Some new statistics on party membership, and it turns out that values were unimportant in the election

article
It's a short article, so I'll quote most of it:

Even as a new Gallup poll shows that the public values “values” less than November exit polls suggested, another survey from the same outfit released today showed a historic surge in Republican party affiliation.

In Gallup's latest poll this month, those identifying themselves as Republicans jumped to 37% of the public, with Democrats now clearly trailing with 32%.

Democrats have long held more party members than Republicans. During the Clinton years, the bulge was about 5% to 6%. As recently as late-October of this year the Democratic edge was 37% to 34%.
[…]
Another Gallup poll also released today showed that, contrary to many press reports, “values” ranked well behind the war in Iraq, terrorism and the economy as a prime concern of Americans.

This is one of those rare articles which shows that the media, someday, may realize that Bush won because he's a better candidate. However, the media's current attempts to explain their loss are comparable to playing "Where's Waldo?" with a blank sheet of paper. Bush won because he was the better candidate. It's that simple. Good candidates are likeable, present good points and issues, argue their points and sides on issues well, can use a campaign wisely, and can both encourage people to vote for them and encourage moderate supporters to vote. Thus, the better candidate will almost certainly win a fair election.

Now, this article does redeem itself by providing new, useful information. Increased republican party membership shows that the democrats have repulsed non-members during the campaign, and probably in the run-up to the campaign (the primaries and that incredibly long pre-primary debate season in which all 10 democratic wannabe-candidates debated at once. Not to mention the "what did he know and when did he know it?!" era). This means that republicans should do well in the next election, either holding or increasing their numbers in Congress, unless some incredible idiots appear in high positions and screw everything up, but that's unlikely.
Additionally, the democratic party needs to rethink its platform. Do democrats really want to prevent domestic oil drilling, when almost every smart and informed American agrees that we should depend less on the mid-east for oil? Do democrats really want to federalize the school systems, though many studies have shown that schools under local control do far better, and for less money, than schools under federal control? Do democrats really want to socialize healthcare when the prototype, Tennessee's Tenncare system, crashed due to huge costs, and both European and Canadian healthcare systems are les effective than America's? Do democrats really want to strengthen controls on pollution, and encourage fear over phantom environmental problems (like disposal of depleted uranium, which I discussed in my earlier post), when American industries are falling behind? Of course, I could pose similar questions to republicans; who should work to shrink the influence of stock over a company, and hold bosses accountable for the problems of the company (rather than impose a fine on the entire company, which harms the employees, as the boss will ensure that he keeps a high salary).

Personally, I hope that the democratic party can really shape up, and focus on improving America as a whole and for the long-run. If such happened, I would be happy to join the democratic party, because I'm not a blind partisan who thinks my party is better because it's my party. I will support the party that I believe will be better for America in the long-run, and I hope that other Americans use the same simple, accurate logic.