Posted on 09/26/2006 8:43:17 AM PDT by SirLinksalot
Where is Election 2006 Headed?
By John McIntyre
This is a hard election to analyze because of the myriad cross-currents running through the political landscape. The Republicans are faced with the historical difficulties of a 2nd administration off-year midterm, Iraq, small government-libertarians upset with spending, unrest over the inaction on illegal immigration and just a general feeling of fatigue with the current politics. Democrats have to deal with the growing empowerment of the far left in their party, no plan or program of any substance (unlike the GOP in '94), and most importantly a perception that they simply do not have the will or the inclination to fight the war against Islamic terrorism.
Where does that leave us with less than 45 days until the election?
There is no question that the press, pundits and analysts over hyped the Democratic position this spring and summer that the Republicans were doomed and are now beginning to dial back some of their predictions that a Democratic House is all but a done deal. President Bush and the GOP have had a good run starting with the Democratic Party's rejection of Joe Lieberman August 8th, the busted airline terror plot days later, the Jimmy Carter-appointed judge rejection of spying on al-Qaeda, the five year anniversary of 9/11 and the most recent debate on interrogating terrorists.
The renewed focus on terrorism and national security has boosted President Bush's job approval back over 40% and closed the Republicans deficit in the generic ballot to single digits after trailing all year by more than ten points. But the renewed focus on national security should not have been a surprise. Bush and the GOP ran on terror and national security in 2002 and 2004. And in a much publicized speech earlier this year, Karl Rove told the world they were going to run on it again in 2006.
Unlike 2004, however, President Bush is not on the ballot and there are many reasons why we can anticipate 2006 will be unlike 2002. The two most important differences between 2002 and 2006 is the freshness of 9/11 in people's minds and the difference between the build-up and anticipation of a coming war as opposed to year three of a long and difficult war that hasn't gone exactly as planned. One of the least commented on factors influencing the election this year is what I call the "fading of the 9/11 effect." Ironically, the success we have had in preventing another terrorist attack in the last five years has bred a feeling of complacency among voters and many politicians. Politically, what this means is President Bush and Republicans are not going to get the same mileage out of the terrorism and national security issue as they did in 2002 and 2004. This is offset some by the Democrats' continued movement away from the center and towards the anti-war left, but as a whole this is a political development that will hurt the GOP this fall.
Democrats have rolled the dice and are hoping that these general macro trends will allow them to win without offering a real definite plan or vision of their own. This is in many ways the playbook they ran in 2004, thinking in the spring and summer that the country had rejected Bush and all they had to do was present an acceptable alternative in John Kerry. They are using the same game plan today, though from a much stronger macro political position and without Bush at the top of the ticket. However, because they aren't running on much more than "we're against Bush," they are vulnerable to a strong Republican counterattack. Which is why this election is so difficult to predict.
While the Democrats' strategy presents an opportunity to Republicans, the GOP has to be getting concerned by the state polling in close Senate races across the nation. For while the national numbers have improved for the GOP over the last month, on balance the state polling has not. Looking at the RCP Averages in the contested Senate races, the Democrats are poised to pick up seats in Pennsylvania, Montana, Ohio and Rhode Island, while the Republicans look likely to win in New Jersey. That gives the Democrats a three-seat pick up with the need to pick up another three seats to win control. The problem for the GOP is Tennessee and Virginia have moved into toss up status, along with Missouri. The Democrats' odds of capturing the Senate have actually improved the last two months at the same time their national numbers vis-à-vis the Republicans have declined.
The better analogy politically for 2006 may be 1986 when the Democrats picked up 8 Senate seats and only 5 House seats. Because of Reagan's landslide in 1980 there were many weak GOP incumbents in 1986 that were taken out. Today Republicans have less of an issue in that regard as their 1994 weak incumbents were taken out in 2000 (Grams, Abraham, Ashcroft, Gordon, and Roth). The point of the '86 analogy is not that the Democrats are going to taking over the Senate, but rather that because of the inability to gerrymander states, Democrats might be headed for better success in the Senate than the House.
There is a reason 99% of incumbents win reelection in the House and right now even with the Democrats looking strong in the Senate they are only poised to pick up around 10 seats in the House. With the economy humming at 3%+ growth, unemployment below 5%, the Dow near all-time highs and gas prices back below $2.50, these are not exactly economic conditions associated with a "throw the bums out" type of election.
The biggest point to emphasize is the election dynamic is still quite fluid and the way the last month and half plays out can and will have a significant effect. Because Democrats have chosen to run out the clock (so to speak), Republicans have an opportunity to close and pull out many of these close races. In the Senate, Missouri, Tennessee and Virginia are all states they can easily win, and with a little momentum they could also pull out wins in Ohio, Montana, Rhode Island and even Maryland. It is still quite possible that the Democrats wake up November 8th wondering where it all went wrong.
The current RCP Averages in the Senate call for a Dem pick-up of four seats which would leave them short of the six they need, and I suspect they would fall short in the House as well, picking up something like 9-12 seats. While this may be the most likely scenario today, both sides have reason to believe they may do considerably better in November, and what happens between now and election day will not be irrelevant to the final outcome.
John McIntyre is the President and co-founder of RealClearPolitics.
I disagree, the Democrats have a plan. It looks like this:
1. Impeach Bush.
2. Pull out of Iraq
3. Raise taxes.
4. Advance gay marriage
5. Fund abortions and make them easier
6. Socialize Health Care.
7. Did I mention, impeach Bush
See, the Democrats have a plan. They just can't advertise it.
Sounds like a common-sense analysis without the benefit of hindsight which, some pundits will harp on for months.
Followed by 8 weeks of screeching by Pelosi, the media, and Reid on how this was a resounding victory for the Democrats and a complete indictment on the President's policies.
The war on terror
The illegal immigration problem
The federal tax system
Let’s take them in this order.
The war on terror:
Is there a war or isn’t there? We have invaded two countries, displaced the governments of two countries, still have troops in two countries in order to “preserve the peace” such as it is, and yet, we have no declaration of war on either country.
Does a “Declaration of War” have no meaning in today’s world?
Some will say we have declared war on terrorism, no matter where it may be. Let’s look at that.
What IS terrorism?
Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law, © 1996 defines terrorism as,
1 : the unlawful use or threat of violence esp. against the state or the public as a politically motivated means of attack or coercion
2 : violent and intimidating gang activity —ter•ror•ist /-ist/ adj or noun —ter•ror•is•tic /"ter-&r-'is-tik/ adjective
We have many instances of terrorism against the governments of, and the people of, The United States, The United Kingdom, many nations of Europe, even some Middle Eastern countries, especially Israel. Terrorism was brought home to the United States, quite unlike anything we have experienced in recent history, by the terroristic strikes of 9/11/01. So where is our war on terrorism to strike? Who is our war on terrorism to strike?
The average citizen doesn’t have the knowledge to decide where these terrorist acts originate from.
We must trust our governmental representatives and agencies to have the knowledge and the will to find these things out and decide those things.
But the average citizen does want to know, “What are we doing to keep our country safe from another attack like that, or worse?”
Which brings me to my second point.
Illegal immigration:
Look closely at the second definition of terrorism.
“Violent and intimidating gang activity”
We have many instances of that right here in our own country performed by our own citizens, as well as citizens of other countries here, legally and illegally.
Where is our war on terrorism?
Are we now to decide what type of terrorism we are at war with?
It’s my belief that most of the better organized gangs, especially at the top echelons, are comprised in large part of illegal aliens.
Why do these thugs, legal and illegal, roam our streets freely, acting with, almost, impunity, and we do little about it?
Why do millions of illegal immigrants pour across our southern border each year?
To begin with, is this not a hole in the fabric of our nation’s security? Could terrorists come across our border, even with the means to commit acts of terror, easily? I have to say that the answer is, YES.
Yes, a terrorist could easily cross our southern border and I believe many do.
Not the type of terrorist you are thinking about. The man with a bomb strapped to his back, the man with nuclear devices in his backpack, the man with biochemical weapons attached to his belt, even though these could all be true. I’m talking about the illegal immigrants that are part of gangs, or going to become part of a gang.
There are many of them, both already in a gang or willing to join a gang once here for self preservation, or to protect their families, whom, being illegals, won’t go to the police, or just wanting to show the gringo that they can’t be pushed around like, you got it, what they are, an illegal alien.
Why worry about committing acts of aggression yourself when you can get willing dupes to do your job for you?
Let’s sow some discord within the USA. Let’s get the USA to look at a different problem, illegal immigration, and they won’t be looking so hard in our direction. While we’re at it, let’s get some of our own people in easily so that when we ARE ready we’ll have a fifth column in place.
These reasons, in addition to the fact that many people have the gut feeling that the illegal immigrant should not be rewarded for breaking the law, are why we need to secure our borders, especially our southern border.
I believe that most people would be more than willing to have the many illegal immigrants as neighbors, the hard working ones at least, if only they had come to our country legally.
Most of the government, local, state, and federal, has turned a blind eye to the illegal immigrant lawbreakers in our country.
I haven’t been able to figure this out yet. Someone is getting paid off, I’m just not sure who yet.
The government says these people pay taxes. How is that? A business is not supposed to be able to legally hire an illegal immigrant, so how are they paying taxes? Are they voluntarily paying their taxes to our government out of their under the table pay? I don’t think so. Are they even voluntarily paying their OWN government taxes out of their under the table pay? I don’t think so.
So we have one of two scenarios happening here. Either, we have illegal immigrants being paid under the table, illegally, by business owners or we have business owners accepting false documents from illegal immigrants and now the illegal immigrants are doubly criminals.
Either way, there are two crimes happening and very little being done about it.
Speaking of taxes, we come to my third point.
The federal tax system:
Does anyone understand the federal tax system? Can anyone understand the federal tax system?
The number of pages concerning tax code and regulations was 54,846 in 2003.
That’s fifty four thousand eight hundred forty six pages. It takes an expert just to get you in the general location of the portion of the tax code you’re looking for.
When a middle income, married, head of household, one income, two dependant persons declares for one withholding exemption, and declares two dependants, not including themselves, when filing, they still owe the federal government at the end of the year. If they don’t want to owe the government, they have to have the government withhold, approximately, an extra $100 a month from their pay.
What’s wrong with this picture? Why doesn’t the government withhold the correct amount from a persons pay, when the withholding documentation is correct, so that the person pays the correct amount? Good question.
Maybe the government doesn’t understand tax law any better than the taxpaying public.
The American public is quickly becoming unenamored of the current system of taxation.
It is cumbersome, complicated, large, and very few in the government seem to care that it can’t be understood.
So we come to the conclusion.
The political party, or politician, that can successfully convince the voting public that they have successful plans to take care of two of these three issues will win in the next national election, possibly the next two national elections.
Where is your party taking you?
I live in PA and WILL VOTE for Santorum. He might lose, though, partly because conservatives are mad at him for supporting Specter and not Toomey.
A Dem pick-up of just 4 seats in the Senate would still be disastrous as it relates to the judiciary, and thus, to the Culture War.
Chafee is the only worthless Republican threatened (and he is worthless, as he'd most likely pull a Jeffords if the senate wound up tied, whereas if its 51 GOP seats, then he has no leverage or motive to switch), so even if he was one of the losses, that'd would mean 3 seats would be lost currently held by decent-good senators.
Losing any two out of the following -- Montana, Penn, Tenn, Miss, Virginia -- would probably be enough to ensure that the Dems could successfully filibuster any conservative nominee to the Sup Court. That means that when marriage finally reaches the High Imperial Court, our judicial masters will almost certainly impose gay marriage/civil unions on the entire nation. When feeble attempts to thwart that decision fail, the Christian conservative base will correctly determine that voting ultimately makes no difference, that all it does is slow down the judicial assault on traditional values. They will see that they have lost the two biggest culture-war issues -- abortion and marriage -- to an arrogant, usurping judiciary, and they will see that the GOP has done nothing about it despite all of the victories they have helped deliver for Republicans. Then they'll simply stop voting in such large numbers, and then the GOP will be screwed.
Now that is ridiculous! NOT YOU!
It may be ridiculous, but if Santorum loses, it might well be because of some conservatives. They're determined to teach him a lesson. They should be reminded that Pres. Bush and Cheney also supported Specter.
Quit being silly. We have distinct authorizations by Congress to use military force, only declining to say the magic words which curtail civil liberties here by triggering various dormant laws.
I hope they feel good about themselves.
Ping
Being silly?
When we invade another country I would expect a Declararion of War against that country.
Call me old fashioned but that's what I would expect.
The Dem party is still obeyed, especially by media management and editors, but the reporters identify with the blogosmear.
This gives a temporary boost to the left but accelerates the media's loss of veracity. The media won't be able to help at the end of the campaigns with last-minute smears like they usually do.
Well, if you are disgusted by the War on Terror, Illegal Immigration, and Tax policy by President Bush you're REALLY gonna love them under Speaker Pelosi (not!)!
Call ME old fashion, but allowing the enemy within access to the reins of power because your political allies didn't do enough for you makes no sense. OR, let me put it another way.....
It's plain stuck on stupid.
That's not "Old fashioned." It's "Unfamiliar with Declarations of War."
If you want to be "Old Fashioned", please...look up the debate over whether a declaration of war was neccessary in response to the Barbary Pirates. Some of the Founders did indeed take it the way you do...but a concensus for understanding was reached more than two hundred years ago.
Congress explicitly authorized military action against both nations. In the case of Afghanistan, the President didn't even need that, as the Taliban, controlling a portion of Afghanistan, was harboring the forces and the persons who had already declared war upon us as well as consumated that act.
Conversely, we have deposed the existing governments of two countries without declaring war on them.
Don't misunderstand me. I don't think it was a bad idea, especially some of the ramifications.
However, I dislike doing it without declaring war on the countries themselves.
You are the smartest FREEPER. I swear I can't believe that our FREEPER FRiends are so excited because we are ONLY going to lose 3-4 seats. How weird is that? This is not a good time to be losing seats due to the facts you stated. We will lose if we lose one seat in the Senate period. Why do conservatives have difficulty with that conclusion? Also losing 10 seats in the House should not be a celebration. What is wrong with FREEPERS? Maybe I am just not understanding there glee.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.