Republicans On the Run: Loss of the House Increasingly Likely

[Frodo]

Republicans On The Run:
As midterm campaigns gear up, Bush's party fears a backlash that could end its 12-year hold on the House

By KAREN TUMULTY, MIKE ALLEN
Posted Sunday, Mar. 26, 2006

Considering that Vice President Dick Cheney had come a long way to help Florida Congressman Ric Keller raise $250,000 last week, the reception he got in the Sunshine State could have been a bit warmer. After extolling Cheney as "one of the most effective Vice Presidents in the history of the U.S.," Keller launched into all the times he had recently opposed the Bush Administration, including the deal to allow a Dubai company to manage operations at several U.S. ports. And then Keller went right for the punch line: "'Don't be too hasty,'" he claimed the Vice President had pleaded with him. "'Let's go hunting. We'll talk about it.'"

As the campaign season kicks into gear, Republican incumbents are having a hard time figuring out how close they want to be to the White House. Voters have plenty to take out on Republican candidates this year--ethics scandals, the G.O.P.'S failure to curb spending, the government's inept response to Hurricane Katrina, a confusing new prescription-drug program for seniors and, more than anything else, an unpopular President who is fighting an unpopular war. Iraq could make a vulnerability of the Republicans' greatest asset, the security issue.

The midterm contests in a President's second term are almost always treacherous, but this time around, Republicans thought it would be different. The 2006 elections, coming on top of their gains in 2002 and 2004, would make history and perhaps even cement a G.O.P. majority in Congress for a generation. George W. Bush's credibility on national security and the states' aggressive gerrymandering, they believed, had turned the vast majority of districts into fortresses for incumbents. But that's not turning out to be the case. In recent weeks, a startling realization has begun to take hold: if the elections were held today, top strategists of both parties say privately, the Republicans would probably lose the 15 seats they need to keep control of the House of Representatives and could come within a seat or two of losing the Senate as well.  Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich, who masterminded the 1994 elections that brought Republicans to power on promises of revolutionizing the way Washington is run, told TIME that his party has so bungled the job of governing that the best campaign slogan for Democrats today could be boiled down to just two words: "Had enough?"

link

[A18]

Good. We need divided government.

[Frodo]

As badly as I want to believe every word this article is saying, I'll wait until early fall before deciding whether this election really will be what everyone is hyping it up to be.  I was disappointed in 2002 and 2004 when I rashly believed that those elections would surely turn Republicans out of office based on historical trends and the increasingly unpopular war in Iraq -I don't want to be disappointed again this time around.   

[Mr. Paleoconservative]

IF the Democrats take back the House of Representatives, I see two positive things coming as a result.

1. It will motivate the Republicans to start acting like they promised in 1994.
2. It will remind the American people just how liberal the D.C. Dems truly are.

[Frodo]

IF the Democrats take back the House of Representatives, I see two positive things coming as a result.

1. It will motivate the Republicans to start acting like they promised in 1994.
2. It will remind the American people just how liberal the D.C. Dems truly are.

Or....

3. It will remind everyone of the virtues of divided government, and they will like the results of it so much that they will vote to keep it that way.

[Mr. Paleoconservative]

IF the Democrats take back the House of Representatives, I see two positive things coming as a result.

1. It will motivate the Republicans to start acting like they promised in 1994.
2. It will remind the American people just how liberal the D.C. Dems truly are.

Or....

3. It will remind everyone of the virtues of divided government, and they will like the results of it so much that they will vote to keep it that way.

You have a right to your opinion, but the Democrats have continually changed for the worse since they lost power in the Great Purge of 1994.  SPEAKER Pelosi will be enough to turn the most ardent heartland blue dog Dem into a Republican voter.

If the Dems win, they will be out just as quickly as they got back in.

[David S]

-I don't want to be disappointed again this time around.   

You think you're disappointed?

[TheresNoMoney]

If the Dems win, they will be out just as quickly as they got back in.

Keep telling yourself that.

In reality, if the Democrats do win back the house the country will embrace them. You will see a focus back on issues like health care, higher education, balancing the budget, energy independence, sensible foreign policy, and ethics reform.

I don't think the country will want to go back to the Republican days of corruption, pork barrel spending, corporate welfare, and a declining middle class.

[Mr. Paleoconservative]

If the Dems win, they will be out just as quickly as they got back in.

Keep telling yourself that.

In reality, if the Democrats do win back the house the country will embrace them. You will see a focus back on issues like health care, higher education, balancing the budget, energy independence, sensible foreign policy, and ethics reform.

I don't think the country will want to go back to the Republican days of corruption, pork barrel spending, corporate welfare, and a declining middle class.

I needed a good laugh.

Obviously the Democrats from their 40 years in power had a FANTASTIC track record.

You and I will not agree so I see no point in going any further with this.

[TheresNoMoney]

I needed a good laugh.

Truth hurts!

Obviously the Democrats from their 40 years in power had a FANTASTIC track record.

Light years ahead of the current crop of Republican stooges.

[opebo]

Obviously the Democrats from their 40 years in power had a FANTASTIC track record.

Well, the working class owes what little they ever had to the Democratic Party.  The essential acheivements of those 40 years were large increases in individual rights and human development.

But I do agree that the average american worker may be too stupid to realize what is good for him.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Obviously the Democrats from their 40 years in power had a FANTASTIC track record.

This is an apples/oranges comparison if you look more closely at the Democratic party at the time.

Some time I think I'll calculate how much of a swing it'd take to win the Dems back the House assuming a uniform swing across the board. Assuming a uniform swing of course is quite ludicrous, but people did the same thing making projections for the UK and Canadian elections.

[MODU]

I still think both sides of Congress should be purged.

[Republican Michigander]

The biggest mistake congressional republicans have is moving to the left on economic issues. The luckiest part is the democrats ran even further to the left.

Dick Armey said it best. When we act like them, we lose. When we act like us, we win.

Right now, "we" are acting like moderate democrats, and it's killing us. The only thing saving us is democrats being so dependent on the rich leftist "Emily's List/Hollywood/Soros" crowd and their litmus tests.  A massive movement of John Dingell types would take back the house. Nancy Pelosi is another matter.

Overall, I think the House could go either way.

[Speed of Sound]

Democratic taking of the house could turn the Bush Presidency into a lame duck pretty quickly, even worse news for Reps come 2008. They need to kick it up. Loss now almost surely means loss later.

[Yates]

Good. We need divided government.

[Republican Michigander]

Democratic taking of the house could turn the Bush Presidency into a lame duck pretty quickly, even worse news for Reps come 2008. They need to kick it up. Loss now almost surely means loss later.

I'm not sure about that. 1994 didn't turn into a Bob Dole, Pat Buchanan, or Steve Forbes victory.

I think most important is two things.
1. Good local candidates - "All politics is local"
2. Messages. The democrats need more than "Bush sucks'. They need a plan. The Republicans also need a good solid plan instead of the drifting that exists today.

[YRABNNRM]

Good. We need divided government.

[Frodo]

I think most important is two things.
1. Good local candidates - "All politics is local"
2. Messages. The democrats need more than "Bush sucks'. They need a plan. The Republicans also need a good solid plan instead of the drifting that exists today.

I'm fairly certain we do have a plan with which to offer to the American people -we just don't intend to release it until this September, much like you Republicans did in 1994.  I doubt at this stage that -apart from a few Republicans within the Beltway- anyone was aware of the existence of the Contract With America twelve years ago.   

[MODU]

2. Messages. The democrats need more than "Bush sucks'. They need a plan. The Republicans also need a good solid plan instead of the drifting that exists today.

I'm fairly certain we do have a plan with which to offer to the American people -we just don't intend to release it until this September, much like you Republicans did in 1994. 

I think the problem is, the Democrats have been waiting until election years to pull out their plans (a flaw with both sides of the aisle, but more for the Democrats lately).  To gain the voters confidence that yes, you might have "a better way" is to actually take one issue, propose a logical solution to it (rather than just being a roadblock), and push for it to be passed.  And when I say an issue, I don't mean gays, social security, Medicare, etc.  Start small with ummm . . . attaching riders to funding bills at the last minute.  If Democrats want to pass themselves off as being fiscally responsible, and are honest when they say they don't favor increasing the tax rate for a growing government, then they should take this issue up before the public.  Propose something like "All allocations for funding bills need to be submitted 5 business days before voting to allow Congress time to review all items for relevance."  That would go a long way over the general public, and instill a little bit more confidence in your group.  Once you can tackle the small issues and gain the public support, you can then go on to bigger issues.  BUT, all of this requires having well thought out, practical proposals for the issues and not Tim Kaine standing in a living room saying there is a better way with no examples.

[ian]

As badly as I want to believe every word this article is saying, I'll wait until early fall before deciding whether this election really will be what everyone is hyping it up to be.  I was disappointed in 2002 and 2004 when I rashly believed that those elections would surely turn Republicans out of office based on historical trends and the increasingly unpopular war in Iraq -I don't want to be disappointed again this time around.   

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

[TeePee4Prez]

The biggest mistake congressional republicans have is moving to the left on economic issues. The luckiest part is the democrats ran even further to the left.

Dick Armey said it best. When we act like them, we lose. When we act like us, we win.

Right now, "we" are acting like moderate democrats, and it's killing us. The only thing saving us is democrats being so dependent on the rich leftist "Emily's List/Hollywood/Soros" crowd and their litmus tests.  A massive movement of John Dingell types would take back the house. Nancy Pelosi is another matter.

Overall, I think the House could go either way.

Funny you mention that with the types of Republicans you describe.  They are the type that get elected in union Democratic areas because of their emphasis on social issues, plus many rode Reagan's coattails and are still in office.  I'm also talking about the State House/Senate level as well.  Those factors put in people like Charlie Dougherty, who was once my Congressman, Hank Salvatore, a State Senator way back when and people like John Taylor and Dennis O'Brien in the State House because they parade like moderate-centrist Dems economically, but emphasize their social conservatism.  However on some pieces of major legislation they side with the corporate end of the GOP and go back home and parade themselves as "neighborhood guys."  I think people are slowly catching on to them and that may eventually kill you guys.   

My point is you are very lucky to have those types in your party because quite frankly, people don't buy right wing economic policies save tax cuts.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

The Republican media shall rally, and Democrats will manage yet to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. They employ some consultants who are very good at what they do - losing.

[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. 

[Nym90]

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.