Talk Elections

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/06/09/dems.radio.ap/index.html

Democratic National Chairman Howard Dean is giving a stern warning to his Democrats while blaming Republicans, saying that the Democrats were hired in 2006 to end this war, and if they don't, they could find themselves the minority again.  He blames Bush and Congressional Republicans for the lack of progress.  He also says the best way to end this war is to elect a Democratic President.

I, personally, have to agree with Dean on all of these points.  What do you think?

I think that is a false assuption on Deans behalf.  If the Democrats had a major landslide victory in 2006 as the Republicans did in 1994, then I could agree that the Democrats were actually elected to end the war.  However, many of the seats lost by Republicans were due to incumbants self-destructing during their own terms rather than a national tidal change.  Now, he is right though that they might lose in 2008, because so far, all they have done is spin their wheels since taking over.  They need to accomplish something, and major, in order to prove themselves to the public.

Unless there's some massive stay-at-home-and-don't-vote protest by Liberal voters, the question is, who will the Democrats lose their votes to?

Is Dean suggesting that Liberal voters will stay home? Or that enough might vote 3rd party?

No.  The large amount of "independent" voters that voted Democrat because they oppose the war might stay home.

In the last election, liberals and independents were fairly like minded with Republicans being the out lier.

Oh my God, how can you still be in denial about last year? The Allen vs. Webb race was not the entire election. How do you explain the Democratic landslides in Indiana and New Hampshire? There were no major gaffes there. There was a 6 seat pick-up in the Senate, 30+ in the House and both switched control! If thats not a national tidal wave I don't know what is.

If you happen to see what I said, I said "many of the seats" not "all of the seats," as well as "during their terms" not "during their campaigns."  And that doesn't include the few cases where the incumbants were not running.  I wasn't discussing any particular race.  Thank you.

How do you explain the defeats of Jeb Bradley and Jim Leach?

Bradley was an upset, and since I am not too familiar with his district, I can't give you the details on his election.  Leach's was a Republican from a very Democratic district.  With that being the case, it was understandable that he was pro-choice, against the 2003 tax cuts, and voted against the Iraq war.  He barely won in 2002 (4%), so his loss by an even smaller margin (2%) in 2006 wasn't very surprising.  The only surprise was that Loebsack was a write-in candidate.

In both cases, the winner barely spent anything in money. Leach's 2002 opponent was far more well-funded and stronger than Loebsack, who was a no-name professor. The whole reason they won was because of the national wave. Upsets like that don't happen in non-wave years.

Hell, look at my old Rep. He won with over 60% in 2004, was not caught in any real scandals, and his opponent was a high school geography teacher from my town. And he lost.

And that still doesn't take away anything from what I originally said. 

No, you said there was no national wave and most of the people who lost lost because of their own mistakes. But those examples clearly prove there was such a wave.

Why didn't the GOP pick up a SINGLE Senate seat, House seat or Governorship?

After voting for, in series, Rep. Mike Pappas, Dick Zimmer, Mike Ferguson, and Charlie Dent for Congress, I finally voted for a Democrat to the U.S. House in 2006 specifically because of the war issue.

Democrats did have a mandate to take action on the war.  But they're too afraid to do anything (not too surprised) but vote on symbolic bills that are designed to do little more than embarass the Bush Administration.

News flash to Pelosi and Reid: Bush is already unpopular enough.  Stop with all these ridiculous half-hearted attempts, whip your conservatives, and give the nation what it wants, damnit.  Is it any wonder why Congress's approval ratings are slumping to new lows?  Unless you're a poster on Daily Kos, it's hard to get excited over a "vote of no confidence" in Alberto Gonzales.  If you want him gone -- and you do -- impeach him.  You've got at least enough reason to start proceedings.  But you won't, because you have the testicular fortitude of a 6-year-old girl.

Sure, all this stuff will rile up Republicans.  But they're not going to vote for you anyway.

Blah.  Just my two cents.

It doesn't really matter. You're original assessment was still wrong.


Anyway, I disagree with Dean. The Dems won't lose the House for years and Iraq, according to polls, wasn't what elected them.

Bradley, like Benson (and Bass and Bush) lost because New Hampshire has had a huge influx of anti-Republican voters.  Leach lost because of online gambling; haven't you said so yourself?

This is one of the huge myths about my state.

MYTH: Liberals moving up from Massachusetts have turned the state blue.

FACT: The people that are moving up from Massachusetts are voting for Republicans. It's the moderate New Hampshire natives that are voting overwhelmingly for Democrats. Independents are voting for Democrats at almost 70% in New Hampshire right now.

Surprise, surprise....He's just playing public opinion...Oh yeah if we stay in Iraq that will just makes the republicans more popular.

Hate to dig a topic, but you're absolutely correct. The Boston exurbs in NH are still mostly Republican. This also explains why San Joaquin/Stanislaus/San Bernandino/Riverside all swung sharply to the GOP in 2004; because it's people fleeing the high land prices of the Bay Area/LA.