"Editor and Publisher" notes that a new Gallup poll shows this: "In Gallup’s latest poll this month, those identifying themselves as Republicans jumped to 37% of the public, with Democrats now clearly trailing with 32%.
Democrats have long held more party members than Republicans. During the Clinton years, the bulge was about 5% to 6%. As recently as late-October of this year the Democratic edge was 37% to 34%." I am looking at some detailed figures of the Ohio vote (with Roger’s help since I can’t handle numbers on my own) and I will have some more to say on this issue soon enough. Robert Alt reminded me of this op-ed from David Broder, published on November 13, 2002, wherein he mentions that some Democrats are worried (Nancy Pelosi had just shifted "the center of gravity" of the Democratic Party) and Broder notes that Martin Frost (remember him? he ran against Pelosi for a day) warned that the party may become "a permanent minority party." And that was just after the 2002 defeat. Interesting. This
is what I said about the Broder piece at the time (November 2002):
If you read his article carefully you will note that the Democrats have put themselves in seven or eight different kinds of knots that they will find very difficult to get out of. The implication of these knots is that they will continue to play miniature politics; adjustments here and there only, thereby not allowing themselves as a party to stand for anything, unless they take the full-bore liberalism/progresssivism/populism mode. In that case they they will continue to lose.
This is so frustrating!!! What the National and State Democrats need to model themselves after are the Local Democrats (who, by the way, won a significant amount MORE seats nation-wide than Republicans). When the average citizen sits down for dinner they dont discuss Gay Marriage or Foreign Policy (with the exception of the war, maybe). They talk about their jobs, school, and health care. These are all things that Democrats have great ideas about (although Im sure many of you would disagree :-D) and people realize that or they would not elect them locally. If the Democrats would start talking about how to create better schools (and actually fund it), lower health costs (and Im not talking about for doctors . . . ), and creating more quality jobs faster (without sending them overseas) instead of trying to convince the nation that homosexuality is A-okay and that women should be able to get an abortion a few days before theyre due (I know, these are extremes) than my party would be in much better shape. Until that time, however, if it ever comes, we will struggle on the national and state levels . . . tis a shame.
Matt, I think the key thing that you are missing in your analysis is that the Democratic Party cant talk about the issues you do, because they are far too beholden to special interests. They cant talk about education in any meaningful sense because they are owned by the teachers unions. They cant talk about globalization because too many of their own members take a primitive view of economics (yes, Lou Dobbs, this means you) and any serious discussion only highlights the rift. They certainly cant talk about health care costs when trial lawyers are literally driving them out of the state. Overall, I think you are dead on, but the party needs to reclaim its mantle of "being for the little guy" before it can win back their votes.