The New York Times has a good post-election analysis of both parties' pre-election problems and pitfalls. Three items in particular caught my eye, listed here in ascending order of immediate interest.
The vulnerability of sanity
For some time this has been a problem for the GOP's big-tent aspirations, as well as the nation's balance of representational sobriety. Ever since fanatical ideologues have been driving the party, every radically idiotic position they take endangers not the idiots, but the dwindling number of moderates in the dwindling number of swing districts who, whether by nature or reason, maintain political moderation in the attempt to score a plurality.
Here's how that played out in Iowa for a Republican veteran of 30 years:
The Republican National Committee had sought before Election Day to send a mailing into Mr. [Jim] Leach’s Iowa district to attack his opponent’s position on same-sex marriage.
Mr. Leach recoiled at the mailing and called Mr. Mehlman, saying he would caucus with the Democrats if Mr. Mehlman did not withdraw it.
"I would rather lose running an uplifting race than prevail by finger-pointing," Mr. Leach said.
And lose he did, thereby leaving a higher percentage of fanatics in his party. Their survival instinct may modify their language for a while, but in the long run one-dimensional pols are incurable.
Give me a smoke-filled room any day
This one was fascinating. Weighing the stigma of having been prowar against the stigma of having dabbled in funny business, GOP strategists saw the effectiveness of slamming any Democrat campaigning under a cloud of suspicion headed off at the pass. Naturally, they first took a poll.
Respondents were given a choice between a candidate with a history of corruption, facing possible indictment, versus a candidate who supported the war. Each received 40 percent, a sobering finding for Republicans.
It was clear from watching the slime-machine that New Jersey's Thomas Kean, Jr. geared up that he didn't believe it, but Robert Menendez more than confirmed the poll's finding. Mark one up for the good old days.
"Mother of God, is this the end of Howie Rico?"
The lugubrious handwriting on the wall....
Officials in both parties said yesterday that the best thing the Democrats had going for them was the bad political environment and the White House’s mistakes. But they said the party might still have fallen short were it not for the rise of Mr. [Rahm] Emanuel and Mr. [Charles] Schumer. Both men brought an unusual mix of fund-raising skills and understanding of political tactics, filling a void created when the party’s national chairman, Howard Dean, focused instead on building up the resources of the state parties in 50 states, rather than on the midterm elections.
Those passages -- "were it not for ... Mr. Emanuel and Mr. Schumer," their "understanding of political tactics," they spent their time "filling the void created [by] Howard Dean" who had wandered off to God-knows-where -- were devastating to the DNC chairman's reputation, and probably his political lifespan. The manner in which the Times' reporters framed that tidbit of analysis was clearly intended to reflect widespread condemnation of Dean as much as praise the DCCC and DSCC bosses, and since the reporting only mirrored what Democratic Party insiders were saying, seemed just as clearly pre-obituary.
Dean's questionable 50-state strategy will now face the firing squad of dreamy expectations and what-ifs. Had he targeted rather than scattered the DNC's resources, would the party have, say, 40 new House seats, not 28? Could Harold Ford, Jr. have overcome his Tennessee odds for the Senate?
It's impossible to say, but the bad blood and lingering doubts will isolate and lay siege to Dean.