Mid-term elections: Not looking so good for the Dems

[boneyard bill]

http://hotair.com/archives/2014/10/...dner-over-mark-udall-in-colorado-senate-race/

Denver Post endorses Republican Cory Gardner over Mark Udall in Colorado Senate race

Udall’s spent months and many millions in trying to frame Gardner as some sort of anti-woman crank. The endorsement of the state’s biggest paper shatters that frame; it’s a benediction of legitimacy, especially given public perceptions that newspapers lean left. If the Post is willing to choose the Republican challenger over a Democratic incumbent, that must be one mighty mainstream, credible Republican.

And it’s not just the endorsement itself that’s noteworthy, it’s the rationale. Is this Waterloo in the “war on women”?

Interesting...

Forget the rhetoric. What this means is that the Denver Post expects Gardner to win. The rest is rationalization.

 

[boneyard bill]

The Democrat party of the 1950s was far to the right of today's Republican party. They were the party of segregation and "conservative values".

The Southern part of the Democratic Party, yes, the party in the ex-Confederate states. But the Northern part was much more like today's Democratic Party.

In their rhetoric, yes, but not in their actions. They had two chances to pass a tough civil rights act, in 1957 and in 1960, but they let LBJ water those acts down in committee. You were a "liberal" in the 1950's if you were pro-union. That's about it. On other issues from foreign policy to civil rights to social issues, most congressmen of both parties were all over the place.

 

[boneyard bill]

When I was growing up, the Dems were considered the war mongers. WWII, Korea, Vietnam, all Democrat wars.

That's childish Republican demagoguery. Republican politicians supported these wars at least as enthusiastically as Democratic ones. In fact, in 1964, LBJ ran as a peacenik, insinuating that Barry Goldwater was a reckless warmonger. But when he became President, he became just like Barry Goldwater in warmongering.

Republicans were decidedly anti-war until Pearl Harbor and even then some claimed that Pearl Harbor was FDR's fault. They also opposed the Korean War. Both Republicans and Democrats pretty much supported LBJ in Vietnam or offered only mild criticism. Still, among the mild critics were Senator George Aiken of Vt, the top Republican on the Foreign Relations Committee and Senator Thurston Morton of Kentucky, the number two Republican after Ev Dirksen. Three of the five freshman Republicans elected to the Senate in 1966 were critical of the war. In general, Republicans were not more hawkish than the Democrats on Vietnam except for Senators Morse of Oregon and Gruening of Alaska who were both, ironically, former Republicans. All other Senators, including Eugene McCarthy and George McGovern, voted for the Tonkin Gulf Resolution. Morse and Gruening were both defeated for re-election in 1968.

 

[boneyard bill]

That's childish Republican demagoguery. Republican politicians supported these wars at least as enthusiastically as Democratic ones. In fact, in 1964, LBJ ran as a peacenik, insinuating that Barry Goldwater was a reckless warmonger. But when he became President, he became just like Barry Goldwater in warmongering.

And that is the result of reading revisionist history and believing one of the most masterful pieces of campaign propaganda in US history - the little girl picking flowers with a mushroom cloud from a nuclear explosion behind her. I suppose that this campaign ad was supposed to imply that if we didn't stop communist expansion in Vietnam then we would end up in a nuclear war with the USSR - so electing Goldwater would mean nuclear war.

In 1964 LBJ was quite busy increasing the US military presence in Vietnam (hardly a peacenik position). The Gulf Of Tonkin resolution was in August of 1964, three months before the election.
Goldwater was busy opposing our military involvement.

Goldwater was never actually very specific about what we should do about Vietnam. He had listed "using low-yield nuclear weapons" to defoliate the jungle and one option of about five others including getting out altogether, but he never endorsed any of those actions. Nevertheless, it was the mention of nuclear weapons that got the news media play and led to the daisy-picking ad by the LBJ campaign. Nevertheless, Goldwater's rhetoric on foreign policy was decidedly hawkish.

Keep in mind that in 1964 we only had about 30,000 troops in Vietnam and most of those were just guarding weapons depots. ARVN was carrying the struggle against the VC. However, in mid-1964 the North began infiltrating regular NVA forces into the South. ARVN did not have sufficient troops or equipment to fight the NVA. So when LBJ was saying, "We're not going to send US boys to Vietnam to do what Vietnamese boys should do for themselves, he was most probably lying. He had to know that he was going to have to send troops or lose Vietnam altogether.

I do not recall anytime, however, when Goldwater said we shouldn't intervene in Vietnam and when Johnson did intervene, Goldwater enthusiastically endorsed the measure. Goldwater was not John McCain, but he was pretty close.

 

[boneyard bill]

untermensche, what is your opinion of  Duverger's law?

Sociologist Maurice Duverger proposes that the number of parties is a result of the voting system, that first past the post produces two-party systems.

That's why the TEA Party never really separated from the Republicans.

I have to disagree with this somewhat. It is the strong presidential system that leads to a two-party system. With the presidency as such an important prize, it becomes necessary for the various parties to form coalitions before the election instead of waiting until after the election as you have with British-style cabinet government.

First past the post voting still tends to produce systems dominated by two major parties, but minor parties are able to squeak in here and there as we see in Britain and her anglo-speaking former colonies and in Germany and some other European countries that have strong cabinet governments. But I think this is probably due more to gerrymandering than to the first past the post system.

Proportional representation leads to a parliamentary system such as you find in Italy and in France prior to DeGaulle's Fifth Republic with Premiers who can't stay in power very long as members wheel and deal to form new governments where they get better positions.

I lean toward the German system. The Bundestag cannot simply overthrow the Chancellor. They have to replace him or her so the position is never vacant. Elections to the Bundestag are a combination of single-member districts and proportional representation.