Republicans On the Run: Loss of the House Increasingly Likely

[Republican Michigander]

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.

I partially agree - although I don't know what you consider "Right wing economic policies." I think people support what I consider right wing economic policies, but that I haven't seen them since the middle of John Engler's second term. I consider Bush a liberal on economic issues.

More than anything else, I think it's the defecit spending which is killing us. Both white collar and blue collar voters have had enough of it. Manufacturing Jobs are leaving for other countries, and NAFTA, GATT, CAFTA etc alienating much of the blue collar vote. The immigration issue is heating up again much like in 1996. There room here for a Pat Buchanan type without the racial overtones. 

That's why I think John Dingell types would kill us. Are there many left among the democrats today? Pro-union, moderate on life issues, pro-gun, against NAFTA, at home among people.

Today, I always mention that I'm a 1994 Republican. There are a lot of us in the "Right flank" of the party who are hoping to see people like Mike Pence and Mark Sanford take a more prominent role.

[angus]

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.

NYm!  I haven't seen one of your posts in about a thousand years.  How the hell are you man?  Well, anyway, yeah, that's about right.  The gop best bet is terrorism (and I'd suggest immigration, though that might put a dent in the bandwagon that they have built with about a third of the latino electorate).  Democrats are going to pound on that Katrina issue, but I think its useless, because most democrats and republicans are smart enough to know that natural disasters and other "acts of god" are non-partisan.  (gods are as well, I suspect, but don't tell these guys that!)  Democrats would do well to focus on the elitism and cronyism and the general secrecy of the Bush administration.  Seriously, good to read a nym90 post again, you crazy leftist bastard.

[opebo]

The gop best bet is terrorism...

Hah, that just sounds funny to me!

[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.

NYm!  I haven't seen one of your posts in about a thousand years.  How the hell are you man?  Well, anyway, yeah, that's about right.  The gop best bet is terrorism (and I'd suggest immigration, though that might put a dent in the bandwagon that they have built with about a third of the latino electorate).  Democrats are going to pound on that Katrina issue, but I think its useless, because most democrats and republicans are smart enough to know that natural disasters and other "acts of god" are non-partisan.  (gods are as well, I suspect, but don't tell these guys that!)  Democrats would do well to focus on the elitism and cronyism and the general secrecy of the Bush administration.  Seriously, good to read a nym90 post again, you crazy leftist bastard.

Thanks Angus. Good to see you again too. I'm not quite as crazy or as much of a bastard as I was before. Is that good or bad? Who knows.

I agree that corruption is another big issue that hurts the GOP right now. The whole Abramoff scandal, Duke Cunningham, Delay, etc. None of them are huge in and of themselves, but after a while it kind of piles up. Same thing with Katrina, it's not really an issue in and of itself, but it adds to a general perception of incompetence that has been building from other issues. Suicide by a thousand cuts, if you will.

But the Democrats do need a clear plan. If they don't have one, they won't win. They need to have their own version of the Contract with America.

[angus]

I think the clear plan is to demand a detailed description of the remaining goal in Iraq, for starters.  Iraq has been an expensive project, and the president has made it clear that he has no intention of pulling out for any particular reason, and now that it's been widely reported that Cheney had a raging hard-on for iraq since the Bush vs. Gore dispute was settled, there's no reason to think they will.  And it hasn't made fuel any cheaper and, except for the fact that we haven't had a major attack since 11 September 2001, it doesn't seem to have made us any safer.  For the republicans, the game is to remind folks that it was Bill Clinton's refusal to deal with Osama bin Laden in any meaningful way in the 90s that made Chicago, rather than New york, the home to America's Highest Skyscrapers.  And, frankly, it's a legitimate charge, given the attack on the WTC under Clinton's watch and the shyness about foreign entanglements after Mogadishu.  Over all, though, I think the democrats do have a built-in advantage in terms of being the underdog in a secular bear market, as has been generally pointed out in this thread, but theirs is an uphill battle given the way house seats are drawn.  The senate, though, is an accident of artifical and permanent borders, so that's where I'd put my money if I were into putting money into off-year elections. 

[Nym90]

I agree completely about Iraq, Angus. The longer the whole thing goes on without any perceived progress, the more frustrated people get.

As for Clinton being held responsible for failing to take on terrorism, I don't deny there's some truth in that, but the Republican majority in Congress wasn't exactly talking about it either. I don't think anyone was taking the issue seriously. Bush hardly said anything about it in his campaign in 2000 or as president prior to 9/11. Hindsight is always 20/20. To his credit, Clinton did at least attempt to go after Bin Laden in his last years in office, though the GOP discredited it as a "wag the dog" situation during the Lewinsky affair (again, charges that are not without merit, but create some pretty bad quotes on the part of Republicans in retrospect).

People are always short sighted about potential threats until it's too late. I agree that Clinton could have done more, but no one at the time was focused on terrorism from either party. I don't see how the GOP criticizing Clinton about terrorism now would make any sense since they didn't do it in 2000.

I agree about the Senate possibly being more in play than the House due to gerrymandering. However, the Democrats do have to defend more seats overall than the Republicans in the Senate, which makes the task more difficult there. Although the geography of where Senate seats are being contested does favor the Democrats.

Chicago did have the United States's tallest building prior to 9/11, BTW.

[angus]

Chicago did have the United States's tallest building prior to 9/11, BTW.

D'oh!  That's right.  I'm too sexy to be smart, I guess. 

Oh, and I also thought about this old story when you mentioned corporate shenanigans:


A city boy, Kenny, moved to the country and bought a donkey from an old farmer for $100. The farmer agreed to deliver the donkey the next day.

The next day the farmer drove up and said, "Sorry son, but I have some bad news, the donkey died."

Kenny replied "Well then, just give me my money back."

The farmer said, "Can't do that.  I went and spent it already."

Kenny said, "OK then, just unload the donkey."  And so the farmer asked, "What ya gonna do with him?"

And Kenny replied, "I'm going to raffle him off."
The farmer was a bit astonished, and exclaimed,  "You can't raffle off a dead donkey!"
But Kenny calmly replied, "Sure I can. Watch me. I just won't tell anybody he is dead."

A month later the farmer met up with Kenny and asked, "What happened
with that dead donkey?"  So kenny told him "I raffled him off. I sold 500 tickets at two dollars a piece and made a profit of $898."

The farmer asked, "Didn't anyone complain?"  And kenny answered, "Just the guy who won. So I gave him his two dollars back."

Kenny grew up and eventually became the chairman of Enron.