An NYT article on Democratic gains in the states looks at "a core shift on where the parties obtained votes. The well-educated, affluent close-in suburbs of Denver, Professor [Robert D.] Loevy said, are shifting to Democratic from Republican."

"'This used to be the backbone of the Republican Party in Colorado,' he said. 'But the rise of social conservatism in the Republican Party — pro-life, anti-stem cell — has alienated large numbers, and that’s the group that has abandoned the Republicans more than any other.'"

A lot of Americans want to be left alone, to make our own choices as our neighbors are free to make different choices. And a lot of Americans want a reasonable social safety net and a sense of shared responsibility and the common good. The party that weds those sometimes contradictory concepts is the one I want to support.

Comments

[The CA]

But will most Americans agree with Nancy Pelosi that anyone who makes over $75,000 per year is rich and unworthy of a tax cut?

It is the notion of social liberty- but not economic liberty that turns a lot of people away from Democrats. The reason they did so well in those suburbs is because a lot of the Republican voters stayed home. Do you really think most of those people changed registration before the election of crossed party lines and voted Democrat?

The Democrats do have an opportunity here to some degree, but they will be kicked right back out in 2 years if they continue with the same definition of "rich" and overtax the real middle class. They also must be mindful that nearly every major ballot initiative on Tuesday (gay marriage, affirmative action, taxes) came down in favor of the conservative position. That should tell them that America is still socially conservative and that this election was about Bush, not about a shift in values.

[Joe Killian]

Conservative columnist David Brooks would disagree with you. He spoke last night at Guilford College and I covered it.

Brooks, who has written for National Review and The Wall Street Journal, said a Republican break with the true core values of conservatism was at the heart of this election. He'd know better than I would, but I have talked with a number of Republicans (including a few at the talk last night, some of whom I quoted) who cited that as the reason they voted for Democrats this year instead of staying home.

Also, I'd classify a broad abortion ban in a pro-life state and the stem cell initiative as "major" and neither broke in a direction that would say to me that Democrats are wildly out of touch with the political sensibilities of America.

It's obviously a very divided nation and the politics reflect that - but I think anyone on either side arguing that this election shows that the other guys are crazy is off base. This is the first time in my lifetime (and David Brooks', if he can be believed) that conservatives are arguing that Democrats are more in touch with the core values of their philosophy than Republicans - which is why, as he said last night, it's important to remember that "conservative" and "liberal" are (and should be) different han "Republican" and "Democrat."

[Ed Cone]

Sam, again, do you have numbers showing that conservatives stayed home in meaningful numbers? The Colorado prof seems to be saying that voters who have gone GOP in past elections went Dem in this one.

[Jim Caserta]

Isn't there a difference between "economic liberty" and fiscal irresponsibility? There is a lot of middle ground between the "all tax cuts are good and pay for themselves" and the 75% + marginal top tax brackets.

The same with social liberty. Although most of the definition of marriage amendments passed, there is a big difference in polling numbers between those in favor of gay marriage, and those in favor of some type of civil unions. There are also a lot of conservatives that think that Lawrence v. TX was decided incorrectly, and those laws should still be on the books

Appealing to the extremes in either case turns off those in the middle.

[The CA]

Joe & Ed - The conservative Republicans who voted Democrat did not do so because they believe the Democrats are more conservative. That makes no sense unless you take Brooks' statements to mean that conservatives believe Democrats share their values more than Republicans. As one who is in the trenches and travels in conservative circles quite a bit, I can tell you that is complete nonsense.

Joe you have it right when you quote Brooks as saying "a Republican break with the true core values of conservatism was at the heart of this election."

I have been saying that for weeks. The conservatives are mad at the GOP and have been talking for weeks about punishing the GOP by staying home or voting Democrat in protest. Otherwise, they believe the GOP will continue to take their vote for granted.

[samhieb]

We know which party you support, Ed. I just don't understand what makes you think that party weds those contradictory concepts more so than the other.

[Kim]

When did Nancy Pelosi say that anyone who makes over $75,000 per year is rich and unworthy of a tax cut? I can find no reference to that. That makes no logical sense. Here in Greensboro someone making that amount of money could be pretty well off, but try making that in NYC or San Francicso....that'd be just about poverty level in those places. I can't imagine that she'd say that. Please provoide a link. Thanks.

[Jim Caserta]

I don't think any "conservative republican" voted democrat Tuesday, no matter how upset they were, but many "liberal republicans" did vote for democrats. It would be similar to many conservative democrats who voted for Bush in 2004.

Sam, Would your suggestion to republicans be to become more conservative?

[Dave Dobson]

I really don't think the Republicans lost because a bunch of deeply conservative voters made protest votes for liberals because the current crop isn't conservative enough.

I imagine many conservatives now may be having the same feeling I did in 2004 - are there really that many people who think differently than I do? Can't they see how wrong they are? I can remember going through various phases of denial ("They're just confused," "They're only voting that way because of 9/11," etc. etc.). I imagine that's par for the course whenever one's side is defeated.

I think the truth is that most folks, at least folks in the center who tip elections, vote based on the current situation rather than out of a deep-seated worldview. In 2002 and 2004, the current situation was terror and war, and people voted for stability and for the folks who said more convincingly that they would kill all the terrorists. This year, the current situation is an ugly, grinding war, grim economic news for regular folks, and a sense that the current leadership doesn't know what to do about any of it. Ergo, the centrist folks who decide the election voted out the leadership.

I think Democrats should be very careful about considering this a mandate for a liberal agenda, much as I might personally like one. Bush made that mistake in 2004. ("I earned capital, and I intend to spend it.") I think the mandate is both more simple and more fuzzy - to fix what's wrong, to do better, and to restore America's standing abroad and in the eyes of its own citizens.

[The CA]

My point is simply where will the line be drawn as to who is rich. Currently, the 25% tax bracket kicks in 61K for those filing jointly and the 28% bracket kicks in at 123K for those filing jointly, the 33% bracket kicks in at 188K. The highest bracket (35%) kicks in at 336K.

So if you make 75k per year and your spouse makes 75k per year, you are in the 28% bracket and very close to the 33% bracket. Will Democrats leave all brackets alone except for the 35% or will the consider the current 33% bracket filled with "rich" people as well?

Also noteworthy that despite all the "tax cuts for the rich" rhetoric, those people who make 75k per year DID get a tax cut under Bush, as did EVERYONE else- even those in the lowest range- in fact Bush created a new 10% bracket for the lowest earners whereas before there was only a 15% bracket. The facts about "tax cut for the rich" are really stubborn things for Democrats to deal with when closely examined. I doubt many people in lower tax brackets would say "I'd rather not have any tax cut for myself if it means the rich get one too".

As for Jim, et al- Yes, I think this election was typical for this point in history, but the underlying dynamics tend to show widespread disatisfaction over Iraq combined with an uninspired GOP base upset with Bush and Congress for not reforming Social Security as promised, not reforming immigration as promised, and for spending money like FDR and LBJ. In short, the conservatives are mad because the GOP was not conservative enough.

Look at the conservative measures put to voters- overwhelmingly passed. So the answer is that the GOP needs to become more conservative and active on these issues to win back the base. You may not like to hear, you may think I'm wrong, but there is a volume of evidence out there to support it. Read Fred Barnes. Read Pat Buchanan. Read National Review. Listen to Limbaugh yesterday. A lot of Republicans are upset about the war, but they are more upset with elected Republicans for not doing what they were elected to do.

[Jim Caserta]

Republicans have lost their chance to act on the issues you listed. They tried to implement Social security and immigration reform, and it didn't seem to help. I guarantee that someone much more moderate than Santorum will run against Casey in 6 years and will get a lot more than 41% of the vote. I personally like Democrats tacking to the middle as it makes them competitive in places they might not be otherwise (Shuler).

One region the Republicans got "thumped" was New England. Assuming Connecticut-2 holds up, New England will send 21 Democrats and only 1 Republican (Christopher Shays) to Congress next year. A move further to the right would only increase the probability of NE being 22-0. One problem the Dems have had in the past is that they gave up in the South. Listening to voters there is a key to the success Tuesday.

[Patrick Eakes]

What you "make" is different than your adjusted gross income, on which the tax brackets are based.

[Dave Dobson]

Sam - you can't seriously be saying that the Republicans would have won had they only pushed through Social Security privatization? They might have made parts of their base happier, and maybe achieved higher turnout there, but they'd have lost a lot more of the middle in doing so. It was a total loser of an issue, and turned the Republicans who supported it into skeet for the Democrats to pick off. The more Bush talked about it, the less popular it and he became.

[Dave Dobson]

Also, why can't we give poor folks tax relief without also giving far more to rich folks? What if we just reduced that 10% bracket to zero? Wouldn't cost us much, and would give money back to those who need it and deserve it most - the working poor.

The Bush tax cuts, regardless of the percentage of people who saw their taxes go down by a minor amount, had the primary (and intended) effect of making our tax code far more regressive, and had the somewhat intended effect of increasing our deficits. This means they aren't tax cuts - they're tax deferments, and irresponsible ones at that.

[John Burns]

Sam, that's an awful big graveyard you're whistling past.

[Doug H]

I agree with Sam about the conservatives needing to become more conservative. To me it means leaving the neocon philosophy behind and returning to traditional conservative values of smaller government and fiscal responsibility.

Sure would be nice to see a party adopt that and some social libertarianism!

[Roch101]

"Sure would be nice to see a party adopt that and some social libertarianism!"

Sure would.

[Stormy]

Anyone want to know the one thing that Bush could have done before the election to stem the tide? Simply, one month ago he could have done what he did this week..fire Rumsfield. I'm not saying that Rumsfield should have been fired, even though the MSM has made him the villian in this tragedy play, but if he had thrown Rumsfield under the bus one month ago, the wolves would have been sated and people would have seen that as a change in direction in a war that they have been told that we are losing. Very simply, that would have done it. Why didn't he do it? I'm sure everyone has their theory on it, but in the end he didn't do it. Unfortunately, it appears that Bush is going to capitulate to the Dems' agenda for the next two years, and any legacy that he had hoped to have will be lost. It appears that the first capitulation will be to pass a "comprehensive" immigration bill that realy means unfettered illegal immigration and making them legal citizens. Bush and the Dems will make the devil's pact on this. The Republican base will never forgive Bush for this.

The loser in our soon-to-come withdrawal from Iraq will be America as a world influence. What will be shown is that any third world country that has enough patience and is willing to use homemade roadside bombs can defeat the Great Satan. They will know that America is a paper tiger. And, in the end, we best bring our troops home from around the globe...otherwise, they will be lambs to be slaughtered, because out enemies know that we won't respond when we take casualties. Sad, but true. America will become a third world country. The Great Generation that bravely fought WWII would be ashamed of how we have destroyed their great legacy.

[Bubba]

"Also, why can't we give poor folks tax relief without also giving far more to rich folks? What if we just reduced that 10% bracket to zero? Wouldn't cost us much, and would give money back to those who need it and deserve it most - the working poor.

The Bush tax cuts, regardless of the percentage of people who saw their taxes go down by a minor amount, had the primary (and intended) effect of making our tax code far more regressive, and had the somewhat intended effect of increasing our deficits. This means they aren't tax cuts - they're tax deferments, and irresponsible ones at that."

Class warfare rhetoric at its best.

[meblogin]

Anybody like that their retirement plans are doing much better for the past few years? I wonder what taxation has to do with economic growth?

Should there be a tax incentive to those earning a larger income (maybe above $250,000) to decrease their percentage on a sliding scale so that they desire to earn more. This could generate more jobs....etc.

[The CA]

"Sam, that's an awful big graveyard you're whistling past."

John, surely you know more about politics than to truly believe such a statement. If you truly think there was some kind of ideological shift Tuesday, you have much to learn and you are ignoring key facts- particularly the conservatism of the Democrats who were elected and the outcome of the various ballot initiatives. This was not 1994, not even close.

The Democrats hold is quite precarious at this point, so I would suggest you guys make the most of it. Going back to the liberal ways of the past will result in your ouster again in two years. If the GOP is "dead", it will be because their conservative base has abandoned them, not because people like you guys better.

But until the GOP figures out why they made so many of their own angry, they will be the out party for awhile. That much I might concede.

It is interesting to see so many non-conservatives speculating as to what actual conservatives were thinking Tuesday when you have so many actual conservatives telling you what we thought- here and elsewhere. We're pissed off because the GOP was acting more like Democrats with regard to spending and immigration and totally abandoned Social Security reform. Yeah, we're pissed about Iraq to some extent, but that was not the primary reason that the base turned on the GOP.

Already Charlie Rangel is starting to insult people with his comments about hurricane ravaged Mississippi today: "Mississippi gets more than their fair share back in federal money, but who the hell wants to live in Mississippi?" Substitute New Orleans, and suddenly the media would jump on it as racist and anti-poor. Of course, only if it were a Republican and not Rangel.

Patrick, I realize you are taxed on AGI, but that does not diminish my point. We shall see.

Dave, sounds like a good idea. It's a good thing that Bush cut taxes on everyone- including those on the bottom. Not zero, but better than the tax code before Bush.

[Kirk D.]

I don't have to "speculate" on what made conservatives so upset with their own. I know what it was, as does the rest of the nation. For some reason you refuse to acknowledge it:

DeLay

Abramoff

Foley

Ney

Frist

Hastert

Cunningham

Allen

At least 3 seperate election night polls cited corruption as the most important issue that people voted on this cycle. Its as simple as that really. What do you not get?

[The CA]

Kirk, you are obviously not having the same conversation as the rest of us. Nobody has mentioned corruption until now, and corruption is a domestic issue, and more in line with what I have been saying about conservatives being let down than with the election being entirely about Iraq. It was and it wasn't. You can't win when your base is mad at you.

Also, there is no evidence of corruption by a number of people on your list.

[The CA]

By the way, Loevy offers no evidence to support his point. The GOP has been pro-life for years, that fact alone would discredit much of his thesis.

Again, I will ask you to talk to real living conservatives and ask them why they are mad at Republicans. Ask the independents what they are upset about.

[Jim Caserta]

Loevy was only talking about CO, and specifically about the Denver suburbs. I'd wager he's talked to more conservatives in that area than anyone commenting here.

The message I take from the article is that a Republican voter in CO is different than one in MS, is different from a republican voter in CA. The same can be said of diverse views in the Democratic party. To me, Democrats said that they are going to fight hard in the south. Will Republicans say the same thing about New England? Over one million Massachusets voters, 37% voted for Bush in '04, yet there were 0 Republican reps in 04, and still 0, with half of the races unopposed. Many argued that Democrats clinging to their base alienated the large group of moderate voters. It is possible that Republicans are doing the same thing.

[Neal Phenes]

I think it is primarily the Abramoff thing coupled with the hypocrisy of Republicans claiming to be for small govt and spending like drunken sailors. When a majority of Americans recently polled that they are for smaller govt, they would not not renew with the big spenders. Good to clean them out. If Dems go there, no luck in 2008.

[The CA]

Well said, Neal. That is what most conservatives believe despite the claims of others who aren't even Republican's.

[Ishmael]

Voters may have instinctively known that corruption follows when there is too much power held by one party for too long.

My opinion on what the average American really wants:

For the federal government to get the hell out of their private life.

For their representatives to look after the country's welfare by WISELY spending their tax dollars. This means that tax dollars squandered on war profiteers as opposed to national security is on a par to tax dollars squandered on so called "liberal agenda" concerns such as protecting spotted owls.

Decent educational opportunities that include a practical approach to the option of choice in education: i.e.: private schooling when public schools are shown to fail.

Senators and representatives who actually listen to them as opposed to rubber stamping the national party position. See: national health care and 1994 election.

An end to the power of the lobbyists over the power of the electorate. Also, the power of corporations over the electorate.