Shot In The Dark: Nascent?

January 21, 2005

Nascent?

Luke Francl at New Patriot says in re the inauguration:

But 2004 was the first time you ever had to face the nascent Organized Left. You've been working on your organization for 30 years, and we've only just begun.

Perhaps. And a student of history knows that underestimating ones' opponent is the biggest mistake one can make (although that'd seem to apply more to Democrats lately).

But I have to wonder: this "nascent organization" delivered a lower percentage of the vote (especially given that the Democrats retrieved the Nader voters since 2000) than they did four years ago. Republican areas are growing faster than Democrat-leaning ones. And, by the wya, we haven't been organizing for 30 years; six is more like it.

But by all means, keep organizing.

Posted by Mitch at January 21, 2005 07:51 AM | TrackBack

Comments

Plus, come 2008, the Organized Left won't have the "Anybody But Bush" meme to rally around which, we all know how well that hatred served them this time around. They had a record turnout of young voters in 2004. Don't expect anything even remotely resembling that in 2008.

A commenter at one of the blogs I frequent says that he thinks MoveOn is poised to take over the Democratic party, and he seemed enthusiastic about that. If MoveOn takes over anything. . . well, let's just say, "oh, that poor, poor thing."

Posted by: Ryan at January 21, 2005 10:16 AM

Powerline's Jan 20th post "Realignment: Rolling...to a Stop?" shares some excellent statistical analysis of vote trends between 2000 and 2004. Bottom line: from 2000 to 2004 the president increased his percentage of votes in 48 states.

If those results are typical of what the "organized left" accomplishes, my only question is: where do I send the check?

Posted by: Eric at January 21, 2005 11:17 AM

“But I have to wonder: this "nascent organization" delivered a lower percentage of the vote (especially given that the Democrats retrieved the Nader voters since 2000) than they did four years ago.”

Good point. Moreover it seems likely that Senator Clinton will be one of the frontrunners in 2008 and she’s been trying to establish herself as a hawk on Iraq – something that no doubt demoralized many from the “John Kerry is a D***** Bag But I’m Voting for Him Because I Hate Bush” crowd who could never quite forgive him for voting to reauthorize the use of force in Iraq. It should be interesting to see how their 2006/8 candidates respond to pressure from the BAMF/MoveOn.org/Green faction as they demand that the candidates pledge to pull our forces out of Iraq (and perhaps even Afghanistan). If they do so, they’ll lose moderate voters. If they refuse to do so, the doves might run a Naderite candidate again. If they try to straddle the fence ala Kerry, they’ll further convince mainstream voters that Democrats aren’t serious about national security issues while doing little or nothing to motivate the BAMF/MoveOn.org/Green faction upon whom (thanks in no small part to McCain-Feingold) they have come to rely on.

Posted by: Thorley Winston at January 21, 2005 12:08 PM

Never give a child a hard time for asking an honest question.

Posted by: Bingo at May 25, 2006 11:26 PM