No No I'm not making reference to a Dean-McGovern or Dean-Mondale or Dean-Dukakis correlation. This one is far more favorable to the Democratic Party, and to Dean himself, though not in time for the election.
Let's say Bush solidly defeats Dean next year. Not a landslide, of course. But something on the order of 320-350 electoral votes. Would the price of a Bush win at the same time invigorate the Party, sweeping it into power in the years following Nov 2004?
By now you should know I am referring to Barry Goldwater, Republican nominee in 1964. He lost, but his defeat was in fact a win for the Republicans in the longterm. Four years later Johnson's chickens came home to roost, and the Party lost the Whitehouse. In '66, Republicans gained, considerably, in Congress (there gains were erased in the post-watergate '74 midterms).
Many want to compare Dean to Reagan, but Reagan benefited from rising conservatism in the years after Goldwater's loss. There is no such rising liberalism across the country.
Is it possible Dean has only started the process? that he will lose next year but be seen as a hero years from now? I think so.
**OF COURSE my preference would be for Dean to win next year, in the Ronald Reagan mold. But this is the next best thing.
A few other loose comparisons:
- -1952-Extended Democratic control of Whitehouse
- -1960- Peace and Prosperity under Republican Eisenhower
- -1968- Kennedy and Johnson in for 8 collective years
- - Republicans win whitehouse, keep it for 20 of the next 24 years.
................................................
- -1992- Extended Republican control of whitehouse
- -2000- Peace and Prosperity under Democrat Bill Clinton
- -?- Bush in for (?) years
I think most can tell where I'm going
Rate this diary
