Could 2006 Be Another 1994?

[dazzleman]

I suppose if you are looking for intensity, you can find it there.  But do extremist conservatives make you more wary about the GOP, too?

I do believe in the two-party system, and I would not like to see the Republicans without effective opposition.  I don't think the Republicans are always right on everything, and I think good competition makes them a better party.

In that sense, I would like to see the Democrats improve, and become a better opposition party, even if they win more elections as a result.  I may never become a Democrat, but if that were to happen, I would respect the party as a whole a lot more.

I believe you have said in the past that you are willing to vote against moderate Democrats because they are in the Democratic Party.  Don't you think this discourages the Dems from becoming a better party?  Should the moderate Democrats be saddled by extremist liberals any more than the moderate Republicans by the extremist rightists?  The Democrats aren't going to improve unless moderates aren't punished just for their party affiliation (if this makes sense).

Extremist Republicans don't bother me as much as extremist Democrats because I don't see them being the same level of threat to the overall well-being of society as the extremist Democrats are.  My differences with the more extreme Republicans are more a matter of degree than kind in most cases.  For example, I am unfriendly to gay marriage and gay adoption, so I'm not terribly put off by Christian fundamentalists voicing those opinions, though they take their opposition to homosexuality much further than I would.  I believe, for the most part, in traditional values, and think that many of our social problems come from abandonment of traditional values, so I can hardly be expected to condemn those who say this, even if their positions on some issues are more extreme than mine.

OTOH, I can be expected to look askance at a party whose extremists have made a long-term campaign of destroying traditional values.

I understand what you're saying about not punishing moderate Democrats for their party affiliation.  This is a difficult issue, and it's a two-way street.  In my congressional district, our fairly liberal Republican congressman is under severe attack for his ties to the party and the president.  My concern is that voting for even a moderate Democrat for congress could put a lot more power in the hands of people like Nancy Pelosi, Ted Kennedy, and that whole evil cast of characters.  At this point, I hold congressional Republicans in low regard, and maybe the best thing would be for them to lose their majority.  But I deeply fear the extremists who control the Democratic party.  If the Democratic party were to return to being more socially conservative and less anti-American on the foreign policy and defense front, I might consider voting for them a little more, but under the current alignment, it's very difficult.

[Nym90]

I don't see Democrats as wanting to destroy traditional values at all. Certainly some traditional values are in need of tweaking. Segregation comes immediately to mind as something which was a tradition and the arguments for which were made in similar terms in their day to issues like gay marriage today. Sure, some people argued that blacks are inferior to whites, but many reasonable people argued in favor of things like segregation and slavery on the idea that any attempt to disrupt tradition would start down a slippery slope that would lead to the moral bankruptcy of society. Essentially the logical fallacy of Appeal to Tradition.

But regarding issues like gay marriage, liberals merely seek to add additiional rights, not to take any away from anyone. Obviously these things don't exist and never can exist in a vacuum, which is a large reason why I tend to shade toward the populist side. Sure, there are some extremists who wish to destroy the nuclear family (out of some sense of vengeanance due to their own past bad experiences most likely, thus placing the blame squarely not where it should be placed), but claiming this is true of liberals makes no more sense than saying that all conservatives hate gays and think they should die or some such.

I don't see how it weakens marriage to ensure that all loving couples who are willing to make life-long commitments to each other are included within it. In my opinion, that would strengthen marriage by making it truly have meaning. In a time in which we decry ever increasing divorce rates, why would we want to deny the instutition to those who are willing to enter into it? Marriage is not and should not be something that is to be taken lightly, and it would strengthen the instutition to be more welcoming of those who have made this measured consideration.

So in summation, I don't think it's so much that liberals and conservatives have different values, but simply that they disagree on the most effective solutions to the problems. Foreign policy and defense are excellent examples of this, too; the vast majority of Americans of all ideologies do not hate America, they rather disagree on how to strengthen the country. Those who oppose the war, for the most part, feel that it is hurting the country more than it is helping (that is my view, due mainly to the tremendous cost involved, though I did not disagree with the war's overall premise and do support the notion of spreading democracy, though I felt the intiial reasons for going to war were largely exaggerated if not false--I do view all dicatorships as collectively dangerous to freedom worldwide, however, but I didn't think the immediacy of this threat was much of any worse than any other we face).

[dazzleman]

I don't see Democrats as wanting to destroy traditional values at all. Certainly some traditional values are in need of tweaking. Segregation comes immediately to mind as something which was a tradition and the arguments for which were made in similar terms in their day to issues like gay marriage today. Sure, some people argued that blacks are inferior to whites, but many reasonable people argued in favor of things like segregation and slavery on the idea that any attempt to disrupt tradition would start down a slippery slope that would lead to the moral bankruptcy of society. Essentially the logical fallacy of Appeal to Tradition.

But regarding issues like gay marriage, liberals merely seek to add additiional rights, not to take any away from anyone. Obviously these things don't exist and never can exist in a vacuum, which is a large reason why I tend to shade toward the populist side. Sure, there are some extremists who wish to destroy the nuclear family (out of some sense of vengeanance due to their own past bad experiences most likely, thus placing the blame squarely not where it should be placed), but claiming this is true of liberals makes no more sense than saying that all conservatives hate gays and think they should die or some such.

I don't see how it weakens marriage to ensure that all loving couples who are willing to make life-long commitments to each other are included within it. In my opinion, that would strengthen marriage by making it truly have meaning. In a time in which we decry ever increasing divorce rates, why would we want to deny the instutition to those who are willing to enter into it? Marriage is not and should not be something that is to be taken lightly, and it would strengthen the instutition to be more welcoming of those who have made this measured consideration.

So in summation, I don't think it's so much that liberals and conservatives have different values, but simply that they disagree on the most effective solutions to the problems. Foreign policy and defense are excellent examples of this, too; the vast majority of Americans of all ideologies do not hate America, they rather disagree on how to strengthen the country. Those who oppose the war, for the most part, feel that it is hurting the country more than it is helping (that is my view, due mainly to the tremendous cost involved, though I did not disagree with the war's overall premise and do support the notion of spreading democracy, though I felt the intiial reasons for going to war were largely exaggerated if not false--I do view all dicatorships as collectively dangerous to freedom worldwide, however, but I didn't think the immediacy of this threat was much of any worse than any other we face).

Eric, sure there were some bad tradtional values, and bad things about ways of life in the past that are sometimes overidealized.  Segregation, and ethnic-based discrimination in general, is one of them.  In any case, racial separation (though not segregation) is still largely with us, and liberals support it with their actions every bit as much as conservatives do.

Still, I don't see the point in replacing one bad thing with another, and that is what many liberal policies have, in effect, done, even if unintentionally in many cases.

I think that extreme social conservatism can be very harmful, but so can extreme social liberalism.  Liberals like to talk about expanding rights and freedoms, but in the social realm, they fail to acknowledge that the selfish attitudes that they promote often lead to a very high price being paid by the most defenseless members of society -- babies and children.

Part of what drives me toward conservatism is a sense of compassion toward those who, in my opinion, have been so badly impacted by the various pet liberal causes.  And contrary to what many on the left think, the government cannot make right the problems that have been created by socially liberal policies, no matter how much of my tax money it spends.

On foreign policy, I simply don't see the same Democratic party that you do.  I see a party that is quick to blame the US for every problem, and excuse those who are against us.  I see a party that fears and hates the president that we have elected more than it fears and hates insane mullahs who can't wait to detonate nuclear bombs in the middle of our largest cities.  The accent is on the wrong syll-A-ble.

[Alcon]

I don't think the Republicans are always right on everything

I don't believe that.  Just because you throw this out there as a disclaimed doesn't make it true.

What's up with you, man?  Lately, you've been doing nothing but rude one-off posts that don't actually contribute anything, but just make general statements with no interesting comments.

That was the only rude one-off post I can remember in this past month.

I just get mad reading dazzle's posts sometimes because he always will say things like 'the republicans aren't perfect' and 'I don't always agree with them' but in reality, he hardly ever says anything bad about them and hardly ever disagrees with them.  Which is fine, but don't try to act like it isn't true.

Still, he's a good man.  See that thread I made in early march when I was hammered.

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=40069.msg891453#msg891453

Although I still don't believe you were drunk, you've been a bit weird lately.  Maybe I'm noticing what isn't there, because searching through your posts it isn't as bad.  Then again, most of the ones longer than a paragraph are about sports.

[Joe Biden 2020]

I am a registered Republican, but I do hope the Democrats take over either the House or the Senate.  I'd prefer the Senate, as I would rather have Harry Reid as Majority Leader than Nancy Pelosi as Speaker.  It would just make things a little more fair with one party in control of maximum two of three areas (Senate, House, White House).

[Adlai Stevenson]

This year I am now expecting the Democrats to win the House and possibly the Senate.  I can't quote the specific districts, but its obvious that the American people are angry at President Bush and angry at the Republican Congress.  The cyclic nature of power means simply that the GOP have become tired and given to corruption in some quarters, invariably, things have not gone right for them after twelve years in Congress and six years in the White House.  I think this is enough to give the Democrats control of Congress - everywhere you read about Democratic challengers narrowing margins in polls, every opinion poll shows Americans as a whole support a Democratic takeover of Congress.  As someone earlier mentioned, in 1994 a lot of moderate Democrats were defeated.  It seems that this year there will be an influx of more moderate and conservative Democrats into the House - if the victory is widespread it will obviously include seats in the South and Midwest which are socially conservative.  Finally, I think that the GOP could actually benefit from a Democratic takeover.  Opinion polling shows Presidents are always more popular when they face an opposition Congress - Nixon, Ford, Reagan, Bush and Clinton were all in their time more popular than Bush is; and this is power was divided in Washington.  It would seem odd, but Bush's support, particularly amongst conservative evangelicals in the GOP, will see a recovery if he has a liberal Democratic Congress to square up to on push button issues.

[MasterJedi]

^^ Well you'll be presently surprised when they don't.

[Adlai Stevenson]

I'm sorry but I find unconditional, blind support for baseless partisan claims just to be annoying; what will you say if the Democrats do win?  No doubt you will just harp about what you perceive to be their faults in office?  Just endless partisanship is so annoying, whether you're a Republican or a Democrat.

[MasterJedi]

I'm sorry but I find unconditional, blind support for baseless partisan claims just to be annoying; what will you say if the Democrats do win?  No doubt you will just harp about what you perceive to be their faults in office?  Just endless partisanship is so annoying, whether you're a Republican or a Democrat.

They'll come close, they won't win. And if they do it will give Republicans a better shot at winning in 2008 (at least the Presidency). You've been the one saying that so many Dems are going to win and some that aren't likely to so I'll stick with my mind thanks.

[minionofmidas]

I am a registered Republican, but I do hope the Democrats take over either the House or the Senate.  I'd prefer the Senate, as I would rather have Harry Reid as Majority Leader than Nancy Pelosi as Speaker.  It would just make things a little more fair with one party in control of maximum two of three areas (Senate, House, White House).

Unfortunately for you, the House is much more likely than the Senate.

Then again, people said the same in 2000.

[Gabu]

Wow, was I ever wrong.

[Nym90]

It's not going to be another 1994 in the sense that the Democrats won't gain 52 seats in the House and 8 in the Senate like the GOP did in 1994, but then the Democrats have fewer targets than the Republicans did that year.

I'm currently predicting the Dems to pick up 30 in the House and 6 in the Senate.

[Colin]

I was completely wrong. Hope you enjoy control of the House, at least.

[Democratic Hawk]

I'm currently predicting the Dems to pick up 30 in the House and 6 in the Senate.

And you weren't far wrong all, Eric

Dave

[Frodo]

Democrats will come up with a set agenda of policy items in due time -what I am more worried about is how they will use their majorities in Congress (if and when they get them).  To be sure, I want President Bush to be held accountable, but I don't want our desire for vengeance to define our tenure, or our Congressional majorities will not last past 2008.   

I'm not sure they can come up with a positive message that will sell.

The left wing of the party has a stranglehold and is a tremendous liability, probably driving off more voters than they attract, and forcing the party to take positions that ensure minority status.

The Republicans really didn't have this problem in 1994.

I share your concern about what the Democrats would do if they won control.  They seem to have nothing but anger and vitriol, and no positive program.  They would just use their time to hound Bush, and it could very well backfire, costing them their majority and the presidency in 2008.

If you really think about it, to have Democrats controlling Congress and 'hounding' President Bush would be the best possible outcome for your party, allowing the GOP to take a breather, and use the resulting backlash from all the investigations to take back Congress and retain the White House in Republican hands for another four years -at least.

For this reason I prefer letting your party retain control of Congress this November, but with margins so slim you won't be able to accomplish much if anything.  As I said in another post in another thread, this way you (the GOP) will get the blame for whatever goes wrong as the party in power, but virtually none of the benefits accruing to that status.

-----------------------------------

Now that we have seen Democrats in control of Congress for about eight months now, I'm curious to see whether anyone has come to the same conclusion I did last year. 

[Nym90]

Democrats will come up with a set agenda of policy items in due time -what I am more worried about is how they will use their majorities in Congress (if and when they get them).  To be sure, I want President Bush to be held accountable, but I don't want our desire for vengeance to define our tenure, or our Congressional majorities will not last past 2008.   

I'm not sure they can come up with a positive message that will sell.

The left wing of the party has a stranglehold and is a tremendous liability, probably driving off more voters than they attract, and forcing the party to take positions that ensure minority status.

The Republicans really didn't have this problem in 1994.

I share your concern about what the Democrats would do if they won control.  They seem to have nothing but anger and vitriol, and no positive program.  They would just use their time to hound Bush, and it could very well backfire, costing them their majority and the presidency in 2008.

If you really think about it, to have Democrats controlling Congress and 'hounding' President Bush would be the best possible outcome for your party, allowing the GOP to take a breather, and use the resulting backlash from all the investigations to take back Congress and retain the White House in Republican hands for another four years -at least.

For this reason I prefer letting your party retain control of Congress this November, but with margins so slim you won't be able to accomplish much if anything.  As I said in another post in another thread, this way you (the GOP) will get the blame for whatever goes wrong as the party in power, but virtually none of the benefits accruing to that status.

-----------------------------------

Now that we have seen Democrats in control of Congress for about eight months now, I'm curious to see whether anyone has come to the same conclusion I did last year. 

I certainly don't agree that the Dems would be better off in the minority.

While it's true that there is discontent with the Democratic failure to get us out of Iraq, this is really more dissatisfaction coming from the base rather than swing voters. I doubt it will result in Republican gains at the polls.

The GOP is still bearing the great majority of the blame for the war.

Not to mention there have been many positive accomplishments that wouldn't have happened if the GOP had remained in control. In the long run the good of the country should matter more than partisan gain anyway.

The theory that Dems would be better off in the minority was mostly espoused by those who feared the Dems would go too far to the left if they took control. Instead most of the dissatisfaction at this time is with them being too far to the right (regarding Iraq), rather than too far left.

[Nym90]

I'm currently predicting the Dems to pick up 30 in the House and 6 in the Senate.

And you weren't far wrong all, Eric

Dave

Hah. Yeah, I nailed it perfectly didn't I? Wow.

[Rob]

Not to mention there have been many positive accomplishments that wouldn't have happened if the GOP had remained in control.

Really?

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

The dems have done anything since winning?

[pbrower2a]

It's now history. 2006 was very different from 1994 in that:

1. In 1996, the Democratic President was re-elected -- decisively. Bill Clinton got a new political life, this time as a counterweight to the GOP Right. In 2008, the GOP nominee for President was defeated decisively. Unlike the Clinton Presidency, the GWB Presidency utterly wilted afterward.

2. In 1994, the GOP picked up seven Senate seats --  and unseated only two incumbent Democrats. In 2008, the Democrats picked up six seats, all from incumbent Senators. (I do not count Joe Lieberman as a change).   It's far easier to pick off a contested Senate seat than it is to defeat an incumbent. 

3. The fiscal condition of America improved in the six years following 1994 -- with huge budget surpluses. Two years after 2006 the fiscal condition of the US is absolutely dreadful.

4. Four of the six states that flipped a Senate seat in 2006 ended up voting for the Democratic President in 2008 -- and the other two were very close to voting for Obama in 2008. 

5. An oddity: Rick Santorum, elected by defeating an incumbent Democrat in 1994, was defeated in 2006.

[Nym90]

The GOP only picked up 3 Dem Senate seats in 1996, and lost one seat of their own for a net gain of two. I think you are confusing 1996 with 1994, though the GOP actually picked up 8 seats in 1994 (though only 2 by defeats of incumbents), then proceeded to pick up a 9th one day after the election by a switch of parties by Senator Richard Shelby of Alabama, who didn't have the balls to make the switch the day before the election as opposed to the day after.

And the Dem gain of 6, all from incumbents, was in 2006. In 2008 the Dems gained 8 (assuming they prevail in Minnesota one of these decades).

[Zarn]

Hmmm... could 2010 be like 1994?

2009 like 1993?

Do I need to start a new thread?

Did Lunar leave the stove on?

These are all questions that must be answered.

[pbrower2a]

The GOP only picked up 3 Dem Senate seats in 1996, and lost one seat of their own for a net gain of two. I think you are confusing 1996 with 1994, though the GOP actually picked up 8 seats in 1994 (though only 2 by defeats of incumbents), then proceeded to pick up a 9th one day after the election by a switch of parties by Senator Richard Shelby of Alabama, who didn't have the balls to make the switch the day before the election as opposed to the day after.

And the Dem gain of 6, all from incumbents, was in 2006. In 2008 the Dems gained 8 (assuming they prevail in Minnesota one of these decades).

Correction noted. I had ignored Richard Shelby.