Positioning for 2008

[dazzleman]

Which election outcome leaves the Republicans in a better position for 2008?

Will the party be better off maintaining its congressional control by a very narrow margin?  Or would it be better off losing to the Democrats this year and re-grouping?

Discuss the implications of each case.

If the Republicans end up with a non-functional majority and are unable to accomplish anything in the next two years, does this leave them even worse off in 2008?

Might a win by the Democrats this year force the Republicans to come up with a rationale for their return to power other than power for its own sake?

Might a win by the Democrats force the president to make some changes he doesn't want to make, but that may benefit him and the party, as well as the country?

If the Republicans win a non-functional majority and are forced to continue to defend a weak and vulnerable position, while accepting full responsibility for governing, does that doom the party in 2008?

This could also be looked at from the Democrats' perspective.  Would a win by the Democrats arouse the GOP base if they overplay their hand?

[bullmoose88]

Really depends, as Al said, its never a good thing when a party loses power; however, what is key is that regardless of the magnitude of the negative outcome (which it will be, unless one sets the bar really low) is how the GOP responds and learns from its loss (relative or actual).

Thats how I see it. Oh yeah, an quick analysis of either outcome

Smaller Majorities
Pro: Continue to hold power while, hopefully learning some lessons
Con: Means the Republican Party is "responsible" for whatever happens between now and Nov 2008, for better or worse.

Loss of Complete Control of Congress
Pro: Democrats to blame if things turn south, or some part of the GOP agenda doesn't get passed. (Thus firing up Republicans and some non democrats alike.) Forces the GOP to learn and move on.
Con: Loss of power, and if things improve, the perception (rightly or wrongly) that the Democrats caused it.

But for me, its if the party learns from its mistakes. Thats the key, regardless of what happens.

[DownWithTheLeft]

Democrats take house is the best thing for Republicans, and I can guarantee they'll gain at least TX-22 and FL-16 back if they lose them.  They also are poised for senate gains in 2008.

[NewFederalist]

I have absolutely no idea!

[Nym90]

An interesting question.

I agree with Al that winning is pretty much universally always good, and losing always bad. If you truly believe your party is better than your opponents, then you think the country will be better off with your party in control, and ultimately that's what it should be all about, making the country a better place. Winning just for the sake of winning and holding power is repugnant in my view, and both parties of course have a tendency to get that way once they've been in power for a long time; right now, that would be the Republicans.

So from a practical standpoint, anyone who is actually cheering for their party to lose either has absolutely no confidence in their party or basically only cares about power and not the country's best interests, neither of which is admirable of course. I hvae confidence that the Democrats would be much better off allowing the country to see their true selves rather than be marginalized in the minority, so I voted for option 1.

Looking at the question politically, it all depends on how things go the next two years. If the Democrats win control and make positive change, they can improve the country's image of them. If they go too far and overreach, the public will swing back toward the GOP.

I think the public would really prefer divided government to keep both sides in check, and at this point the Democrats need to realize that the President is still in power and that a victory would be more a mandate for divided government than it would be an outright endorsement of Democratic policies. If the Democrats do win, it will be to act as a check and balance against the Republicans, just as the Republican victories in 1994 were to ensure a balance against a Democratic President moreso than an endorsement of the Republican agenda.

[dazzleman]

One thing you said that I didn't understand Eric is that people could hope for their own party's defeat because they cared about power.  Wouldn't the opposite be true?

People can also change their party identification.  A person could prefer Democratic positions in one year, and Republican positions in another.  I don't think party identification is as fixed as you imply it is.

[Nym90]

One thing you said that I didn't understand Eric is that people could hope for their own party's defeat because they cared about power.  Wouldn't the opposite be true?

People can also change their party identification.  A person could prefer Democratic positions in one year, and Republican positions in another.  I don't think party identification is as fixed as you imply it is.

Well, you are very right about party ID. Obviously independents or others who change ID don't fit into that model.

What I meant was that while it may be true that losing this year might end up increasing the GOP's chances of victory in 2008, I would think that most Republicans should prefer their party stay in power to save America from the evils of a Democratic majority. Wishing for your party's defeat because it might help it for the future would seem to me to smack more of simply caring about winning or losing rather than what's best for the country.

But yeah, now that you point it out, I guess my point sounds somewhat contradictory.

[dazzleman]

One thing you said that I didn't understand Eric is that people could hope for their own party's defeat because they cared about power.  Wouldn't the opposite be true?

People can also change their party identification.  A person could prefer Democratic positions in one year, and Republican positions in another.  I don't think party identification is as fixed as you imply it is.

Well, you are very right about party ID. Obviously independents or others who change ID don't fit into that model.

What I meant was that while it may be true that losing this year might end up increasing the GOP's chances of victory in 2008, I would think that most Republicans should prefer their party stay in power to save America from the evils of a Democratic majority. Wishing for your party's defeat because it might help it for the future would seem to me to smack more of simply caring about winning or losing rather than what's best for the country.

But yeah, now that you point it out, I guess my point sounds somewhat contradictory.

Well, it depends on whether you take a short-term or long-term view.  No party can stay in power forever, no matter how well they play their cards.  Sooner or later, something will come along and knock them out.

So the question really is whether now is a fortuitous time to regroup and fortify for the longer term.

[Gabu]

As I've said in another topic, the only way that losing Congress in 2006 could be good for the GOP is if it's absolutely inevitable that the Democrats will screw everything up once they get into power, and if that were the case, the GOP would never really have anything to worry about, ever, so it wouldn't matter what happens whether in 2006 or in 2008.

[MODU]

I would say a loss in Congress would do the GOP a better service than retaining Congress.  With a loss, they would have at least one year to show how ineffective the Dems were (if that was the case) and contrast that with all of their hot air prior to the election.  That would give them a case to build off of in the run-up to the 2008 elections.

[Gabu]

I would say a loss in Congress would do the GOP a better service than retaining Congress.  With a loss, they would have at least one year to show how ineffective the Dems were (if that was the case) and contrast that with all of their hot air prior to the election.  That would give them a case to build off of in the run-up to the 2008 elections.

And if the Democrats won back Congress in 2008, would that not give the GOP a year to "at least one year to show how ineffective the Dems were (if that was the case) and contrast that with all of their hot air prior to the election"?

I still fail to see how winning in 2006 is different from winning in 2008.

[Alcon]

Unfortunately for the GOP, many people don't pay much attention.  If Bush is still very unpopular in 2008, he can potentially easily overshadow the Democrats' screwing up.  With such an aggressive executive, Bush's success in blaming the Democrats for his inability to get things done will probably wear thin.

It's such a multi-faceted question that it is hard to answer.

EDIT: MODU, are you really seeing all that much "hot air" from the Democrats?  And do you really think the GOP, after the past six years, has any right to complain about "hot air"?  They even had the executive branch, and look what they did.

[MODU]

EDIT: MODU, are you really seeing all that much "hot air" from the Democrats?  And do you really think the GOP, after the past six years, has any right to complain about "hot air"?  They even had the executive branch, and look what they did.

In the context that this election really hasn't been much on issues or an agenday on the Democrat side ala 1994, so the assumption that they will actually be productive in 2006-2007 is right now low.  If/when they win next week, that will be based on the hot air/lack of production by the GOP in the past two years.  However, the GOP did run in 2004 with an agenda which they haven't been able to complete, unlike the GOP of 1994.

[Sam Spade]

I really don't see the Republicans maintaining the House, so that question is probably off the radar for me.

The only way I really know how to measure the future is to look at past elections where Presidential incumbents in their sixth years have lost control of one or both chambers (or not) and what happened in the following Presidential years.

For simplicities' sake, it is probably best to keep this analysis to post-WWII era.

1950
Harry Truman's (D) (in effect) 6th year, also seated during an unpopular war.

Democrats lose 28 seats, fall to a 235-199-1 majority in the House.
Democrats lose 5 seats, fall to a 51-49 majority in the Senate.

1952
Dwight D. Eisenhower (R) wins in a landslide, 55%-44%.

Democrats lose 22 seats, fall to a 213-221-1 minority in the House.  As we know, in the next election, Democrats gained back the House, not to lose it again until 1994.
Democrats lose 2 seats, one to an Independent, fall to a 49-50-1 minority in the Senate.
1958
Dwight D. Eisenhower's (R) sixth year in office, during bad economic times.

Republicans lose 48 seats, fall to a 153-283-1 minority in the House.
Republicans lose 13 seats, fall to a 35-65 minority in the Senate.

1960
John F. Kennedy (D) barely beats Richard Nixon (R) for the Presidency, separated by about 100,000 votes.

Republicans gain 21 seats, maintain a 174-263 minority in the House.
Republicans gain 1 seat, maintain a 36-64 minority in the Senate.
1966
Lyndon B. Johnson (D) in the midst of a growing unpopular war.

Democrats lose 48 seats, fall to a 247-187 majority in the House.
Democrats lose 3 seats, maintain a 64-36 majority in the Senate.

1968
Richard M. Nixon (R) barely defeats Hubert Humphrey (D) in a highly splintered election.

Democrats lose 4 seats, fall to a 243-192 majority in the House.
Democrats lose 5 seats, fall to a 59-41 majority in the Senate.

I'll do 1974, 1986 and 1998 later when I feel like it.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

The thing about the Senate elections 6 years into a Presidency is that Bush coat-tailed NEGATIVE 4 Senators in when he "won" in 2000. This is not at all comparable to the coat-tails of FDR 1932, Eisenhower 1952, Reagan 1980, and so on.

[Citizen James]

Well, if the GOP is crushed it might  give "real"  conservatives a chance to  retake the party.   Right now they've  got so many of their own members whipped so  badly that they might as well be a European style proportional parlament.

Fiscial reponsibility has been outright abandoned, smaller government is little more than a catchphrase, we are using up our millitary supples  far faster than we can replenish it and millitary readyness is at it''s lowest point in several decades.

These aren't conservatives, they're thieves with an (R) next to their name.  Perhaps, just perhaps, if we can turn these rascals out the noble opposition of those who  truely believe in  the individual and the strength of  our  cherished ideals will return at last.