Could 2006 Be Another 1994?

[Frodo]

This is a great analysis of that election:

Party Like It's 1994

By JAMES TRAUB
Published: March 12, 2006

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Frodo]

And why Democrats may not be able to emulate it:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Frodo]

And a faint glimmer of hope:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Frodo]

The Dems will gain seats but they won't come close to retaking either house. The people say they want change but most of them won't vote to send home their representitive because they like them.

Sad to say, but I agree with you.  Therefore, most of my attention will be on the governors' races -that is where we can hope to make our greatest gains. 

[Frodo]

Gallup shows the biggest Democratic advantage to the question "Do you plan to vote for the Democratic or the Republican candidate for Congress in your district" since 1982. The Senate will probably remain Republican because only 1/3 are up for re-election, but the House, short of a major event between now and November, will be ours next January.

Good -it's the House of Representatives I want most. 

[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.   

[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.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Do you overreact much?    

[Frodo]

In any event, I'd always prefer to have control then to not have it. I hate to sound like Jfern here, as you are one of the best Democrats on this board and we need a lot more people like you, but it could well be argued that if you think a party would be so bad if in control that you wish that they lost, then why would you identify with that party? I think it's an honest question.

It would be nice if I could strategize and speak freely as a Democrat without having my party loyalty questioned as a result........

Nym -I look at past elections, and it is clear in hindsight that we would have done much better had, for instance, President Ford won in 1976, rather than Jimmy Carter.  Does this suddenly make me a Republican?

Being a Democrat involves more than just blindly hoping we win each and every single election whether it benefits us in the long-run or not.  We have to pick and choose our battles, and I believe it would benefit this party if we lose some elections rather than others.  1976 is one such example -2006 would be another.       

Also, if you see me as being so disaffected that I would actively hope this party loses this election, then perhaps you should ask yourself why have I become so disaffected in the first place. 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Perhaps I should explain my thinking here:

As long as George W. Bush remains president, we are never going to move beyond our collective (unhealthy, IMO) obsession with him as a party.  We run the grave risk this year of running not on the merits of our ideas but on our hatred of President Bush.  And if we win this year based primarily on that visceral hatred of Bush, it will reflect on how we govern, and the American people will not look kindly on it.  If our ambition is to construct a governing majority coalition that would replace the conservative Republican coalition currently in its twilight years, this is no way to go about doing it. 

This is why we would be better off winning in 2008 -President Bush will be on his way out by then, and we would be less likely to be fixated on his person, in addition to the fact that we could actually get legislation passed with not just the Congress but also the White House in Democratic hands if we win that year.   

[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.