Feeds: 
symbol identifies content for paid subscribers only.
ECHOES OF 2004.
Spencer Ackerman asks, "Remember in 2003 and 2004, when there was all this talk about how the Democrats were in danger of no longer being a national party?" I do remember that. I also remember how Democrats had to get religion if they ever wanted to be competitive again. I also remember how they had to appeal to the white heartland by nominating candidates more culturally recognizable to rural voters. Instead, they went in the opposite direction, running a candidate who was recognizable to the majority coalition Democrats hoped to have in 10 years. It seems to have worked out pretty well. It's almost as if pundits don't really know what they're talking about.
COMMENTS (8)
Ezra, the pundits are totally out of touch. That is one of the many lessons of this election. They have been wrong on almost all counts.
Michelle Obama has been saying that all along...that the discussion pundits are having is totally different than what we, everyday people, are having.
Posted by: IVA | November 4, 2008 10:39 PM
Hah - here I thought my reaction to the news would be to feel like the final scene of the original Star Wars (the glorious award ceremony in the old temple throne room). Instead, for the first time ever, I feel confident enough in my own skin to finally give a resounding
....................../´¯/)
....................,/¯../
.................../..../
............./´¯/'...'/´¯¯`·¸
........../'/.../..../......./¨¯\
........('(...´...´.... ¯~/'...')
.........\.................'...../
..........''...\.......... _.·´
............\..............(
..............\.............\...
to the opposition.
Posted by: Wareq | November 4, 2008 11:28 PM
Ray Fair's statistical model of presidential elections shows that most voters decide on the basis of economic conditions. Psychological factors account for less than 1% of the total vote, yet according to pundits, this is all that matters.
See more info at:
http://fairmodel.econ.yale.edu/rayfair/pdf/2007A.PDF
Posted by: Tom Powers | November 5, 2008 12:44 AM
silly silly - those comments may resurface come mid term elections. this was a reaction to a bad economy and bad President, not a yearning for old school liberalism. we'll see how the new crowd does when the public focuses its laser beam on them and looks for results not vagaries...enjoy your night - the hangover will come soon!
Posted by: Frank Manziano | November 5, 2008 1:07 AM
Ya.. hangover. You know how much everyone calls roosevelt and the other previous liberal democratic president asses. They sucked so much... oh wait.
No, the only hangover coming is from the alcohol we drank in celebration of saving this country from its basest parts. But its worth it, because with that headache comes the knowledge that we have a competant leader for the first time in a decade.
Posted by: david b | November 5, 2008 5:32 AM
Pundits, last time I checked, are people. People don't do predictions particularly well. Make some. In five years you'll be really embarrassed by them. Guaranteed.
Posted by: ostap | November 5, 2008 8:28 AM
I wouldn't call Obama "going in the opposite direction" in the slightest..
He's a Midwestern Liberal which is quite a different beast than an East Coast Liberal. He's pragmatic, he's open about his religious beliefs--but not pushy--and he listens even better than he lectures.
He doesn't refer to a huge swath of the country as "flyover land"...
Thus, despite being black and cosmopolitan and all those other things you mention in other posts.. He is partially an improvement along the lines suggested in 2003 and 2004...
In any case.. He's really the first elected Midwestern President since Truman... and let's see if he can get universal Health Care passed this time.. seeing that Truman tried over 50 years ago to get that going...
Posted by: tricstmr | November 5, 2008 9:36 AM
The Democrats did get religion, in the form of Obama, who talks more about his than any Presidential candidate since Carter.
Posted by: John Cowan | November 5, 2008 11:47 PM