December 7, 2004
STAY HUNGRY:
What the Hell Happened in Colorado?: Why Republicans held the state for Bush and lost everything else on the ballot. (John Andrews, 12/07/2004, Weekly Standard)
[T]o really explain what happened you have to look at the 3 M's--money, message, and motivation--of which the finances are actually the least important.It was motivation, above all, that powered this Democrat victory. Democrats were driven and hungry from decades in the political wilderness. Republicans were complacent and soft from too long in power. Their motive for winning was to get in there and do things. Ours, it often seemed, was merely to stay in there. These attitudes translated into discipline and unity for Democrats, indulgence and disunity for Republicans. GOP factionalism was endemic and fatal.
The message gap was a consequence of this motivation gap. Democrats talked about making Colorado a better state, about not letting Republicans cut cherished programs, and about the GOP's supposed obsession with "gays, guns, and God." Republicans talked about . . . what? Other than denying their charges and hurling some back, we pretty much punted. Republican candidates picked their own issues locally. Churchill would have called it a pudding with no theme.
Our campaign had what one analyst termed a sort of Nixon-Ford tiredness and blandness. I had considered, back in 2003, framing a conservative Contract with Colorado to provide a single, statewide framework for all 75 state Senate and House races. But after sizing up the competing intra-party fiefdoms and tensions, I decided not to start that fight. Mea culpa; I should have fought.
One of the deepest mysteries about our recent politics is why neither party has tried the Contract idea again. Posted by Orrin Judd at December 7, 2004 4:13 PM
"One of the deepest mysteries about our recent politics is why neither party has tried the Contract idea again."
On a national level, there is little mystery -- the GOP is still in power, thank you, and the Dems aren't hurting enough yet to (a) pick up an idea spawned by Newt and (b) offer reforms popular with the people.
Posted by: curt at December 7, 2004 5:56 PMIn effect George Bush has. He says what he means and then he goes ahead and does it. Sometimes he doesn't get all he wants but usually he gets enough and sometimes all of it. Who needs vetos under those circumstances?
The Dems think this is both radical and disgusting, which puts them at a severe disadvantage.
Oh, you mean a piece of paper to wave around?
Fooey.
Posted by: Uncle Bill at December 8, 2004 9:27 AMI wonder what the hell happened in New Hampshire? All the winning congressional candidates were Republicans and Bush lost by 1.4(+/-)%. Was it the battle for Iraq?
What?
Posted by: Genecis at December 8, 2004 10:25 AMColorado is a prime example of what happens when you haven't purged the Chamber of Commerce types. These clowns, like Ford, Dole, Nixon, are more interested in their paymasters than in the interests of the voters. When the Monforts and the ADMs of the world want to treat the State treasury like their personal piggybank, these losers are all to happy to oblige, and if the voters want tax cuts, smaller government, and fiscal responsibility, well they just don't matter. The GOP in Long Island and NJ has the same story.
Posted by: Bart at December 8, 2004 12:56 PM