Centerfield

I spent some time thinking about what a good "code" for Democrats would be. I know it's not a new idea, but I think something like renewal or restoration would be thematically advantageous. Why? Because it makes it easier to put a positive spin on moving towards the right, and encourages people to feel positive and nostalgic about old ideas and time periods that people look fondly upon. Democrats can talk about restoring balance to values that people like and which the democrats have failed to emphasize, but at the same time they can spin these restorations as reasons to support policy initiatives that democrats want. At the same time, they have to be careful to cast such policies as good for Americans in broad demographic groups, like blue-collar workers, working families, and so on.

Obviously these have been winning spins for the GOP over the last several election cycles, so the democrats have to find a way not to sound Johnny-come-lately. So they need to talk about values in a way that makes them feel like a shared vision that most of us have always sort of agreed upon and are all discovering again. They need to show that they're the party more ready and willing to get past division and move towards the synthesis of a shared vision. They need to show red and blue people who often disagree suddenly both saying "I just want my kid to be able to go to a safe school and learn the important things." or "I just want to make sure I can afford to retire" or "i just want to be able to do my own thing when I'm not harming anyone else.

It's a bias in our political system, but a party representing urban America can't just keep up with a party representing non-urban America; it has to win more votes in order to have an equal chance to govern.

And it was set up that way on purpose, and for that purpose. To keep the more-populous states from controlling and ruling the less-populous ones.

George Allen's seat in Va. is safe. Mark Warner may run, and that may produce a genuine contest, but there's no doubt in my mind that George Allen would win comfortably in a state that went comfortably for the president this year, and in which, to my recollection, Allen has never lost an election. (Crow I'll happily eat if I'm proved wrong in November '06.)

After further reflection on the 30 states = 60 seats proposition, I'm inclined to disagree. The first ground is personality: some people voted for the president in those states because of who they perceived him to be, rather than the party to which belonged. Likewise, many will vote for their senator, a more local office than the presidency, based on personality.

The second ground is that voting for the president was in many ways a proxy for the conduct of the war on terror. (Exit polling shows the combined total of respondents who thought the most important election issue was either "war on terror" or "war in Iraq" beats the total for "moral values.") So long as a Democratic senator is supportive of the president on that front, he may not be at risk.

The third ground is local interest versus national interest. A senator represents a state in a way a president does not. Together with the effect of personality, this could easily countervail the party attribute.

Overall, I'm not sure that there is a party base level in the Senate, unlike the House, where the party base level is virtually universally set by state redistricting.