"If the elections were being held today..."
It's deja vu all over again.
By Moe Lane Posted in The Parties — Comments (45) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Yup, we're getting this meme in comments again, usually in a gloomy tone anticipating electoral defeat. Because, you know, if the elections were held today the Republicans would be toast.
To quote a scientist friend of mine, that's not even wrong. It doesn't work on two levels: first, obviously, it's not like they can call the elections early. That makes this assertion irrelevant; things not only can change, they will change between now and Election Day. Secondly, and possibly more importantly, if the elections were being held today the breakdown of safe/leaning/toss-up seats would be different. Election results do not spring fully-formed from the brow of Zeus.
Read on.
Look, we go through this every two years, people. All the players here have their own strategies in place, and all the strategies are time-dependent. To badly use a simile: the Democrats have tried for the last few election cycles to try to create a momentum via carefully-timed and carefully-placed events. I think that this is leftover from their days when they could count on control of at least one house of Congress, which is why it doesn't work as well when they can only have negative events. Meanwhile, the GOP favors a just-in-time strategy; they work under the assumption that good Voting-Day organization, alternative media outlets and last-week advertising will trump a more measured strategy. This is also possibly a leftover from the days when the Republicans were rebuilding the Party.
So what this all means is that both sides have their own schedule to keep. The GOP is waiting for the moment where all our money and activism can be spent most effectively (and thank God that they've already field-tested the mechanisms in RI*); the Democrats are throwing stuff to the wall and seeing what sticks. This is not abnormal behavior for either Party.
So... deep breathing, people. Deep breathing.
Moe
*I'm not going to tell you a lie: we're going to lose seats this year, House and Senate. I'm just not seeing that we're going to lose control of either.
« Russ wants to censure the President. — Comments (14) | A fragment on power. — Comments (31) »
"If the elections were being held today..." 45 Comments (0 topical, 45 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
It isn't like we are gonna get SS reform or ANWR drilling passed in the next 2 years anyway, so the domestic legislative agenda doesn't matter as much as the potential for a SCOTUS appointment, which the house has nothing to do with. The biggest negative of a Dem House would be "investigations" and "hearings" every day of the week and twice on Sunday. Nothing substanitive. A Dem Senate however could indefinately block any remotely conservative Judicial appointment indefinately.
"Life is too short, can't we all just eat pork and kill some terrorists?"
The investigations and hearings that would result from losing the House would be bad, but I don't think it would be the worst result from such a loss. The worst thing would be the increased likelihood that the awful Senate amnesty (plus unadvertised massive increase in permanent legal immigration) bill would pass the House, because Bush would most certainly sign that abomination into law. This would of course result in the minting of many more Democrat voters, and accelerate the demographic doom of the GOP. The only hope to stop it would be if virtually every remaining Republican held firm against it, and enough pressure could be put on the new Democrats who ran as right-leaning moderates (or as outright conservatives) so that they'd fear losing in 2008 when their incumbency has not been firmly established, and when there will be a Republican running against Hillary at the top of the ticket. This pressure would have to be intense to counter that which would be applied by Pelosi, who would be eager for such a victory.
As far as the Senate goes; as you say, clearly the worst thing about losing it would be that we could kiss goodbye any chance for another good, genuinely conservative (though we would be subject to the nauseating spectacle of Schumer, Kennedy, and Ralph Neas defining for us all what a 'mainstream conservative' is, and that would allow the media to continue to push the fiction that justices like Kennedy and O'Connor are conservatives, and that Breyer and Ginsburg are moderates) ) nominee. A good nominee to the Sup Court probably would not even get out of the Juciciary Committee, and if it did, it would be filibustered. Unfortunately, I think this outcome would be likely even if the GOP held on to the Senate, but only with a 51-52 seat majority. I say this because that would leave too few Republicans who would support the constitutional/nuclear option should the Dem Gang members support a filibuster based on ideological grounds (I think at least 3 GOP Gang members have said they would pull that trigger under such circumstances). And we shouldn't delude ourselves into thinking that the Dem Gang members would behave in the same manner with a significantly different balance of power. So the most likely result would be that we'd have no chance for another Alito, and we'd end up with some lame, O'Connor/Kennedy/Souter type nominee who would pledge fealty to Ted Kennedy and Chuck Schumer's far-left litmus tests, and then we'd have lost yet another chance to right the Court, and then we could expect even more judicial assaults on the Judeo-Christian traditions and values of the nation, and that would likely equal final defeat in the Culture War. And that would demoralize the Christian conservative base like nothing else, and while the Danforth/Rudman/Whitman wing of the party would be glad to be rid of such rabble, I think they'd find it almost impossible to win national elections anymore. The only way we could get a good justice in such a situation is if he is a stealth-conservative, and I think we all know that such judges simply don't exist.
So there you have it. Lose the House, and we like get amnesty plus a gigantic increase in legal immigration. Lose the Senate, and we lose the Sup Court...again.
I really don't know which would be worse. Hopefully neither will come to pass.
Roe v Wade, Judges legislating from the bench and Immigration mean absolutely Nothing if we lose the war.
Lose the House, Lose the War. Pure and simple.
We can decide on domestic issues when we have secured our survival.
"Always be honest with yourself even if you are honest with no one else...
...It helps you keep track of your lies..."
--Myself
These are the words of the GOP leadership. They said it and I believe them. Bush knows what a disaster it would be for the Dems to take the House and/or the Senate and he is not going to let that happen. He knows it would put national security in the hands of Utopianists who have no clue about the dangers we face.
Drudge is reporting that the President and Rove are upbeat and I think they have good reason to be. They are looking at internal polling and not the stuff that the MSM is putting out.
Courage!
Soldiers' Angels
I don't think the House changes hands simply because of the effective ness of the gerrymandering which makes for less than a handful of truely competitive seats. I don't think we will gain seats if only because we have essentially "forfeited" several with fluke problems and not getting names on the ballot in time. IE: Delay & Foley
I feel like we may lose a couple in the Senate just because of lucky draws by the Dems and poor recrutiment by the GOP. Again though, I do not see a net loss of 6 to give Dems control. That is essentially every close race going their way and NO-ONE is THAT lucky.
Whatever the case may be this year though, I think it is important to realize that it will only stand for 1 cycle. Everything that could possibly go wrong for the GOP has this year, and it is a mid-term election, which favors the out party. If the Dems gain control by a seat or two or three in either chamber, they will probably lose it in 08.
"Life is too short, can't we all just eat pork and kill some terrorists?"
I have to say it makes my blood boil for people to just assume if we lose control of one, or both, houses, that the GOP can just gain them back in 2008. Why assume the candidate recruitment will be any better than this go-round?
I'd like to see a little urgnency on the Republican's part. Maybe Moe is right and things will explode in the final week. Something other than GOTV better happen, because if we do lose control, I would bet the base will be even more demoralized (it that's possible) and gaining back the House or Senate may be an impossibility for a long time.
IMO, it can't be overestimated just how important this election is for the future of the GOP.
Frankly, it wouldn't be so bad to lose the House. I don't think anything domestically would happen in the next two years either.
It could help in 2008 if the Dems can be painted as obstructionists.
It would hurt to lose the Senate because of the Judicial issue.
Does anyone know how many seats (other than 50 + Cheney) are necessary to preserve the Nuclear Option?
than the House --- but I'd rather lose neither.
Control of the House means control of the purse. As noted further below control of the House means attempts to defund at least the Iraq War (and probably Afghanistan if not the entire GWOT), attempts to recind tax cuts, attempts to increase spending --- you nmae it. Even if ultimately unsuccessful, the attempt alone is enough to encourage the bad guys to keep up the pressure.
John
---------
Democratic civilization is the first in history to blame itself because another power is trying to destroy it.
... Jean-François Revel
the fact that Charlie Rangel, who would chair the Ways and Means Committee, has virtually said he would cut off money for the GWOT, sure losing the House is no big deal.
Whatever the case may be this year though, I think it is important to realize that it will only stand for 1 cycle. Everything that could possibly go wrong for the GOP has this year, and it is a mid-term election, which favors the out party.
Or have the Dems and the MSM painted a picture for the American people that says its gone wrong.
They still insist on claiming the economy is in the tubes...on the floor of the House and Senate, on talk shows and on every news report they tell us how bad the economy is...in spite of what we can see with our very eyes! The result is, according to polls, while people say their own finances are doing well, they worry about their neighbors! Can anyone say manipulation!
The war on terror, and specifically the front in Iraq. That nation has made incredible strides toward freedom in a very short period of time. ALL the Dems and the MSM can focus on are the roadside bombings and KIAs. IS any struggle easy? Especially when enemy fighters are pouring across the borders from our enemies (Syria and Iran?)
Again, constant negative reporting has an effect on the perceptions of the American people...the US military, specifically the people on the ground must believe, or reinlistments would not be exceeding goals in spite of the MSM drumbeat to cut and run!
Foleygate? A MSM and Dem induced scandal timed to influence the election. And yet, somehow Americans are intelligent enough to differentiate between a scumbag (Foley) and their own representative. Go Figure! The entire op is planned and timed to suppress the Republican vote...not to provide leadership of their own.
The entire Dem campaign, aided by the MSM is designed to demoralize the Republican voter without offering one shred of leadership on the part of the Dems. It is a campaign based solely on hatred, and as such, it will fail!
Not just REenlistments. More people who have never before served are joining up than have in years and the Army (all 3 branches) made its recruitment mission or better.
Streiff, this would be a good story for you to match the ones you've posted on the subject already.
"Always be honest with yourself even if you are honest with no one else...
...It helps you keep track of your lies..."
--Myself
That it's nice to hear every now and then, isn't it?
"Always be honest with yourself even if you are honest with no one else...
...It helps you keep track of your lies..."
--Myself
In 2002, Bush had 64% JA. The momentum was overwhelmingly his. The elections were in GOP-friendly states.
This year, Bush is at about 41% JA. Fundamentally, the GOP Congress has not fulfilled a single conservative promise other than the constantly-requiring-resuscitation 2003 tax cut (which Grassley always mumbles about letting expire). The lower deficit is a function of the peaking business cycle, and I _guarantee_ you that with 9% increased spending this year and the troughing of the cycle in 2007/8, the deficit is going to be a lot higher than 2% of GDP without tax hikes or cuts in spending.
It's not about Foleygate. It's about Foleygate crystallizing four years of broken promises and the broken mindset of "if we spend like the Democrats, we will always be re-elected." Even Santorum, the conservative champion, championed a fat minimum-wage hike and a new mining entitlement this year, as if that will assuage anyone who is already pissed at him. Yeah, the Democrats suck, but this has been about as terrible of a GOP Congress as anyone could have imagined.
According to Fred Barnes' weekly standard column, Republican strategists are saying that their massive cash infusions are having virtually no effect on GOP or Democrat numbers. The campaign has reached an inflection point, where a critical mass of voters has tuned out of the GOP message. The Congressional GOP just doesn't have credibility anymore, and they aren't going to get it back by making the same promises they broke in every election past and including 1998.
As far as "Osama miracles" (pro-GOP exogenous events) go, they aren't going to hapen. In every relevant world theater, anti-US players are in the driver's seat, not the United States.
We know that, at the very best, we are going to keep the House by about 5 seats. Why do we want that? Why do we want the Republican leadership to massage its own egos by dodging another bullet? The Senate, okay, I can understand that. But even there, why do we want more Corkers? Why do we want Conrad Burns? Or Mike DeWine? Yes, on a case-by-case basis they will be more conservative than their Democrat alternative. But these are exactly the types of people who contributed to the complacency that has caused a total meltdown in principled conservative legislation and spending restraint. To paraphrase Markos Mulitsas, "screw 'em."
The House leadership has already taken a pounding. Pound them some more. Why wouldn't it be great if Boehner, Jerry Lewis, Ralph Regula, Tom Davis, and the other cardinals who are still safe were _totally_ discredited? Make no mistake: this is their fault.
Because if the Democrats take the House they'll defund the War. And it is not in American interests - whether foreign or domestic - to recreate the Fall of Saigon.
Moe
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.
Once the Democrats are in control, they are going to have to prove to the non-nuts that they are mature and capable of governing. If they repeat Vietnam, they are going to be as dead as they were during Reconstruction.
Do you think it's in the Democratic Party's interest to recreate the Fall of Saigon, and recreate the post-Vietnam marginalization of their party? No. The Democrats' ultimate dream is to recapture that image of national security competence.
Let's say the Republicans lose 30 House seats, so that it's exactly the same margin in the House, but flipped. At least 20 new Democrats are coming from conservative districts. At least 30 oldtimers are, too. Do you think they're going to stand by and let themselves get electorally spiked for 2008? That's BS. And they can't get away with killing bills in committee like the GOP did, because even if they lose both Houses, the GOP will still have the megaphones of Fox and the presidency.
The Democrats aren't going to defund Iraq. Too many of them will get slaughtered in 08 if they let that happen. And their constituency won't be the wingnuts anymore. They are going to get a lot of libertarian (NOT "cut-and-run libertarian") votes in November, and a lot of moderate votes too, and a few queasy Republicans. They will have to please those constituencies too, or risk getting booted back to even worse minority status.
Yes, I believe that. I am not convinced at all in the ability of the Democratic Party to create a sane foreign policy; they could have had the last election if they did - and they failed to even make a coherent attempt. And I'm not prepared to risk the country's well-being on the possibility that the Democratic Party's leadership will be able to create one on the fly, and in the face of their progressive base's opposition.
As for your practical example, you are apparently of the opinion that incumbancy is not a sufficent safety net to permit all sorts of foolishness from sitting Representatives. Particularly new ones. I disagree.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.
The Democrats have been in the minority for twelve years because their constituency is not large enough. To gain power, they must find new constituencies (or, in this case, new constituencies must find/be driven to them.) To hold power, they will have to placate those constituencies, as well as their current ones. To hold power, they will have to make real concessions to their new constituencies. That is the basic calculation of any politician.
Furthermore, do you think ALL Democrats are "cut-and-run"-ers? The Roosevelt Coalition lost 15% of its 60% of the nation because of Vietnam. According to all polling, crossover Dems are going home en masse this election. Do you think they want defeat in Iraq? Why do you think they crossed over in the first place?
The Democrat leadership is not the same as all Democrats. The Dem leadership has sold its soul to the far left. Dean, Kerry and Gore are the posterchildren for cut and run!
Whatever rationality you wish to ascribe to the Democrat Party, the fact is that their leadership wakes up each morning thinking, "How can we fool them today!"
discipline.
If the leaders declare from on high that such and such will happen, they are usually much better at strong arming, bribing and corralling their wayward children to toe the line than the GOP ever has been.
And I don't think the leadership will care who voted for them, much less toss any bones their way other than rhetorric.
The left reliably, and loudly, spouts the DemocratTalkingPoints™ without deviation.
But history indicates the Democrats are unable to transform "dissenters" into "actual voters."
***
"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so." - Ronald Reagan
Add Pelosi, Murtha, Durban, Rangel, Reid, Feingold, Kennedy, Dodd...to that ever lengthening list of Dem leaders who support cut and run (or deploying to Guam if you chose)
We're not dealing with rational Adults here!
These people have been screaming "Cut and Run!" and "Bush lied, people died!" and the like so long and so loudly that ALL they will see if they win in November is that People Believe Them!
They will say "Hey! This worked! All these people really Did want the GOP out of control. Better do what we promised to do to keep them..."
"Always be honest with yourself even if you are honest with no one else...
...It helps you keep track of your lies..."
--Myself
Why shouldn't we believe the Democrats will do in Iraq what they did in Vietnam? After all, they keep saying it's just the same themselves!
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.
controlled congress would do.
It is a back door way to force the administration to get out of Iraq.
They don't care if it looks like Vietnam, after all they have declared it as such for years now, so they might as well do what they did last time, and remove the funding.
Deja vu all over again.
Funding to the Vietnamese government ~ 1972 to 1973, cut off by a Democratic congress. We had turned over the running of the war to the Vietnamese around 1971, but congress cut the legs out from under them.
It's Uncle Ho to the rescue and the fall of Saigon in 1975.
History has a way of repeating itself.
_______________________________
Another South Park Republican spouting off !
most of the Dems in power today were the fery anti-war protesters who were thrilled with the US being kicked out of Vietnam with its tail between its legs. They believed then, and to this day, that it was proof of the rightness of their anti-war position. The millions of deaths as a direct result of that withdrawal, and the decades of misery that pullout inflicted on the Vietnamese people are simply irrelevant to their way of thinking!
They see Iraq as exactly the same situation. If they can get the US military to cut and run, their anti-war stance will be vindicated. The millions of deaths that will result, the victory for world terrorism, and the upsurge in world terrorism that will result, as well as the nosedive in American prestige in the world, will be similarly irrelevant in their minds.
All that matters is they will be in power!
See The World In HinzSight!
Because I don't want Nancy Pelosi being two heart beats away from the Presidency? I hate to say it, but the prospect of having a liberal woman as president could lead to assassination attempts.
Because Charlie Rangle wants all of the tax cuts gone.
Because Charlie Rangle wants to defund the war.
Because there will be two years of investigations and attempts at impeachment when there are serious threats to be dealt with.
I could go on, but I'm sorry, I don't think we should try to lose to enact some kind of revenge on our guys.
Remember, it was Charlie Rangel who tried to push for a Draft, and only backed out to vote against it when the Republicans publicized the vote.
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.
It wasn't really a "Draft"
It was "Mandatory Service" and left all sorts of backdoors for the cowards that we don't want in the Military or the Border Patrol or the Police or the Fire Department, anyway.
Unfortunately, those back doors all led into the bureaucracy, so they could screw over all the good people that were doing the dangerous jobs...
"Always be honest with yourself even if you are honest with no one else...
...It helps you keep track of your lies..."
--Myself
Defunding the war in Iraq, the war on terror, national defense generally, allowing tax cuts to expire, holding the budget hostage to extort transfer payments to their parasitic base.
That enough to illustrate the downside of losing the House? Not to mention the investigations by John Conyer, et al. Or that Charlie Rangel has already notified Republican-leaning lobbyists they better give to his PAC if they expect face time.
BUT ~ not only is it not over until it's over, but there is another factor to be considered: dust off your history books, brush away the cobwebs, and look up the last time the House changed party control without the Senate doing the same thing.
The Senate changes hands much more easily than the House due to the statewide nature of the races. If the House flips, you can almost be assured the Senate will, but the reverse doesn't happen. I agree with Moe, though, that neither will happen although it will get pretty close.
This Abramowitz article in the WaPo is headlined
White House Upbeat About GOP Prospects
Of course, the article contains the obligatory reference to "self-delusion".
Recall, if you will, the story about how Condi Rice brought the president the results of the first exit-polls - the ones that showed Kerry winning in a walk. The President is supposed to have responded, "They are what they are."
Perhaps the story should be about the MSM's delusions. As a man who is experiencing the physical change from mighty beast to old dog myself: I can sympathize w/the MSM's reluctance to admit to their fading powers. Framing the political discussions of the nation is what they have always been able to do, just as casually swinging a half-a-dozen 2x4's up to my shoulder and walking off w/perfect balance used to be something I was able to do.
I feel their pain :-)
I am so sick of the lib-nuts media trashing the GOP into near oblivion,...especially in the VA Senate race between George Allen and (perv) fiction writer and war 'hero' Jimmy Webb.
Check out this blog written by some leftist.
http:vamdpolitical.muddle.com
Can't wait for that stuff to blow! Seems Webb may have some "Slick Willie" problems.
Jeez,...New to posting on the net,...left y'all the wrong web address to check out some seeming Jimmy Webb/Slick Willie Problems.
The right address is; http://vamdpoliticalmuddle.com
I really do hope this stuff blows on Webb before 11/8!
fruits and nuts the Dems would have a merry Christmas. Actually "Winter Holiday" for that godless group of pagans. However, WTF are all you talking about "if we lose the house" or "if we lose the Senate"? What a bunch of losers! Either play to win or STFU.
The MSM is rapidly de-energizing the Dim base with talk of a walk-over win. Let's be real, a lot of the polls are skewed with more Dims and and a lot of the Dims are lazy bums who never turn out for the election because there was something good on MTV or the Life channel.
If the Repubs get the optimistic message in tune, we will retain both chambers. So, quit whining and start working.
Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.
doesn't actually backfire, keeping Dem voters at home (or heading out for pizza) because they are going to win big, and galvanizing the GOP vote, who may not be gung ho behind their guy, but don't want the other guy to win.
Not sure if it is true or not, but I do sometimes wonder if the MSM doesn't create a certain over confidence.
http://devine-gamecock.townhall.com and www.race42008.com
"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so." - Ronald Reagan
about a political party that nominated John F. Kerry to be their candidate for president of the United States in 2004.
This is the same John Kerry, who stood in front of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations on 22 Apr 1971 and said:"""""
I have been to Paris. I have talked with both delegations at the peace talks, that is to say the Democratic Republic of Vietnam and the Provisional Revolutionary Government and of all eight of Madam Binh's points it has been stated time and time again,"""""
Both delegations being two enemy delegations.
I believe the Democrats will file to defund the Iraq
war, the 1st day of the 2007 session, rather they win the House or not.
On 20 Sep 2006, HR 4844 was passed - QUESTION: On Agreeing to the Resolution
BILL TITLE: Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 4844) to amend the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 to require any individual who desires to register or re-register to vote in an election for Federal office to provide the appropriate State election official with proof that the individual is a citizen of the US.
196 Democrats voted against this bill, with 6 Democrats
not voting. Not a single Democrat voted to insure that only
US citizens could vote in Federal elections.
I believe that the current Democrat leaders care about
only the rights of terrorists and illegal immigrants, not
United States citizens. They destroyed South Vietnam and are
eager to repeat the destruction of Iraq.
http://devine-gamecock.townhall.com and www.race42008.com
"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so." - Ronald Reagan
couldn't field good candidates in some of the competitive or open seats.
I am not convinced we will keep both houses, but if we lose one I would rather lose the house, because Bush won't get a nominee for anything-not even dog catcher past a DNC controlled senate that isn't deemed to "extreme." But the idea of a speaker Pelosi gives me dry heaves.