- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
The one disagreement I have with Walter Shapiro's essay is his repetition of the standard, and backward looking, view that because the split of states in 2004 so closely tracked that of 2000, we should expect 2008 to continue to follow the pattern. I don't think that the pattern will hold, for some of the oldest reasons in the world -- the state of the economy is dismal, the incumbent party's president is severely disliked (hence, Bush/McCain the constant refrain), and we are very, very war weary. Some years back, in a book entitled The Golden Rule, the political scientist Thomas Flanigan traced presidential election spending, and determined that in EVERY election of the 20th century, the party that spent more on the presidential race won. This year, the Democrats are way ahead on every metric, and moreover, the $ difference also obscures a resurgence in union activity on behalf of the Dems. Come fall, we will see, but it is very difficult for me to see how the GOP can possibly be competitive by the fall. All the short term stuff isn't going to matter -- it hasn't in the primaries, and it won't in the fall. The bread and circuses of CNN, Fox, and MSNBC (why WAS that ignorant clown even invited to be on Chris Matthews if Hardball isn't an entertainment program, anyway? I bet he is invited back, too) won't matter.
