It matters a lot more whether our nominees can bring in a tsunami of new congresspeople than whether they have a slightly better policy paper on education reform.

That got me to change or refine my thoughts on the race.  This further point is seems pretty central too:

We should dare to think big. And, because almost all of us have no memory of living in a country with a progressive ruling majority, we simply cannot dream big enough.

That's worth an entry or ten, just exploring the implications of it, and emphasizing it.

This is so true:

In my opinion, Clintonism, the Democratic Leadership Council, triangulation, or whatever you want to call it, is a philosophy for an era of conservative dominance, and it is wholly inappropriate for the times we are about to enter into. In fact, it may be the only thing that can prevent a new progressive era from arriving at all.

And of course this:

Of course, Frum has just described the experience of every progressive/Democrat over the last 38 years (just coincidentally, this exactly corresponds to my entire life). Whether we have been in power or out of power, we have not had the initiative on policy since Lyndon Johnson's presidency succumbed to the violence in Vietnam.

This is just about the length of my life too.  I've constantly been frustrated with our inability to move into a new world and build on the successes of the past.  

I've said this before and I've said it again, one of our parties greatest failures over the last quarter century has been our inability or refusal to put Bill Bradley into a national leadership role. He gets it and got it as early as 1988.

I am getting so tired of the narrative "Well, their policy positions are almost identical, so it's really just a matter of how you feel about their style." Not so. These people preaching this narrative aren't looking at the two most important factors when confronted with one of these perfect-storm points in history when you can actually achieve such a large realignment.

• What type of policy advisers do they surround themselves with?

• How large of a margin could they win by in a general election? The larger the margin, the more down-ticket Democrats they'll bring with them. (a 50%+1 win is a wasted presidency.)

By the way, I'm 37. I've never been able to see a government work like this either. I've only read about it.

Thanks for the history lesson, Boo.

the feingold-dodd-aclu allowing the fisa court court to amend surveillance programs if it finds them to be contrary to the requirements of this bill or the Fourth Amendment, and to limit the use of illegally collected information.

defeated 40-56, with Sens. Jay Rockefeller (D-WI), Daniel Inouye (D-HI), Tim Johnson (D-ND), Even Bayh (D-IN), Tom Carper (D-DE), and Mary Landruei (D-LA) joined the nays...roll call

the second feingold amendment that would prevent "reverse targeting",  as Feingold describes it, "a practice by which the government gets around FISA's court order requirements by wiretapping an individual overseas when it is really interested in a person in the U.S. with whom that supposed foreign target is communicating." The amendment requires the government to obtain a court order whenever a significant purpose of the surveillance is to acquire the communications of an American in the U.S.

defeated 38-57, also with a large number of Dems crossing over, Sens. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), Inouye, Johnson, Landrieu, Blanche Lincoln (D-AR), Mark Pryor (D-AR), Rockefeller, and Ken Salazar (D-CO) among them. no roll call avail yet.

h/t tpm muckraker

no surprises here.

lTMF'sA

lTMF'sA...the revolution will not be televised...Peace

i mean, maybe you're right. i certainly want you to be right. but every time there is a change in parties people start talking about realignment. (remember the almost messianic class of '94? and the "permanent republican majority" talk of just a couple of years ago?) time passes and it almost always turns out to be more of a minor blip than a real reallignment.

so maybe you're right. or maybe you're just telling me what i want to hear. neither of us will have any idea for at least 10 years.

What was the media environment like in 1928-1930?

I can't help thinking about the possibility that The Village would impede even a Rooseveltesque realigning agenda, even with a Rooseveltesque mandate.

Perhaps the media too would get swept away in the storm. I suppose it is possible, since Obama enjoys media darlinghood (at least for the time being).

On the other hand, I can't imagine that Chris Matthews, Pat Buchanan, David Broder, David Brooks, Bill Kristol, etc etc would cheerlead for all this.

Would they and their ilk have enough influence to put the brakes on?

Or would people finally stop listening to them?

Walter Dean Burnham

Such elections not only hand presidential and congressional power to the non-incumbent political party, but they do so in a dramatic way that repudiates the worn-out ideas of the old party and initiates a new era whose leaders govern on a new set of assumptions, ideologies, and public policies.

definitions:

Critical realignment: an abrupt coalitional change among the mass-based electorate.
Secular realignment: a gradual change in voter coalitions.

forgive me for nutshelling you: realigning election changes everything - tsunami of new congresspeople - dare to think big - appropriate for the times.

ok, "dare to think big" means recognizing that an abrupt shift is possible, right? someone stating that the conservative ascendancy in American politics is coming to an end is a significant statement. but just because one thing ends doesn't mean critical realignment occurs automatically. Burnham lists four Criticial Realignment Phases:

• Phase #1: constituencies are coalescing around certain critical issues; tensions arise in society because these mobilizations are not adequately organized or controlled by the outputs of party politics as usual (these tensions are associated with abnormal stress in the socioeconomic system).

• Phase #2: a "third party revolt" demonstrates the incapacity of regular parties to integrate these issues within their platforms (which would otherwise appease their constituencies and dampen tensions); ideological polarization occurs among and within parties.

• Phase #3: flashpoint; parties adjust to resolve the tension

• Phase #4: significant transformation in policy; post-adjustment, institutional elites change behavior.

if these phases are appropriate, what phase do you think the Democratic Party is in currently?

I was having this argument with a friend the other day. She likes Clinton's health care plan better than Barack's and I said, think of it this way -- would you rather have Clinton trying to pass her health care plan as is against an obstructionist Republican opposition or would you rather see Obama try his way after he blows everyone away in the general election?

Great stuff...I'll use these arguments a lot over the next month or two. Thanks!

The Dems have simply not prepared their caucus or the people for a liberal policy agenda.  Since the Democrats' power has been waning the last 3 decades the Democrats only "winning" strategy has been triangulation or running away from the liberal policy you impliedly advocate.  That's exactly what the current Congress is doing.  Today they stand as the most unpopular Congress in history precisely because they will not govern from the left (in fact, they appear to be governing from the right--the GOP couldn't handpick a more suppliant Congress).  The only reason the Dems control anything right now is that they look good compared to the hated GOP and Bush.  

I know I know.  The Dem Congress has an excuse--there is no filibuster-proof majority in the Senate right now and the President can veto bills.  But how is it possible that the Dems aren't landing huge blows to the GOP right now?  Why not force the dipstick in chief to veto popular bills?  Why not use the power of Congress to control the agenda and permanently tar the Republican brand?  If the Dems can't even stand up for the liberal brand and knock the Republicans silly in this environment then I really don't see how being in the majority changes things.  In fact, all signs point to further compromise to "get things done" rather than pushing a liberal agenda.  There will always be a few conservative Dems to side with the GOP on big issues and the GOP will always stick together on the big issues.

The Republicans get it.  They understand this is a war and not a battle.  They stick to their principles in good and bad times.  Look at what the conservative base is doing to McCain right now.  They are forcing him to the right and if he loses they are preparing for the minority and fighting for their conservative convictions.  Preparing their caucus and the American people for conservative policies is more important to them than winning one election.  I really do admire their ability to move the country to their positions over the long term.  Unfortunately, the Dems have never proven their mettle and instead we get two right-leaning presidential candidates that talk about how they will work with Republicans to get things done.  They should be sticking a knife in the Republicans unless they come around.  And we all know the Republicans would rather lose elections than vote for liberal policies so let's just stick the knife in already.  Please?  I see very few Dems that can do that and a lot of GOPers that are capable of delivering the fatal blow.

Sorry Boo.  I wish you were right but we really need a more powerful and numerous liberal caucus that actually has the courage of its convictions before there is realignment.