If you want to console yourself by arguing that the political fundamentals on the ground haven’t really changed all that much, consider these two posts. This is a very closely divided country.
Those who argued that George W. Bush had no mandate in 2004 can’t really say that they have one now.
On the other hand, if they want to follow in GWB’s footsteps and take a high-stakes gamble, I’ll take that bet. I think trying to govern from the right was a safer bet in 2004 than trying to govern from the left is now.
From your first link:
“In other words you can basically go back and say that we lost control of Congress by 11 seats. You’re talking about less than 50,000 votes.”
Wow! Could the cut-n-run conservatives been the deciding factor last night!
Hillary Clinton is a centrist... are you suggesting she is Democrat’s best hope? I’m not being snarky here.
I suspect deeply disappointed/disaffected conservatives might account for this loss, but we shall see. If that is the case, then it isn’t the stupid war that’s the problem, it’s the GOP failing its conservative constituency -- a whole different kettle of fish, and something that could be corrected fairly rapidly.
Joseph:
It’s a stretch. Bush got 3 million more votes than Kerry, out of 122 million cast. Last night, if my math is right, at last count, Senate Democrats got over 6 million more votes than their Republican rivals (not counting Sanders or Lieberman), out of about 58 million cast. You could easily make an argument that 2% isn’t a mandate but 10% is.
Hewitt seemed very confident over the past week, and now he’s playing his normal role: propoganda for Bush. Fair enough. You can slice the data the way he wants, but that’s not going to help you understand political reality. (It might help you shape it, of course. Blogs like Hewitt’s are more about shaping reality than understanding it.)
Hillary Clinton is a centrist...
No, she just isn’t stupid. While she’s all for socialized health care et al, she also clearly understands what most liberal Democrats don’t, that America will not elect an anti-war president, Her phoney pro-war stance was probably solidified as she watched a liberal like her smooth-talkin’ hubby went through (even though he had the luxury of a "peace dividend" in a post-Soviet world).
President Hillary, however, would, as hubby did, call off the "WOT" (if Congress hasn’t totally de-funded it already), opting for raises the ill-fated "Golerick wall" and a purely legal approach to fighting Osama types.
In that sense, she, like all libs, are not very smart (as the Osama types are well-aware).
GOP failing its conservative constituency
If honesty and thrift are conservative values, you’re right.