Could 2006 Be Another 1994?

[Sam Spade]

Gerrymandering.

Most of the Democrats who were defeated in 1994 were moderates.

If 1994 happens this year, the same thing will occur.  Just the way it normally happens.

[Frodo]

Democrats will come up with a set agenda of policy items in due time -what I am more worried about is how they will use their majorities in Congress (if and when they get them).  To be sure, I want President Bush to be held accountable, but I don't want our desire for vengeance to define our tenure, or our Congressional majorities will not last past 2008.   

I'm not sure they can come up with a positive message that will sell.

The left wing of the party has a stranglehold and is a tremendous liability, probably driving off more voters than they attract, and forcing the party to take positions that ensure minority status.

The Republicans really didn't have this problem in 1994.

I share your concern about what the Democrats would do if they won control.  They seem to have nothing but anger and vitriol, and no positive program.  They would just use their time to hound Bush, and it could very well backfire, costing them their majority and the presidency in 2008.

If you really think about it, to have Democrats controlling Congress and 'hounding' President Bush would be the best possible outcome for your party, allowing the GOP to take a breather, and use the resulting backlash from all the investigations to take back Congress and retain the White House in Republican hands for another four years -at least.

For this reason I prefer letting your party retain control of Congress this November, but with margins so slim you won't be able to accomplish much if anything.  As I said in another post in another thread, this way you (the GOP) will get the blame for whatever goes wrong as the party in power, but virtually none of the benefits accruing to that status.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Do you overreact much?    

[Nym90]

Yeah, Dazzleman is just a tad overboard in his descriptions of Democrats. He's entitled to his opinion, but I don't think it reflects the reality of what Democrats actually believe, at least not the vast majority of them. Perhaps someone should make some polls to see what percentage of Dems actually believe this stuff.

Investigations of the President would be risky. On the one hand, some really nefarious stuff might be found, which would hurt Bush badly. On the other hand, if nothing bad is found, then it backfires on the Democrats. It all depends on what the results are, and whether it is conducted as an honest fact-finding mission or a witchhunt. I do think that some things which have been swept under the rug should be looked at, but it should not be an obsessive focus of government.

In any event, I'd always prefer to have control then to not have it. I hate to sound like Jfern here, as you are one of the best Democrats on this board and we need a lot more people like you, but it could well be argued that if you think a party would be so bad if in control that you wish that they lost, then why would you identify with that party? I think it's an honest question. I understand perfectly what you mean about a backlash, and that's definitely something to be wary of.

If I understand you correctly, you seem to be saying that you would rather the Democrats win the White House in 2008, with the hopes that they would take Congress as well, rather than win Congress in 2006, which perhaps puts any victory in 2008 in jeopardy.

[Frodo]

In any event, I'd always prefer to have control then to not have it. I hate to sound like Jfern here, as you are one of the best Democrats on this board and we need a lot more people like you, but it could well be argued that if you think a party would be so bad if in control that you wish that they lost, then why would you identify with that party? I think it's an honest question.

It would be nice if I could strategize and speak freely as a Democrat without having my party loyalty questioned as a result........

Nym -I look at past elections, and it is clear in hindsight that we would have done much better had, for instance, President Ford won in 1976, rather than Jimmy Carter.  Does this suddenly make me a Republican?

Being a Democrat involves more than just blindly hoping we win each and every single election whether it benefits us in the long-run or not.  We have to pick and choose our battles, and I believe it would benefit this party if we lose some elections rather than others.  1976 is one such example -2006 would be another.       

Also, if you see me as being so disaffected that I would actively hope this party loses this election, then perhaps you should ask yourself why have I become so disaffected in the first place. 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Perhaps I should explain my thinking here:

As long as George W. Bush remains president, we are never going to move beyond our collective (unhealthy, IMO) obsession with him as a party.  We run the grave risk this year of running not on the merits of our ideas but on our hatred of President Bush.  And if we win this year based primarily on that visceral hatred of Bush, it will reflect on how we govern, and the American people will not look kindly on it.  If our ambition is to construct a governing majority coalition that would replace the conservative Republican coalition currently in its twilight years, this is no way to go about doing it. 

This is why we would be better off winning in 2008 -President Bush will be on his way out by then, and we would be less likely to be fixated on his person, in addition to the fact that we could actually get legislation passed with not just the Congress but also the White House in Democratic hands if we win that year.   

[Nym90]

I appreciate the response, Frodo. I was certainly not questioning your loyalty to the party at all, I was merely asking an honest question, and I got an excellent answer.

I agree that there is certainly the possibility of overreaching by a Democratic Congress. 1976 is a bit of a different circumstance, in that I think things were going to go badly no matter which party was in power. Thus, in retrospect, yes, it would be better for the other party to be in power and take the blame.

I'm not nearly as cynical about the Democrats' ability to put forward a positive message and to govern effectively in the next two years. I hope my faith is not misplaced.

I definitely believe the country would be better off with a Democratic majority now, even if it hurts us somewhat in 2008. I am confident that we can win Congress, govern effectively, and then win the White House and keep Congress in 2008.

[12th Doctor]

How is it that the conservative Republican cooalition "must" be in its "twilight years"?  Because they have run the table (sporadically) for 12 years now?  The liberal Democratic cooalition ran the table for about 50 years.

The Republicans have merely hit a rough spot right now.  And even if it costs us a term in the White House and a couple of congresses, we will recover.

Personally, what we really need to do it figure out how to keep the "conservative" while at the same time getting rid of our dependence on the immigrant bashing, racist, gay-hateing, science-destroying, holy-than-thou-art, red-necks and evangelical "Christians" that we have become so needy upon to win.  As 2000 proved, they aren't loyal members of the team anyway.  All we need to have is a situation where we run a candidate who is not a WASP or is in someway morally imprefect and they will leave us so fast the only way you will ever know they were there would be the cross burning on the front lawn.

So, we loose 5% in the South... like we really need it.  In the meantime, we would gain mega votes in Midwestern, western and mid-Atlantic suburbs for no longer being the enemies of reality.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Democrats will come up with a set agenda of policy items in due time -what I am more worried about is how they will use their majorities in Congress (if and when they get them).  To be sure, I want President Bush to be held accountable, but I don't want our desire for vengeance to define our tenure, or our Congressional majorities will not last past 2008.   

I'm not sure they can come up with a positive message that will sell.

The left wing of the party has a stranglehold and is a tremendous liability, probably driving off more voters than they attract, and forcing the party to take positions that ensure minority status.

The Republicans really didn't have this problem in 1994.

I share your concern about what the Democrats would do if they won control.  They seem to have nothing but anger and vitriol, and no positive program.  They would just use their time to hound Bush, and it could very well backfire, costing them their majority and the presidency in 2008.

If you really think about it, to have Democrats controlling Congress and 'hounding' President Bush would be the best possible outcome for your party, allowing the GOP to take a breather, and use the resulting backlash from all the investigations to take back Congress and retain the White House in Republican hands for another four years -at least.

For this reason I prefer letting your party retain control of Congress this November, but with margins so slim you won't be able to accomplish much if anything.  As I said in another post in another thread, this way you (the GOP) will get the blame for whatever goes wrong as the party in power, but virtually none of the benefits accruing to that status.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Do you overreact much?    

And you wonder why I never get along with him. Remember, this is the guy you said you'd vote for over a good loyal Democrat like jfern.

[Harry Hayfield]

Well, I'm just wondering if it might be, but there is one major concern in my books. Let's say that there is a uniform 5% swing from GOP to Dem (compared with 2004), how many GOP congressmen would go down and how many INCUMBENTS would go down? If what I have heard is true, the answers will be less than 50 and zero for the second one.

[Sam Spade]

Well, I'm just wondering if it might be, but there is one major concern in my books. Let's say that there is a uniform 5% swing from GOP to Dem (compared with 2004), how many GOP congressmen would go down and how many INCUMBENTS would go down? If what I have heard is true, the answers will be less than 50 and zero for the second one.

Well, in a certain sense, you're asking the best case scenario.  The problem is, that this never happens.  There are certain incumbents in danger CDs whose support will hold on and others who won't.  Also, the simple fact of being incumbents makes them stronger than they would otherwise.  The GOP has done a fairly good job of keeping those incumbents in marginal CDs this year, but still some are still vulnerable.  Keep in mind, also, that scandal could affect other incumbents that are not within this window.

Anyway, I saw this posted on another site by a poster I respect greatly on these matters.  If you compare the Congressional partisan index (this is what Charlie Cook uses to gauge House races) from 1992/1996 and the one from 2000/2004 against the seats won in 1994 and the seats that are seriously in contention in 2006, you come up with this fact:

If the Democrats were to achieve a reverse 1994, a respective mirror of those results, they would gain somewhere in the range of 18-24 seats in the House.

[Nym90]

Well, I'm just wondering if it might be, but there is one major concern in my books. Let's say that there is a uniform 5% swing from GOP to Dem (compared with 2004), how many GOP congressmen would go down and how many INCUMBENTS would go down? If what I have heard is true, the answers will be less than 50 and zero for the second one.

Well, in a certain sense, you're asking the best case scenario.  The problem is, that this never happens.  There are certain incumbents in danger CDs whose support will hold on and others who won't.  Also, the simple fact of being incumbents makes them stronger than they would otherwise.  The GOP has done a fairly good job of keeping those incumbents in marginal CDs this year, but still some are still vulnerable.  Keep in mind, also, that scandal could affect other incumbents that are not within this window.

Anyway, I saw this posted on another site by a poster I respect greatly on these matters.  If you compare the Congressional partisan index (this is what Charlie Cook uses to gauge House races) from 1992/1996 and the one from 2000/2004 against the seats won in 1994 and the seats that are seriously in contention in 2006, you come up with this fact:

If the Democrats were to achieve a reverse 1994, a respective mirror of those results, they would gain somewhere in the range of 18-24 seats in the House.

That seems about right.

I would note that Bush's approval ratings, however, are worse now than Clinton's were in 1994, so if anything, I would think the Democrats could do better than simply reversing 1994.

[dazzleman]

Democrats will come up with a set agenda of policy items in due time -what I am more worried about is how they will use their majorities in Congress (if and when they get them).  To be sure, I want President Bush to be held accountable, but I don't want our desire for vengeance to define our tenure, or our Congressional majorities will not last past 2008.   

I'm not sure they can come up with a positive message that will sell.

The left wing of the party has a stranglehold and is a tremendous liability, probably driving off more voters than they attract, and forcing the party to take positions that ensure minority status.

The Republicans really didn't have this problem in 1994.

I share your concern about what the Democrats would do if they won control.  They seem to have nothing but anger and vitriol, and no positive program.  They would just use their time to hound Bush, and it could very well backfire, costing them their majority and the presidency in 2008.

If you really think about it, to have Democrats controlling Congress and 'hounding' President Bush would be the best possible outcome for your party, allowing the GOP to take a breather, and use the resulting backlash from all the investigations to take back Congress and retain the White House in Republican hands for another four years -at least.

For this reason I prefer letting your party retain control of Congress this November, but with margins so slim you won't be able to accomplish much if anything.  As I said in another post in another thread, this way you (the GOP) will get the blame for whatever goes wrong as the party in power, but virtually none of the benefits accruing to that status.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Do you overreact much?    

I hope I'm overreacting, but I have a deeply ingrained hostility to that party based upon years of observation and experience.

As for BRTD, he's far worse than I in his attitude toward Republicans, so he's in no position to be too critical of me.

[Gabu]

I hope I'm overreacting, but I have a deeply ingrained hostility to that party based upon years of observation and experience.

I've been beginning to wonder whether or not you actually believe a lot of the stuff you've been saying lately, because - no offense - a lot of it has seemed like a parody of yourself.

[dazzleman]

I hope I'm overreacting, but I have a deeply ingrained hostility to that party based upon years of observation and experience.

I've been beginning to wonder whether or not you actually believe a lot of the stuff you've been saying lately, because - no offense - a lot of it has seemed like a parody of yourself.

Believe what you want.  I am quite hostile to the Democrats for a number of reasons, which I believe to be valid.

Being a moderate doesn't mean believing in nothing, or splitting the difference between right and wrong, and you seem to think.  I don't mean to pick a fight with you, but it seems that you take offense to strong views of any kind.

Part of my issue may be a local one.  Democrats in New York City are an extremely offensive breed, probably far worse than average, and that could be coloring my opinions. 

Just today, I was reading about how the liberal NYC Democrat who is the speaker of the state assembly has been blocking a bill to allow prosecution of sex criminals against whom there has been positive DNA identification.  When he finally agreed, under much pressure, to allow a vote on the bill, he added a poison pill designed to kill the bill in the State Senate.  The Democratic-controlled assembly has inflicted untold criminal atrocities on the state through its pro-criminal positions, and its refusal over the years to consider positive measures against crime.

Maybe I am wrong, and these positions don't represent the position of most Democrats.  I've been looking in vain for years for any indication of that.

[Alcon]

Maybe I am wrong, and these positions don't represent the position of most Democrats.  I've been looking in vain for years for any indication of that.

I sympathise...to an extent.  Seattle's leftists may be bubbling and acidic, but they do know when to shut up better than, say, those in San Francisco, New York, or other similarly liberal cities.  However, there is plenty of insane liberalism.

I do not, though, see how you cannot find moderation in the Democrats.  What of, say, Lieberman?  You also must consider that you live in Connecticut - by and large, a pleasantly suburban state surrounded by pleasantly suburban areas that would never consider electing a Ray Moore.  But move to virtually any other part of the country and you are a short drive from the Christian rightist heartlands - the wheat fields which, for every two amiable rightist populists also produce a fire-and-brimstone fundamentalist.

Really, it's not surprising that we hear more about crazy liberals than crazy conservatives.  Cities are the most liberal areas, and certainly no one is closely tracking what officials in Glasscock County, Texas, are doing (other than people looking for some very strange porn).  They may get less power, but they're no less crazy, and I really do not think they represent significantly less of the population.

[Nym90]

Maybe I am wrong, and these positions don't represent the position of most Democrats.  I've been looking in vain for years for any indication of that.

I sympathise...to an extent.  Seattle's leftists may be bubbling and acidic, but they do know when to shut up better than, say, those in San Francisco, New York, or other similarly liberal cities.  However, there is plenty of insane liberalism.

I do not, though, see how you cannot find moderation in the Democrats.  What of, say, Lieberman?  You also must consider that you live in Connecticut - by and large, a pleasantly suburban state surrounded by pleasantly suburban areas that would never consider electing a Ray Moore.  But move to virtually any other part of the country and you are a short drive from the Christian rightist heartlands - the wheat fields which, for every two amiable rightist populists produces a fire-and-brimstone fundamentalist.

Really, it's not surprising that we hear more about crazy liberals than crazy conservatives.  Cities are the most liberal areas, and certainly no one is closely tracking the county offices in Glasscock, Texas (other than people looking for some very strange porn).  They may get less power, but they're no less crazy, and I really do not think they represent significantly less of the population.

You raise an excellent point. One's political views are clearly skewed by the conditions in which they live. In a liberal part of the country like the Northeast or the West Coast, the Democratic party is more likely to be extreme, and the Republican party moderate. However, if one lives in a place like the South, Great Plains, or Rocky Mountain West, the opposite will be true. Therefore, if someone tends to be a moderate, they will be likely to support the party that is in the minority in their particular area.

Having grown up in a rural area with very little crime, a spectacularly clean environment, almost no racial diversity, and fantastic public schools probably makes me more liberal than I would be if I had grown up in an inner-city area.

[dazzleman]

Maybe I am wrong, and these positions don't represent the position of most Democrats.  I've been looking in vain for years for any indication of that.

I sympathise...to an extent.  Seattle's leftists may be bubbling and acidic, but they do know when to shut up better than, say, those in San Francisco, New York, or other similarly liberal cities.  However, there is plenty of insane liberalism.

I do not, though, see how you cannot find moderation in the Democrats.  What of, say, Lieberman?  You also must consider that you live in Connecticut - by and large, a pleasantly suburban state surrounded by pleasantly suburban areas that would never consider electing a Ray Moore.  But move to virtually any other part of the country and you are a short drive from the Christian rightist heartlands - the wheat fields which, for every two amiable rightist populists produces a fire-and-brimstone fundamentalist.

Really, it's not surprising that we hear more about crazy liberals than crazy conservatives.  Cities are the most liberal areas, and certainly no one is closely tracking the county offices in Glasscock, Texas (other than people looking for some very strange porn).  They may get less power, but they're no less crazy, and I really do not think they represent significantly less of the population.

You raise an excellent point. One's political views are clearly skewed by the conditions in which they live. In a liberal part of the country like the Northeast or the West Coast, the Democratic party is more likely to be extreme, and the Republican party moderate. However, if one lives in a place like the South, Great Plains, or Rocky Mountain West, the opposite will be true. Therefore, if someone tends to be a moderate, they will be likely to support the party that is in the minority in their particular area.

Having grown up in a rural area with very little crime, a spectacularly clean environment, almost no racial diversity, and fantastic public schools probably makes me more liberal than I would be if I had grown up in an inner-city area.

I agree Eric.  You live in a place where liberalism was virtually cost-free, so there was little reason for you not to adopt it.

Where I come from, it has come at a very high cost, though that is not apparent for all to see.  I've witnessed it all my life, and I believe the true effects of liberalism give the lie to the claims of compassion and moral superiority to which liberals like to make.

[Alcon]

But why do you allow that to influence your national view?  We live in a world of 24-hour news and the Internet.  Surely, the New York City political scene isn't the only relevant news market, and it definitely isn't the only one you have access to.  Why allow NYC alone to spoil the Democratic Party in every single instance for you?  I do not really understand that.  It's not like there aren't moderate Democrats who think NYC liberals are nuts too.  That doesn't stop them from believing what they believe in just because they happen to be in the same party, just like how extremist Republicans don't stop you from being a straight-ticketer.  It just happens that Connecticut has few of them.

[dazzleman]

But why do you allow that to influence your national view?  We live in a world of 24-hour news and the Internet.  Surely, the New York City political scene isn't the only relevant news market, and it definitely isn't the only one you have access to.  Why allow NYC alone to spoil the Democratic Party in every single instance for you?  I do not really understand that.  It's not like there aren't moderate Democrats who think NYC liberals are nuts too.  That doesn't stop them from believing what they believe in just because they happen to be in the same party, just like how extremist Republicans don't stop you from being a straight-ticketer.  It just happens that Connecticut has few of them.

Let's be clear -- I oppose many of the ideas and priorities of the Democratic party on practical and philosophical grounds.  That is a long-standing situation, and applies to the national party, not just to the New York City nutjobs.

The NYC wackos are the icing on the cake, and they are what gives my opposition to the Democrats some of its intensity.

I do believe in the two-party system, and I would not like to see the Republicans without effective opposition.  I don't think the Republicans are always right on everything, and I think good competition makes them a better party.

In that sense, I would like to see the Democrats improve, and become a better opposition party, even if they win more elections as a result.  I may never become a Democrat, but if that were to happen, I would respect the party as a whole a lot more.

[Alcon]

Let's be clear -- I oppose many of the ideas and priorities of the Democratic party on practical and philosophical grounds.  That is a long-standing situation, and applies to the national party, not just to the New York City nutjobs.

Certianly.

The NYC wackos are the icing on the cake, and they are what gives my opposition to the Democrats some of its intensity.

I suppose if you are looking for intensity, you can find it there.  But do extremist conservatives make you more wary about the GOP, too?

I do believe in the two-party system, and I would not like to see the Republicans without effective opposition.  I don't think the Republicans are always right on everything, and I think good competition makes them a better party.

In that sense, I would like to see the Democrats improve, and become a better opposition party, even if they win more elections as a result.  I may never become a Democrat, but if that were to happen, I would respect the party as a whole a lot more.

I believe you have said in the past that you are willing to vote against moderate Democrats because they are in the Democratic Party.  Don't you think this discourages the Dems from becoming a better party?  Should the moderate Democrats be saddled by extremist liberals any more than the moderate Republicans by the extremist rightists?  The Democrats aren't going to improve unless moderates aren't punished just for their party affiliation (if this makes sense).

[© tweed]

I don't think the Republicans are always right on everything

I don't believe that.  Just because you throw this out there as a disclaimed doesn't make it true.

[Nym90]

To give Dazzleman credit, he has said he is going to vote for Lieberman.

[dazzleman]

I don't think the Republicans are always right on everything

I don't believe that.  Just because you throw this out there as a disclaimed doesn't make it true.

Whatever you say Boss.  You know all.

[Alcon]

I don't think the Republicans are always right on everything

I don't believe that.  Just because you throw this out there as a disclaimed doesn't make it true.

What's up with you, man?  Lately, you've been doing nothing but rude one-off posts that don't actually contribute anything, but just make general statements with no interesting comments.

[© tweed]

I don't think the Republicans are always right on everything

I don't believe that.  Just because you throw this out there as a disclaimed doesn't make it true.

What's up with you, man?  Lately, you've been doing nothing but rude one-off posts that don't actually contribute anything, but just make general statements with no interesting comments.

That was the only rude one-off post I can remember in this past month.

I just get mad reading dazzle's posts sometimes because he always will say things like 'the republicans aren't perfect' and 'I don't always agree with them' but in reality, he hardly ever says anything bad about them and hardly ever disagrees with them.  Which is fine, but don't try to act like it isn't true.

Still, he's a good man.  See that thread I made in early march when I was hammered.

[Nym90]

I think it's called being partisan. We are all guilty of it at some point or another.

If you sincerely believe that one party is better than another, than the overall thrust of your comments will be skewed by that, since you are trying to achieve a goal of getting more people to vote for your party and against the other. So the ratio of positive and negative statements that you make about each party does not necessarily reflect your actual overall feelings, because you are trying to persuade people to vote for your party, which obviously can be best done by emphasizing the negatives of the opposition and deemphasizing your own party's negatives.