Republicans On the Run: Loss of the House Increasingly Likely

[angus]

I'll wait until early fall before deciding

same here.  I think it makes sense, on the one hand, when folks compare the Replicans, vis-a-vis the Democrats, to the Democrats at this point in 1994.  Editorials often go on to describe the "contract with america" which was introduced in September of that year by Newt Gingerich, and say that the democrats only need a slogan and a face.  "Had enough?" and Senator Clinton have been mentioned, as have "No more lies" and Senator Feingold.  and there are about a hundred other examples.  Also, polls show congress is viewed less favorably even than the president.  On the other hand, I don't vote for one hundred senators and 435 representatives to the house.  I vote for one each.  And I'll probably vote for the incumbent in one case and a challenger in the other case, if I vote.  And I have to imagine most other folks (at least those not already bought and paid for by one party or the other) will, similarly, consider the office-holder as an individual based on his or her merits and record, rather than by some national partisan campaign.  Also, house seats are carefully drawn in every decennial redistricting in a way that protects incumbents, so they are not so competetive as they probably should be.  (can't do that with the senate seats since they're elected at-large statewide, which probably explains why the US senators, both Democrat and Republican, and not the raging interest group-owned puppets that house members are.  At least not to that extent.)  So the reality check is that you can't use national polling data to predict congressional shifts.  They must be studied them case by case.  Actually there are a number of interesting state and local polls presented on this forum, many of which predict safe incumbency.  Still, Newt and colleagues managed to nationalize enough local races to ensure a party switch in congress, so it can be done.  I expect any national ads by Republicans to focus on terrorism and immigration.  Democrats to focus on energy, the Iraq War, and on Bush in a very personal way.  It'll probably get ugly.  Fun to watch, though. 

[angus]

I think that the Republicans are at a huge disadvantage right now, in terms of that Bush's approval ratings are dragging them down. I don't think that running away from Bush will work for the Republicans. Their best bet right now is to focus on terrorism, but you can only ride that so far.

The biggest problem for Bush seems to be that he is viewed as out of touch and borderline incompetent by many moderates and independents. Katrina, Iraq, the Dubai Ports World issue, etc. have all contributed to this. Regardless of whether it is true or not, perception is reality.

NYm!  I haven't seen one of your posts in about a thousand years.  How the hell are you man?  Well, anyway, yeah, that's about right.  The gop best bet is terrorism (and I'd suggest immigration, though that might put a dent in the bandwagon that they have built with about a third of the latino electorate).  Democrats are going to pound on that Katrina issue, but I think its useless, because most democrats and republicans are smart enough to know that natural disasters and other "acts of god" are non-partisan.  (gods are as well, I suspect, but don't tell these guys that!)  Democrats would do well to focus on the elitism and cronyism and the general secrecy of the Bush administration.  Seriously, good to read a nym90 post again, you crazy leftist bastard.

[angus]

I think the clear plan is to demand a detailed description of the remaining goal in Iraq, for starters.  Iraq has been an expensive project, and the president has made it clear that he has no intention of pulling out for any particular reason, and now that it's been widely reported that Cheney had a raging hard-on for iraq since the Bush vs. Gore dispute was settled, there's no reason to think they will.  And it hasn't made fuel any cheaper and, except for the fact that we haven't had a major attack since 11 September 2001, it doesn't seem to have made us any safer.  For the republicans, the game is to remind folks that it was Bill Clinton's refusal to deal with Osama bin Laden in any meaningful way in the 90s that made Chicago, rather than New york, the home to America's Highest Skyscrapers.  And, frankly, it's a legitimate charge, given the attack on the WTC under Clinton's watch and the shyness about foreign entanglements after Mogadishu.  Over all, though, I think the democrats do have a built-in advantage in terms of being the underdog in a secular bear market, as has been generally pointed out in this thread, but theirs is an uphill battle given the way house seats are drawn.  The senate, though, is an accident of artifical and permanent borders, so that's where I'd put my money if I were into putting money into off-year elections. 

[angus]

Chicago did have the United States's tallest building prior to 9/11, BTW.

D'oh!  That's right.  I'm too sexy to be smart, I guess. 

Oh, and I also thought about this old story when you mentioned corporate shenanigans:


A city boy, Kenny, moved to the country and bought a donkey from an old farmer for $100. The farmer agreed to deliver the donkey the next day.

The next day the farmer drove up and said, "Sorry son, but I have some bad news, the donkey died."

Kenny replied "Well then, just give me my money back."

The farmer said, "Can't do that.  I went and spent it already."

Kenny said, "OK then, just unload the donkey."  And so the farmer asked, "What ya gonna do with him?"

And Kenny replied, "I'm going to raffle him off."
The farmer was a bit astonished, and exclaimed,  "You can't raffle off a dead donkey!"
But Kenny calmly replied, "Sure I can. Watch me. I just won't tell anybody he is dead."

A month later the farmer met up with Kenny and asked, "What happened
with that dead donkey?"  So kenny told him "I raffled him off. I sold 500 tickets at two dollars a piece and made a profit of $898."

The farmer asked, "Didn't anyone complain?"  And kenny answered, "Just the guy who won. So I gave him his two dollars back."

Kenny grew up and eventually became the chairman of Enron.