The election is over. Bad guys lost. And Bush's time is at last coming to an end.
So we can rest, right?
Um...no.
Yes, we can celebrate -- and we've earned it. The end of the Bush administration and the start of a hopeful new chapter in America deserves to be marked, to be shared with friends and with your progressive community. And our good friends at CREDO are willing to pay for it. That's right, they'll fund 1,000 "End of Bush" parties over the next 10 days -- just sign up now (or attend one being thrown by your local Drinking Liberally).
But don't think of these as farewell parties. A progressive agenda still needs us: to support an administration that needs our advocacy, and to push the administration when it doesn't live up to our ideals. Too often, after Election Day, campaign offices close, grassroots groups go into hibernation and "fired up and ready to go" activists are left without a political anchor.
That's where Drinking Liberally comes in. By meeting regularly year-round, we serve a more important role between elections, creating continuity for your political energy, supporting a community that doesn't ebb and flow with campaigns.
CREDO gets it. They are an organization in it for the long haul; they've moved $60 million to progressive groups over the years, and they've invested heavily in infrastructure to register voters, get out the vote and protect voter rights. They have been an ally and an inspiration. And now, they are throwing these parties...to keep us fired up (and fed and tipsy and happy) for the battles to come.
A frequent refrain of the 3rd party progressive is this notion that by denying the unsatisfactorily progressive party your vote, they will be punished, and will in future, become more progressive to recapture it.
This theory makes a certain amount of intuitive sense, but in fact I can find no evidence for it, and plenty that shows the reverse happening. At this point there is little doubt that being defeated generally causes a party to move toward the party that won, not toward the idealists who refused to support them in protest. The effects of victory are less consistent, but defeat usually results in moving to where the most votes are, which is the party that won.
The basic problem is that voting is a very blunt instrument for influencing policy. You may be sending a message, but it is not heard clearly and usually misinterpreted. The other problem is that this theory is based on entirely too much reification of parties. We discuss them sometimes as if they are coherent even monolithic actors, but this just isn't so. The Democratic party does not have a brain and nervous system that reacts to stimuli like a person might.
I could write at least four or five posts on that LA Times/Bloomberg poll that had Obama up 12 points on McCain, not for that result (noteworthy and heartening as it is), but for all the other questions they asked.
I particularly like questions 24 and 25, so here they are in detail (with some attempt at formatting and yes my colour choices suck)
Q24/25 Do you have a positive or negative feeling about the (24)Democratic/(25)Republican Party? (IF POSITIVE OR NEGATIVE) Is it very or only somewhat (positive/negative)?
Yes, we can celebrate -- and we've earned it. The end of the Bush administration and the start of a hopeful new chapter in America deserves to be marked, to be shared with friends and with your progressive community. And our good friends at CREDO are willing to pay for it. That's right, they'll 
