But what I learned most from that period was never to rest on your laurels, never assume the job is done, never take anything for granted, never for a moment think you can let up.

Because a mere four years later Carter was repudiated and the GOP scored a shocking takeover of the Senate.

The history of the last 50 years or so has demonstrated that the public swings back and forth with regularity. So when the swing is coming back your way you have to work twice as hard to keep it from swinging back away from you.

The GOP has never come close to equaling that record. Not RMN in 1972 not Reagan in 1980. And George W. Bush sure as hell as never come close to it.

Its true the GOP currently controls all 3 branches of government and the 4th estate, but  they don't have a mandate for the kind of wholesale change they seek. That's the problem with stealth campaigns crouched in touchy feely terms like compassionate conservative or code phrases like a preference of Justices like Scalia or Thomas (most Americans can tell you those 2 are conservative, but I expect most have no clue as to how far right they are), or code words like faith. You don't win a mandate for structural change.

 Its intelluctually dishonest of the GOP, but they can't get elected any other way. The last time they let the far right openly lead the charge was Pat Buchanan at the 1992 convention. They haven't been eager to do that again.

This will be a huge wakeup call for the Media.  They realize that Dems can actually win elections, and it will not be in their best interest to prop up this administration.

I will bet anyone that the amount of negative stories regarding republicans will increase dramatically over the next few months.

Thanks to Jerome and Chris for making this website THE place to find out election returns.  I am happy you guys finally got to deliver us some good news for a change!

About 80% of your blog pertaining to the long-term faults of the Republican "permanent majority' are thoughts that I have been thinking about the past year. Let me add this:

The core principles that Democrats can win on aren't party-specific. In essence the original Republican Party tenets of liberty, and self-empowerment was only the first steps toward establishing the natural governing principles  of society. Liberty and Empowerment are only words if not backed up by policy and funding. Enter FDR's New Deal and the establishment of the New  Democrat Party. While the present Republican party unites opposing groups on common scare tactics, FDR used the depression and WWII to unify the nation at the core level: economic upliftment. But the cycle wasn't complete because social inequality wouldn't be addressed unitl Kennedy in 1960. This split would give the modern day Republicans the base that they expand from: Disgruntled Democrats (Dixiecrats) ex-klansmen, and social and economic conservatives.  

The fact of the matter is that this country defaults to the Party that looks to increase the greeater good, since at any point in time the poor/blue-collar class makes up the bulk of citizenry. Hell, right now almost 80% of all US households have an combines income of 110K.

The core values of the Democratic party are socialistic in nature. So what? The problem is that when times are good everybody wants to look out for themselves and screw the masses. When times are bad, everybody wants to increase the greater good, since they are the masses.
Well, Dubya is making sure that we have a competitive chance in 2006 and 2008. Let's not screw it up.

If there is one lesson that the repugs can teach us is that all potics are local, and the national message has to be tailored to the local climate.
Pro-choice candidates in conservative areas need to come off as more libertarian than liberal.
Don't be baited by the gay  marriage issue if it's not an issue in your red-state election.
lastly, the Abortion debate is a  trap laid by the Republicans. Either take it off the table by being pro-life, with an agenda of providing alternatives , like the Democrats for Life siggest (knowing full well that the country is 60% pro-choice and Roe isn't being overturned) or take it off the table by being pro-choice and challenging Republicans to take responsibility for all the back-alley abortions that will take place in the Southeastern U.S. if Roe is overturned. Either way, TAKE IT OFF THE TABLE!

By the way, has anybody ever looked at which states went for Nixon and which went for Kennedy ?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._presidential_election,_1960

Reading your thoughts however makes me so proud to know my generation is now in the hands of another generation that is represented of progressives like you. Even though you haven't been part of the winning national side for most of your political life, take it from someone who lived through the sixties...times are a changing and I truly believe the next 52 weeks will prove your thoughts are on the right track.

Chris, you're a great progressive and you have what it takes to win!

But I know what you mean...

In 2004 I told my best friend that all the Republicans/conservatives needed was enough rope to hang themselves.  For 5 years I've been waiting for an indication that enough political twine had been provided.  Last night gave us much more than an indication.

God bless!

Whether that is true or not, just the fact that these people were talking about how toxic Bush is right now -- down to even the local level -- tells you how much has changed.

Also, there was a lot of talk about how negative the New Jersey governor's race was. The dustup over Corzine's ex-wife's comments notwithstanding, Corzine rammed Bush down Forrester's throat.

A year is a long time -- look at how different things are from LAST November -- but in real America, Bush got his head handed to him yesterday. Whether the Beltway Dems will wake up is another question.

You are an addict. A state I understand all too well. Every time, you need a little bit more.

I prescribe the antidote, to read the "Adventure of the Gloria Scott" in which the roots of his beginnings are traced. Read carefully, with understanding because at no point in time will Holmes reveal why he does what he does. And his passion is fueled, for an ever escalating series of dangers that finally end when he falls from the mountain.

In some sense, as Chris Bonington writes in 'Quest for Adventure' , the pursuit of challenge is a selfish one.  And yet, it is this mountain that you climb - you have chosen to see the electoral results in their proper context. It is not a victory. It is the first stepping stone in an off-year path to 2006 in which the man both you and I, for different reasons, backed - will be unleashed on America.

And for which, I hope this selfsame person will see to it that he does not indulge his base instinct but seeks aggressively, in every race, men who will restore america to her greatness.

Men, I hope, such as yourself. Good luck with your own race. I do not forgive you for pencilling in the wrong name, however.

That is something that , no amount of drinking will erase.

And we should not ever underestimate the Republican willingness to do and say anything they believe necessary to win elections.

I have a final concern, however - the widespread perception that all politicians are crooked and cannot be trusted.  I think a major goal of progressives in general should be to restore faith in both the political process and in politicians.  We may have to talk bad about Dems who are corrupt and that's okay.  30 years of conservative anti-government propaganda has weakened civic institutions and community trust in our institutions.  Restoring integrity - a real agenda not a campaign talking point - could go a long way toward recreating a stable, Democratic governing majority - if people trust the politicians, they'll trust the politics and the government.

Sure, enjoy the moment but the moment will be over soon.  Back to work.

And so I celebrate them -- and agree with all above who say this is no time to rest. I've actually been through a few winning campaigns and the glow is wonderful, but there is always more to do.

As Chris has often said, we have to convince more of a base that being a liberal gives them things they want: security, prosperity, peace.

For the full story, see:

"Voting with Their Wallets."

To get a feel of the opportunity that the Rs had, look at the Presidential elections of 1980 through 1988 using Chris Bowers' "partisan index."  The Republicans had a solid advantage throughout the South, yet were very competitive in the industrial states and even California.  The first Bush's victory in 1988 was particularly impressive.  Winning an 8% popular majority nationally, GHW Bush won something like 426-112 in the electoral college.  In contrast, Clinton won by a larger popular margin in 1996, about 9%, yet had almost 50 less electoral votes then Bush's 1988 total.  In 1988, under the first Bush, the Rs had a great advantage in several parts of the country and were competitive everywhere.  True, they had not yet broken the lock the Dems had in conservative southern House districts, but this was bound to happen eventually, giving the Rs a lock on Congress and the electoral college.

So, what went wrong.  As Chris writes above, the Rs simply went too far to the right.  Now, there are great swaths of the country where they are not competitive, California, Illinois, and the entire east coast.  

Since NJ is on everybody's mind, it is a perfect example of what happened to the Republicans.  Before the far right take-over of the southern ultra conservatives of the Republican party, this state was the epitome of a swing state. New Jersey went with Kennedy in the close 1960 election, went with Nixon in the close 1968 election and even went with Ford when Carter was winning in 1976.  In fact in EVERY election from 1968 to 1992, New Jersey gave the Republican a greater percentage of vote then that candidate won nationally.  Not until 1996 did a Democrat win NJ by a greater margin then he acheived nationally.  By 2000, NJ became solid blue. Ever since, the Rs have been too right wing to compete there.

The Rs move to the far right had two negative consequences.  The first was noted by Chris:  when you go so far to one side of the political spectrum, you greatly diminsish the pool of voters that you can attract.  The Republicans have really hurt themselves among moderate eastern and suburban independant minded voters. As a result, they just are not competitive in large parts of the country.

Despite this fact, I still disagree with Chris' analysis in one important respect.  Even with losing the east coast and certain industrial states, I think the Republican's idea of appealing to the base on first blush had a CHANCE of working except for one thing I will discuss below.  Trying to create an enduring majority by only appealing to the right is not as dumb as it sounds.  Rove and company have been counting on using social issues as a wedge to get the vote of culturally conservative hispanic and latin voters.  That is why Bush has not jumped on the anti immigration band wagon.  IF (and thats a big if) Bush and the Republicans had been able to hold on to the votes they had and add to that a large percentage of hispanics and latins, the part of the population that is increasing the fastest, they had a chance to build a majority.

Yet, their effort was doomed to fail for a reason that Chris doesnt discuss.  One of the huge political negatives about going so far to the right is that it has made Republican governance impossible.  Republicans are simply not willing to be "serious" about governing, about policy, because it conflicts with their far right political strategy. Good governance requires a certain level of government activity, yet the far right wants to "drown" government.  Good governance requires a certain level of taxation, but the one inflexible creed of modern conservatives is to hate taxation above all else.  Good governance requires a reliance on science and promotes public education, two enemies of modern conservatives.  I could go on and on.  Because the Republicans cant govern, there was no way for them to hold on to the votes they had, let alone build an enduring majority.

Ironically, the first Bush is looked on by conservatives as the ultimate "failed" politician.  The one whose experience must be used as an example of what to avoid at all costs.  Yet, had the Republicans continued in the GHW Bush mold and attracted moderates and independants by being the "environmental" party and the "education" party, they would be in much better shape.  They still could have satisfied their base by being "better" then the Democrats on regulatory, taxation and social issues. With their party still viable among independants and eastern moderates and with their base still on board, they might have achieved the majority status they so desired.  Ultimately, I think their dominance would not have lasted more then a decade or two.  Even moderately conservative policies are woefully inadequate to solve the problems caused by globalism.  Yet, they would certainly be in better shape then they are today.

Instead, they have caved to their base and as a result, will, if the Democrats are wise enough and committed enough to pursue good policy, be consigned to minority status for a generation.

George W. Bush and Karl Rove may go down in history as the best friends the Democrats ever had.

But I am hopeful of a President Hillary Rodham Clinton in 2009, to go with Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Reid in 2007.

Hate to say this...but, the conservative agenda has not been "repudiated".

 Perhaps, "incompetence" has been repudiated. Perhaps, "disgust with scandals" that the media is exploiting right now may have givin us some victories...Maybe some rejection of the "anti-social service" trend as someone just pointed out.

But, waiting for "indictments" or extreme incompetence is no way to win elections. Especially, long term. Because, as of today, we still haven't done what the Repugnant Party has done to liberal Democrats for over twenty years...by "debunking" the liberal agenda. Why have we not attacked the conservative philosophy at it's core continually? It must be exposed and ridiculed consistently for any long term effect.

Over sixty percent of Americans surveyed still call themselves "conservatives" even as they agree with almost every "progressive" stance, when the questions are correctly posed.

Still today, I hear people say things like, "I don't know anything about either candidate, so I think I'll vote for smaller government, I guess Repub". Why do I have to hear some Democrats say, "I'll bring you smaller government too".

 Exactly when do we as progressives intend to confront the scam that "smaller government" is?...and this is just one example.

 A better question would be, "How do you like "smaller goverment" now, after we've seen it in action or rather "inaction" during Katrina. That's what a Repub means when they call for smaller government...as a citizen, you are truly on your own...(and... those rich Repub contributors don't need government to boot...you do).

I'm belaboring this point because it illustrates the way almost every conservative "ideal" can be taken apart and thrown on the trash heap with easily digestible retorts to the mass of people that vote, but don't really know when they're being fooled by conservative con-artists..."Joe and Jane Voter".

....the ones you see on Yahoo message boards talking about "handouts to minorites"...not the tiny clics of political junkies on blogs.

Let me take it a little further and try to be concise.

Who really wants "smaller government"?

1. Big business: to avoid scrutiny as they pillage shareholders or reneg on your pension fund (if I want to rob a bank, I want the smallest police force).

2. Southern bigots: that much easier to turn back the clock without fear of Federal troops returning to southern soil again. People should know that almost every Repub leader is a southern white male.

3. Religious right-wing: smaller Fed gov equals more "states rights", so they can do as they please in local schools as they replace science with religious dogma.