The Bipartisan Myth: Democrats Won 35-0

[Bob Geiger]

Check out my main man, Cenk Uygur, who knocks the cover off this nonsense that the results of the midterm elections represent Americans crying out for more bipartisanship in Washington. Cenk accurately points out that both parties didn’t come out on top -- Democrats did.

An excerpt:

But the real proof is in the numbers. Twenty-nine House seats and six Senate seats changed from Republican to Democrat. None changed from Democrat to Republican. Not one.

That's not bipartisanship. That's a 35-0 blowout.

The American people spoke loud and clear - we want to go in the direction of the Democrats. There were no mixed messages about the Democrats going halfway to meet the Republicans. If anyone has to move towards the middle it is clearly the Republicans.

I don't want to see one more "news" story about how the Democrats should move toward the Republicans or meet them halfway because that's what "people" want. What people? The voters were clear and that is not what they said.

Please go to The Huffington Post to read the rest of the column.

Of course, I could not agree with Cenk more. The American people voted overwhelming for Democrats and our vision for how things should be run, and not for even a shred of the knuckleheaded, dishonest, rubber-stamping we've seen out of the Republican Congress.

They voted for a new day, not a half-and-half day.

You can read more from Bob at BobGeiger.com.

[Lowell]

1. These are the same morons who thought

51% was a mandate.

[queenbdem87]

6. Hey....if 51% was a mandate ...think about what 55% must mean!

[Stevepol]

8. It was more than 50% if the exit polls are to be believed.

Check out the Baiman link:

http://www.electiondefensealliance.org/

[kegler14]

2. But....but...but

some of those wins were really, really, really close, so don't you know that they don't count. I mean, if three more people in every precinct in Virginia had voted for Allen, Webb would have lost. So you see Webb didn't REALLY win. Just sort of. Kinda.

[melissinha]

4. counter that with "it was a republican stronghold"

the wave of change that it took to get to the halfway point is actually a considerable gain for Democrats.

Though I think we should be quite clear this was a vote for oversight. I think Democrats have already moved to far to the right and thats why there has been no oversight (oh yeah and that pesky no power whatsoeer despite our 49% hold on Congress which got us 10% power).

[formercia]

5. I guess the GOP didn't cheat hard enough.

Rove had the numbers for the voters they could manipulate. It didn't take into account voters like students and really pissed of republicans who said they would vote GOP just to screw with his numbers.

[pat_k]

11. Stealing about 6% seems to be their upper limit.

. . .Of course, until we demand, and get, our election officials to conduct believable elections, we'll never really know.

Undoubtedly, when that day comes, the establishment will write off the massive shift to Dems as a "rebound" -- heaven forbid they acknowledge 2 stolen Presidential elections and massive fraud in races large and small.

[formercia]

12. Phantom Registered Republicans

would be a good place to start. The phony voter registration drives held to just gather names to register as Republicans to cover the stolen votes has to be adressed along with auditable and tamper proof paper ballots.

[pat_k]

14. Absolutely. Inflating Repub registration #s is a must to cover the fraudulent votes (nt)

[formercia]

16. To deny someone the right to an honest vote

is to deny they exist. Our vote is our only legal defense against tyranny.

[Nite Owl]

3. Geez, how many articles were there

when the repukes were in control telling them to be 'bipartisan'? All they wrote about was how we were traitors, cut and run, up or down vote, obstructionists. Now they want US to be bipartisan? No way, they made these divisions and if they want to learn and vote with the left ok but we needn't give in to any thing that they want now.

[onenote]

7. arguments like this really are sort of silly

One could just as easily argue that the repubs successfully defended 87 percent of their House seats. My point is just that playing with numbers is just that -- playing with numbers. You can hardly generalize that "the AMerican people" voted for a new day, when, in the vast majority of cases, they voted for the same old, same old. What you can say is that in those 35 races, the voters opted for change and the change they wanted was to get rid of repubs.

[Infinite Hope]

9. Amen.

35 of 435 is nothing. They voted for Democrats so that the result would be balance (aka: bipartisanship). To want Democrats to dive off to the far left (disclaimer: I'm quite liberal, though pragmatic) is to fail to recognize that we will suffer the same fate as the Republicans if we do.

[guruoo]

13. IMHO, yours is the definitive observation...

"To want Democrats to dive off to the far left ....is to fail to recognize that we will suffer the same fate as the Republicans if we do."

[pat_k]

10. The Election was about one thing. That one thing is a person. Bush

The Election was about One Thing

That one thing is a Person.

Bush.

He wasn't on the ballot, but had he been, voters would have sent Bush Co. packing with a resounding vote of "No Confidence." At least that's what the real excerpts tell us:

Curtis Gans
Director
http://spa.american.edu/csae">Center for the Study of the American Electorate

On Politically Direct with David Bender
November 10th
http://podcast.rbn.com/airam/airam/download/archive/2006/11/aapd111006.mp3">MP3--Interview start time approx 18:30)

Bender: Joining me now is Curtis Gans. He is the Director of the Center for the Study of the American Electorate at American University and he has just released a new study analyzing the turnout this past Tuesday, and there's some interesting and there are some very, very interesting shifts in the turnout from previous elections. Welcome to Politically Direct . . .

Gans: It's very good to talk to you David.

Bender: Curtis, I'm holding the study in my hand right now, and clearly one of the things that all the exit polls showed was that Iraq played a part and your own work bears that out -- that Iraq helped propel some degree of an increase in turnout in this last election.

Gans: I think that it is not simply Iraq, although Iraq started Bush's downhill. But it is a gestalt around George Bush. it's being a pariah to other countries; it's people dying in what they increasing find is a vain fight; it's massive budgetary imbalances; it's a lack of compassionate conservatism; it's insecurity in jobs; it's the feeling that people have not been leveled with.

Bender: You've been doing this for almost 30 years; studying the American electorate. And there is probably no greater expert than you. It's just a real pleasure to have you on this program. . .

It is the nation's outrage at what Bush has done to our country that drove Democrats to victory on Nov. 7th.

As a general proposition, Americans want the ideal of a bipartisan Congress in which reasonable people on "both sides" work together to find reasonable solutions. But on Nov. 7th, the voice of the people declared that the most essential ingredient of that ideal -- reasonable people on "both sides" -- doesn't exist in Bush World.

When they rejected Bush and his rubber stamp Congress as intolerably incompetent/corrupt/extreme they were not calling for "bipartisanship" with Bush at the helm.

Their message was loud and clear: "We want out of Bush-World!"

Apparently DC Dems didn't get the message that was delivered. If they had, they'd be implementing strategies that tap into the power of the outrage that drove the "wave," instead of doing their best to suppress it.

The "conventional wisdom" and exhortations we've heard since the election -- "impeachment is off limits," "it's about issues, issue, issues," "suppress anger," "don't overreach," etc. -- aren't new. We heard them last month. We heard them last year. We have been hearing similar admonitions to be "pragmatic" and "tactical" or to "keep our powder dry" for decades because such admonitions are grounded in assumptions and patterns of thought that have resisted change for decades.

For the sake our national soul, the best thing the drivers of Democratic strategy could do would be to Get Out of Town, reconnect with reality, and listen to people like Curtis Gans and others who are calling on them to take a step back from tactical politics and get clear about the principles they are committed to and the goals they are passionate about:

Gans: Traditionally, at least for the last 30 years, they have essentially been very tactical; very programmatic. I don't think either one of those works. I think they have to have an articulation of Central American principles and what that means within a progressive Party.

. . .You know, what is a Democratic definition of liberty? What is Democratic definition of the common welfare? Etc.

Bender: This is a moment, clearly -- the people voted for accountability, there's no question about that. And the opportunity to show that the Democratic Party is the Party of the Constitution, I think will be a very popular position across the board, particularly with Independents, and maybe even some Republicans who still love this Constitution.

Gans: The concept of the Constitution and the People's Government is something that can unite the Democratic Party in ways it hasn't been united since the late 1960's
. . .

It will always come back to the same bottom line. The Constitution is under attack; Congress is sworn to defend it, impeachment is the weapon be gave them. Bush and Cheney are committing their war crimes and conducting their criminal domestic surveillance program in plain sight. We are long past the need for "investigation." It is time for Members of Congress to draft Articles of Impeachment and make the case. It has been "time" for years. Continued and unnecessary delay is dereliction.

With great crises come great opportunities. Their failure of our Democratic leaders to stand up and fulfill their oath is deplorable, but what makes it so heartbreaking is that they are failing to seize an unprecedented opportunity. Impeachment is not just the right thing to, it is the winning thing to do.

Democratic leaders may never have a greater opportunity to engage and inspire the public.

[Jim Lane]

15. It wasn't 35-0, it was 41-0

We should count the six governorships that changed from Republican to Democratic (Arkansas, Colorado, Maryland, Massachusetts, New York, Ohio). Here again, the number of Republican pickups was zero.

[hijinx87]

17. a "mandate" is usually something you don't have to claim

if you actually have one.

a very small margin in the house, and a razor thin majority in
the senate . . . . we will see what the congressional dems can
get done, but it doesn't look like it's going to be very easy
going from where I am sitting.