TCS Daily

TCS on Election 2006

By Nick Schulz - November 6, 2006 12:00 AM

EDITOR'S NOTE: Every year the President gives his State of the Union address. And every two years, Americans get to deliver their sense of the state of the union by voting. So what will it be in '06? We asked several TCS contributors to predict what will happen on Tuesday; and then we asked them to say what should happen. Consider this the state of TCS thinking about American politics at the end of 2006.

ARNOLD KLING, TCS Contributing Editor and author of Learning Economics.

My prediction is that the margin of victory, in terms of total votes cast, will be small. So if the Democrats take both houses (my best guess), you might find that by adding fewer than 250,000 votes to Republicans in selected races you could undo the result.

I don't think that libertarian-leaning voters have a dog in this race. What I would like to see is the public express its disgust with both parties by staying away in droves on Election Day. My hope is that this encourages independent candidates, both within and outside the two major parties, to step forward in 2008. But I also think we need to look outside the political process and use philanthropy to strengthen the institutions of civil society against the politicians.

JOSH MANCHESTER, TCS Contributing Writer

The GOP will hold the Senate. The House is too close to call. Whichever party wins will have no more than a three-seat majority.

Sometimes in life it's useful to speculate on what is deserved or undeserved. This is not one such time.

The question sets up divisions between the parties, the bureaucracy, and the electorate. There's a war on and if we lose, we'll all lose together. So whoever takes the oath of office in January -- Democrat, Republican, or otherwise -- had better learn to work together and win this thing. If the Democrats gain one house of Congress, the President and Republicans should prepare to welcome them into the fight and rapidly build cross-the-aisle consensus. 'With malice toward none, with charity for all' should be on everyone's lips. Otherwise, the Republic will walk a trail of tears for a long time to come -- and possibly witness sorrows beyond imagination.


For fans of limited government, nothing's better than divided government. Compare the average growth of per capita government spending when the GOP ran Congress and Bill Clinton sat in the White House (0.3%) or Ronald Reagan as President faced down a Democrat Congress (1.7%) with the boom times for big government when a single party held power under George Bush 41 (3.1%) or Jimmy Carter (2.9%). On Tuesday, the American should -- and will -- give fans of limited government a present by turning Congress over to the Democrats. In the House, the Democrats will pick up 23-27 seats. In the Senate, Dick Cheney is going to be very busy for the next couple of years, because the Senate will be divided 50-50 between the parties (assuming Joe Lieberman caucuses with the Democrats).

CRAIG WINNEKER, Editor, This Europe

Conventional wisdom holds that Democrats will recapture the House - giving them at least two years in which to get medieval on the Republican administration. I for one relish the prospect of Nancy Pelosi staring down George W. Bush in a contest of which deer is in whose headlights.

Democrats had a chance to snag the Senate, too, until last Thursday, when a Zogby poll showed them actually doing it. This was the guy who, on the afternoon of Election Day 2004, predicted a John Kerry landslide. Study hard, get good grades, and you, too, can become a pollster or even a political analyst.

It will all come down to turnout. Yawn. What an election-eve cliché. What it really comes down to is which party will be better able to suppress the potential voting activities of its opponent. One big question mark: will the clandestinely-gay-fundamentalist-Christian-dad vote be mobilized or discouraged by recent news events? I think when push comes to shove these guys will descend from Brokeback Mountain and swarm polling places. They'll probably give Conrad Burns another six years.

Then there is the biennial carping about how democracy suffers because so few Americans bother to go to the polls. I live in Belgium, where election turnout is always 100 percent; citizens are required by law to vote. Well, the electoral system here produces just as many nincompoops as the American one - and the most successful political party has its roots in the SS. So be careful how much turnout you wish for.

My prediction? Democrats "win" in a landslide, but Republicans manage to keep control of the House and Senate. How will this be possible? Not sure, really, but I'm hoping Vanity Fair will explain it to me sometime soon.

MARTIN FRIDSON, TCS Contributing Writer

Lacking any apparatus to improve upon established handicapping methods, I commend to TCS readers the Iowa Electronic Markets forecast. As of November 4, it gives Democrats a 79% chance of capturing control of House and a 33% chance of taking the Senate. The outcome should have only limited legislative impact, as lame duck George W. Bush is unlikely to accomplish much, even if his party retains its majority in both chambers. More important is the message that the election delivers to the politicians. However I may feel about the Republicans' policies, public opinion surveys indicate that voters have grown disenchanted with them since 2004. If the GOP does not receive some sort of rebuke at the polls, it will either reflect poorly on the democratic process or affirm that the Republicans did an extraordinary job of getting out the vote.

ILYA SHAPIRO, "Dispatches From Purple America" columnist for TCS

The conventional wisdom is that the Democrats will take the House and the Republicans will hold onto the Senate. Indeed, I've talked to political insiders, the man on the street, and everyone in between, and that seems to be the most reasonably foreseeable outcome to all concerned. I don't disagree, but the result we have all come to expect—which figures to be tighter as the Republicans recover from their scandals du jour and the John Kerry loses races he's not even in—may not be final until December... 2007.

As in all the post-Bush v. Gore election cycles, both parties have lined up armadas of lawyers ready to file writs at the drop of a chad. Thus, there is only one certainty in this election that nobody deserves to win: If either party's margin in the House is five seats or less—and if there are any close races in the Senate—control of Congress will be decided in the courts.

The irony of course, is that elections are now run more efficiently and with more integrity and sophistication than ever before—but the litigious atmosphere produced by Florida's dead heat in 2000 has poisoned the well of American democracy, perhaps irrevocably.

(Ilya Shapiro is a Washington lawyer whose last "Dispatch from Purple America" threw a Hail Mary from a rebuilding New Orleans. He will be spending election day in Sen. George Allen's legal war room—and doesn't expect to emerge before 2008's presidential primaries.)


Not being a political junkie, I do not look forward to election years with the same interest as many of my friends in journalism. But even given that, I cannot recall an election year which has left me so numbed. I have absolutely shut down all inputs. I tune out all the ads and neither listen to nor read the news and "analysis." I confess a great weariness with it all. If forced to predict an outcome, I confess bafflement. And yet, I find an ineffable something whispering to me that sees Republicans holding on by the skin of their teeth in both the House and the Senate. I fully realize that the whisper may be nothing more than a pathetic, flabby, disheartened sort of wishful thinking by one who shudders at the thought of "leadership" from the likes of that beady-eyed little pecksniff, Harry "Clerical Error" Reid. I am out of touch with the cities anymore, but from my rural perspective, there are a lot of my fellow citizens who are keeping very mum about Tuesday. They don't care much for the Hastertian Republicans wallowing in their majority. But they are leery of the Democrats. Afraid they will begin taxing again. Afraid of what they may do (or not do) about the war, and generally uneasy about the Pelosi Party's never changing I-know-better-than-you-how-you-should-live attitude. So, despite all the confident predictions of the pollsters and the delight of the Demo-sniffing media, we may come close to the wise hope expressed by my dentist when I was in for a check-up last week: "The best good people can hope for now is gridlock," he says. "That's what I'm hoping for - a gridlocked government that can't do anything worse or anything more."

PATRICK COX, TCS Contributing Writer

What I wish would happen is that Republicans would suffer a near-death experience, nearly losing control of both the House and Senate, thus provoking a mass GOP repentance with blood oath to slash spending, eliminate programs, privatize social security and permanently cut taxes. What I think actually will happen is that the voters, exhibiting the American wisdom of crowds, will turn to legislative gridlock, perceiving that divided government is better than consensus profligacy. The House goes Democratic. The Senate stays Republican. Bush remains Commander in Chief but Republicans learn that irresponsible Democratic military and foreign policies is not enough to guarantee their ascendancy.

MICHAEL M. ROSEN, TCS Daily's Intellectual Property columnist, is an attorney in San Diego.

Here in Southern California, you'd hardly know Republicans were in trouble. The Governator is gearing up for a crushing defeat of Phil Angelides (whose campaign event spawned John Kerry's "stuck-in-Iraq" disaster). The GOP is poised, for the first time in years, to retake several statewide offices, along with defeating some ill-conceived initiatives and passing some good ones. But the nationwide outlook is deeply worrying. Sadly, like most of the talking heads, I believe that the Democrats will take the House--very narrowly--but will fall a seat or two short of taking the Senate (I think Corker will win and either (or both) Talent or Allen will win as well). Yes, the dread words "Speaker Pelosi" are becoming a reality.

As for what I'd like to see happen, I'd be thrilled to bits if the GOP retained narrow control of both houses. This result would embody a gentle but firm rebuke to the elephants by the American people but at the same time an acknowledgment that empowering the Dems at this tenuous moment would be too risky. Any worse result will be harped upon for what it clearly isn't: the great success of liberal ideas (instead, it's largely conservative distaste for elected Republicans that will drive them from office).

But most of all, I can't wait for Wednesday. I find myself getting swept up in the minutiae of these races like a rabid sports fan. When the moment you wake up, you rush to the computer (before saying good morning to wife and kids) to check RCP's latest -- does Rasmussen have Perlmutter up 10 or 12 in the Colorado Seventh? How are Stabenow's fav/unfavs? And how badly is Harris getting pummeled in Florida? -- you know you have a problem...

MAX BORDERS, TCS Contributing Editor

The economy is strong. We haven't been attacked in over five years. On pretty much every major metric, the US is doing well. Still, there are dozens of issues: stem cells, minimum wage, social security reform, gay marriage, CAFTA, farm subsidies, and on and on... And people only have one vote, if they vote. So it's never been about "the issues", but one or two issues a voter cares about at the time, in a cluster of lesser issues. We know that partisan activists will get out to the polls. The rest of us are the targets of commercials. So for us - if it's worth it to us to stand in line at all - we will do so based not on very detailed knowledge of either party's platform, their Congressional voting record, the strength of the economy, our apparent security, or (again) the issues -- but on a master narrative. The master narratives of '06 are our "failure in Iraq" and "Republican excess." And let's be honest: complicit in crafting these narratives has been a media determined to see the elephants run off. So my prediction? It won't be a sweep, but the Ds will do very well. And the loudest vote of all - the non-vote - won't get counted, but it will say a lot about just what Americans think of the whole exercise.

FREDERICK TURNER, Author of The Culture of Hope and Natural Religion

I think the Republicans will squeak by with small losses in both houses, mainly because "better the devil that we know" and "it's the economy [which is in good shape], stupid".

Whatever the outcome, there will be gridlock, which is usually good for the nation. Politically speaking, victory would be a tar-baby for either party in the present atmosphere, as the gains the nation is making will be invisible while its tasks and image will be rather dispiriting for some time yet.

MELANA VICKERS, TCS Contributing Writer

The Dems will win biggish in the House, not in the Senate. The Republicans have taken a drubbing on Iraq, and rightly so. The war can't be prosecuted for much longer with dwindling public will, and the party's politicians have squandered that will by failing to show a path forward that the public wants to follow. The path needs to lead out of Iraq, with Iraqis taking charge, the U.S. taking its lumps for a less than stellar performance, and working aggressively -- with more trainers and advisors, but a clear drawing down of troops -- to give the Iraqis the best shot at success possible. The path forward needs to make clear it's their (admittedly rough-looking) future, not ours. Instead, there's no clarity on whether the Republican Party favors staying and meddling in Iraqi domestic politics, increasing troop numbers or diminishing them, taking sides in a civil war/partition, or holding its breath in the hopes that somehow things will change. The Dems look even worse, though, not just because they offer no clear path out of Iraq but because they're wobbly on the war on terror, distracted as they are by civil liberties issues and petty criticism. With the party's defense-related talent being limited to John "stuk in irak" Kerry, voters with Iraq and the war on terror foremost in their minds won't make the mistake of choosing this even-weaker team.

MARIAN TUPY, Cato Institute Center for Global Liberty and Prosperity

It appears that on November 7, the GOP will lose the House and possibly the Senate. That is good news. The GOP has abandoned the idea of a small government in favor of huge spending increases and growing disregard for American civil liberties. Hopefully, the GOP defeat will strengthen the Goldwater/Reagan wing of the Republican Party and reconstitute the link between small government conservatives and libertarians that was broken by George W. Bush. Other good aspects of the GOP defeat include government gridlock and greater government transparency. The government may grow less once George W. Bush rediscovers his veto pen and strikes down Democratic legislation. Similarly, the Presidency needs to be held to account over the Iraq War and other poor decisions made by the Executive over the last few years.


In trying to predict the results of the midterm elections, we have to weigh the overriding voter sentiment against the Republicans against Republican advantages in terms of money and incumbency. Jay Cost does so here and believes that any Democratic majority in the House will be kept to a minimum. His discussion of GOP strengths not picked up by the polls is interesting and stimulating. It should figure into any analysis of how the midterms are shaping up. Mike Allen sees the financial advantages as well and notes that Republicans are not in a position where they might be taken by surprise the way Democrats were. He notes as well that the absentee ballots are thus far tracking favorably for Republicans and that the get-out-the-vote program is proceeding as strongly as ever. That having been written, I think that we are going to see a closely divided House and Senate, with the Senate perhaps being equally divided, meaning that Vice President Cheney will have to spend a lot of time in Washington. I might rejoice in this, as do a lot of Republicans who are unsatisfied with the way in which the current Republican leadership has abandoned small government principles, but I would rather see Republicans correct themselves while in power than throw themselves out with the naive belief that a few years in the wilderness is all that it will take before the electorate will be convinced to take the GOP back to its bosom. After all, the structural conditions exist whereby the Reagan Revolution can be continued. It's a pity that Republicans have chosen to ignore those conditions and that the small-government stance Republicans have traditionally stood for may suffer at the hands of a party that (a) never believed in small government and (b) never offers to kick itself out of power the way so many Republicans appear to right now.



Dirtiest secret of them all
Republicans lie to pollsters. They've been lying for two months to try to light a fire under the GOP's collective @$$. But they've been giving money and volunteering, and when it all comes down to it, the idea of a Democratic House scares the hell out of them. The House will be very difficult to retake once lost. Either we need a once in a lifetime strategist like a Gingrich flanked by super intellectuals like Armey or we'll need an unpopular Democratic President involved in an unpopular war. Ouch.

I'm rooting for the values voters to stay home and the GOP to pull it off anyway.

Nope kiss the house good bye.
After looking at todays poll, I wouldn't bet to much monry on the Republic Party.

They are kind of killing them selves. Nice to see that trend in both parties.

**** Armey before Armey dicks you. :-D

That joke never gets old.

Did you find as much sophomoric phallic humor in **** Gephardt?

You seem awfully simple minded to me.

I am an open minded punster....

Some times you just got to let go with completly pointless humor.


You were the one attempting humor, not me.

I asked a question.

Try sticking with what's written, not what you think is written.

This is a One Issue Election
As will be every single one for the forseeable future.

Will you fight the war, or will you surrender it?

The Democrats have declared for the latter, so frankly, it doesn't matter how incompetently you might think the Republicans have been acting, any defense is better than surrender. ( And I don't think they've been doing anywhere near that badly )

Thus, if the Democrats take either or both houses, it will be a testament to how much the media has convinced the public that no, there aren't really any people who actually want to kill you out there, and if we just ____, they'd leave us alone.

Expect an increase in global terrorism if the Dems succeed significantly.

A 2006 Election Certainty...Post Election Uncertainty
"...any defense is better than surrender."

I agree. appears that we are being slowly defeated in Iraq. And when I listen to the President, the secDef and the Joint Chiefs, I am not reassured.

The proper strategy in Iraq was always and still is to crush, or at least contain, violent behavior. If the Iraqi government agrees, we need to get on with it. If not, we need a plan for disengagement.

I do not see a plan to win or disengage. If voters are similarly perplexed (or disgusted), they may wish to send a message. And whatever message is "sent" will assuredly be twisted...both parties will claim their Iraq stategies have been vindicated. The unfortunate problem is, in the past four years I have not heard a coherent post-cesation-of-major-hostilities strategy from anyone on Capital Hill, the White House or the Pentagon.

Uncertainty is the sure consequence of the 2006 election.

9 out of 10 terrorists...
want you to vote Democratic!

Actually, that statement started as a joke but it is true. Many a tyrant and terrorist has weighed in on the coming election and they are quite hopeful for a Democratic majority.

I will group the idiots who stay home with the idiots who vote Democratic.

My prediction is that the Republicans will hold BOTH houses. Not having anyone in my office that gambles on football I now have to resort to betting on politics. Damn shame that. I wish I could put $100 bucks on the Republicans.

You can bet on the Republicans
Go to, open an account, and buy the GOP keeps the house contract.

As of this moment, you will get about 4 to 1 on your money.

Personally, I think it is a toss up, so 4 to one seems like nice odds.

My predictions...
And I hope to revisit this thread to see what happens.

I posted this on another forum I regularly visit:

As of October 24, 2006... I make the following predictions. I'll revisit this on the 8th.

1) The Dims will declare and scream about instances of voter fraud and disenfranchisement. While they will have lost in those areas by a slim margin, and maybe even a large margin, so that those allegations look foolish and end up being totally unfounded. (like in 2000, like in 2004)

2) For weeks afterward... Demz: "Why Why Why did we lose?" Yet, the answers are obvious. And if the 50th Congressional District is any indication...

3) Olbermann has an aneurism Sheehan, too. Moore loses his appetite (imagine that)

4) The Dimz start to back away from Pelosi, ect, and begin to mention that the economy and employment is good, Will start to work with Bush on Iraq... This election was a WARNING... Adding as of 11/6: Kerry will be ousted. He represents failure for the party, and will be blamed for losses because of his asinine statements. Dean will be deposed as party chairman. If Kerry reps. failure for his lost presidential run, what about Dean, who never even got to the starting block?

I never trust polls. Noone I know, and myself included, have ever been asked to take part in any poll. With so many polls being quoted, you'd think at least 1 person I know... Then again, it's all about data mining. You can get any answer you want if you dig deep enough.

4 to 1 eh?
Me likely those numbers. Considering the fact that the Democrats are having to borrow money, insteading of getting actual donations, and that they are relying on the bias of the MSM I would say that the Republicans are in better shape than them.

It would seem the Democrats are relying on Republicans not voting more than on their own "supporters".

Democrats hate children and kick puppies!
>"1) The Dims will declare and scream about instances of voter fraud and disenfranchisement. While they will have lost in those areas by a slim margin, and maybe even a large margin, so that those allegations look foolish and end up being totally unfounded. (like in 2000, like in 2004)"

It's already started. Even though Democrats are the party that perfected vote fraud (check out ACORN Roy!) they will still beat that dead horse. Remember, facts are not important in conspiracy theories.

>"2) For weeks afterward... Demz: "Why Why Why did we lose?" Yet, the answers are obvious. And if the 50th Congressional District is any indication..."

Democrats simply can't win if they tell us what they stand for. That much is a fact. They have no plan, no policy, and no "New Direction". If they lose it won't be because of their non-message or because they can't wear a conservative costume correctly, it will be what they always say it is: Americans are stupid. They will mimick the Europeans by gnashing their teeth and indulging in a Bush hate-fest.

>"3) Olbermann has an aneurism Sheehan, too. Moore loses his appetite (imagine that)"

Hey! Only Democrats can make fun of people's weight or disabilities or sexual-preference or race or...

As for #4: The Dems don't learn lessons very well and the finger-pointing will reach a fever-pitch. One can hope that Dean will go down but one thing is certain: a Clinton will rise from the ashes to lead the drive to 2008.

I said yes.
I said Oh Yes I am more then willing to make fun of,

D*ick Gephardt, before he D*icks the country.

Sorry I though I was being clear.

Just so.
When the benifits are outwighed by the coat, why throw more money away?

I don't feal any more secure then before. There are more terroist the ever now. The Aribs hate America more then ever. The only way to win now is to basicaly over through every country and occupy.

At least we could keep the oil.

But this is not going to happen, so pull otu and let them kill each other.

Time fer the Professor to Stick to His Discipline and Political Science ain't it..
Libertarian leaning candidates don't have a dog in this race? Well, lets play pretend. Pretend Stuck in Iraq was president. Exactly how would Chief Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg, (who's publicly expressed an "ultra vires" desire to subordinate U.S. law to international "standards" that, of course, she and the rest of the SCOTUS ennead would decide among to determine the applicable and relevant ones) handle the great issues of the day? Would the course of foreign policy be determined through the election, or some novel interpretation of the constitution wherein SCOTUS becomes the custodian of War Powers, entitled to review the actions of the exective branch. This furthers libertarian cause how? There's more to government than fiscal restraint and economic orthopraxy. There's respect for the rule of law and not obliterating it through judicial malfeasance.

Unless as I suspect, Libertarianism is libertinism for Arnold, as much about ignoring the structural issues that propel government spending BY any reelection chance maximizing candidate than actually advancing his cause. Think, what party is going to speak about balanced budgets the next time a Cat 3 or more 'cane starts churning in the gulf. Those of us who are smart enough to live above sea level are now responsible to bail out those who don't and seem incapable of electing a mayor and governor responsibly.

Yes, the GOP falls off the building a lot. The Dems jump off EVERYTIME. They will put on a show about "making every vote count" as they (attempt to) enfranchise felons (a Hillary perogative) and "undocumented immigrants", which will just dilute the value of the citizen's vote and allow them to put more and more power in the hand of unelected judges and administrative bureacracies.

Politics is the art of the possible. This is why the LP isn't viable. It reduces everything to a wild goose chase for Pareto optimality. Every analysis is a unidimensional utility curve. Sound public policy is multidimensional and balances the empirical, the quantifiable against those attributes that defy a mathematical equation. If life were so simple, Wasily Leontiff would have ruled the world.

Then again, Arnold already said he likes to (ok, finds excuses to) vote for guys with the donkey. Me thinks he might just not be impartial at all.





No, get it right- Dems hate puppies and kick children. Its immoral to kick a dog.

1) Dems will win the House, make it a tie in the Senate. They will still scream about voter fraud and disenfranchisement, because Republicans today use those tactics.

2) Dems will start their new power trip with legislation to raise the minimum wage and fund stem cell research. Both will pass the Senate and Bush will sign them because they're very popular to the people, but make signing statements in an attempt to render them useless, but saving face because he didn't officially veto them.

BTW, Americans ARE stupid. We "elected" W for 2 terms! Thereby setting a new standard of how stupid an electorate can achieve. We're going to get beat up for this one for decades to come. Rightfully so.

Howard Dean will remain where he is, he is doing a good job. Clinton will not get the nomination in 2008. It will be Obama or Biden in 2008.

Silk purse
Let me say this. If the Dems don't win at least one house, they will be finished as a national party. I mean an unpolular war, out of control spending, no reform for 2 years, corruption, earmarks, pedophile GOP Members and....well do we need more? If they lose now and the GOP can get past the outrageous power politics of Delay (may he RIP), they will be the dominant party for generations. It won't happen overnight but it will happen. A few Members will shift parties, money will evaporate, a few new parties (mainly left) will spring up.

And if the Dems win? This is what I told a friend of many years who is a retiring GOP member of Congress (this was last summer.) I said I hoped the GOP would lose 100 seats in the House and clean out all the deadwood. Then 2 years of Speaker Pelosi whose ideological, shrill, scripted political demenour leading a party that is utterly devoid of ideas and sympathy in the electorate, and they will alienate 70-80 percent of the population. The GOP will sweep back into government. If you are GOP just pray for investigations and even impeachment proceedings. Aside from actually cleaning up the GOP mess they will be so upsetting to the national psyche that it will end the Dems just as much as losing in '06. Time for a new party.

Reps keep Senate, squeek by with only up to 1 seat in House...
...and the very unscientific (but greatly justified) basis of that prediction is:
The shattered creditiblity of the MSN.
"Democrats for Wormtail!"

Naw, they just hate the kids and kick them, puppies are too cute!
If what I've been seeing is true (and like many others I don't trust polls so this is very uncertain to me) the Republicans are closing fast. It could come down to too little too late as I see republicans loosing several close races for the house, but winning the senate races. It will be close, but the Dems will take the house, however the margin will be closer than a lot of pundits have been claiming; less than 10 seats. Republicans keep the senate by one or two, maybe three (because Republican will argue that Leibermann is an independent and can't count for the Dems, they will win this arguement).

In the end I expect some gridlock and some major battles between the House and Senate for the next two years. Generally, there will be no change in direction and the Democrats will whine because they still have no real power.

As for 08, I think Dean is done if the Dems don't win the house or senate and he is in trouble if they only win the house by a slim margin. If They win both houses, Dean is the man through 08 for sure. Clinton may not win the nomination in 08, Obama and Biden are surely going to giver her a run for her money. But she is going to be in the running and will very possibly be the vice-presidential candidate for whoever wins the nomination.

Naw, they don't hate the kids
Naw, they don't hate the kids, they want to keep abortion legal, so they don't have to hate kids.

Dems ain't dumb. Sooner or later they might realize that they aborted too many of their voters.

Amusing but Sad double standards
In Microcosm:

Pedophile GOP members? -1

Sexual antics by the Dems? Gerry Studds, actually WAS physically involved with a page (Democrat Response-Standing O)Themn there's McGreevey, Frank, Clinton,Kennedy...

This is just one example of Democrat indignation that is very curious.

Foley's gone- and unlike Democrats, he won't be getting receptive audiences and book deals- nor will there be people telling us misuse of the office is "personal".

let it not be said reputzlicans have lost their sense of delusion
You need to remember just because you say something enough times doesn't make it true.

"Then 2 years of Speaker Pelosi whose ideological, shrill, scripted political demenour leading a party that is utterly devoid of ideas and sympathy in the electorate..."

No wonder you'll lose big today, this is your only message. Pelosi is ideological and shrill. And you say Dems are devoid of ideas? How about 6 years of no ideas under total Reputzlican control? For the first time we have a do-nothing Congress under 1 party control, in the first half of the President's 2nd term no less. And you're happy with that?

Thats awesome, you're talking about Democrats alienating 70-80% of the population. Look out the window, its happened as we speak to Republicans.

Yes, pray for investigations, I support you there. There better be investigations or I'll vote the Dems right back out in 2 years.

Arnold says "Stay home"
Arnold still doesn't get it, saying "no libertarian dog in this race, so stay home." What does that accomplish other than increasing the liberal democrats' margin? Politics is about making difficult choices in an imperfect world. Staying home is choosing not to play the game. Arnold has it right philosophically but represents why libertarianism has been such a dismal flop in the real world of politics for such a long time.

Disgust with the GOP makes me a Dem. Hummm. And the fact that the Dems had a few pedophiles 20 years ago makes it OK? Hummm. And you forgot the fairly obvious coverup by Delay and the Speaker which, by all accounts, is going to come out soon. Hummm.

Did you even read what I wrote?
I am discovering that a large percentage of people on here just have their own thing and they find something vaguely different and go off on a rant. Jeez.

yep, its pretty clear
You're not happy with the GOP currently, you recognize many of the ways they're failing the country with poor leadership. You get mucho credit for that, I respect a Republican who can make a thoughtful examination of reality. Its very rare on TCS.

Then you presented 2 different paths to how the Dems will disintegrate forever. You used the talking points of Pelosi as shrill, a party devoid of ideas and prospectively alienating the population.
Its been an effective talking point, Pelosi as shrill and Dems have no ideas, it thoroughly infiltrated the population, but its lacking in validity.

Thats a good indicator that Superheater jumped you. Its likely you're right on if he jumps in to oppose you.

You know, on third thought, I did jump on you too hard PeterPiper. It was reaction to all the one-sided comments that preceded yours, and your use of the talking points. I didn't mean to rant, I stuck to the points.

Ouch, I think I'm turning more partisan today. I conclude your comments about Repubs were correct while your comments about Dems were speculation. Today is the first time in my voting history I'm voting straight party. Its stupid, and I lecture friends who do the same, and I'm not happy with myself about it. But thats just how deeply disgusted I am with Bush and Republicans like him.

Appreciate your extra effort at clarity.

NO! However, as I see it, Foley sent emails, got booted
Studds got naked, received a standing O. Clinton diddled an intern, we were told to no resignation forthcoming, its "personal". You've never heard of Jim Wright, Dan Rostenkowski?

How about the current corruption problem with New Jersey, Menendez,and his predecessor Bob (can't think of his name). How about Murtha lying about Abscam? Harry Reid's curious affairs ring a bell?

Your a damn fool if you think corruption isn't part of the game. The difference is Foley, Livingston, etc. resign, Dems circle the wagons until their own ass is on the line.

Bob Jones
only rants

Its hard for me to deal with those who say they are independent and so only vote in the general election. That means that someone else offers up your only real choices. And that "someone else" is likely to be dominated by the "base" (read Christian right or Leftists). Moderates simply have got to take back the political process or we will still be offered unsatisfactory choices and a broken political process based on a zero sum mentality. I think both mainstream parties are beyond repair, though the GOP's traditional views are probably closer to the majority opinion than are the Dems. So what to do? We form a centrist party and leave the fringes on both sides baying at the moon. I don't know, I am just looking.

Amen to that
I am onboard with a centrist party that leaves the fringes on both sides howling at the moon.

I have to add, we must also remove the influence of corporations in our political process and policymaking to fix our broken government. America is not "of the people" anymore, corporations have taken it over.

too true

"I have to add, we must also remove the influence of corporations in our political process and policymaking to fix our broken government. America is not "of the people" anymore, corporations have taken it over."

Amen to that...

Lucky for me...
I kept my $100 in the bank. Oh well. Being a libertarian I can at least be glad that a grid-locked government does not produce much "progressive" legislation. Not to mention that alot of key legislation was approved.

I am worried that these Bozos, the Dems, will not govern as though we are at war, which we are. It is their shining moment to see if they are serious about security and the economy. Two things they have a mighty spotty record in.

All that being said: let the obstructionism and investigations begin!

Lets hope its lucky for all of us
This is weird, I don't feel all that celebratory. A big flip-of-the-bird in Bush's face isn't as exciting as I thought. Maybe its because he is still here and we'll still have to deal with his incompetence and failure for years to come. And the fact that they're all politicians anyway. Oh well, I do have new respect for the country. Thats reason enough to celebrate, the country finally got a clue. Better late than never.

How does one govern as though they are at war? Budget deficits? Firery rhetoric coupled with impotence? Tax breaks for corporations? Zero diplomacy? Increasing threats? Or is the Bush example not a good guide?
Yeah, what a spotty record Clinton had on the economy, it was just horrible in the 90's. And security, oh yes, since Iran pulls our strings like a puppet and continues to develop nuclear technology, North Korea is testing missiles and nukes and increasing their stockpile, the Bush record is excellent on that.
But that doesn't address the Dems record on security, thats because they don't have a record. They've been a minority for 6 years to an autocratic Executive. Voting against the Patriot Act does not constitute a record on security. Its only a spotty record in your head, as you've been told to think by the message machine.

It is indeed the Dems moment to shine, they better not disappoint.

The Post-Election Bobby Blues... combined with Alzheimers
>"How does one govern as though they are at war? Budget deficits? Firery rhetoric coupled with impotence? Tax breaks for corporations? Zero diplomacy? Increasing threats? Or is the Bush example not a good guide?"

How about just basically admitting that we are, in fact, at war? That would be a tremendous start. Deficits is a non-issue that even the Democrats have dropped considering how fast they are shrinking. "Fierery rhetoric coupled with impotence" is empty rhetoric coupled with a lack of touch with reality. "Tax breaks for corporations" highlights your inability to see a record market, low unemployment, a massive increase in tax revenue, and a basic stupidity when it comes to economics. "Zero diplomacy" is utter and willful blindness to the fact that the Bush admin has engaged in massive diplomacy efforts. "Increasing threats" is more empty bluster.

Once again Bobby you show yourself to be a mere parrot of the Democratic talking points. Do you ever make any statement based on reality?

I consider the war on Bush to be similar to the one waged on Reagan. Even personal attack used on Reagan is being deployed against Bush. The facts didn't hold up for Reagan and they mostly don't hold up for Bush. The real critique of Bush is that he loves big government and never met a spending bill he didn't sign. That alone infuriates me but it is still no reason to vote Stupid... I mean Democrat.

>"Yeah, what a spotty record Clinton had on the economy, it was just horrible in the 90's."

Yep. He rode the wave created by Reagan and taxed the **** out of it and ended his Presidency with a recession.

>"And security, oh yes, since Iran pulls our strings like a puppet and continues to develop nuclear technology,"

A fundamentalist Iran created during Carter and helped along by Clinton's "Operation Merlin". Check it out Bobby and tell us all how Clinton kept the clamps on those nasty Iranians.

>"North Korea is testing missiles and nukes and increasing their stockpile,"

Yes, Madeline Albright toasting Kim as Clinton enabled his continued development of nuclear weapons is clearly Bush's fault. I am sure Rove has a hand in there somewhere. Not to mention the decades of resistance to missile defense by the Democrats... Tell me again how Bush is responsible for irresponsible Democrats more concerned with abusing women, or enabling those abusers, than defending his own country?

>"But that doesn't address the Dems record on security, thats because they don't have a record."

Please pass that crack you're smoking because it is some pretty good stuff obviously.

If you mean by "don't have a record" that they have an incredibly poor record then I would have to agree. Your short-sightedness is incredible and shows that you see only what the MSM and DNC want you to see. If you believe that our current troubles started with Bush than you are more of an idiot than previously thought.

>"It is indeed the Dems moment to shine, they better not disappoint."

They won't shine because they don't have a plan. They will do what they always do: raise taxes, spend, and kick the big issues down the road so they can blame Republicans who actually try to deal with those issues. The great thing about this is that in 2008 it will be clear who these people are, who runs them, and what they stand for.

Minority status gave them an edge on those with limited capacity, such as yourself, to remember what government was like under their majority. I feel bad for America but at least I have justification for what I always say: this batch of Democrats is unfit to lead.

Betting on Republicans was a bad idea it seems
Looks like the Dems are going to take over both houses of congress. The two undecided Senate races are leaning democrat and they presently have a 12 seat lead in the house with probably 3 more seats (at least) still to come their way.

Looks like I was wrong. I figured the dems would take the house, but I was pretty sure it would be by less than 10 seats (I was looking a a solid +5 and probably +7 to 9). I figured republicans would hold a slim majority in the senate (50-50 or 51-49) but it is now looking like a democrat takeover there two. This is a bigger turn-around than '94.

I'm not sure I understand how it came about. The whys are numerous but the dems didn't really seem to be doing anything concrete to help their cause. When you look at just how close many of these races were, I have to believe that it was more of a case of Republicans staying home and independents being fed up with the present "big government" administration. Yes, the war in Iraq played a part; so did several other issues. And it is a sure thing that is was the combination of all these that did the trick. But, I don't think the poll numbers tell the whole story.

I may be wrong, but listening to CNN and ABC it seems that the democratic party hunted up quite a few moderate (and in some cases even conservative) candidtates to oppose incumbant Republicans. There were, at least, two of these in the Senate races they won and seven or eight among the House race winners.

That makes me wonder how long the Dems can hold the House and/or Senate. I think it will depend on how the party works things. And with Polosi as the Speaker of the House, that is an interesting question.

If Polosi tries to exert her will and ram through a very liberal House agenda, the dems majority won't last past two years. If they, as it seems, have learned they need to moderate their tone, then they have a chance to build on their little creation two-years from now.

The Senate is a different duck entirely. Democrats have a very small majority there (if, as I suspect, they do indeed take the Senate) and they will face severe minority obstruction there.

Also, if the dems go against the President, they will see him abuse the veto. But Bush will have to be careful not overdo it and risk upsetting the moderates who got him elected in 04 and will decided the 08 elections.

All-in-all, this sets up a very interesting two-years and an intriguing 2008 election cycle.

TCS Daily Archives