MN-06: Tinklenberg set to enter race

[Sam Spade]

Democrats have been on offensive in the House in every single non-9/11 related election since 1994. They had a rough year in 1996 only because of Clinton's selfish desire to win 50% by dissociating himself from the Democratic Party.  His "Third Way' politics didn't help him reach 50% and the Democrats failed to win back the House. GOP reached its beachhead in 1994, and it's all been downhill in their House standing since then.

I'm guessing that you slept through 2002.  Also, in 1996, the Republicans towards the last couple of weeks of the campaign (with Dole failing, as he always did) ran a "don't place too much power in the Democrats' hands" type of campaign.

If the same thing happens in 2008, don't be surprised to see a similar refrain.

[Sam Spade]

Democrats have been on offensive in the House in every single non-9/11 related election since 1994. They had a rough year in 1996 only because of Clinton's selfish desire to win 50% by dissociating himself from the Democratic Party.  His "Third Way' politics didn't help him reach 50% and the Democrats failed to win back the House. GOP reached its beachhead in 1994, and it's all been downhill in their House standing since then.

I'm guessing that you slept through 2002.  Also, in 1996, the Republicans towards the last couple of weeks of the campaign (with Dole failing, as he always did) ran a "don't place too much power in the Democrats' hands" type of campaign.

If the same thing happens in 2008, don't be surprised to see a similar refrain.

He did say "non-9/11-related", and the 2002 elections were nothing if not 9/11-related.

Sam, I'm sorry if I wasn't more explicit.  2002 bucked the trend of midterm elections which normally result in gains for the President's opposition party.  Many here surely remember that Bush's early September 2001 approvals skidded around the 50% mark. It took a cataclysmic event to rally the nation around the Commander in Chief  and help the Republicans overcome history in 2002.

Oh, the Republicans would have lost seats in 2002 without 9/11 and the Iraq conflict buildup, that's for sure (which the Democrats did not know how to handle).  And truthfully, 2008 should be a good Democratic year.  Even in a neutral environment, Democrats should probably still gain a couple of Senate seats.  But comparing it to 1932 is a bit much.

Oh, and Clinton didn't get above 50% b/c of Ross Perot, not really b/c of the campaign that he ran.  Democrats didn't show up b/c they viewed the race as over, and Democratic operatives didn't push them to come out for the other elections.  Kind of like 1988 in reverse.

[Sam Spade]

Getting this thread back on topic, I should pause to say that I think Bachmann is a good bit stronger candidate than Mark Kennedy ever was.

(waiting for BRTD reply...)

[Sam Spade]

Getting this thread back on topic, I should pause to say that I think Bachmann is a good bit stronger candidate than Mark Kennedy ever was.

(waiting for BRTD reply...)

Late-night provocateur, eh? Bachmann is Jean Schmidt with a little less crazy and a little more religion. Basically, a Marylin Musgrave type who likes to hug the POTUS.

Not really - I happen to believe that.  Look, in such a terrible GOP year, she managed to beat Wetterling by the same margin that Kennedy did in 2004 (granted, with the help of a third party, but third parties were not helping the GOP in 2006). 

And I watched the debate in that race, she beat her pretty solidly there too.  Granted, Wetterling was a bad candidate, but I don't see how she could have been much better in 2004.  Keep in mind, this does not mean Bachmann is a super-strong incumbent or whatever - it means she's stronger than Mark Kennedy, for whatever that means.

Just because you're a right-wing nut, that does not necessarily mean that you are a weak candidate - same thing goes with the left, btw.