Time: Scrambling Republicans On Verge Of Losing House Of Representatives And Close To Losing Senate
Time reports that there’s a sinking feeling now on the part of Republicans. Its sub-headline says it all:
If the midterm elections were held today, top strategists of both parties say privately, the Republicans would probably lose the 15 seats they need to keep control of the House of Representatives.
How bad is it? According to Time, there’s even a slim chance — versus the remote, no-way Jose, you’ve gotta be kidding chance analysts diagnosed a short time ago – that the Demmies can take over the Senate, too:
The midterm contests in a President’s second term are almost always treacherous, but this time around, Republicans thought it would be different. The 2006 elections, coming on top of their gains in 2002 and 2004, would make history and perhaps even cement a g.o.p. majority in Congress for a generation. George W. Bush’s credibility on national security and the states’ aggressive gerrymandering, they believed, had turned the vast majority of districts into fortresses for incumbents. But that’s not turning out to be the case.In recent weeks, a startling realization has begun to take hold: if the elections were held today, top strategists of both parties say privately, the Republicans would probably lose the 15 seats they need to keep control of the House of Representatives and could come within a seat or two of losing the Senate as well. Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich, who masterminded the 1994 elections that brought Republicans to power on promises of revolutionizing the way Washington is run, told Time that his party has so bungled the job of governing that the best campaign slogan for Democrats today could be boiled down to just two words: “Had enough?”
That Time quote underscores a political fact. The Democrats now have two brass rings in front of them. One is within the grasp and the other is further away but still attainable. Why? Because many people — and we have noted repeatedly the erosion in GOP/Bush support among many independent and centrist voters (who were previously split) — are fed up or troubled by the GOP record, style, tilt towards social conservatives and the scandals. If the Democrats keep the focus on that, their task is easier. If they put the focus on their intra-party warring or make themselves the issue, the GOP has a chance to turn this around. Time reports that the key sticking point remains the war in Iraq.
The signs suggest an anti-Republican wave is building, says nonpartisan electoral handicapper Stuart Rothenberg, whose Rothenberg Political Report is closely followed in Washington. “The only question is how high, how big, how much force it will have. I think it will be considerable.” The danger signs for Republicans show up across the electoral map but nowhere more clearly than in the swing state of Pennsylvania, where the hottest Senate race in the country is being fought and where Republican strategists say as many as five g.o.p. congressional seats are in play, out of a total 19.
The Demmies are now reportedly competitive with the GOP on the fundraising front. But, the piece notes, Republicans can take some relief that the elections are still relatively far off and the magazine quotes some Republicans who believe they can turn the situation at least partly around.
On the other hand, both sides and pundits (in the media and particularly on blogs) need to never forget that much of what determines an election are unforeseen events and developments beyond anyone’s control. Some things could happen to worsen Bush administration public support; some things could happen that help it shine and regain support.
So, what’s the Democratic strategy? It sounds like it hearkens back to the 1992 Clinton presidential campaign where a well-oiled political “war room” is ready to leap on any attack within seconds plus a “all politics is local” candidate recruitment strategy:
“If they want to have a negative campaign not about the issues, they will be met on the campaign field,” says Illinois Representative Rahm Emanuel, the former Clinton White House aide who heads the Democrats’ campaign committee for House races. Theirs has been a shifting line of attack. January’s mantra about the g.o.p.’s “culture of corruption” became February’s lament about the “rubber-stamp Congress.” The latest slogan they are hurling against the Republicans is “dangerously incompetent.”The most appealing argument the Democrats are offering may be their candidates, who were recruited more for how they fit the districts in which they are running than for how they match the party’s national ideology.
Part of the problem, though, is that it’s hard for voters to get a handle on precisely what the Democratic Party’s national ideology is due to warring or uneasily-allianced factions and a clear perception from Democrats that on many issues they don’t want to lose support so when they make a move it’s as if they are walking on eggshells. This is a reality — and a dilemma…particularly with so much at stake. Time notes:
Meanwhile, although there is no doubt that Americans are unhappy with the Republicans who run the country, Democratic strategists acknowledge that they have yet to sell voters on their party. In the Time poll, approval for congressional Democrats is no higher (39%) than for Republicans, and 56% of voters said they don’t believe the Democrats offer a clear set of alternative policies. Democratic activists and fund raisers are putting pressure on their leaders to come up with a program to tout as an option different from the Republican agenda, the way Gingrich and g.o.p. candidates did in 1994 with their 10-point Contract with America.
Top Democrats, Time says, are already preparing plans for what they’d focus on if they should regain some Congressional power, so they can hit the ground running.
And the magazine’s piece has a passage that again underscores the GOP’s biggest fear about losing the House: it would mean INVESTIGATIONS.
Administration officials say they fear that losing even one house of Congress would mean subpoenas and investigations–a taste of the medicine House Republicans gave Bill Clinton. “Everything will grind to a halt,” one said. That prediction could be a scare tactic designed to get out the g.o.p. vote. But Democrats say that if they are victorious in November, they plan to force Bush to be more accountable, and they intend to dig through records of contracts in Iraq, for homeland security and for the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.
So the Republican argument may be that, if they lose control of the House, there could be gridlock.
But many Americans who are fed up could this time ask themselves whether gridlock in divided government — which partly stems from when the second party exercises a check on the other party and conducts vigorous oversight — isn’t better than one-party government that essentially has negated checks-and-balances on issues involving executive powers, undermined previous Congressional mechanisms to crack down on ethics violations and helped smooth the way to a slew of scandals. In a year when voters clearly want change, many voters will want to cast a protest vote. Who will benefit from that?
opinions powered by SendLove.to
19 Responses to “Time: Scrambling Republicans On Verge Of Losing House Of Representatives And Close To Losing Senate”
Had enough, is a damn good way of putting it. The public is tiring of excuses for failure, Bush keeps giving. Speaking is how he handles problems, rather than actually tackling the problems with work, or simply admitting a problem is even taking place. The public got what they wanted, flash and dazzle with promises of no gay weddings, or promises of outlawing abortion. Problem is they realized they lost their jobs to communist China, the 4th amendment was eroded, and the government is broke. Got whatcha wanted yet america? Want some more? Can you afford some more is the new question.
Suckers
Although it is POSSIBLE the democrats could take the House, I would say it is a tough row to hoe. I also predict they they will not take back the Senate. I really don’t see the possibility for them to take enough seats in the Senate.
Frankly, I would be disappointed with the American people if they do vote for democrats. The party has done nothing for the American people. All they have done is obstruct, and normally Americans do not like obstructionists.
I would like the democrat party to come back to their roots, and actually have an agenda that does not include spending more money, raising my taxes, and taking away my right to self defense.
As a whole I wish they would become an American party again, instead of the socialist party they have become.
Brian, you ask that the Democrat party, “have an agenda that does not include spending more money, raising my taxes, and taking away my right to self defense.” Besides the reduction of taxes, the overwhelming majority of which going to the top 2%, you just described the current GOP government. Under GOP rule over the last five years you’ve had the most rapid growth in government debt and spending in 40 years. You’ve had the largest growth in discretionary spending and pork barrel projects in history. As far as your right to self defense, I’m surprised you don’t realize the complete degradation in your 4th Amendment rights under this government. Sneak and peak, warrentless electronic and physical searches and no judicial branch balance in the process all occured under this, not a Democratic administration. Now, with the new USAPATRIOT Act signing, the president has reiterated his right to ignore the law when he sees fit. I am worried about my rights too, but mostly my 1st and 4th Amendment not 2nd Amendment (which I agree have been illegally under assault by left wing politicians).
I am one of those that want gridlock. I believe the Democrats will start offering policies once they are allowed to have a voice in one of the branches of government again. Considering how moderate Republicans rarely get a place at the table, much less members of the opposing party, I’d keep my cards tight to the vest as well. However I don’t think the Democrats can out campaign the GOP. They proved it in 2002 and 2004. Nothing has fundamentally changed about their leadership that suggests they have gotten any better. I hope and pray that they do, but I won’t hold my breath. 2004 was the first year I voted for Democrats. I will continue to do so until non-ideologues and religious right politicians lose control of the Republican party.
I’m with Brain. The Democrats are socialist, anti American terrorist loving traitors who want to raise our taxes now instead of raising them on our kids through deficits.
However it’s time we stopped using such language because it implies that the Democrats actually have an agenda, but as Brian says all the do is obstruct. Therefore through the use of semantics (such as redfining the commin definition of civil war to show there isn’t one in Iraq) do define reailty I say we refer to them as “ungood.”
This way we define them as mere shadows, negatives of true humans, anti Republicans. We can also have categories depending on their level of evil. Thus Osama and Stalin are ungood, those who pretended to be our friends such as the French are “plus ungood” and those who have stabbed their mother country in the back such as Democrats are “double plus ungood.” This way we can define our priorities. And destroy the greatest evil first.
Bill Clinton is of course “super whooper ungood.”
Elections are not today…
And if the Times says something is so… Well……
AubreyJ………
Republican: this notion of using semantics to define away problems seems very compelling. I have a feeling that it could be profitably applied to other domains beyond politics, for example, advice columns.
I have to say that when I read your stuff I feel like I’m getting the straight dope – more so than I any time I can remember beside this guide to abominable footwear.
“Straight dope” sounds accurate to describe the commentor named Republican, although we can’t confirm the details of his private life.
Toast at Shakespeare’s Sister: Their Own Medicine?
Scary thought. Especially since the Democrats will do nothing but impeach Bush, which of course will only tear the country further apart.
The DumboRats will lose even more seats in November. They have no plan for Iraq, no plan for Social Security, on plan for the immigration problem. They’re the party of “no”. Throw a flag burning amendment and a Christmas Protection Act into the mix and you’ve got an electorate that is ready to relegate the Dems to permanent minority status. Game over, moonbats.
Wow, I thought Leonidas was talking about the Republicans in that second sentence. As far as proposals from the Democrats, why should they put anything on the table at this point? So the ideas can be co-opted by the Republicans if they gain some traction with the public? It’s not like they have any power to actually put forth any legislation that would stand a chance of passing in this environment.
Out of curiosity, who did Time say would win the elections in 2004?
What did they say about the likely outcome of the elections of 2002?
As someone who is at least moninally pro-Democrat — or at least, someone who desperately hopes the Dems can break the conservative monopoly on power before the idiots take this country completely over a cliff — I must say I find the comments left here by various members of the fantasy-based community to be tremendously encouraging.
It’s a good sign when your enemy is this intent on self-delusion as this bunch.
Great post. The American people aren’t falling for the Republican rhetoric anymore. This is the time for Democrats to regain control, if only they would move to do so. They need to get an agenda quikly, in order to capitalize on the gift that the Repubs have given them.
I think it’s a bit too early to write off the Republican party. They have a few months to redevelop themselves.
Or at least come up with something that will pull the public back to their side.
And, unfortunately, the Democratic Party has yet to lock onto any given point by which they can find a common aggreement.
Until that happens, any negativity is more along the line of people wandering away from the Republican leadership. It isn’t a gravitating influence caused by the other side.
So, yea, there is still a good chance that the Republicans can pull the seats they need.
As Brain pointed out Democrats are socialists. They think the government has to have taxes to pay for things.
But we have a new paradigm of economics. For example suppose your house increases just 15% a year, it’s a lot more in other places. In just 5 years it will have doubled. So if you have a $200,000 house and take out $20,000 a year in 5 years you will have made $100,000 in savings.
But wait there’s more!
The house will increase 8 times in 20 years and 256 times in 40. In 50 years it will have increased 1,000 times. Which means you can take a million dollars a year out of your house and still have a 150 million to give to your kids. But democrats want to rob you with the death tax.
This new paradim applies to all of our economic situation. Like your house the American economy just keeps going up in value. Which is why people all over the world want to lend us money. And the more money we borrow the more money we have to buy their stuff which gives them more money to lend us. It’s a win win situation.
So if we pursue this process and expand it rather than borrow a teensy eensy 500 billion a year to pay for government we could borrow 3 trillion or so which would let us have a negative tax for those making over $100,000 which would further stir the economy.
But Democrats with ungood thoughts are trying to do to this what they’ve tried to with Iraq. Just look at them, we proved there wasn’t a civil war and the traitors report dead bodies all over the place, our ambassador accusing the Interior Ministry of killing more civilians than the insurgents and us fightingbthe militia which keeps so much of Baghdad and the south a success story.
Now why did they do this? Because they hate America and even though Iraq is a great success they undermine it with double plus ungood thinking. We even changed the definition of civil war from that used by political scientists to one we like and next thing you know they try to copy our definition.
They are trying to do the same thing with the economy which is why we know they practice socialism. If housing falls or the dollar falls or we have a recession it’s because they broke our new paradigm.
But if Republicans get elected we can have no taxes at all and twice as much spending and win in Iraq twice a day rather than only achieving total victory 3 or 4 times a year.
Double plus good thoughts are the way to go!!!!!
All the posts criticizing Dems for a lack of agenda are undrstandable, way off base. The most important rason to vote Dem is to ensure that Congress regains its status as a check on the executive branch.
No individual issue is more important.
Honestly, the best solution is a dem pres and a republican controlled congress….
In that way you get moderate judges appointed, and true checks and balances throughout government.
It worked through the Clinton years.
I think you might be right bacci.