2006 A Nationalized Midterm Election or Not?

[Blank Slate]

I am interested what other people on this site feel about this question about the 2006 midterm elections for Congress (the House and Senate).

I notice that me and another poster, have a difference of opinion (an interestingly enough I consider myself a Democrat and they considers themselves a Republican).   What makes that last statement interesting is this:   As a Democrat I think I would love for the 2006 elections turn into a Nationalized referendum election (similiar to 1994 and 1946 for the Republicans or 1974 and 1982 for the Democrats) but I'm unsure that will be the case and actually highly doubtful that it will be the case (despite the results of the November 8, 2005 elections), but that other poster (from New Jersey) thinks it will turn into a Nationalized referendum election (although I get the feeling that they consider it will benefit Republicans if it is a Nationalized referendum election).

So what is your opinion on that debate, and feel free discuss, especially the thought of how it would or would not benefit either party for a Nationalized referendum election to occur in 2006, and even how many seats will change hands or pickups for one party or another will occur.       

[ATFFL]

I believe the Democrats will turn it into a nationl election, but will fail to capitalize on this by not putting forward a positive, actionable agenda.

[tarheel-leftist85]

I voted NO.  And I hope it is a localalized election b/c my party is heading down the SAME ominous path it did last year.  "America can do better" is ultimately a losing message.  Also, the success of Dems. is inversely proportional to the outrages du jour (Scooter Libby, flu shots, ect.) and poll reciting (Bush JA, Iraq war polls, etc.) that we do.  I think we can win 7-10 house seats  and 3-4 senate seats by talking about ISSUES, if even vaugely.

[Jake]

So far, the Democrats have gotten to where they are in the polls because Bush has looked like a fool on Iraq, Katrina, and now with the investigation of his aides. They're not guaranteed these same advantages next year, and if they cannot get a solid six months of negative news from May to November, they're going to have to run this election as a national election on the issues. If, the Democrats can bring out their own "Contract with America" and if the Republicans fail to respond to that contract, we could see a Democratic year. So far, all we have are some jarbled ramblings about single payer health care and lowering gas prices. I doubt people are going to be worried about gas prices next year though and without an actual plan for health care, people will respond like in 2004.

[Keystone Phil]

Ask me in either June or July of next year.

[minionofmidas]

Ask me in either June or July of next year.

Ah, that's easy. By then you have an actual chance to know.

Depends. I don't think truly nationalized elections have happened in the US since ...oh, say the New Deal. But certainly, what little swing there has been in recent elections has usually been due to national issues.

[Keystone Phil]

Ah, that's easy. By then you have an actual chance to know.

Exactly.    It's way too early to tell at this point so I won't get into it.

[Harry Hayfield]

No, because unlike our local elections (where rebellions against the government are very common), the House elections are seen to have an effect on the federal government

[Erc]

A lot changed between November 2003 and November 2004...
A lot changed between November 2004 and November 2005...
And a lot can certainly change between November 2005 and November 2006.

At this point, it's looking likely...but it's rarely possible to underestimate the competence of the Democrats...

[Blank Slate]

Ask me in either June or July of next year.

Yeah, that is too easy.  Although, I did write in my creating the poll that it will remain up just past the November 7, 2006 election day.

[Ben.]

Not unless the Dems get a coherent policy agenda which they can campaign nationally on... which I sadly doubt, so far on social security, health care, foreign policy etc... the Dems are offering nothing new, let alone inventive. 

We need a Democratic agenda to reform social security, not simply defending the status quo, social security needs modernising but what being offered by the GOP simply isn’t acceptable. On top of this practical, effective polices need to be thrashed out on “bread and butter” issues which are more than simply the same warmed up, expensive socially democratic polices of the past and a clear, strong but sensible approach on foreign policy and most importantly Iraq is also needed.

The American people, want and deserve a choice between competing visions of the future, not a Democratic party offering a policy settlement which takes no account of the modern world and a Republican Party with an equally unrealistic but at least forward looking agenda. – Doubt they’ll get it though , the partisan extremists and special interests on both sides wouldn’t let them.

[Democratic Hawk]

Yes, I think national issues will dominate the Midterm Elections; however, it is paramount that Democrats select "electable" candidates in marginal GOP districts and, in the South, they can start by running a few more Blue Dogs

Bush's and Congress' unpopularity alone will not be enough for Democrats to gain control of either the Senate or the House. Besides, I want Democrats to win with a moderate and pragmatic agenda that resonates with the American people

If the Democrats win by default and that alone, then they will be out on their arses before you can say 2008

Dave

[WMS]

Not unless the Dems get a coherent policy agenda which they can campaign nationally on... which I sadly doubt, so far on social security, health care, foreign policy etc... the Dems are offering nothing new, let alone inventive. 

We need a Democratic agenda to reform social security, not simply defending the status quo, social security needs modernising but what being offered by the GOP simply isn’t acceptable. On top of this practical, effective polices need to be thrashed out on “bread and butter” issues which are more than simply the same warmed up, expensive socially democratic polices of the past and a clear, strong but sensible approach on foreign policy and most importantly Iraq is also needed.

The American people, want and deserve a choice between competing visions of the future, not a Democratic party offering a policy settlement which takes no account of the modern world and a Republican Party with an equally unrealistic but at least forward looking agenda. – Doubt they’ll get it though , the partisan extremists and special interests on both sides wouldn’t let them.

Ben's got a good point here.

Are the Republicans vulnerable? Yes.
Can the Democrats take advantage of that vulnerability? Err, I'll get back to you when the Dems actually have a national plan...but right now I'd say No.

[TheresNoMoney]

Democrats will release their comprehensive plan most likely in January.

This is a little early but so many people are calling for one they've decided it needs to come out soon.

[WMS]

Democrats will release their comprehensive plan most likely in January.

This is a little early but so many people are calling for one they've decided it needs to come out soon.

It better cover everything...since the Dems haven't really had one since 1994.

[TheresNoMoney]

It better cover everything...since the Dems haven't really had one since 1994.

Neither have Republicans.

[Frodo]

Democrats will release their comprehensive plan most likely in January.

Where did you hear this?

[TheresNoMoney]

Where did you hear this?

TV interviews and the internet. Howard Dean said in the past week it is coming "very soon". However, I don't see them releasing it before Christmas.

[Frodo]

Where did you hear this?

TV interviews and the internet. Howard Dean said in the past week it is coming "very soon". However, I don't see them releasing it before Christmas.

By 'internet' do you mean sites like DailyKos as opposed to more mainstream news sources? 

[TheresNoMoney]

By 'internet' do you mean sites like DailyKos as opposed to more mainstream news sources? 

DailyKos uses links to "mainstream" sources. I wish you would quit spouting the meme that just because it came from Daily Kos makes it "not credible".  Daily Kos doesn't report its own news, it almost always links to other news sources and comments on them.

And actually, I don't remember where I saw it on the internet.

[WMS]

It better cover everything...since the Dems haven't really had one since 1994.

Neither have Republicans.

Oh, they've had one...you may not like it, but they've had a plan.

[TheresNoMoney]

Oh, they've had one...you may not like it, but they've had a plan.

What plan are you talking about? Lower taxes, privatize everything, free trade, corporate welfare?

[WMS]

Oh, they've had one...you may not like it, but they've had a plan.

What plan are you talking about? Lower taxes, privatize everything, free trade, corporate welfare?

Can you say they have failed to achieve it?

[TheresNoMoney]

Can you say they have failed to achieve it?

They've made significant progress in all four.

How about this for a Democratic plan? Energy independence, fiscal responsibility, universal healthcare, honest and open government, ethics reform, investment in emerging economic industries, and flexible plan for withdrawal from Iraq.

[WMS]

Can you say they have failed to achieve it?

They've made significant progress in all four.

How about this for a Democratic plan? Energy independence, fiscal responsibility, universal healthcare, honest and open government, ethics reform, investment in emerging economic industries, and flexible plan for withdrawal from Iraq.

It sounds better than the void they have so far. The devil is in the details, of course.