Ciao!

Damn, Miguel, I sure hope you're wrong. People like Liberman, who hold themselves out as liberals, are crypto-Republicans in my book who are just as liable/responsible as Bush y cia, for getting us involved the Iraq mess, North Korea, Iran, and lord knows how many other problems, including a failing health care system, damaged enviroment, diminished civil rights, and... Well, we could all go on about the abuses/screw ups of the last,almost six years.

I hope Pelosi does come out on top, and that she's got the balls (anatomically, if not politically, incorrect, I know) to start dragging this country more left, toward an non-relgious center. Oh, and I wouldn't be looking to fence-sitters like Clinton for leadership on this; they're too busy calculating their chances for a shot at the WH in 2008...

miguel, i find your additions to the discourse on bolivia quite helpful. but you've got a lot lot lot to learn about US politics. you can start with a lesson on how to see past republican spin. a healthy dose of http://www.prospect.org/weblog/ ought to set you on the path. i'd also recommend a follow-up of http://highclearing.com/ and http://www.matthewyglesias.com . Ya ain't gotta agree but it'll help you move beyond the right-ish spin a bit.

Yep, 2006 could definitely be labeled "the election where the Democrats got religion" most of the Dems who beat Reps in the close districts emphasized their similarities on religion. However, they did have a distinction between the Bush use of religion as a public political force and their (more appropriate use in my view) use of religion as a underlying guide to their personal beliefs.

I do think you're all wrong about Pelosi. The Dems' chance to lock up the historical and political chance to have the first female Speaker of the House is too good, not to mention the fact that Pelosi's work probably had a lot to do with Dems taking the House. As far as the San Fran label, she much more pragmatic than people realize--there won't be any impeachment or anything like that, in fact the Dems will probably focus on getting some popular stuff thru and save the subpeonas when we get closer to 08 so that the Reps will have that distraction to contend with along with the election.

Liberman Schieberman--I wish the guy would stop talking about himself in the third person (Joementum). Unfortunately, Lamont never got beyond the one issue (anti-Iraq war) and expanded his platform to include things where a Senator has more power, such as pulling in bennies for his state. Lieberman will probably be rewarded with a cushy Chairmanship, since his vote is necessary for Dem majority--which I think is a mistake. Lieberman should stop pretending to be a Dem and join the Republican party--that's not a personal attack he just has more in common with them than the Dems. Who knows, he still might if the Reps offer him a good enough deal--after all his vote decides the Senate. They might offer him the VP spot again, this time on the Rep ticket. That could be interesting.

I agree Bush does have the chance to come out of this better that most people think. He's no idiot and he could pull a Clinton and get some real legislation thru that actually is good for the country (min wage raise, immigration reform) that makes his presidency more popular. Of course, Bush hasn't shown any interest in working with the Dems up until now, so we'll have to see what happens there.

Best news of the election. Don Rumsfeld is put out to pasture--I never understood why Bush stuck with him as long as he did, the guy was a total failure in his tenure. Now Bob Gates will have to try and fix the mess Rummy left behind.

Perhaps the shift left is more reflective of the American population. That is to say, it seems to me that the majority of Americans are more conservatively-inclined, but in the past have not been political. Seems that recent years have shown an uptick in voting among conservative Americans, which isn't bad since arguably more people are finding their political voices, which happen to be more conservative.

I was reading in Ann Coulter's column that during a president's 6th year his party will almost always lose seats in Congress. So this year was just following trends.

JD:

I don't think my post is "GOP spin." Several Democrat strategists (including James Carville) & CNN commentators spoke about that on election night. Many of the Democrats elected in '06 are more conservative than the "grassroots" Democratic movement led by people like Kos. I don't know how to get around that. I do think the Democrats have moved towards the center, perhaps even the center-right. After all, the Democrats are *NOT* socialists (which would be the center-left). The GOP moved to the right in '00-'02 ... now the Dems have followed by moving towards the center-right in '06. That's not GOP spin; I think that's a reflection of the kind of Congress we've just elected.

Yeah, those crazy right-wingers like Ohio's new Senator Sherrod Brown (who early on, many said was way too much of a progressive leftist to be elected in Ohio) and Vermont's new Socialist Senator, Bernie Sanders.

Let's not forget those other crazy right-wingers taking over formerly Republican seats...social worker Carol Shea-Porter in NH (thrown out of the State of the Union for an anti-War t-shirt), John Yarmouth (who Rahm Emmanuel practically abandoned because he thought he was too liberal to win in KY), Jerry McNerney (who similarly was abandoned by the DCCC for his "far-left" views in his bid against Pombo in CA), the two new Democrats in CT, etc, etc, etc.

In fact, even those that Democrats the media is touting as the new conservatives, are far, far, far to the left of the right-wing, conservative heroes that they defeated (Casey over Santorum, Tester over Burns, Webb over Allen), especially on economic issues.

This whole conservative argument is so transparent that its hard to believe anyone at least a few steps outside the funny farm would believe it.

Juan:

I guess you must think I live on a funny farm. So be it. But despite some "radical" left-wingers elected to Congress, I do agree w/ most observers in their assessment that the balance has shifted (even if only slightly) to the right. I saw Casey's ads (I voted in that election) and I had a tough time figuring out which of the two candidates was more pro-gun, anti-abortion, and anti-immigrant than the other. I tell you, it was a toss-up. Is Casey further to the left than Santorum? Sure. But that's not asking much, is it?

Dean (the head of DNC) & others (James Carville, Clinton strategist) have publicly stated that the Democrats specifically looked for centrist (or even center-right) candidates. And I think it was a smart strategy.

My point was simply that many who too quickly cheered a series of Democrat victorios should wait to see how far the pendulum will actually swing. I think we've already seen that it's not swinging very far.

Miguel:

"I do agree w/ most observers in their assessment that the balance has shifted (even if only slightly) to the right."

This is a completely laughable claim considering how ridiculous it is in the face of the facts. In order to prove to me that it's not ridiculous and completely and utterly laughably absurd, please name me one Senate or House incumbent (R or D) that was defeated by a challenge from the right. Name just one. I can name numerous conservative incumbents defeated/replaced by challengers from the left. How about an anti-war incumbent beaten by a pro-war challenger? A phased-withdrawal incumbent beaten by a stay-the-course challenger? A fair-trade incumbent beaten by a free-trader? A pro-labor incumbent beaten by a corporate lackey? Look if you want, but I'll tell you that you aren't going to find any.

I'm also not sure how "guns", an issue that I haven't heard much about from either party, fits into a left-right worldview anymore, but that is a different topic. On the major issues of our day, mainly the divide between rich and poor/trade/globalization and the invasion/occupation of Iraq (and possibly Iran), this Congress will represent a remarkable shift to the left compared to the last.

Juan:

First, please lay off on the insulting language. Being arrogant doesn't sound very "progressive" or open-minded. I think I've treated you w/ respect, please do the courtesy of doing likewise to me.

Second, you seem to have misunderstood my argument. I wasn't arguing that Democrat (or left or center-left) incumbents were beaten by right (or even center-right) candidates. What I was arguing was that the GOP candidates that were beaten (i.e. Santorum) were beatn by center-right Democrats, not center-left (or left) Democrats.

Take a look at the Lieberman race. A left-Democrat challenger beat Lieberman in the primaries. But Lieberman won his seat back w/o the support of much of his own party's organization (and w/ active GOP support). That seems to be a slight shift to the right (again, remember, "right" is a relative term, Pelosi is to the "right" of Chomsky).

Casey beat Santorum (who was to the right of Casey, for sure). But Casey is pro-gun, anti-abortion, and ran some of the most anti-immigrant attack ads I ever saw. As a Hispanic immigrant, the ads offended me. Casey also ran ads claiming that he was going to make sure we find the terrorists and "kill them" to make America safe. Tough talk.

My main point is that, since the late 1990s, the "center" in American politics has moved slightly to the right. It was Clinton, a Democrat, who declared the "end of big government." As I've pointed out before, the Democratic leadership (Dean, Carville, the Clintons, etc.) have numerous times publicly stated that their strategy was to find centrist (or even center-right) candidates (like Casey or Webb) to get them to run against GOP candidates. The strategy was to take away the GOP "advantage" on values issues & make the 2006 election a referendum on either Iraq and/or the GOP corruption scandals (polls, btw, show that voters responded more to the corruption scandals than to Iraq).

The test will be in what kind of position the new Senate & House take on various issues. I suspect many on the left side of the Democratic party will be surprised at the kind of positions the new Democratic majority will take. The "median" Senator/Representative is to the left of the pre-2006 position (I agree on that), but he/she is now located to the right of the previous "median" position w/in the party.

So, yes, the House & Senate has shifted to the left in 2006. But it has shifted only slightly, and the Democratic caucus has (I believe) shifted slightly to the right. Now maybe I'm wrong on that. I can conceded that. But I'm not the only one who's made this observation.

Miguel,

First off, I apologize if you took my post as an insult, but if you will re-read what I wrote you will see that I was only insulting the right-wing talking point that you've adopted, not you personally. I do enjoy your blog, or I wouldn't be here, so take that as a compliment.

Secondly, I think you are far too influenced by one race (Casey-Santorum) to see the big picture. Your point might (might) be valid if the other races around the country were like the PA-Sen race, but they weren't. And I would also argue that Casey wasn't recruited due to his "conservative" views (abortion namely, I don't consider his position on guns to be either left or right), but inspite of them. Everyone wanted to get rid of the crazy right-winger bad enough, that they went with the popular guy with a popular daddy. But enough of that race, it really is the exception to the rule.

Jon Tester and Jim Webb, who you may claim to support your theory, actually were not recruited by the party establishment (very much grassroots and netroots supported instead), but defeated establishment backed and more centrist candidates to win the Democratic nomination (John Morrison and Harris Miller). Jon Tester wants to repeal the Patriot Act in its entirety! How many Democrats in the Senate before this election would have said that??? In the Washington Post just a few days ago, it was reported that an internal memo by the big pharmaceutical companies revealed that they expect Senator-elect Tester to be a big "problem" for them. And I don't guess you caught Jim Webb's economic platform, published in the Wall Street Journal a few days after his election??? It's considerably to the left of anything a sitting Democratic Senator would have written.

The majority of new Democrats are actually not to the right of the current Democratic caucus median, which is actually astounding considering that most gains must come from moderate to conservative states or districts. Casey is probably the only new Democratic Senator that I would place to the right of the pre-2006 Democratic Senate caucus median, and he is probably even to the left on trade and labor issues. Cardin, Klobuchar, Sanders, Brown, Whitehouse, Tester, and Webb are all to the left of that median on *most* issues. Tester and Webb, representing more conservative states, will obviously come out on the right of that median sometimes. McCaskill is probably on the median, or very slightly to the right of it. I don't have time to get into all 41 or so of the new House Democrats, but the pattern is pretty similar, i.e. a large percentage of new progressive members to the left of the median most of the time (McNerny, Perlmutter, Courtney, Murphy (CT), Hirono (replacing conservative Dem Ed Case), Yarmuth, Sestak, Murphy (PA), Braley, Sarbanes, Ellison, Hodes, Hall, Clarke, Shea-Porter, etc.), as well as a fair number of economic populists who have more conservative social positions (Shuler, Boyda, and the 3 Indiana Democrats).

Finally, please do not get in the habit of using the other right-wing/Fox News technique of defending your arguments by saying that "I'm not the only one who's made this observation". This is all to similar to "many people say a win for the Democrats is a win for the terrorists." WHO are these other people? And most importantly, what is their agenda?

Juan:

Sorry if I over-reacted. Yes, there's certainly plenty of room for disagreement. But I'm not merely adopting right wing "talking points" -- since these were positions I got from Dean, Carville, and Clinton on election night (the former spoke to CNN directly, the latter was cited but wasn't interviewed live that night). From what I've seen from a lot of DNC "insiders" it seems that *they* do think they did well by deliberately moving "to the center" (which, of course, means relatively further to the right than the previous Pelosi-type positions).

Yes, I do realize that many of the centrist Dems that won (including some of the ones you cited) actually beat "insider" candidates. So perhaps I was overstating when I suggested that the DNC deliberately recruited *all* of these types. But I'm reminded of the Webb victory speech that was quite amusing ... his supporters started cheering, until he mentioned that "today was an important day for America" (cheers, cheers) because it was the Marine Corps anniversary (confused silence), then asked his supporters to thank Allen for his years of service (more confused silence), and looked forward to lunch w/ him (extreme confusion).

My only point is simply this: A lot of people on the more "left" side of the spectrum were excited at the anti-Bush victory in '06. But I think many of *them* will be somewhat disappointed. Though I'm essentially satisfied, since both parties moving to the center (which may make for boring politics) is better than the extreme polarization of the past six years.