Would it be best for the Democrats if they don't quite win back Congress?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Suppose they have 50 Senators and 217 Representatives after the midterms. Would this be better than winning back a branch of Congress. Obviously it would be best for America to stop the pain ASAP, but.... 62 million people voted for these crazies. Why not let them get another 2 years of FUBAR to hopefully really come to their senses. 2006 is too soon after 2004. Democrats made it clear that this was the most important election of our lifetime, and 62 million people didn't seem to give a sh**t. America needs some pain to wake up. Serious pain.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Suppose they have 50 Senators and 217 Representatives after the midterms. Would this be better than winning back a branch of Congress. Obviously it would be best for America to stop the pain ASAP, but.... 62 million people voted for these crazies. Why not let them get another 2 years of FUBAR to hopefully really come to their senses. 2006 is too soon after 2004. Democrats made it clear that this was the most important election of our lifetime, and 62 million people didn't seem to give a sh**t. America needs some pain to wake up. Serious pain.

It's an interesting theory, and perhaps not completely without merit (if things are going to continue to go badly regardless of who is in power, then it would be better to have the Republicans in control).

However, I must disagree that it would be good for the Democrats to not win back Congress. The country as a whole would be much better off with a Democratic Congress, and I think it would help the party to build momentum for 2008.

Well, obviously the country as a whole would be much better off (at least for the short term), but what I'm arguing is that perhaps we need the Republican party to mess up so badly that even the clueless get a clue.

I guess though, the obvious comparision election would be 1930, where we failed to win back either branch of Congress, but the House was actually so close that after 19(!) reprentatives died before Congress took office, we easily won control of it.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

If the Democrats win back congress, looking at the crazy bunch they've got in now, it'd almost definately hurt their chances in '08. People don't like the Democrats much, they just dislike the Republicans even more because they're in power. If Democrats make even significant gains (4 senate seats, 11 house seats, for instance), and manage, with the help of a few RINOS, to block the Republican agenda, they'll be blamed for just having a big "NO" stamp and having no plan for America.

And really, they don't have a plan. Democrats should keep taking shots from the sideline until '08 when they can win back the Presidency and the Congress with it, and really get stuff done.

So the Republican strategy would be "Vote for us because our party unity sucks"? Wow, that would be a real winner. The Democrats lost Congress in 1994 because of a lack of party unity.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

True; and if we did get to 50 senate seats and 217 house seats, obviously there would be that possibility too that party switches or vacancies could tip the balance. If we got to 50 seats I bet there's a good chance that Chafee would switch, for example. He's almost becoming the GOP version of Zell Miller anyway.

I'm not counting on Chafee changing to either Democrat or Democrat-caucusing Independent. If Chafee does win, it's unlikely he would switch to Democrat or Independent because doing so after the GOP spending a sh*tload of money to get him reelection would be the ultimate subterfuge. I often hear comparisons to Jim Jeffords, but it's not the same; not much money was poured into Jeffords' landslide win in 00.

Odds are that if the Republicans are down to 50 Senators next Congress, Chafee won't be one of them.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

True; and if we did get to 50 senate seats and 217 house seats, obviously there would be that possibility too that party switches or vacancies could tip the balance. If we got to 50 seats I bet there's a good chance that Chafee would switch, for example. He's almost becoming the GOP version of Zell Miller anyway.

I'm not counting on Chafee changing to either Democrat or Democrat-caucusing Independent. If Chafee does win, it's unlikely he would switch to Democrat or Independent because doing so after the GOP spending a sh*tload of money to get him reelection would be the ultimate subterfuge. I often hear comparisons to Jim Jeffords, but it's not the same; not much money was poured into Jeffords' landslide win in 00.

Odds are that if the Republicans are down to 50 Senators next Congress, Chafee won't be one of them.

I'd love to believe you're right.

I'd love to believe I was wrong.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Well, I knew the Democrat's lack of party unity would be a problem, but I didn't realize how truly pathetic the Democratic leadership would be. The only reason that the Democrats are looking good for the 2008 election, instead of getting utterly destroyed is the complete melt down of the Republican party. Pelosi and Reid need to be primaried for being so incompetant.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I wish that we still had Bill Frist as Senate Majority Leader instead of Harry "I suck Bush's balls" Reid.