Post Election Republican Spin

Yesterday, the GOP received a Tyler-Brayton-like knee in the groin from the Democrats. OK, that's a bad analogy - the victory was more like a punch in the face than a cheap shot - but I felt like putting that video up.

But the GOP were on the receiving end of a historic ass kicking, the type of which we haven't seen in a decade. They lost the House and very probably lost the Senate. There is nothing they can do today (besides recounts or legal challenges in certain races), so what do they do? Spin the victory.

It began, actually, before the election. Super-right-wing-racist super-pundit Ann Coulter tried to convince the sheep that anything less than a 60 seat gain in the House and a twelve seat gain in the Senate would be considered failure. This is, of course, ludicrous.

The Democrats held 258 seats in 1994 -- there was much more dead weight to be lost. Even with the 54-seat swing in the House, the Republicans still had 230 seats. Compare this with a current 29-seat gain, where Democrats have 229 seats. And remember, there are still 10 undecided seats - three will probably go for Dems for 232 Democratic House seats. In other words, a similar outcome to 1994.

If there was more Republican dead weight for the Republicans, the gains by Dems would have been worse, but the final numbers similar.

Of course, some pre-election spin proved to be ... wrong. Very wrong.

Another meme that began before the election but has survived, and, indeed, flourished in the post-election spin is that the Democrats lucked into the victory. From Robert Novak's newsletter the Evans-Novak Political Report (link only good for a week):

Democrats capitalized on a mood that was not so much pro-Democrat as anti-Republican.

This is, to put it in a Penn and Teller sort of talk, bullshit.

Republicans will not give the Democrats any sort of credit at all. Yes, a strong anti-Republican sentiment fueled races -- but even the biggest anti-Republican sentiment in the world would not have helped had Democrats not had viable candidates to challenge Republicans. In other words, Dean's 50-state strategy ripened much before many believed it would.

So what did the 50-state strategy do? It forced Republicans to spread their money thin. Instead of defending certain key seats, the national GOP was forced to spread money thin to races that were tier 3 or worse earlier in the year.

They give Republicans sole credit for the 1994 Red-washing of Congress, ignoring other factors that contributed. Of course, they ignore everything but the other factors in 2006.

Another piece of spin emanating from Republicans is that this is actually good for Republicans. That they had to "throw them" out. After all, these guys aren't true conservatives!

Of course, they aren't -- Glenn Greenwald had an excellent post on this in February.

Whether one is a "liberal" -- or, for that matter, a "conservative" -- is now no longer a function of one’s actual political views, but is a function purely of one's personal loyalty to George Bush.

Many of us knew this before Greenwald wrote this post. There is nothing fiscally conservative about increasing governmental spending or making bureaucracy an art form (one art form that they approve of funding). Barry Goldwater is rolling over in his grave.

But back to the "good for Republicans" talking point. This is not good for Republicans. It is only giving the Democrats a chance to prove themselves. It's like the bad guy in a James Bond movie giving Bond a chance to escape -- it always comes back to haunt the evil genius. (I like to think of the Bond in this analogy as Sean Connery)

Perhaps my favorite thing I have heard today is the idea that Republicans saw this coming months, nay, years ago. Sean Hannity said that he saw this coming a year and a half ago on his show today!

A quick aside -- normally, I can't stand listening to Rush Limbaugh or Hannity on the radio. But it was very fun to do so today. And, as many of you have read, I'm not alone.

I don't know about you, but even I, a proud Democrat and progressive, did not see a 30-seat swing in the House and slight control of the Senate coming a year and a half ago. This is why I think 2008 projections are only slightly more useful than ranking 12 year old basketball players.

If we've learned one thing from this election, we've learned that things can change very quickly.

I know these aren't all the justifications and obfuscations of the election results. What are some of your favorite Republican talking points after getting their asses handed to them?