Could 2006 Be Another 1994?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

1994 will never happen again.  Especially not in 2006; the Democrats are positioned to lose a small amount of seats in both houses.

C'mon Boss, we should at least be able to take down Santorum. But then Minnesota and New Jersey come into play, but with luck, their democrat-leanings will come into play and the Dems will be able to retain both.

Although, I will agree that anyone predicting 1994 in reverse is grossly overestimating the political competence and adeptness of the democratic party. We are talking about the party that has lost seven of the last ten presidential elections, you know.

The Democrats enjoy almost no advantage in MN.  In fact, state politics in there have been all Republican in the past six years.

Gee, it's an interesting definition that state politics are almost all Republican when the Republicans lose 13 House seats one election, like last election. Is it because of their whopping 68-66 majority in the State House? Despite the 36-31 Democratic majority in the State Senate?

Just because MN is not quite conservative enough (yet) to accept our Presidential candidates does not mena that they will not welcome slightly more moderate Repulicans.  Kennedy is such a Republican.

He's not moderate, he's a Bush clone.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

1994 will never happen again.  Especially not in 2006; the Democrats are positioned to lose a small amount of seats in both houses.

C'mon Boss, we should at least be able to take down Santorum. But then Minnesota and New Jersey come into play, but with luck, their democrat-leanings will come into play and the Dems will be able to retain both.

Although, I will agree that anyone predicting 1994 in reverse is grossly overestimating the political competence and adeptness of the democratic party. We are talking about the party that has lost seven of the last ten presidential elections, you know.

The Democrats enjoy almost no advantage in MN.  In fact, state politics in there have been all Republican in the past six years.

Gee, it's an interesting definition that state politics are almost all Republican when the Republicans lose 13 House seats one election, like last election. Is it because of their whopping 68-66 majority in the State House? Despite the 36-31 Democratic majority in the State Senate?

Just because MN is not quite conservative enough (yet) to accept our Presidential candidates does not mena that they will not welcome slightly more moderate Repulicans.  Kennedy is such a Republican.

He's not moderate, he's a Bush clone.

Compared to the past in MN... that is "all Republican".

No, it's not. You seem to think there was once an overwhelming DFL legislature similar to Massachusetts that steadily erodes each election. Looking at the past results, that hardly the case, the Republicans are at their worst point in years actually.

At any rate, the Almanac of American Politics would seem to suggest that Kennedy is center-right.

He opposes ANWR drilling. On every other issue, he is identical to Bush. Right now Gary Bauer's PAC gives him a 95% rating for the current session, the one issue he voted against them being ANWR drilling, which also means he voted with Tom DeLay on every issue except ANWR drilling. Someone who is opposed to ANWR drilling and is hard right on every single other issue is not a moderate. So far, no one has told me one issue other than ANWR Kennedy does not toe the party line on.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

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.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Do you overreact much?    

And you wonder why I never get along with him. Remember, this is the guy you said you'd vote for over a good loyal Democrat like jfern.