How Democrats can win by losing

[MarkWarner08]

With the GOP planning a $50 million dollar ad blitz, the DSCC and the DCCC buy ad time for their own ad buys and 527’s gear up on both sides, the idea that losing would better for both parties than winning seems quite foreign. Lately, media outlets from the left to the right have commented on the growing worries among party insiders that winning could hurt their party’s long term chances. This concern are well founded for five main reasons.

Here are five reason why losing in 2006 will be good for Democrats:

1: Avoid responsibility for governing: If the Democrats take back the House or the Senate, or both, they will have to create an agenda for America. This agenda will be attacked, belittled and stymied by President Bush. The impression in American minds come 2008 will be that Democrats had their chance and failed. We all saw how deftly the GOP portrayed the Democratic Senate in 2002. Democrats will be saddled  with a narrow majority, infighting (Murtha vs. Hoyer and Emanuel vs. Clyburn), an antagonistic media, and an intransigent President.

2. Avoid Nancy Pelosi as Speaker: Republicans across the country are salivating at the opportunity to run against Nancy Pelosi. The reason this strategy will fail in 2006 is because less than 15% of Americans have an opinion of Pelosi. If Democrats win the House and not the Senate in 2006, Nancy Pelosi becomes the feckless face of the Democratic Party. The House Democrats would now be led by the woman that personifies the GOP stereotype of a liberal, Nancy Pelosi. Pelosi is a rather dimwitted, very wealthy, San Francisco liberal who has a knack for uniting liberals, conservatives and moderates against her. Pelosi would become the new Republican punching bag and her stature would endanger the reelection of many of the new Democratic freshman.


3. Avoid the blame game: After Jim Jeffords switched parties in 2001, Democrats had high hope for their new majority. Instead of passing legislation, the Democratic Senate was soon entangled with a hawkish Bush White House with 60%+ approval ratings and several tough battles over judicial nominees. The Democrats and Daschle likely lose the Senate when the fell for a Rovian trap and voted against the creation of the Department of Homeland Security. If Pelosi or Reid seize power, they will be blamed for an ’07 recession, the Bush deficits and receive even more scorn despite the fact the Democrats will likely lack any real power in the Congress.

4. Staying Hungry: The 1954 and 1994 elections brought the triumphant return to power of minority parties that has been shut out of Government since the previous Presidential election. After winning control of Congress, energy on the Democratic side in 1954 and the GOP side in 1994 soon dissipated. The newly energized Presidents Eisenhower and Clinton rallied their bases and easily won reelection. If the Democrats win narrow majorities in 2006, their inability to get much legislation passed could disappoint their supporters and rob them of critical momentum leading into 2008. The election could also humble Bush and embolden his party leading into 2008.

5. The final reason why winning in 2006 will hurt the party in the long-term is that a Democratic win in 2006 will hurt the ’08 nominee. If the Congressional Democrats are seen as ineffective in the public’s mind, their failures will hurt the Democratic nominee and make the Democratic majority in Congress an ephemeral one. John McCain or Mitt Romney will be able to run as outsiders bashing the failures of a Democratic Congress. Mark Warner or Evan Bayh’s worst nightmare is being associated in an Iowa housewife’s mind with Nancy Pelosi.

With both parties petrified of having to control a narrowly divided, polarized Congress, Democrats’  past experience in losing elections will finally become advantage. .

[Frodo]

Help, and I agree completely with your analysis -as I noted in a post in another thread to Nym90 several months back, I have no faith in the ability of a Democratic Congress to restrain themselves from going overboard with investigations and prosecutions of members of the Bush administration.  As such, I would rather lose (narrowly) this year, and win both Congress and the White House in 2008, by which point President Bush will no longer dominate our minds to the extent he does now as he leaves office by January, 2009. 

[Torie]

Interesting post.

I suspect the correct answer is that nobody knows. It depends on how the Dems conduct themselves with control of one or both legislative bodies, whether they will conduct investigations, and whether they will draw blood or backlash, and whether the Dems can fashion an agenda that wins majority support. So far, the Dems are not into fashioning a coherent agenda, but rather more into simply opposing. Maybe that will change with more legislative responsibility, for better or ill.

[© tweed]

I understand the theory that states we might be better off not taking congres in 2006.  But I still hope we do; it's not like success in 2008 is guaranteed if we fail here in 2006.

[Virginian87]

The sooner we boot Pelosi out of the Democratic leadership, the better.  The Democrats will be much better off if someone else becomes Speaker.  If failing to gain the House will accomplish that goal, I'm prepared to do that. 

[MarkWarner08]

Even hackish Democrats need to realize the party is in complete disarray. There is no leader of the Democratic Party. If we make Nancy Pelosi Speaker, it will be a godsend to the Rush Limbaugh's of the world.

[Nym90]

The only way Democrats winning would be bad for the party is if things are already screwed for the next two years and therefore it's better to have the GOP in control so that they get full blame.

However, if the Democrats can't take the Congress this year with the President being highly unpopular, I'd seriously doubt whether they ever can. So I certainly wouldn't say that losing would be good for the party from that standpoint either as it would show a complete lack of political acumen on their part.

I think this whole idea that losing will somehow help the Dems is pretty ridiculous. The whole point of politics is to get your ideas implemented or at least stop the other side from getting destrucitve policies put into place. If you truly believe the Democrats are better than the Republicans then logically having split control rather than complete GOP control has to be better for the country and that's what it's all about at the end of the day.

As has been pointed out elsewhere, there's also the money factor, as Democrats would get a lot more contributions and have a lot more clout in the majority than in the minority.

At this point the country desperately needs a counterbalance to Bush, and investigations I think are certainly warranted on some things (investigating Clinton didn't hurt the GOP politically, only when they took it to the level of impeachment). Polls have actually shown a majority of Americans in favor of investigations, although a solid majority opposes impeachment of course.

[Adlai Stevenson]

The only way Democrats winning would be bad for the party is if things are already screwed for the next two years and therefore it's better to have the GOP in control so that they get full blame.

However, if the Democrats can't take the Congress this year with the President being highly unpopular, I'd seriously doubt whether they ever can. So I certainly wouldn't say that losing would be good for the party from that standpoint either as it would show a complete lack of political acumen on their part.

I think this whole idea that losing will somehow help the Dems is pretty ridiculous. The whole point of politics is to get your ideas implemented or at least stop the other side from getting destrucitve policies put into place. If you truly believe the Democrats are better than the Republicans then logically having split control rather than complete GOP control has to be better for the country and that's what it's all about at the end of the day.

As has been pointed out elsewhere, there's also the money factor, as Democrats would get a lot more contributions and have a lot more clout in the majority than in the minority.

At this point the country desperately needs a counterbalance to Bush, and investigations I think are certainly warranted on some things (investigating Clinton didn't hurt the GOP politically, only when they took it to the level of impeachment). Polls have actually shown a majority of Americans in favor of investigations, although a solid majority opposes impeachment of course.

Nym90 is correct.  How can the Democrats ever recover and prosper if they fail to take responsibility for America.  Bush and the GOP's abuses of power need investigation and clearance; I personally would feel so much happier if a Democratic-controlled House could conduct some leverage over President Bush and frustrate his dangerous agenda.  If they do what they know to be right and logical I'm sure the American people will support them; I can't see why the GOP would recover in under two years and regain the House in 2008.  The Senatorial races in 2008 also favour the Democrats. 

[Nym90]

I think the key would be the PR side of it as well, Adlai. If Bush has done nothing wrong, then I would think he'd welcome investigations which would clearly show that. If it rises to the level of a witchhunt I'd be the first to strongly oppose it, just as I did with regards to Clinton.

The investigations certainly should not be the primary focus of the country, and the Democrats need to complement it with a positive agenda as well.

[MarkWarner08]

I think the key would be the PR side of it as well, Adlai. If Bush has done nothing wrong, then I would think he'd welcome investigations which would clearly show that. If it rises to the level of a witchhunt I'd be the first to strongly oppose it, just as I did with regards to Clinton.

The investigations certainly should not be the primary focus of the country, and the Democrats need to complement it with a positive agenda as well.

The presence of Nancy Pelosi on the TV screen would hurt the Democratic Party's image with swing voters.  Democrats would also be hurt because they'd suddenly have to articulate a vision on  Iraq. This would lead to squabbling amonst the '08 contenders for credit and the infighting would likely lead to little actually being done.

Did you know that in the House there are already some very nasty leadership battles shaping up. In Washington, a hurt feeling or two of a powerful committee chairman can lead to a public temper tantrum, or worse -- a retirement. If Ike Skelton decides to retires, we're immediately down one House seat because of the conservatism of Skelton's seat.

[Nym90]

I think the key would be the PR side of it as well, Adlai. If Bush has done nothing wrong, then I would think he'd welcome investigations which would clearly show that. If it rises to the level of a witchhunt I'd be the first to strongly oppose it, just as I did with regards to Clinton.

The investigations certainly should not be the primary focus of the country, and the Democrats need to complement it with a positive agenda as well.

The presence of Nancy Pelosi on the TV screen would hurt the Democratic Party's image with swing voters.  Democrats would also be hurt because they'd suddenly have to articulate a vision on  Iraq. This would lead to squabbling amonst the '08 contenders for credit and the infighting would likely lead to little actually being done.

Did you know that in the House there are already some very nasty leadership battles shaping up. In Washington, a hurt feeling or two of a powerful committee chairman can lead to a public temper tantrum, or worse -- a retirement. If Ike Skelton decides to retires, we're immediately down one House seat because of the conservatism of Skelton's seat.

I don't deny there are obstacles and problems for the Democrats to overcome, but that's the price of being in power: responsibility. I'm confident we can overcome those things and start turning the country around and that voters will give us credit for that come 2008. Newt Gingrich as Speaker didn't destroy the GOP and neither will Nancy Pelosi as Speaker destroy the Democrats.

[MarkWarner08]

I think the key would be the PR side of it as well, Adlai. If Bush has done nothing wrong, then I would think he'd welcome investigations which would clearly show that. If it rises to the level of a witchhunt I'd be the first to strongly oppose it, just as I did with regards to Clinton.

The investigations certainly should not be the primary focus of the country, and the Democrats need to complement it with a positive agenda as well.

The presence of Nancy Pelosi on the TV screen would hurt the Democratic Party's image with swing voters.  Democrats would also be hurt because they'd suddenly have to articulate a vision on  Iraq. This would lead to squabbling amonst the '08 contenders for credit and the infighting would likely lead to little actually being done.

Did you know that in the House there are already some very nasty leadership battles shaping up. In Washington, a hurt feeling or two of a powerful committee chairman can lead to a public temper tantrum, or worse -- a retirement. If Ike Skelton decides to retires, we're immediately down one House seat because of the conservatism of Skelton's seat.

I don't deny there are obstacles and problems for the Democrats to overcome, but that's the price of being in power: responsibility. I'm confident we can overcome those things and start turning the country around and that voters will give us credit for that come 2008. Newt Gingrich as Speaker didn't destroy the GOP and neither will Nancy Pelosi as Speaker destroy the Democrats.

Newt Gingrich destroyed the Republicans' ability to win in 1996. If you remember, Clinton ran more negative TV against Gingrich than he did against Dole. Democrats will rue the day they created an easy "boogey man" for the GOP and Bush.

[TheresNoMoney]

This article is ridiculous. Of course Democrats should win in 2006.

It gives them the opportunity to truly contrast their agenda against the Bush/Rove/Republican agenda.

[Nym90]

I think the key would be the PR side of it as well, Adlai. If Bush has done nothing wrong, then I would think he'd welcome investigations which would clearly show that. If it rises to the level of a witchhunt I'd be the first to strongly oppose it, just as I did with regards to Clinton.

The investigations certainly should not be the primary focus of the country, and the Democrats need to complement it with a positive agenda as well.

The presence of Nancy Pelosi on the TV screen would hurt the Democratic Party's image with swing voters.  Democrats would also be hurt because they'd suddenly have to articulate a vision on  Iraq. This would lead to squabbling amonst the '08 contenders for credit and the infighting would likely lead to little actually being done.

Did you know that in the House there are already some very nasty leadership battles shaping up. In Washington, a hurt feeling or two of a powerful committee chairman can lead to a public temper tantrum, or worse -- a retirement. If Ike Skelton decides to retires, we're immediately down one House seat because of the conservatism of Skelton's seat.

I don't deny there are obstacles and problems for the Democrats to overcome, but that's the price of being in power: responsibility. I'm confident we can overcome those things and start turning the country around and that voters will give us credit for that come 2008. Newt Gingrich as Speaker didn't destroy the GOP and neither will Nancy Pelosi as Speaker destroy the Democrats.

Newt Gingrich destroyed the Republicans' ability to win in 1996. If you remember, Clinton ran more negative TV against Gingrich than he did against Dole. Democrats will rue the day they created an easy "boogey man" for the GOP and Bush.

True, but it didn't cost the Republicans the House, they gained seats in the Senate, and Clinton would've won anyway due to the economy coming on strong and the rapidly declining deficit.

[MarkWarner08]

This article is ridiculous. Of course Democrats should win in 2006.

It gives them the opportunity to truly contrast their agenda against the Bush/Rove/Republican agenda.

Have the Democrats articulated a single  coherent message in the last six years? No. If we seize control, Democrats will continue to stay divided on major issues and they will be forced to watch as major legislation is vetoed.

Whether you believe it's unfair or fair, the Democrats will be blamed by the media and the pundits for anyeconomic downturn in 2007. The attention will divert from Bush's failures to the Democrats' failures. Any failures of a Democratic Congress would buoy the hopes of a John McCain type Republican to run as an outsider.

[MarkWarner08]

I think the key would be the PR side of it as well, Adlai. If Bush has done nothing wrong, then I would think he'd welcome investigations which would clearly show that. If it rises to the level of a witchhunt I'd be the first to strongly oppose it, just as I did with regards to Clinton.

The investigations certainly should not be the primary focus of the country, and the Democrats need to complement it with a positive agenda as well.

The presence of Nancy Pelosi on the TV screen would hurt the Democratic Party's image with swing voters.  Democrats would also be hurt because they'd suddenly have to articulate a vision on  Iraq. This would lead to squabbling amonst the '08 contenders for credit and the infighting would likely lead to little actually being done.

Did you know that in the House there are already some very nasty leadership battles shaping up. In Washington, a hurt feeling or two of a powerful committee chairman can lead to a public temper tantrum, or worse -- a retirement. If Ike Skelton decides to retires, we're immediately down one House seat because of the conservatism of Skelton's seat.

I don't deny there are obstacles and problems for the Democrats to overcome, but that's the price of being in power: responsibility. I'm confident we can overcome those things and start turning the country around and that voters will give us credit for that come 2008. Newt Gingrich as Speaker didn't destroy the GOP and neither will Nancy Pelosi as Speaker destroy the Democrats.

Au contraire. Gingrich overstepped on shutting down the government and impeaching the President. after the disastrous 19998 midterms, Gingrich was forced to step down as Speaker. It's possible that if he's stayed into the 2000 cycle, Democrats would have won back the House that year.

[Democratic Hawk]

If the Democrats do win control of the House, does the Speaker necessarily have to be Nancy Pelosi?

When the GOP do target "Speaker" Pelosi, Democrats in competitive GOP-districts should say is that "I'll vote, as I vote, in the interests of the people of my district, not as Nancy Pelosi tells me to" and, more importantly, mean it

Could any of you see me representing a Georgia district bowing to every whim of a Speaker Pelosi?

Dave