Redstate

I respond here. I'd respond here if I knew how to upload the photo.

that Newt's Contract wasn't released until just before the election, if I recall correctly.  The shorter the time between announcement and voting, the less time it pick it apart.

TO pick it apart

It would be interesting if the Ds can put together a platform that does the following: a) unites Ds, b) provides new ideas, and c) resonates with people outside the base.  Those were the three things that the Contract did well.  If they do that, I think it could work.  But I have an instinct that D leading minds will have a hard time hitting the trifecta above.  On the other end, they could provide the Onion right.

I hope (and think) that the one issue the Dems could run on that failed in the past is Health Care.  It was bungled in 1994, but a lot has changed.

But I also thought that personal accounts would sell well to a population where a majority own stock.  It's very hard to push an ambitious (and expensive) program.  Lots of targets to shot at.  And I'm not convinced that Ds could actually complete a plan on health care that unified all Ds.  But I await the possibility of being proven wrong.

That was the issue that divided the elders of my family at Thanksgiving last year.

My grandparents own lots of stock, but were completely against the idea from the get-go.  They coulnd't believe that people would want to risk their future after the tech bubble burst in '99.

On the other hand, my grandma's sister and her husband canceled their subscription to the AARP newsletter after they spoke out against the plan.  They're probably the richest couple out of my grandma's 4 sisters.

Every plan did nothing to people over 50 or so.  It was about those in my generation having a choice.  We could stay in the old system (that is univerally seen as crumbling) or put some off our money in an account that we legally own.  This is about under 30s, not over 60s.  But unfortunately, SS is associated with the other group in most people's minds.

Although I'm certainly biased left, it seems to me that 2006 is shaping up to at least have the potential for some significant realignment in Congress.  I don't see either chamber changing hands, but I see the Rep majorities being shortened by a good deal.

Don't get me wrong- the potential still exists for the Dems to screw it up.  God knows they're good at it.  But I sense something in the air this year.  And as others have noted, the Contract came out much closer to Election Day than the point we're at now.  Watch for the 5 points Harry Reid rattled off on Meet the Press (I think).  Good, centrist stuff.  Anti-corruption, energy independence, more college tuition aid.  Stuff that makes suburban housewives smile.

Given the thin House majority, how on earth could one have 'significant realignment' without the body changing hands?

And what exactly is going to be realigned?  What group of people, or what region, is going to go Democratic that previously has gone Republican?

Do you even know what realignment means in the context of elections?

I love the Contract, but, one of the major reasons that we saw a big win in 1994 was the slew of retirements in 1992.

The retirements were not just because of the House banking scandal, but also because of a change in the campaign finance rules of congress.  Basically, and I had to find a refresher here, congressmen who retired in 1992 got to pocket their campaign funds.  So in 1992, you had 110 freshmen congressmen.

So on top of several more retirements in 1994, you had a full 1/4 of the house that at best had one term of service (and the corresponding lack of a bankroll).

This, along with what Newt did, was a huge factor in our victory.

And I don't mean that personally.

I have to admit that I am currently out of the loop politically (our governor is coasting to re-election theoritically here in GA and we don't have any Senators running), but it just seems that this year, people are just assuming that the GOP is going to win on incumbancy.

The poll numbers on the other hand look pretty grim.  Now, I'm not expecting Kyl to go down or really even Talent for that matter, but Burns seems iffy right now and Santorium just seems like toast (unless Michelson gets in).

We need to fight for every seat we can get and see if we can pull off an increase.

I'm just hoping that the GOP in Florida, Maryland, Minnesota, and places like that are some how energized.

I can't imagine that the port deal (regardless of what you think of it) is helping or the high spending, but if you're in one of those states, I'd urge you to get out and lead and see if you can't help generate some of that grassroots momentum.

...just about to link that very article.  It's an excellent piece.

What truly surprises me is the FACT that this article ran on the front page of The New York Times. It is the same paper that conservatives rail about all the time as the epitome of liberalism. How can the New York Times be both attacked for liberalism and referred to for support of arguments against Democrats?

It is posted here without title, byline credit and without proper copyright credit. The writer was Adam Nagourney. It appeared on 3/6/2006. It's not really fair to withhold relevant information from us readers.

that you've probably overstayed your welcome here.

So far your contribution has been to call Ohio Republicans homophobes of some stripe and now you accuse Pejman of not attributing the article and violating copyright, in addition to the mortal sin of inconveniencing you.

News flash, genius. That's what links are for.

I'm sure there are other blogs in urgent need of both your insights and technical advice. This is not one but now you have a lot of free time to look for them.

divide and conquer... we can keep the dems head spinnin with another rovian move.... they never learn. rove will give them a wedgie just in time.

so place your bets now.

the 2006 wedge award goes to ?

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad?

They coulnd't believe that people would want to risk their future after the tech bubble burst in '99.

If you invest for the long haul, it's not particularily risky. The tech burst mainly hurt people who were playing the market, not those in it for a while, (see here.) Anyone who invests even somewhat responsibly, will come out with a much better return on his money then Social Security does.

great start to the voting. ah, war in iran. what side are you on?

are you ready for some football?

time to practice what we preach and make that place a parking lot.

head and puzzling over this riddle I hit upon the notion that maybe some republicans feel that the Dems don't have much of a message, which apart from lust of power they don't.  The Times on the other hand is angry that what they've told the dems to think isn't working and being liberals blame their stooges.  So for different reasons they agree, on this one issue.  Ergo, the Times can be liberal and republicans can agree, for now.  

Justice Anthony Kennedy.

If the new blood on the Supreme Court causes Kennedy to shift away from the activism of the past, he could provide quite a shock to the Democrats, and force them into compromises parts of their base can't accept.

There's no guarantee, but I can hope.

and I was speaking loosely.  For that, apologies.  I didn't mean "realignment" in the sweeping, demographic sense.  Perhaps "rearrangement" would have been a better word.  I see Rep majorities trimmed but not lost.

Howard Dean did just speak on the Dem's equivalent to a "Contract with America". It has six promises that Dean says the Democrats will achieve in the first hundred days of a new Democratic majority in Congress. Here they are, and our take on them:

http://theflyoverzone.blogspot.com/2006/03/howard-dean-lays-out-democrats.h
tml

...get ready to be taxed beyond belief!

Can you imagine - Nancy Pelosi as speaker or Charlie Rangel as Chairmen of Ways and Means

Republicans didn't win in 1994 because of the Contract.  Post-election polls showed only 20% of voters had heard of the Contract.  This says nothing of what sub-percentage liked what they saw.

That said, I think Dems still have a problem.  What is true, and what I think is the Democrats' problem today is that voters in 1994 had a sense of what Republicans would do if elected, if unclear on the specifics (and that sense was in some ways wrong, as Republicans learned when they shut down the govenrment while trying to slow the growth of Medicare and Medicaid). Some of that was defined in reaction to Clinton's policies (though other factors such as redistricting, higher quality candidates, more money, and an incumbency backlash played a role), but I think people had a pretty good sense of where the Republican party as a whole stood on the "issues of the day," such as defense spending, taxes, welfare, and approaches to crime (eg midnight basketball vs. the death penalty). Ronald Reagan had spent the better part of the previous decade clearly enunciating (if not consistently following) the conservative script to the American people, and I think that script was at least somewhat embedded in their mind.

I'm not sure that voters today have such a sense about the Democrats. Part of the problem is that Republicans in 1994 were writing on a blank slate -- even after 12 years out of power plenty of people remember Democratic rule, and remember why they voted Democrats out. Part of the problem is that Democrats are really a fusion of at least four parties -- urban progressives, suburban "new" democrats, northern union democrats, and a few remaining southern Democrats -- which makes unity difficult to maintain. But the main part of the problem is that 12 years in the wilderness has not been sufficient to form the sense of unity in Democrats that 40 years in the wilderness did for Republicans. We can quibble about the correctness of the Washington Post's article today regarding lack of Democratic party cohesion. But remember, Olympia Snowe -- one of the most liberal Republicans in Congress, even back in the 1980s, backed Newt Gingrich in his rise to Majority Whip in 1989. Connie Morella, she of the 29% ACU rating, got behind the Contract with America.  THAT is unity. THAT is a party that is so hungry to win that it is willing to set aside all else to get there. I don't think Democrats have achieved that yet. And without that type of unity, it is hard for the average voter to gather more than an inchoate hunch of what Democrats stand for (a hunch which may or may not be accurate, and which may or may not be inaccurate in a favorable way).  As it stands, I doubt if the Dems could get even 200 Dem votes on any meaningful proposal regarding the war, social security, the prescription drug benefit, or the lobbying reform.  That is their achilles heel.  Without any unity around a changed them, and without a strong leader, the public simply remembers 1992, and why they threw them out in the first place.

Democrats don't need to lay out specifics to win. But they do need to do a better job of conveying a unified sense of where the party would go if given the reins of government.  Until they do, we conservatives can breathe easier.  But we should look over our shoulders.

that could possibly have an effect in 2006?

We all hope that Kennedy sees the light and returns from the dark side, but doesn't it seem more likely that as the one and only swing vote that he'll go even more left?  Up until now, he has been in the backseat to O'Connor as the ultimate swing voter, but now, its all him (assuming Roberts and Alito turn out as promised).  

If, for example, marriage reaches the court as currently constituted, would anyone bet against Kennedy imposing gay marriage on the entire nation?  

I wouldn't.

If the new challenges to Roe reaches this court, does anyone expect Kennedy to deliver the possible deathblow to that travesty of a decision?

I don't.

I try to be optimistic about Roberts' abilities to win over colleagues, but is there any history of a Sup Court justice becoming more conservative?  

I can't help but feel that this is just wishful thinking on behalf of Republicans in light of mostly bad-dismal polling data in the generic GOP vs Dem matchups for Congress (which just got worse), and in most of the competitive races (Blackwell is way down, Burns has shot himself in the foot, Santorum looks like toast, the great Minnesota hope Kennedy can't break out of the low 40s, Harris is still way down, Steele is way down, Kean Jr has lost ground, Pawlenty has fallen behind, and now Allen of Va may have a real fight on his hands).

That it comes from the NYTimes is a bit of a surprise, but the idea that it counters the (true) claim that the Times is leftwing is absurd.  And if one wants to find an ulterior for the Times, then one could speculate that such articles are an attempt to lull the GOP into a false sense of security, and thereby their keep turnout low this November.