to steal the thunder of a huge victory for the american people. Not surprising.

Corruption was the #1 issue, then economics, then the war.

We got this election because people can't stand Republicans nowadays..that can change the minute the Republicans change (which they are doing as we speak for political survival).

Next was economics. People are getting screwed, despite the pretty numbers Elaine Chao is giving us. A number of minimum wage issues were passed. The country went left on economic policy, and expects results immediately in this area. Wages are down, and Bush could not hide that from the People.

Last was the war. It is costing us lives and a huge chunk of our capital; plus our reputation is being dragged through the mud. The country wanted to move to the left on this issue, as well. Whether phased wthdrawal or immediate pull-out, the public wants our soldiers to come home.

None of this speaks to me about the DLC policies of corporate interests or victory in Iraq. If they want to take credit for this election and call it a "centrist victory", they will not be heeded because they are rapidly becoming irrelevent. The people have spoken...they want good jobs and to end this nation-building B.S.

[DaveinMD]

9. Democrats of all stripes won

Its great that we are growing our party. I welcome any Democrat.

[Emillereid]

10. On the field here in CA it was PROGRESSIVE DEMOCRATS working

their butts off, making the phone calls, etc. And we expect the democrats in Washington to stand up for Progressive ideals. No more wussiness!

Scott Ritter said last week at a talk he gave, that our work BEGINS today -- November 8th. Now is the time to hold the Washington Democratic politicians feet to the fire and make sure they enact a progressive agenda. I will fight Pelosi tooth and nail if she dares tries to tie the hands of Chairmen Conyers, Rangel and Waxman! We demand ACCOUNTABILITY! It is not enough to win an election, in order to restore our democracy, we must purge and repudiate the Bush administration's many crimes against our constitution (including electoral fraud) and against humanity.

[grizmaster]

22. same here in RI

the ones I saw out there working the campaigns were progressive dems

[progressoid]

23. That's true here in the middle of the country too!!

Progressives and dyed in the wool Democrats putting in looooong days. Not any independents or middle of the road types.

[OHdem10]

11. The Media has been disconnected from the

Country for a long time. Just because a person may be
called Conservative on the Social Issues(God Guns etc)
this does not automatically make them Conservative on
other issues. Amazingly, at times Members of our on
Congress sometimes seem not to understand this either.

Many of the new members should be described as
Cultural Conservative but Progressive on other
issues.

Some got the Gun Issues off the table quickly
then "Democrats get accused of not having morals.
It is immoral for our older citizens to choose
between heating home, buying food andor or getting
their prescription filled." They go down progressive
principles.

It is a mistake to to just say they are Conservative.
Cultural Conservatives but Progressive on other issues.

[EVDebs]

26. Media dinner, applauded Bush during his "Where's the WMD's ?" skit

And then makes out like it was an audience of his supporters only. Uh, yes, it was, wasn't it ?!

[EVDebs]

27. Correspondent's dinner link showing this appalling behavior....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o9EbssUgHj4

[Zodiak]

31. Populists

that blend of ideologies you describe are populists. Long forgotten but once invaluable members of the party. Glad to see them coming back.

[TheDonkey]

12. It's a victory for all Democrats! I'm not going to start tearing the party apart already

after such a great victory. Everyone, liberal to conservative democrats helped this WAVE.

[ProSense]

13. I don't look at it as tearing the party apart!

This is about the media and acknowledging that Americans rejected the GOP's brand of conservatism, voting out Republicans in favor of Democrats (liberal, moderate or conservative). The shift was a shift to the left.

Some in the media are trying to spin this as as a rejection of liberal values, which isn't exactly the case:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2943638&mesg_id=2943638

I think the party, with all its new members, is becoming stronger than ever!

[WildEyedLiberal]

14. The MSM realized they can't spin this for the GOP anymore...

... so now they're going to try to spin it for the next best thing, "conservative Democrats."

Earth to MSM: Americans REJECTED the right-wing lunatic agenda last night. Stop whoring for a dying ideology.

[Odin2005]

15. Depends on what you mean by "conservative democrat"

You can be on the left on economic issues and yet be socially conservative, there are plenty of those kind of people in this country, they are basically the opposite of the libertarian types.

[benEzra]

16. Getting the gun issue off the table--FINALLY--was a big part

of WHY a lot of the seats that flipped, flipped.

Don't forget what happened in '94, when the Anointed Geniuses at the DLC decided that legislating rifle stock shape and raising the price on some handgun magazines was just SO damn important, and worth risking the loss of the House and Senate.

Want to lose Congress again? Start reintroducing gun bans, and see what happens.

Dems and the Gun Issue - Now What?

BTW, supporting lawful gun ownership isn't a "conservative" position, nor is banning more guns a "progressive" position. Don't forget that Sarah Brady is a Reagan republican...and Russ Feingold ISN'T.

[Arugula Latte]

17. K&R

:kick:

[PATRICK]

18. I was working

with a lot of ex-Republicans who mostly considered themselves liberals. Only some Dems shy away from the reality! The GOP faithful who sneer at "liberal Democrats" are the very ones propelling defectors toward us when eyes are opened.

[warrens]

19. Most of the new people are more "conservative" than DU

That's not a bad thing. They match their regions. I agree with your main point, that these are not like the old Dixiecrats, right wingers with D next to their names. But they represent a very wide spectrum in political thought. I think this is a good thing, because they can speak the language that will get our core ideas, such as universal health care, enacted. The Dem party hasn't moved rightward, it has just become more tolerant of people with some non-traditional ideas.

Tester is a really good example. He's a great guy, a populist, but he's also rabidly pro-gun. He's almost a Goldwater type, in ways, but the older, more liberal Goldwater. We need more like him.

[Nederland]

20. I'm sorry but you are wrong

If this victory was really a victory by the left then Joe Lieberman would have lost. You admit that most of the new seats were won by Conservative Democrats. I agree. What I cannot comprehend is how you can admit that and then proceed to claim that the victory was due to liberals. It wasn't just liberals, it was moderates too. If we had run far left liberals in those new seats, we wouldn't have won them. The bottom line for BOTH parties is this: you can't win without the middle. If you cater only to your base you will end up with 30%-40% of the vote because that's what the base is. The real deciding votes come from the middle who have little or no party affliation. Neither the far right or the far left want to admit that, but its true.

[chaska]

30. You keep pushing this, but you're wrong....

I'm sorry, but Lieberman is a bad example to use for your argument. He won because of Republicans joining together with those who didn't want to give up Lieberman's seniority.

The truth is that in many of these races we could have run Karl Marx and won. This election was first and foremost a repudiation of the Republicans. By definition repudiating the right means the country has moved left. Not hugely, but I'll take it.

[Nederland]

33. Where?

The truth is that in many of these races we could have run Karl Marx and won.

Where? In the places we picked up seats? Think you could have run Karl Marx in Virginia and won? What about Montana? Missouri?

C'mon, think before you write this stuff...

[Brotherjohn]

34. Nederland is clearly saying we could have run more liberal candidates...

... in MOST OTHER districts, NOT the few one by "new breed" Dems.

And in response to your initial response to me, you keep saying I've said ONLY Liberals won it. NO, I specifically say that it was the ENTIRE Democratic Party ("of all stripes"). And the point I am making is that MOST of them (districts, candidates, winners) are much more liberal. Yes, a few cmore conservative Dems helped greately in shifting things (and we may not have won without them). But it's another thing entirely to say that we should now govern for this small segment of the democratic electorate. Most of the Democratic voters (and many Republican) who voted a Dem Congress in were voting for liberals, and this media spin ignores that. They are the bulk of the party, and won the bulk of the elections. And people knew what they were voting for: Democratic Party rule.

[ananda]

21. Bullpucky, Dems need to be Dems!

I was also thinking that the media is trying to spin this election by way of saying that Dems need to be very careful how they govern, meaning no impeachment proceedings and a move towards the right.

Excuse me! That's exactly what we don't need!

I'm starting to have no respect for Pelosi.

Sue

[ACK]

24. Let me say this again - Basic liberal values are the center values now

The country is more center-left leaning than they ever were.

There was a thread here that the majority of Americans want to raise the minimum wage, and have universal healthcare.

From bvarr22's post:
In recent polls by the Pew Research Group, the Opinion Research Corporation, the Wall Street Journal, and CBS News, the American majority (Democrats AND Republicans) has made clear how it feels. Look at how the majority feels about some of the issues that you'd think would be gospel to a real Democratic Party:

1. 65 percent (of ALL Americans, Democrats AND Republicans) say the government should guarantee health insurance for everyone -- even if it means raising taxes.

2. 86 percent favor raising the minimum wage (including 79 percent of selfdescribed "social conservatives").

3. 60 percent favor repealing either all of Bush's tax cuts or at least those cuts that went to the rich.

4. 66 percent would reduce the deficit not by cutting domestic spending but by reducing Pentagon spending or raising taxes.

5. 77 percent believe the country should do "whatever it takes" to protect the environment.

6. 87 percent think big oil corporations are gouging consumers, and 80 percent (including 76 percent of Republicans) would support a windfall profits tax on the oil giants if the revenues went for more research on alternative fuels.

7. 69 percent agree that corporate offshoring of jobs is bad for the U.S. economy (78 percent of "disaffected" voters think this), and only 22% believe offshoring is good because "it keeps costs down."


http://alternet.org/wiretap/29788 /

8. Over 63% oppose the War on the Iraqi People.

9. 92% of ALL Americans support TRANSPARENT, VERIFIABLE elections!
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph ...

Come on people we are the center. Liberals solid liberals not socialist leaning leftists and not conservatives but good old-fashioned liberals are the majority.

[kenny blankenship]

29. An interesting confession from Andrew Sullivan (quotes are only approximate)

"Most of the people of this country are (sic) ameliorative" They believe, in other words, that the government ought to do things to improve the lives of people who are struggling in our economic system. When it comes to core issues like old age pensions, healthcare, education, and jobs the vast majority of people believe in a central role of government for lifting up the standard of living for ordinary Americans in all these areas and more.

Sullivan also confessed in the next sentence that "true (small government) conservatives represent at most 5%-10% of the U.S. population," and the rest are to some degree or another "ameliorative" (his word)--or to use the traditional terminology, LIBERAL. Without their coalition with relgious fundamentalists who want to use the gov't to punish people they don't like, the "small government conservatives could never approach majority voting strength anywhere."
-------------
I think what has happened is that people are sick of the categorization of politics imposed on them by the Big Media and the Republican party. They are sick of being told that they have to vote for politicians who'll ship their job overseas because their only alternative is "the Commie-Dems."

They're sick of funding a Cadillac universal healthcare system for Republican Congressmen and finding their own families' options for health insurance costlier and dicier with every passing year--and being told by these pampered pols that their only alternative is the "Commie-Democrats".

They're sick of the Republicans claiming to be the last best hope for morality in Western Civilization, while this same political party engages in orgies of bribery, vote-buying, crony capitalist gov't contracting, and covers up for its own members who sexually harrass kids--and being told that their only alternative is the "godless immoral homosexual hugging Democrats".

They're sick of being told they have to pay their taxes, borrow trillions from foreign creditors, and ship their kids off to non-sensical wars of Royal Adventurism in the Middle east--and that their only alternative is the "terrorist-hugging Democrats".

The people have been pushed to the right by Republican hate-speech and Republican terrorism--and pushed, and pushed, and pushed for 12 years--but suddenly they can't be pushed rightward anymore. This strategy of social and political polarization that Newt Gingrich and later Karl Rove pursued can be frighteningly effective--indeed so frightening that it's got a special scary name, Fascism--but though it goes like a house on fire for a while, when it burns out it collapses. It doesn't bend, it just breaks. To the shock and horror of the political punditry the people have snapped back away from Bushlerism and elitism and are in revolt. The spell is broken.

The center has come to us. It's a revolt and like most events of its kind it's somewhat formless. After decades of being told--and increasingly believing--that we Democrats are "THE ENEMY" they have come to us in DESPERATION. But in all the confusion of this unexpected turn, we do KNOW they didn't turn to us for "More of the Same". They want their middleclass interests advanced (instead of Republican crony capitalism), they want institutional reforms (so they can feel safe that what has gone on under GOP one party rule won't happen again), and they want the guilty punished. If we lead this formless revolt and deliver on these priorities in the above order, I believe we can re-create an enduring Democratic majority.

[greeneyedboy]

25. exactly. well said. also see the excellent and entertaining piece by Greenwald:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x244959

[pat_k]

32. They have not begun to give the public's outrage a voice

There is seething anger within the American electorate. This election hints at the depth and breadth, but the failure of our political leaders to give voice to the alarm and outrage continues to sow cynicism and hopelessness that anything will really change. (Establishment Dems are actually doing their best to put the lid on the anger with their pablum about "bipartisanship" with fascists.)

When no one gives voice to the things people are angry and passionate about, the floodgates remain closed. But when a public figure speaks out and taps into the energy, whoosh!

I saw a microcosm of this after the theft of the 2004 Presidential election. I was on a Democracy for America conference call. From the back and forth, it sounded like there were maybe 5 or 10 people on the line as they talked about this or that agenda item and possible things to focus our efforts on. There was little energy.

As the moderator neared the end of the agenda, someone piped up "What about Ohio? What about the stolen election? What does Burlington plan to do about that?" Suddenly there was a chorus. Dozens talking at once. It was unbelievable. It sounded like there were about a hundred people on the line.

If no one had given voice to the anger, no one on that call would have thought that anyone else cared -- they would have withdrawn in silence. And the "leaders" would have been able to tell themselves the stolen election just isn't something that people are interested in. Because they were hell-bent on "moving on" they would have walked away from the call, believing everyone else was on board with the "let's move on" agenda, which was the opposite of the truth. In fact, the mother lode of energy was with the "It Ain't Over 'Til it's Over!" people.

We see this over and over again in ways large and small.

The unprecedented and amazing response to Keith Olbermann's first "Special Comment" is one such event. When he gave voice to the outrage, outraged Americans came out of the woodwork in numbers that so shocked the programmers they realized they could significantly boost weekend ratings by replaying the segment.

Whenever our leaders touch on the theft of Florida or Ohio in public appearances, whenever they even tip toe near a call for impeachment, the audience bursts out in cheers and applause that is usually the loudest and longest of the event. Leaving that kind of energy untapped is political insanity.

There is enormous public support for impeachment. We can see it in the anger at Bush. We can see it in our Republican acquaintances who think Bush "needs a good spanking." We can see it in the polls (even with the desperate opposition to impeachment coming from our Democratic "leaders," a majority of the nation wants impeachment to be a priority in the new Congress (http://january6th.org/oct2006-newsweek-poll-impeach.html">Newsweek poll)

Until members of Congress who are sworn to defend the Constitution speak the truth, accuse Bush and Cheney of their crimes, and take up the fight for impeachment they will only have an inkling of strength of the outrage.

As long as they fail to give us voice they can continue to believe the opposite of reality, that Americans prefer to trade away the Constitution to avoid the "negativity" of impeachment.

[WinkyDink]

35. EXACTLY. And our LEADERS had better realize this. "Change"

does NOT = "Still give the other side something it wants".