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.

[Nym90]

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.

[○∙◄☻¥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.

[bullmoose88]

Remember what happened when you guys controlled the senate for a while.

You were blamed for every failure of the Bush admin to implement its agenda.

You might wish to gain ground, and then overtake the GOP when you have a chance to win both the presidency and congress.

[Nym90]

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.

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.

What you say makes some sense, but I think the Democrats would have more success, and especially a better chance of building a long term majority, around positive accomplishments from having the majority than simply from anger at the Republicans for their failures.

[Jacobtm]

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.

[??????????]

It would be best if they never won back congress.

[adam]

Would another failure be good for the Democrats? Considering their reputation as the primary losers, I'd say no.

[J. J.]

The question is, could the govern?  The answer is no (and the GOP barely could by 1995).

[○∙◄☻¥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.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Preparing for defeat already? Typical...

[J. J.]

Preparing for defeat already? Typical...

In this case, you have a very deeply divided Democratic party, especially on Iraq.  You have a GOP that is not as deeply divided.  House Democrats can become the bare majority party, and there are still probably enough votes for the war in Iraq (sizable part of the D's and most of the GOP).

It's not exactly a real winning situation for the Democrats; they probably have more to gain by increasing their minority status and not actually governing.

[Frodo]

I've already made this same argument a month ago.

[Bandit3 the Worker]

The Democrats need to get back control of Congress this very year, and then make it so the GOP can't get back in charge of things until they get their act together.

After the phone jamming scandal in New Hampshire, the Republicans can't just be let off without a punishment.

[Nym90]

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.

True, as this would require the Dems to gain PA, OH, MT, MO, and one of TN, VA, or AZ; if the Democratic tide is so strong that they can win one of the last three mentioned races, plus all of the first four mentioned, they most likely would win RI as well.

[TomC]

In terms of gaining the Presidency, probably so. But I think it's probably more important to take back congress.

[○∙◄☻¥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.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

This thread is ridiculous, as if all this Politics stuff was just a minor stage show which had obviously no effect on people's lives - I'm tired of people justing their politics like fashions and rooting for them like Sports teams. It's ridiculously immature.

[Nym90]

We're far better off than we would've been with a GOP majority.

Now all we need is a Democratic President and we'll really be in business.

[Person Man]

and thank God, too. Though I fear for the worst in 2008 if we only manage to maintain congress....and what if we lose a chamber? I am already thinking about becoming Indy or GOP if the dems lose. At least I will be able to vote for the most secular GOPer if I switch.

[Nym90]

and thank God, too. Though I fear for the worst in 2008 if we only manage to maintain congress....and what if we lose a chamber? I am already thinking about becoming Indy or GOP if the dems lose. At least I will be able to vote for the most secular GOPer if I switch.

The Dems are definitely not losing control of either house of Congress in 2008, barring some unforeseen and extremely unlikely circumstances.

If the GOP wants to win back Congress they should be hoping for a Dem Presidential victory in 2008 so that they can gain seats in the 2010 midterms.

[Person Man]

So, if we lose in 2008, we will be able to control congress into the future with more ideological vigor than we did when we were last the simultaneous permanent congressional majority and permanent presidential minority. Therefore, we should be able to block the GOP's agenda and force the president, especially if they are Giuliani, Thompson or Romney to only bring us justice replacements in the mold of Souter and O'Connor. I will not force them to have to go with another Stevens, and I may consider a Kennedy (a conservative that will not overturn Roe) but we should table anyone further to the right unless Roe, Brown or Laughlin are in no danger of being overuled. Our congressional misison will be to force the Supreme Court to have no than 6 justices that follow those three precedents and to make sure that the president will not allow us to fall behind the world in technology and social mobility.