| Let the record show that it took the interval of one whole day before the local punditocracy got out in front to knee-cap a historic two-cycle shift to the Democrats in the Granite state.
Because only in Broder Village could the headline "Blue Hampshire: A passing phase?" exist after Tuesday's results.
Remember how last time it was "Iraq" and "Bush"? This time it's the "financial meltdown." Oh yeah, of course, it's always "Bush."
It's never the fact that the economy and foreign policy and basic governance, as practiced and fulfilled by Bush and his willing Congressional enablers, represent a decades long failed Republican ideology that Granite Staters have rejected not once now, but twice (and were showing signs of rejecting when we were the only state to flip for Kerry in 2004). Let none of that stand in the way of pundits who need something - anything - to say that keeps the ball in the court and the game in play: But Allan Racklin, who teaches sociology at Franklin Pierce University, isn't ready to call New Hampshire blue. He said he would wait another election cycle or two and see if the anti-Bush phenomenon wears off before he even considers the question. Yes, we should wait maybe another twenty years before we look at the data staring us in the face today. Data that the one lone voice of reason in the piece presents:"I think the Democrats can make a very valid claim to be the majority party in the state of New Hampshire," said Dante Scala of the University of New Hampshire. "That may actually prove to be the case by the time the new registrants (at the polls) are counted. It's possible there could actually be more Democrats registered than Republicans." And I think Dante is right - didn't Ray announce just that fact on Tuesday night?
But really, who needs data when you can get in an AP article on the force of this lucid analysis: Jennifer Donahue of Saint Anselm College's Institute of Politics expects the state to move back and forth politically depending on what voters are experiencing in a given election cycle. And out of respect for fair use, I'm not going to quote Wayne Lesperance's words, but you should really read it if you want to feel like you are in stuck in the Twilight Zone and it's permanently early November, 2006. Apparently Paul Hodes and Carol Shea-Porter won on the force of Obama's candidacy back then too.
If you want to know why I'm writing a "The Fundamentals of New Hamsphire Democrats are Strong" triptych, it's precisely because post-election false balance articles like this are so very predictable. While you were sleeping, and celebrating the beginning of a new era away from the nightmare of the last eight years, the pundit class has been working hard to tell the American people that they didn't just repudiate the modern Republican party, that the era of Bush hasn't left the GOP a regional southern party, that you can't count the number of leading New England Republicans on one hand, that it's still a tie ball game with plenty of quarters left to go.
Update: This comment from Kathy says it much better than I can: These pundits miss the big picture, which is ironic since they are supposed to be paid to look at the big picture. NH has been on a steady trajectory toward becoming a Democratic state since 1992. The election of 2002 was an aberration caused by a number of factors. 2004 put us back on track, and a confluence of factors in 2006 made the trajectory that much steeper. This election was an affirmation.
Having said that, any party in power can get in trouble if it becomes complacent, or overreaches. For all my disagreements with Hannah, she is on target when whe describes elected officials as agents of government, hired and fired by the people. Elected officials are in a position of trust, and when they abuse that trust, or when they forget that it is not abou them, but about the people, the people figure that out and give them the boot. |
