Here is some news for Democrats to take heart in:
Republican politicians in multiple states have recently decided not to run for Senate next year, stirring anxiety among Washington operatives about the effectiveness of the party’s recruiting efforts and whether this signals a broader decline in GOP congressional prospects.
Prominent Republicans have passed up races in North Dakota and West Virginia, both GOP-leaning states with potentially vulnerable Democratic incumbents. Earlier, Republican recruiters on Capitol Hill and at the White House failed to lure their first choices to run in Florida, Michigan and Vermont.
These setbacks have prompted grumbling. Some Republican operatives, including some who work closely with the White House, privately point to what they regard as a lackluster performance by Sen. Elizabeth Dole (N.C.) as chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, the group that heads fundraising and candidate recruitment for GOP senators.
While a good bit of this can be blamed on Liddy Dole (is she still trying to raise the drinking age to 40?), a lot of it can be traced to the simple fact that while Republicans have made a now seamless transition to the stupid party, that doesn’t mean every individual politician is insane. Do you want to run on the platform of an unpopular war, exploding deficits, Terri Schaivo, etc.? “Vote for me so I can help George Bush advance his agenda” does not sound real appealing right now.
I think 2006 is going to be a bloodbath for the GOP, have since about March of this year (Schiavo), and given the way they keep behaving, it doesn’t really upset me that much.
You think anyone [of the R variety] has insulated themselves from this enough to come out ahead? It seems so many were intent on riding in the Bush coatails that it might be ‘guilt by association’ in 06 even if there was no real association [w/the Bush admin] other than the “R” by the name.
I just can’t think of anyone that’s ‘clean’. You?
Agree with the “bloodbath” comment in 2006 for the Repubs. Should be a good thing as we can immediately get our troops out of Iraq, push the Israelis into the sea and turn the land back to its rightful owners, and accomplish a whole lot of good around the world. Also, on domestic front, we should start nationalizing assets of overly rich Repubs like the Bushes, Mellons, Scaifes, etc.
I’m hoping this is the change from “Party before Country” theme to “People before Country before Party” that can help America. Democrats still waffle on it, at least the Good ones. The poor ones, like Zell “I’ll Duel Anybody in the Room” Miller or Joe “Mentum” Liberman, would do the party a favor by actually putting the R next to their names.
Why is it that neither party can figure out that the people are the country? And without the people, they have no party?
This isn’t the best example in the world, since New Jersey is a solid blue state, but in the NJ governors race, Corzine (the Demmy) is running commercials that are practically screaming “DOUG FORRESTOR IS GEORGE BUSH’S CANDIDATE”.
That’s quite a change from 2002, when even some Democrats were trying to play up being tight with the President.
Kudos for spiking the anti Libby Dole meme. Yet another example of scapegoating in avoidance of responsibility for the ongoing train wreck.
I actually feel sorry for mainstream Republicans. They seem to be boxed in by the loony fundamentalists on one side and incredibly corrupt Texas-style crony politics on the other. The only Senators I can think of who can escape untouched are Collins, Chafee and McCain.
Now if only the Democrats could come up with an actual vision for governing the country…
You know Dave, a lot of Democrats (including a lot of influential Democratic Congressmen) are very pro-Israel… but I’m willing to concede that maybe they aren’t the most pro-Israel people in our government. They probably aren’t as pro-Israel as, say, Larry Franklin or perhaps Doug Feith and friends.
You know, Doug, I feel for you. It must really hurt to be the party of (it’s not my) personal responsibility. “It’s not my fault, I voted for Bush, not the guys who won.” “You’re doin’ a heckuva job, Brownie. Just think of how good a job you’ll be able to do when you grow up enough to be a girl scout.” “It’s not my responsibility that Terri Schiavo lied to me about not being a vegetable.” “No child left, Bottom…er, I mean, behind.”
I’m not so sure. I don’t see the Repubs losing their majority in either house in 2006.
Indeed, Defense Guy. I’m confident my Democratic Party is ingenious enough to find a defeat in this thing yet.
That’s interesting. Care to elaborate on your reasons for thinking this?
I have several reasons that will factor against the current unhappiness with party on the right, but I’ll give you one. The Dems are still too fractured in body and on message, the only consistent message is a dislike/hatred for the Right/Bush. This will not be enough, IMO, to see the party reestablish a majority in Congress.
It wasn’t my original comment but despite any public feelings that backlash against Republicans, they aren’t defending enough seats in the Senate for a credible Democratic takeover. A gain yes, a majority reversal, no.
With respect to the House, again you have an uphill battle because most incumbents will be safe (they always are). Democrats would have to compete like crazy in pretty safe Republican areas and I haven’t seen enough evidence that a House Democratic landslide is in order. Some gains? Probably. I look for smaller R majorities for Bush’s final 2 years but no hard reversal.
Even though the Republicans haven’t had a good year what are the Dems offering as an alternative? Not much. Plus the RNC has twice the cash on hand then the DNC. I think the Rebublicans may lose some seats but not control of the House or the Senate.
Well, much as I (dedicated Dem that I am) would love to see a “bloodbath” for the GOP next November (preferably a Third-Republic-France-in-1940-style debâcle); the final count is probably more likely to come out less sanguine, and more same-old-same-old. IMO, the likeliest optimal outcome for Democratic gains will probably -at best- give them narrow control of the House (re the Senate: it’s too much to hope for that the Dems can “turn” eleven seats: but narrowing the GOP edge to 1-2 seats -i.e., giving Repub moderates more of an edge- would proabably have the same effect, though).
Given, though, the facts that:
A) The recent generalization of Congressional redistricting (i.e.,gerrymandering) has made virtually ALL House seats “safe”:
B) The reddest of red-meat red-staters will be panic-driven to swarm out and support Republicans, lest they lose their overhyped and undeserved leverage on national politics:
C) The national GOP will probably respond to any threatened loss of the House with an unprecedented deluge of money for local races:
The odds of a major 1966/1994-style turnover are (regretfully) pretty long. They will, however, IMO, go WAAAY up depending on the state of the nation’s economy: we get a recession on ’06, and I think a LOT of Republicans will be beating the bushes on K Street for other employment opportunities.
No idea what cause the strikeouts above: please ignore them.
citing difficulty in finding candidates to PICK-UP seats is not exactly a sign of the GOP falling apart. most of the races mentioned in the article (aside from santorum and frist seats) involves attempts by the GOP to ADD to the existing 55-45 Senate majority.
a 5 seat swing to the Democrats in the Senate is unlikely, let alone the gerrymandered-to-death House races.
prospects of that would generate real “election anxiety”
Also, we’ve got a year to go to the elections, and Americans have very short memories. If Bushco can get through the current rough patch, things may not change all that much…
I don’t either. I think it is hard to predict right now. A lot depends on the investigations. If Karl Rove, Tom DeLay, and Bill Frist are all in jail in November 2006, the Dems will win, but I suspect that at most one of them will be and that probably isn’t enough to swing it.
One thing I do believe: Howard Dean will be a very effective chairman, at least relative to other DNC chairs. I just think that the RNC is so far ahead right now in terms of strategy that I don’t see how the DNC can catch up in 2 years. The Republican GOTV effort in 2004 was truly awe-inspiring.
That’s like being the tallest midget in the circus.
That’s about right: I think he’ll be the tallest midget in the circus. But that’s still an improvement. That’s what people don’t realize, that except for Clinton, the Democrats have had completely inept strategists for the past 25 years.
I should point out that my comment was a tad on the sarcastic side (obviously).
I don’t even know, who was head of the DNC before McAuliffe?
And when these things don’t happen, would you be so kind as to revise your opinion of Democratic politicians and policy?
I don’t know who it was before T-Mac. I think maybe Ed Rendell. They’ve all been horrible. As much as I wanted Bush to lose in 2004, I took a certain satisfaction in watching the smart Ken Mehlman and Karl Rove destroy the idiots McAuliffe and Frum.
The fact that they aren’t idiots is a considerably compelling improvement over what the Republicans are offering.
I don’t think the GOP will lose its majority in either the House or Senate, but I do think that the Dems might pick up a few seats. Might. And that might not be such a bad thing, especially for Republicans in ’08. It might get them to sober up a bit. Although I think there are more vulnerable Democratic seats than there are Republican so the chances for Dems appear to be rather meagre. Who knows? And one shouldn’t misunderestimate President Bush, his present troubles notwithstanding.
Personally, I think it’s best when one party controls one branch and the other another. In other words, under regular circumstances I wouldn’t mind seeing the Dems control either the House or Senate or vice versa (like Clinton with the GOP or Reagan with the Dems). The GOP (like the Dems before them) has proven that too much power corrupts whatever one’s intitial intentions, ideology or positions. Republicans are no less susceptible than Dems, as the current sorry bunch keeps on proving…
That said, I am completely underwhelmed by most of the Democratic party’s platform or lack thereof. National security is probably my number one concern, and while I may disagree with or disapprove of some of the president’s choices or policies, on the whole I approve of his general philosophy and direction. I simply cannot, for the moment, take the Dems seriously on this issue. Maybe the more sane ones will get control of the asylum…here’s hoping…
We should just give Texas back to Mexico and be done with it.
Why? Why would they want it???
Only a bloodbath?
I thought you were building up to something to really gladden the heart and put a spring in the step. A bloodbath will do, of course, but it’s only goof for a big grin.
the friendly grizzly
I am quite conservative on many issues, especially fiscal and foreign policy. The Republicans are just hopeless.
Rush Limbaugh is quite fond of saying that liberals and Democrats can’t show you who they really are. I agree with this. But what he leaves out is: neither can the Republicans.
I LIKE the idea that the GOP is trying to make the death tax repeal permanent. (Hey, left-of-centers, it’s OUR family’s money. NOT yours to use to buy votes). But on just about every other issue they are firmly in the Democrat camp. Pork, STILL not disbanding the D of Ed, pork, farm subsidies that are astronomical, pork, McCain-Feingold, pork, Minetta still running DoT, pork, continuation of racial preferences, and pork.
What God’s Ordained Party does to conceal their being nothing but Dems on the other side of the aisle is the same sleight of hand a magician uses. While doing their mischief with one hand, they gesture and point with the other. “Look, over there! HOMOSEXUALS!!!” “Look! Over behind you! Folks who don’t believe their kids should be forced to demonstrate how religious they are to their teachers and classmates!” “Oh, my GOD! We may be bankrupting the country and destroying rights every day, but… that man just burnt a flag!”.
Well, I’m not buying it.
In 2006 I will likely vote on local measures and office holders. But anything federal? Does it really matter?