Hmm, I interpreted this election as basically people voting _against_ Republicans and not so much _for_ Democrats. It would be interesting to see a comparison of the voting turnout and which way those elections went from 2004. My guess is that the turnout for the Democrats and the number of votes they got would probably be about the same.
.
This is correct.
The democratic base was just as fired up (turnout) during the 2004 elections.
The difference now is, with the Iraq war still a mess, and immigrants still streaming over the border with Bush wanting to give amnesty, loyal republicans have decided it may be time to try something new for the country, rather than vote for the party.
Even democratic voters cannot tell you what the dems plans are, because they really don't have one. They just wanted in. And with the republican base wavering, they got it.
Let's just hope that after this, and the 2008 presidency, the whole partisan divide that's fueled by the Bush hatred will begin to close a little, and people begin to focus a little more on merely what's good for the country, and not just hating the other party.
With the far left Pelosi crowd in control, the dems may merely hurt themselves more after two years of showing that they're too left for most of the nation. But the fact that Pelosi got shot down on the Murtha bid, is not only a sign of the dems own split within themselves, but that some of the more moderate dems are still actually in control. Which is a good thing.
Now if we can just get the average working stiff on the street to become more aware of their country's politics, instead of just pulling the lever their union boss or father in law told them too, and if we can get people voting for the right idea, and the right man, instead of just their party, maybe things can improve around here.
But I doubt it. There's a whole lot of cancer growing in this country, the description of which is better left to another thread. But within a decade I'll be taking my passport and moving to Amsterdam.
