« Term Limits | Main | The press and the Democrats »

Winners and losers

Here are some of my ideas about the winners and losers of Tuesday's elections.

Democrats: Winners.

Republicans Losers.

But moving beyond that, I'd like to take examine a few specific individuals.

John McCain: Winner. He has just solidified his nascent status as presidential front-runner. Because of his "maverick" persona (I like calling him a "maverick" because it pisses off the moonbats) his image is of a senator not strongly beholden to the outgoing leadership. That will serve him well as as Republicans begin to look for change. Moreover, McCain has warned of this bloodbath for years, if Republicans did not amend their ways, and now he has been proven right. His stature will rise in the upcoming term.

Joe Lieberman: Winner. Even less beholden to the Democratic leadership than before, Lieberman's power will be enhanced as he reaches across to craft compromises and break logjams. Look for the Senate to become the "McCain-Lieberman Show." The two senators will be in their glory, brokering deals left and right in an almost evenly divided chamber. It's what they live for.

Chuck Schumer: Winner. Even long after the House was a lost cause for the GOP, the smart money never convincingly gravitated to a Democratic takeover in the Senate. Nonetheless, Schumer engineered an unlikely victory by recruiting moderate, centrist candidates who were palatable to heartland voters that were fed up with the GOP, but still very wary of Beltway liberals.

Markos Moulitsas: Loser. The Ned Lamont nomination proved he can whip his moonbat base into a frenzy, but we already knew that. But Tuesday's election proved (again) that Kos's power to reach beyond his core base of foam-at-the-mouth leftists is approximately zero. Kos's hand-picked, anti-war candidate lost handily to a pro-war petition candidate in a very blue, very anti-war state, even in the face of a split Republican vote. That was distinctly unimpressive. Expect Schumer to remind Kos of that frequently.

Those are the big ones I can think of for now. Any others?


"Markos Moulitsas: Loser. The Ned Lamont nomination proved he can whip his moonbat base into a frenzy, but we already knew that.

Hey Barry,
I think you read too much right-wing blogs. Markos Moulitsas is THE biggest winner of all. Why?

1. Dont forget that Ned Lamont beat Lieberman in the primary. Think about it. A completely unknown person beat an ex-VP candidate of the democratic party, to a large extent because of the help of left-wing blogs. On Tuesday Lieberman won with republican (!) votes. Democrats in CT voted for the "Moulitsas candidate".

2. Kos and other lefty bloggers supported some other very many other candidates that won, but you fail to mention. Like, John Tester and Jim Webb. In fact, Jim Webb thanked them and said that he probably could not have won without their help!

3. When Harry Reid feels the need to go to Kos the day of the election and write a post thanking them and telling them what key roles Kos and others have played, that leads to completely different conclusion than the one you drew.

The reality is that Kos and the lefty bloggers have become a very powerful block in the democratic party. The right better get used to them. As the should get used to the term "speaker Pelosi".

Blue, your analysis is a little naive, I'm afraid. Yes, the Kos Kids are a "powerful block" in the Democratic Party, much in the same way as blacks, gays and other groups. The Democrats pat them on their heads, say the requisite nice things about them in public, and then proceed to ignore them. They "care" about these groups around election time, but otherwise wish they'd just go away.

Welcome to the club. :-)

All is a matter of interpretation. But the "Kos kids" gave very hard time and almost sent to retirement an ex-VP candidate. They are very different than the other groups you mention, because of the power of internet-communication.

I also dont think that is fair that you focused your post on their support for Lamont, when they supported big time Jim Webb and John Tester and many others. They raised similar amounts of money in all these 3 senate races. They just wrote more anti-Lieberman posts because of the widespread distaste for Lieberman. The only reason that Lieberman is re-elected was because he is a good politician and, at the end, he changed his message. In his last TV ads he was talking about "bringing our troops home" (of course he was lying, but voters in CT believed him).

I absolutely agree with you Blue Wind; Democrats, liberals and lefties should all focus their attention on Kos and follow Moulitsas and Soros to the letter -- I mean no daylight between the DLL and Kos at all! (DLL...I like that! Reminds me of my favorite Windows feature.)

Ned Lamont was truly a moral victory for the left and, after all, he did come in second -- in fact he may have won it all had there been no other candidates in the race!

I also think that the Democrats were right on target nominating a recently converted Republican like Jim Webb, and heartland guy like John Tester. If the Democrats can convert those to guys to the far left agenda (give them time, I'm sure they'll come around before their terms end) then they will have a real inroad into changing the mind of Reaganites and Evangelicals throughout the south and Mountain states.

It owuld be a real mistake for the Democrats to run from the left-wing of the bloggosphere and try to find common ground with the unwashed, uneducable middle of the nation. Those fly-over people are so...I don't know...not cool. Why do we even let them get married?

> I also dont think that is fair that you focused your post on their support for Lamont...

Dude, they made Ned Lamont a focal point of their energies and efforts, not me. I thought they were nuts for doing so. Still do. And so does Chuck Schumer. And he's right.

Kos certainly supported Tester and Webb over their Republican opponents, but he also would certainly have preferred more progressive candidates had he been given the choice. Had Kos had as much input in choosing candidates nationwide as he did in Connecticut, Tuesday would have been a disaster for the Democrats. We'd have had dozens of "Ned Lamonts" losing in districts all across the country.

Rahm Emanuel is a BIG winner Barry!

Even bigger than Schumer, because it was Emanuel who was gven credit for recruiting all those socially Conservative (IN, KY, KS, etc), pro-life (Casey, and others) and even some evangelical Dems (Schuler) to run in the heartland.

Emanuel may have fulfilled the DLC vision (moving the Democratic Party to the "Right" and back toward the "Center") in a single election cycle.

Without Emanuel's strategy the Dems wouldn't have picked up those heartland seats, not with any "liberal Dems.

Rahm Emanuel may have had the biggest impact on the Democratic Party..and the political landscape overall, in the last fifty years.

"I absolutely agree with you Blue Wind; Democrats, liberals and lefties should all focus their attention on Kos and follow Moulitsas and Soros to the letter"

Hey WF,
Have you ever heard of the term "sore loser"?

"Kos certainly supported Tester and Webb over their Republican opponents, but he also would certainly have preferred more progressive candidates had he been given the choice."

Thats just a guess. The fact is that both Tester and Webb are very well liked by people like me (Kos-MoveOn faction of the democratic party as JMK would say).

"The fact is that both Tester and Webb are very well liked by people like me." (BW)
A Right Kind of Democrat

GOP-held House seats are threatened by a crop of conservative foes.

By Janet Hook,
LA Times Staff Writer
October 26, 2006


The Dems have made some actual progress in moving RIGHT this time. I hope this trends continues and grows...it's good for that Party and the Two Party system and it's good for America.

JMK, I wonder what it is about Webb that Blue likes the most? His pro-gun stance? His anti-women-in-the-military stance? His pro-Confederate stance? (You don't see *that* one every day.) His "towel-head" remark? His tenure in the Reagan Administration? His characterization of the Clinton White House as "the most corrupt administration in modern memory?" Perhaps Blue will enlighten us.

Nah. On second thought, he'll probably just respond with "Allen is a racist." ;-)

Barry I LOVE all these pro-guns and pro-border enforcement Dems lately.

Yeah, I don't get what any northeast Liberals "like" about these guys.

My wife (and I understand her sensibilities) reviles the VA border (coming in from MD) where you're met with a huge Stars & Bars and the words, "Dixie Starts Here."

Me, not so much. I try telling folks that what the South was fighting for was the original Constitution, as one of their Generals (Longstreet is reported to have said) "We should've freed the slaves, then fired on Fort Sumpter."

Still all that's an uphill battle, what with so many people mistaking license (doing whatever one wants) for Liberty/freedom (complete self-responsibility) these days.
"On second thought, he'll probably just respond with "Allen is a racist." (BNJ)
"I don't care how Conservative they are...I don't care how much they disagree with me...they're...they're Democrats after all."

Blue, that last line may be your BEST defense.

This could be interesting down the road Barry. As one pundit put it, it's doubtful the Dems will push any of the hot button issues right away, but down the line gay Marriage,m the borders, gun rights, abortion and taxes are going to be thorny issues among the Democrats.

They have a brand new "WING"...and it's "RIGHT!"

BW: "Hey WF,
Have you ever heard of the term "sore loser"?"

You completely misunderstand me. I really, truly, sincerely believe that the Democrats should follow Kos and Soros as closely as possible in the next election. I don't see why you would question that -- Don't you want to replicate Ned Lamont's success in every state?

The defining issue in this election was Iraq. Jim Webb is strongly opposed to the Iraq war. He is also pro-choice and he had a strong social message against poverty. All classic democratic values. I disagree with him on guns, but that's a minor issue these days. Jim Webb is in reality a libertarian-like liberal and not a conservative. He is fully acceptable to us (Kos-MoveOn faction of the democratic party as JMK would say).

> The defining issue in this election was Iraq.

As long as you persist in "defining" liberalism as opposition to the Iraq war, you are going to be in for some very unpleasant surprises. ;-)

"The defining issue in this election was Iraq." (BW)
"He is fully acceptable to us (Kos-MoveOn faction of the democratic party as JMK would say)." (BW)

It is necessary to separate out the 3 issues. The primary concern must be securing the border. Immediate action is needed to stem the flow of illegal border crossings. Approaching the issue using an omnibus bill that attempts to solve all three issues simultaneously creates a political stalemate that delays the border security solution. There is a consensus that our border security must be improved and we should act on that consensus as soon as possible. Once the border is secure we can develop a fair solution to other immigration issues.

TRANSLATION: Border enforcement FIRST.

The key question facing us is how long we should be expected to occupy Iraq. Someday we are going to leave. Senator Allen seemed rather blasé about this during our recent debate, stating that we have been in Cuba for more than 100 years. But most Americans want us to finish this mission and come home, as long as we do not leave even greater chaos behind. The Administration has never shared with us a specific approach of its own.
For more than two years, Jim Webb has been proposing a formula that might lead to the end of our occupation of Iraq. The first step would be for this Administration to say unequivocally that our country has no desire to occupy Iraq in the long term.



Israel and the United States have shared a special relationship founded on common democratic values and ideals. Israel is a crucial ally in the War on Terror providing invaluable expertise on counter-terrorism activities. Threats such as Hamas and Iran have threatened stability in the region by refusing to acknowledge Israel’s right to exist, by engaging in terrorist activities, and by developing nuclear weapons. The United States must stand with Israel as she defends herself. We must also facilitate diplomatic solutions to crises facing the region.

Hamas is a terrorist organization bent on the elimination of the State of Israel. The terror they have imposed on Israeli citizens is unacceptable and we must take actions to cease the violence. Specifically, I support U.N. resolution 1701, which increases U.N peacekeeping forces in Lebanon and reaffirms previous resolutions that say Hezbollah must be disarmed and dismantled.

TRANLSATION: Israel is America’s friend and America is going to continue to defend Israel. (Joe Lieberman would be proud)

Note that gun control is NOT listed among the issues Webb addresses on his website


because he opposes it, as Barry noted.
"Jim Webb is in reality a libertarian-like liberal..." (BW)
"he (Webb) had a strong social message against poverty..." (BW)


I cna't believe how really close we are on all this Blue.


Yeah, I have a "strong social message against poverty" too!

Mine is "Get off the booze, get off the drugs...and get a job."

OK, OK, I stole that from the great Bill Bratton, current Police Chief in LA and former NYPD Commissioner.

How about this, "POVERTY, I'm against it."

That's pretty much Webb's message too. There's nothing to indicate Jim Webb will support the mamoth tax increases supported by the likes of Kos & Move On.

And Webb IS one of the more MOderate "Blue Dawgs" to win election in this cycle.

I have no great love for Markos Moulitsas. Unsurprisingly, he's more than a bit of an ass. I met him at a book signing in Hoboben, and he was completely unable to get past me as "middle-aged Jewish woman" and insisted in referring to my blog as "a bed and breakfast" -- and signed my copy of the book accordingly.

That said, it's very easy to call the Lamont collapse a function of the Kos push, but the reality is that it was when Lamont STOPPED playing to the netroots that his numbers started to fall. You may enjoy thinking that guys like Jon Tester and Jim Webb are Triumphs of the Will, but both were candidates heavily pushed by the netroots -- including Kos. I could give you a whole list if you want -- but more netroots candidates won than lost.

But you spin it however you like, if it makes you feel better.

Jill, the fact is that the Rahm Emanuel strategy (bringing in Conservatives back into the Democratic Party) won on Tuesday, NOT the Left-wing blogoshphere "netroots."

Tester & Webb are both pro-gun, border enforcement first, low-tax Democrats...and those two are far MORE moderate than the Indiana, Kentucky, and other heartland Democratic delegations, including Heath Schuler (the evangelical Christian from NC).

Emanuel managed to steer the Democratic Party sharply to the Right and back toward the center...decidedly AWAY from the Gore-Dean-Kucinich-AAR-Netroot Left-wing of that Party.

All week, the hard Left has been trying to ignore the loud & proud "voice of America" heard on Tuesday night - America voted 2 to 1 AGINST "gay Marriage," by huge numbers AGAINST Eminent Domain (Kelo was OPPOSED by every "Conservative" SC Justice and APPROVED by every "Liberal" SC Justice), in heavilly Democratic Michigan the MCRIbarring race/gender-based preferences sponsored by Ward Connerly passed by nearly 60/40...and in AZ a raft of anti-illegal immigrant measures (including "Enlish as the official language of AZ," by 76/24) passed easily.

That, Jill, is "the voice of the American people," the voice all these "New (more Conservative) Democrats" are beholden to.

It's "the voice" we all should be beholden to, as it's the voice of the better part of our natures, in my view.

Post a comment