Please FReepmail me if you want on or off my FoxFan list. *Warning: This can be a high-volume ping list at times.
Posted on 10/15/2006 10:17:28 PM PDT by RWR8189
What would a Democratic victory -- likely now but not certain in the House races, possible if all the close ones go their way in the Senate races -- mean? Would it mean that we are heading into a political realignment, to a time when Republican positions can no longer rally a majority?
Not really, I think. Right now, it doesn't look like Democrats will end up with the kind of popular vote percentage in House elections won by their party in 1974 (up from 46 percent to 58 percent in two years) or Republicans in 1994 (up from 46 percent to 52 percent).
They're more likely to prevail, if they do, by something like the narrow margins by which Republicans have prevailed in the five House elections from 1996 to 2004. By historical standards, there's been strikingly little variation in those five elections. A Democratic victory of this magnitude would represent the kind of small oscillation that was commonplace in eras when one party or the other was dominant. The difference is that, with the electorate so evenly divided, a small shift can produce changes in party control.
Political realignments occur because of events that have deep demographic impact and when one party stands for new ideas that command majority support. The Iraq war (2,500 deaths) and our current economy (4.6 percent unemployment) are not events of the magnitude of the Civil War (600,000 dead) or the Great Depression (25 percent unemployment).
Moreover, voters' complaints about George W. Bush and the Republican Congress are more about competence than ideology. Why is Bush's second-term job approval so much lower than Bill Clinton's even though the economy has been in similarly good shape during both periods? Iraq. Katrina.
Voters wonder why our involvement has gone on so long in Iraq, with continuing casualties. They wonder why more aid did not get to New Orleans faster. You may argue, as I do, that those perceptions are unfair, that Clinton benefited because we were on holiday from history and Bush suffers because of the threats Sept. 11 revealed. But they are what they are.
And what are the new ideas that Democrats are campaigning on? They've had a hard time coming up with a list. At the top, usually, is raising the minimum wage. That's a law that Congress first passed in 1938. Liberal think tankers will tell you that if you want progressive redistribution of income, the minimum wage is a far weaker tool than the Earned Income Tax Credit.
Bill Clinton and the Democratic Congress did expand the EITC in the 1990s, with a small but perceptible redistributive effect -- one of their policy successes. Democrats today could campaign on expanding it further. But the minimum wage tests better in polls.
As for the macroeconomy, the Democrats offer few policies except to refuse to extend the Bush tax cuts, which in important cases don't expire till 2010. On foreign policy, their stands tend to be incoherent: We should be more multilateral in Iraq and less multilateral on North Korea. "Redeployment" of troops from Iraq to Okinawa (John Murtha) or Kuwait (Hillary Rodham Clinton).
The Democratic plea is that the Republicans should be punished for incompetence. But even with majorities in both houses of Congress, Democrats will be poorly positioned to offer competence itself. You can make a good case that the Republicans have run out of ideas -- they've implemented most of Bush's 2000 platform (tax cuts, education accountability, Medicare changes, more defense spending) and have conclusively failed to implement others (Social Security individual accounts). But Democrats don't have much in the way of ideas to advance in their place.
If a Democratic victory presages realignment, we should see some evidence of that in the polling for 2008. But we don't. Which party has candidates that can poll above their party's 1996-2004 ceilings -- 49 percent for Democrats (Clinton 1996), 51 percent for Republicans (Bush 2004)?
Republicans pretty clearly have two, Rudolph Giuliani and John McCain. Democrats can hope that Hillary Rodham Clinton, with her carefully calibrated stands on Iraq and foreign policy, and her bipartisan work on some domestic issues, could be another. So, if he decides to run, could Barack Obama. Another might have been Mark Warner, but he's not running.
The polling showing Giuliani and McCain well ahead of Clinton and other Democrats suggests that national security -- who can best protect the nation against those who are seeking to destroy us? -- can still work for Republicans and that domestic issues don't necessarily work for Democrats. Competence may defeat Republicans in 2006, but that doesn't mean that ideology can win for Democrats in 2008.
The Civil War was not much of a realignment event. The nation had already realigned prior to the Civil War during the decade preceding the war. The most dramatic realignment in U.S. history was actually in the 1894 midterm election, when the Democrats were demolished for a loss of 116 seats.
Please FReepmail me if you want on or off my FoxFan list. *Warning: This can be a high-volume ping list at times.
There. Fixed it.
Others have said that if the Dems take control of Congress this year, their majority will be short-lived, much like the GOP congressional victories in 1952.
Hear, hear.
Plus the fact that along with the lying reports from the drive-by media .. the dem pollsters were using 11-14% over-weighting of dems in order to get the numbers they wanted - Bush at 39%. However, something amazing has happened lately .. the dems are now using 16% more dems than repubs - so what does that tell you ..?? It tells you that our numbers have gone up to the point that the dems have had to use even more dems in order to get the skewed polls that they want.
Remember too .. Bush's personal rating is 61% - that's pretty high for a 39% job disapproval. That's why I don't believe their stinking polls.
They are dinosaurs based in the past; and demographically ALL of their strongholds are under attack.
Northeast Liberals: people are leaving and all the population growth is in red-state South and West. This will cause a shift in 2012 and later elections. Also some eyes have been opened in NYC and NJ due to 9/11 .
Blacks and Latinos (that are here legally) are entering the middle class (becoming Republican) and are concerned about moral values (becoming Republican).
The hippies and Me-generation of yesteryear aborted their kids or never had any t o begin with - while the more conservative and Republican folks got pregnant and were far less likely to have abortions. In case no-one told Nancy Pelosi: gays and lesbians can only recruit, not reproduce/
In a dangerous world, with NK exploding nukes, the nation will turn to those who are more responsible with national security. This means Republicans.
My prediction: the Republicans hold onto majorities.
Do you believe that?
PING
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." -Manuel II Palelogus
Bush can and should veto any nonsense passed by congress, should the dems get a majority.
And the dems would have nothing approaching veto override numbers.
Gridlock; which often is a good thing, since so much of what comes before congress winds up costing taxpayers money.
Exactly! Not only they overweight national average, but they apply the same overweight in local / regional races where polls wouldn't even be close if they used local / regional Dems/Repubs ratios and "likely" voters...
So what if in San Francisco or New York or Los Angeles or New Jersey Dems have 40% advantage - they are already in Dems hands, so why should it affect other less dense local / state races where Dems have a deficit, yet they still overweight those polls with national averages.
Even Rasmussen uses about 5% overweighting, and I don't think he adjusts the numbers by localities.
Much more depends on turnout, and that's why I believe that "polls" are just one part in the overall strategy to suppress GOP turnout, along with steady stream of negative "news" and books and interviews. Another dishonest use of "polls" is so "journalists" instead of reporting and focusing on facts or ideas can make statements or ask questions like:
"... but the polls show..."
"... but American people say..."
"... but the opinion of majority of Americans is..."
As an aside: how can we revert the party colors back to normal as they were pre-2000 election? This cruel joke of GOP=red, Dems=blue still gives me a cognitive dissonance. Can we start with asking Fox and some other reasonable organisations to go back to traditional colors?
Rush has been complaining for years that the drive-by uses polls to create a story .. instead of reporting the news.
I don't care about the colors .. except that "true Blue" is better than "dead Red". Is that the problem ..??
CA - in their state map for 2000 (I think) did use the reverse colors and gave Bush-Blue. It was a shock at first until I realized they had reversed the colors.
When Barone says it's "likely" that Dems will take the House, that makes me worry for the first time. I think he is the smartest, best-informed political analyst on the scene.
Translation: This election will be all about turnout.
I think we win in a civil war with the left, unless they can marshal the gangbangers because that is the only faction among their ranks who have any firepower.
We got the guns..........and the ammo.
Yep. But if I had to pick, I'd rather have the senate for the long haul. I want the judges.
I agree. Michael is the best analyst out there and his assessment makes me think the Dems will indeed win. He had said things were trending in their direction in his last column. That is scary but we have to deal with it. His analysis that there will not be a major realignment is something of a relief, at least.
I fear the House could remain in Demo hands for decades so I thought it would have been better to hold the House, even if the Senate was lost. But now it looks as if there is a better chance for the GOP to have a majority in the Senate. The House is not looking good. Repub chances of regaining the Senate in '08 would have been slim anyway so I hope they can eke out a majority this year. It certainly won't guarantee GWB's nominees get through, but at least they will have a chance.
He's been saying that on Hannity for weeks now.
Thanks for the ping. Wonder if Rudy and John can really debate? I hear they like each other. Of course in the real world real Republicans do like each other. ;)
If there should ever really be physical violence in Congress, we know which side will start it. Their side has no problem using intimidation to get what they want. That's yet another reason it is scary for them to be in power.
At first I tend to agree with you, but I read two days ago that President Bush and Karl Rove are certain of a victory i.e. keeping control of both the House and the Senate. I am 100% sure that both men have a much deeper analysis of what is going on in each race than Barone does. There are 3 to 4 House seats that are now controlled by the democrats but are going to be most probably lost however as expected no one of course are talking about it. These democrats losses will reduce the total net seat losses by the Republicans to less than 10 and hence they will keep control of the House.
Unsaid is the effect of terrorism for the foreseeable future. Whatever party is in power, terorism is going to increasingly hurt the US for decades to come. Whomever is in power will take the blame. Americans will become half insane with rage over terrorism and their voting ever more eratic. I don't see a smooth or happy ending.
Do you believe that?
I believe it.
Firstly because of the things Barone points out in the above article.
Plus the map is still drawn in the GOP's favor which means first term Dem congressmen in GOP leaning districts are going to be vulnerable.
Lastly, any Dem victory counts on them picking up the "scandal seats" Delay's, Ney's, Foley's, Taylor's (NC), Sherwood (PA), Reynolds's, and to a smaller extent Pryce (OH). Atleast 6 of the 7 should be fairly easy to retake with scandal free Republicans in 2008. The Dems who take these seats are what I call "Marty Hoke incumbents". Hoke was a guy who won two terms as an R in a lib district due to running againsts a scandal plagued opponent. He lost in his 3rd run because it's a lib district. Things went back to normal.
Barone has a great reputation to protect. If virtually everyone else is screaming that the Dems will take over, and if the composite of all polls seems to point to that, then Barone has good reason to say "it's likely". Barone is not saying it's a foregone conclusion, which is what the others are saying. Mark that. There's a reason why he's left himself a bit of room no matter which way this goes.
I like what Rudy did as Mayor but POTUS?
I know both have said they're not interested in running but I still like a Cheney/Rice ticket in 2008.
There is NO, repeat, NO good that comes out of ANY Dem victory. It will allow them to rejuvenate their power, their patronage, and above all, to get even more active in the spin game. The press already treats them like they are the majority. Trust me, if you let them in, they won't go away for a while.
A Senator was attacked at his desk by an enraged Slavery defender. Sumner from Mass.
But now that Barone's gone, I'm just about the lone voice out here saying we may still gain seats.
There is NO, repeat, NO good that comes out of ANY Dem victory
Guess I'm the Lone Ranger now.
And since you are such a self-proclaimed soothsayer of the future, could you give a stock tip to make a million dollars in one day.
Hey, LS. I'm with you. Still thinkin' that the GOP holds both and maybe picks up a seat in the Senate.
"Relentless, lying Democrat "mainstream" dinosaur media propaganda about Iraq. Katrina."
I like your fix. It certainly is more accurate and honest.
IMHO, I can't think of one dem I've met LATELY that I wouldn't mind being TOTALLY BLUE, and that's how I look at the colors on the map....
I like Cheney too but doubt that will happen. What about Haley B. the governor? What is his background? He represented his state very well during the hurricane. Would he be a viable candidate? None of the others out there really make me enthusiastic.
If the House loses, then we get 'Comprehensive Immigration Reform'.
Thus, the New World Order can only advance its globalist agenda by ensuring by whatever means that the House loses.
It may sound like conspiracy drivel but the Mexicanization of the USA is their agenda because it leads to their goal of a North American Union and later to a Union of the Americas. The globalist pact is run by real people with economic control of vast regions as their goal. They are powerful enough to pull strings of GW Bush and a majority of Senate leaders.
In case anyone is interested, it is notable that Senators are usually selected by large monetary interests and not by the average voter. The overwhelming majority of voters do not know their US Senators as they do their local Congressional Representative. Prior to the 17th Amendment, state legislators knew very well who their US Senators were and the voting public knew very well who their state legislators were.
Why all this is relevant is that the House currently is representing the will of the People much more sensitively than the Senate or the President, especially on the issue of illegal aliens. On many issues, the Senate and the Presidency are controlled by Globalist interests and the House is currently a thorn in their side. If the US Senate was comprised as it was prior to the 17th Amendment, that body would reflect more sensitively the will of the States and hence closer to the will of the American people as the House of Representatives does now.
So if the democrats take the House, you will see in quick order a bill allowing amnesty of 20+ million illegal aliens and all sorts of protections for these new 'immigrants'. I forsee that if this happens the States will continue to battle the illegal invasion via employer sanctions and restriction of licenses. The whole mess will end up in the Supreme Court as a case of States rights.
Do I believe that a Democrat majority in Congress, if won this year (big "if"), will be short-lived? Yes. What has changed in the demographics of the electorate to indicate a sea-change shift? Disgruntled conservatives deciding to sit at home this election will be the reason the GOP loses (if it loses). Two years of psychotic babbling from Speaker Pelosi or Majority Leader Reid will swing the nation back to a majority Republican vote in '08.
Which is why the media is currently engaged in the drumbeat of the Republican base being "discouraged."
What has changed? The greatest generation dying off, scores of latinos now voting, and generations of socialist indoctrination in the public school systems is what has changed.
You may have seen this, but ping, nonetheless.
"What about Haley B. (Barbour) the governor? What is his background? He represented his state very well during the hurricane. Would he be a viable candidate? None of the others out there really make me enthusiastic."
Unfortunately, he has said he won't run for the presidency in 2008.
The "Greatest Generation" were the Depression babies, and tended to be old-line Democrats. If we can survive the next two or three presidential election cycles, the Hippie-leftists in the Baby Boom generation will start to die off, eliminating a cohort of radicals. The socialist indoctrination in the schools has been going on for at least 40 years, so there's nothing new there (plus, one of the most promising demographics is that the younger voters are leaning Republican, probably in rebellion against their pony-tailed male teachers). And scores of Latinos now voting means we must work hard to make sure they are assimilated into American society. Latinos are largely family-oriented, and conservative in terms of religious convictions. Plus, they are here to make a better life for themselves, which should make them open to a conservative "opportunity society" message.
I'm with you, LS. I don't know as much about the House, but I still think we gain 2+ Senate seats. I note that in the House, there is ZERO discussion of vulberable RAT seats in the DBM.
I thought that the "reporting" by the DBM was the most blatantly biased for the RATS in 2004, that I had ever seen. It's being easily surpassed in 2006.
Buck up, everyone! The polls look bad. So what? Everyone here knows they're biased.
Look, it's easy to be afraid. In conflict, negotiations, contests, whatever... People tend to experience their weaknesses more than their strengths. And, in so doing, they attribute the opposite condition to the other side. (In other words, if I feel weak, it must be because "you" are strong.) In truth, both sides tend to feel their weaknesses more acutely.
So, rather than focus on our weaknesses (reading the polls feeds that), imagine how'd it feel to go against us. As a RAT, you have no positive story (just, "Bush and the GOP are evil, ignorant, or stupid); no ground game; can't control the agenda; you've been losing ground for more than a decade DESPITE powerful and unqualified DBM support; etc., etc., etc.
Would you rather be in our shoes, or their's? The only thing they have going for them is the DBM, and it's decline is well documented and on-going. I'd be shaking in my boots, if I were them.
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.