Someone Has To Win and Someone Has To Lose
Both of my kids play youth soccer. And in the world of AYSO the emphasis is on teamwork, good play, and learning the fundamentals of the game. The outcome of their games is not emphasized and, as any parent will tell you, this is kind of a silly practice. Silly because it tries to ignore the notion that in almost any competition there are winners and losers. (Ties, however, are frequent in soccer so, yes, there are times when there really isn't a winner. And the MLS wonders why it can't catch on with average sports fan.) Even sillier is the absurd notion that if coaches and parents don't put any emphasis on who won, what the score was, and which team played better then the kids won't notice. Hah! Kids always know. They know who won, they know who on their team scored goals, and they know when they kicked some butt or got their little butts kicked from one end of the field to the other.
In professional sports and in politics we don't have to be so patronizing. In any election, and particularly with the one we've just experienced, there are typically a clear list of Winners and Losers. What the overall message or theme of a certain election is or is not is a whole other matter but when all the votes have been counted and cast we get a candidate or issue/ballot measure that won and a candidate(s) or issue/measure that lost. American politics is clearly not the AYSO and, in that spirit, I would like to offer my list of the Winners and Losers of the 2006 midterm elections. Enjoy.
Winner: Howard Dean. You may not like the guy and I personally thought the DNC was nuts to hand him the party chairmanship. But let's give him some credit: He had a 50 state strategy, he recruited some appealing candidates to compete (and ultimately win) in areas where Democrats have not traditionally done well. From the "I Have a Scream!" speech (which will never stop being funny) to one of the architects of a stunning overhaul of Congress. Proof positive that there are second and third acts in public life.
Loser: Karl Rove. It is hard to actually label Rove a "loser" because up until last night this guy has a long winning track record. But it also appears that his own strategy for those past victories -- mobilize the far right of your party and get them to vote in massive numbers - has now back fired. The simple truth is that there are not enough socially conservative Republicans out there to beat out the combination of Democrats and Independents. It only works if the Independents split evenly or tilt your way. This time around the pragmatic plurality of Americans leaned in the other direction. They didn't so much go pro-Democrat as they did anti-GOP but the end result still gives power to the other team.
Winner: Michael J. Fox. I don't think Michael J. Fox intended to get into a public spat with Rush Limbaugh. I don't even think he was even out to help Democrats. Ultimately, I think Fox was out to promote any candidate who supports embryonic stem cell research. But controversy did arise over the ad he cut for now Senator-elect Clare McCaskill and in the media attention that followed Fox won the public's empathy and, in most corners, a lot of respect for his candor and ability to articulate his own struggles and his hopes for medical research.
Loser: Rush Limbaugh. One ill-advised shot at Michael J. Fox and he, in my opinion, made the difference for Clare McCaskill and for perhaps a few other candidates in close races. Sure, Limbaugh has his own devoted following but in popularity contest among average Americans, Michael J. Fox wins in a landslide. Seriously, I don't like Limbaugh but I've always had a lot of respect for his talent, his longevity, and his ability to communicate with his audience (no matter how very wrong, wrong, wrong they are). Of all the celebrities who get involved in the political process you go and pick and Fox? On APK? Marty McFly? Jeez, Rush...why not take a shot at the late Christopher Reeve while you're at it? Limbaugh didn't do his party any favors and proved, yet again, how his partisanship trumps his judgment.
Winner: YouTube. When Senator George Allen ultimately concedes and Jim Webb is the new Senator from Virginia -- the final piece of the Democratic takeover of Congress -- it will all trace back to one very bad afternoon and a racial slur caught on tape. Senator John Kerry, in a botched joke that was largely ignored when he first said it, has ruined any chance he had to run for President again. (Not that he had a shot anyway but still.) What do these two things have in common? The video of Allen was on YouTube before or damn close to the same time the networks grabbed it. The Kerry flub? The reporters in attendance recognized it was a bad joke and/or a misstatement and it wasn't even a story. But a California-based, right wing talk radio host? He saw it on the news and got the video up on YouTube -- edited, and taking Kerry's remarks completely out of their original context. Then it became a story.
Loser: Political blogs. Seriously...its so 2004! In fact, why the hell are you still reading this? You should be on YouTube. :)
Winner: Oregon's Vote By Mail System. Did Oregon have any long lines at the polling places? No. Any computers breaking down? Uh... no. Did Oregon have a turnout above the national average? Yes. By some 10 percent or more.
Loser: Computer Voting Machines: Ripe for fraud. Confusing for older voters and/or polling place volunteers. We went from hanging chads to this?
Winner: Keith Olbermann. If you think there isn't a correlation between Olbermann's recent increase in the ratings -- coinciding with his "Special Comment" segments -- and a strong motivation and engagement by left-leaning voters then you haven't been paying attention. Call Olbermann's comments liberal if you wish (and many have) but what he has really done in recent months is put our current political climate in a historic context. He has challenged his viewers to think. He doesn't have a "movement" like his nemesis O'Reilly has tried to create. Olbermann tapped into something far simpler: Information, and with that reasoned people will act without asking.
Loser: Fox News Election Coverage. Their analysts were way off in their predictions and, oh my God, last night their entire panel looked like they were going to cry. I'm sorry but an election panel of Brit Hume, two conservatives, and one token liberal (Juan Williams) is not compelling coverage. Rarely have so many gotten it so wrong and then looked so sad when they did.
Winner: Senator Joe Liebermann. In their efforts to oust the Connecticut Senator, supporters of Ned Lamont made Liebermann more powerful. If he was spiteful, Liebermann could piss all over the Democratic party's parade and throw their newfound majority back over to the Republicans. But he won't. He made a promise and Liebermann will keep it. Why? Because he's an honorable man and a good public servant. A segment -- and it was only a segment -- of his own party forgot that and put their weight behind a one trick pony. The DNC should publicly apologize to Liebermann and ask him to officially rejoin their party; a gesture that could actually make them look like a big tent party.
Losers: Ned Lamont Supporters. What did they accomplish at the end of the day? They got themselves into a frenzy and helped Ned spend a few million of his own money.
Winners: Moderate Democrats. Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid are soon going to face the challenge of managing a House and Senate that, while Democratic, have a lot of newly elected moderates. And those moderates will want to make their voices heard, both for purposed of their own re-election but also because it was them -- the centrist candidates -- that made those House and Senate pick-ups possible. Bob Casey Jr., Jon Tester, and Jim Webb are center-left or center-right Democrats. Hell, in the end the Democrats owe their Senate majority to Webb -- a former Republican who was Secretary of the Navy under Reagan! This new infusion of moderate blood into the Democratic party presents them with a great opportunity to grow their national base -- provided they have the good sense to recognize it.
Losers: Far Right Republicans. It is interesting that a lot of the GOP representatives who got knocked off were in swing districts and/or were themselves moderate Republicans. It is ironic really that Senator Lincoln Chafee paid the price for the fringes of his party. Chafee was the most moderate, left-leaning Republican in the Senate but he still lost. Democrats in the northeast had a tidal wave victory and it washed away Chafee and a fair number of other moderates. How does this make the Far Right the losers? Because when you knock out moderate members of your party all that is left is the far right. America lives and breathes in the middle.
Winner: Independents. Independent voters sway elections and 2006 will go down as a textbook example of why. Truth be told, I wish we had a major third party in this country and the reason we don't is because, at present, Independent voters haven't found any of the minor parties appealing. The Green Party? Too leftist. The Constitution Party? Too far right. The Libertarians? Libertarian is a more a political philosophy that both does and does not work, depending on the issue. The fact of the matter is that most Independents base their voter on two things most missing from the two major parties: Authenticity and Reason. If you can make a reasonable argument that respects the voter's intelligence and pragmatism then you have a good shot at getting their vote. A true third party would be one in the middle:The Centrist Party or The Consensus Party. Until someone brings forth the financial capital to organize such a party independent voters will do what they have always done: Consider ballot measures and candidates on a case by case basis.
Feel free to add to the list.
J
In professional sports and in politics we don't have to be so patronizing. In any election, and particularly with the one we've just experienced, there are typically a clear list of Winners and Losers. What the overall message or theme of a certain election is or is not is a whole other matter but when all the votes have been counted and cast we get a candidate or issue/ballot measure that won and a candidate(s) or issue/measure that lost. American politics is clearly not the AYSO and, in that spirit, I would like to offer my list of the Winners and Losers of the 2006 midterm elections. Enjoy.
Winner: Howard Dean. You may not like the guy and I personally thought the DNC was nuts to hand him the party chairmanship. But let's give him some credit: He had a 50 state strategy, he recruited some appealing candidates to compete (and ultimately win) in areas where Democrats have not traditionally done well. From the "I Have a Scream!" speech (which will never stop being funny) to one of the architects of a stunning overhaul of Congress. Proof positive that there are second and third acts in public life.
Loser: Karl Rove. It is hard to actually label Rove a "loser" because up until last night this guy has a long winning track record. But it also appears that his own strategy for those past victories -- mobilize the far right of your party and get them to vote in massive numbers - has now back fired. The simple truth is that there are not enough socially conservative Republicans out there to beat out the combination of Democrats and Independents. It only works if the Independents split evenly or tilt your way. This time around the pragmatic plurality of Americans leaned in the other direction. They didn't so much go pro-Democrat as they did anti-GOP but the end result still gives power to the other team.
Winner: Michael J. Fox. I don't think Michael J. Fox intended to get into a public spat with Rush Limbaugh. I don't even think he was even out to help Democrats. Ultimately, I think Fox was out to promote any candidate who supports embryonic stem cell research. But controversy did arise over the ad he cut for now Senator-elect Clare McCaskill and in the media attention that followed Fox won the public's empathy and, in most corners, a lot of respect for his candor and ability to articulate his own struggles and his hopes for medical research.
Loser: Rush Limbaugh. One ill-advised shot at Michael J. Fox and he, in my opinion, made the difference for Clare McCaskill and for perhaps a few other candidates in close races. Sure, Limbaugh has his own devoted following but in popularity contest among average Americans, Michael J. Fox wins in a landslide. Seriously, I don't like Limbaugh but I've always had a lot of respect for his talent, his longevity, and his ability to communicate with his audience (no matter how very wrong, wrong, wrong they are). Of all the celebrities who get involved in the political process you go and pick and Fox? On APK? Marty McFly? Jeez, Rush...why not take a shot at the late Christopher Reeve while you're at it? Limbaugh didn't do his party any favors and proved, yet again, how his partisanship trumps his judgment.
Winner: YouTube. When Senator George Allen ultimately concedes and Jim Webb is the new Senator from Virginia -- the final piece of the Democratic takeover of Congress -- it will all trace back to one very bad afternoon and a racial slur caught on tape. Senator John Kerry, in a botched joke that was largely ignored when he first said it, has ruined any chance he had to run for President again. (Not that he had a shot anyway but still.) What do these two things have in common? The video of Allen was on YouTube before or damn close to the same time the networks grabbed it. The Kerry flub? The reporters in attendance recognized it was a bad joke and/or a misstatement and it wasn't even a story. But a California-based, right wing talk radio host? He saw it on the news and got the video up on YouTube -- edited, and taking Kerry's remarks completely out of their original context. Then it became a story.
Loser: Political blogs. Seriously...its so 2004! In fact, why the hell are you still reading this? You should be on YouTube. :)
Winner: Oregon's Vote By Mail System. Did Oregon have any long lines at the polling places? No. Any computers breaking down? Uh... no. Did Oregon have a turnout above the national average? Yes. By some 10 percent or more.
Loser: Computer Voting Machines: Ripe for fraud. Confusing for older voters and/or polling place volunteers. We went from hanging chads to this?
Winner: Keith Olbermann. If you think there isn't a correlation between Olbermann's recent increase in the ratings -- coinciding with his "Special Comment" segments -- and a strong motivation and engagement by left-leaning voters then you haven't been paying attention. Call Olbermann's comments liberal if you wish (and many have) but what he has really done in recent months is put our current political climate in a historic context. He has challenged his viewers to think. He doesn't have a "movement" like his nemesis O'Reilly has tried to create. Olbermann tapped into something far simpler: Information, and with that reasoned people will act without asking.
Loser: Fox News Election Coverage. Their analysts were way off in their predictions and, oh my God, last night their entire panel looked like they were going to cry. I'm sorry but an election panel of Brit Hume, two conservatives, and one token liberal (Juan Williams) is not compelling coverage. Rarely have so many gotten it so wrong and then looked so sad when they did.
Winner: Senator Joe Liebermann. In their efforts to oust the Connecticut Senator, supporters of Ned Lamont made Liebermann more powerful. If he was spiteful, Liebermann could piss all over the Democratic party's parade and throw their newfound majority back over to the Republicans. But he won't. He made a promise and Liebermann will keep it. Why? Because he's an honorable man and a good public servant. A segment -- and it was only a segment -- of his own party forgot that and put their weight behind a one trick pony. The DNC should publicly apologize to Liebermann and ask him to officially rejoin their party; a gesture that could actually make them look like a big tent party.
Losers: Ned Lamont Supporters. What did they accomplish at the end of the day? They got themselves into a frenzy and helped Ned spend a few million of his own money.
Winners: Moderate Democrats. Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid are soon going to face the challenge of managing a House and Senate that, while Democratic, have a lot of newly elected moderates. And those moderates will want to make their voices heard, both for purposed of their own re-election but also because it was them -- the centrist candidates -- that made those House and Senate pick-ups possible. Bob Casey Jr., Jon Tester, and Jim Webb are center-left or center-right Democrats. Hell, in the end the Democrats owe their Senate majority to Webb -- a former Republican who was Secretary of the Navy under Reagan! This new infusion of moderate blood into the Democratic party presents them with a great opportunity to grow their national base -- provided they have the good sense to recognize it.
Losers: Far Right Republicans. It is interesting that a lot of the GOP representatives who got knocked off were in swing districts and/or were themselves moderate Republicans. It is ironic really that Senator Lincoln Chafee paid the price for the fringes of his party. Chafee was the most moderate, left-leaning Republican in the Senate but he still lost. Democrats in the northeast had a tidal wave victory and it washed away Chafee and a fair number of other moderates. How does this make the Far Right the losers? Because when you knock out moderate members of your party all that is left is the far right. America lives and breathes in the middle.
Winner: Independents. Independent voters sway elections and 2006 will go down as a textbook example of why. Truth be told, I wish we had a major third party in this country and the reason we don't is because, at present, Independent voters haven't found any of the minor parties appealing. The Green Party? Too leftist. The Constitution Party? Too far right. The Libertarians? Libertarian is a more a political philosophy that both does and does not work, depending on the issue. The fact of the matter is that most Independents base their voter on two things most missing from the two major parties: Authenticity and Reason. If you can make a reasonable argument that respects the voter's intelligence and pragmatism then you have a good shot at getting their vote. A true third party would be one in the middle:The Centrist Party or The Consensus Party. Until someone brings forth the financial capital to organize such a party independent voters will do what they have always done: Consider ballot measures and candidates on a case by case basis.
Feel free to add to the list.
J