What will happen in the 2006 mid-term elections?

[Gokul43201]

The GOP argument is that Padgett's entry does not violate the spirit of the Ohio "sore loser's" law - namely to prevent a loser in a primary from filing again in the same race.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=2287278

 

[BobG]

The GOP argument is that Padgett's entry does not violate the spirit of the Ohio "sore loser's" law - namely to prevent a loser in a primary from filing again in the same race.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=2287278

Did they explain that to Padgett prior to her starting her campaign? It sounds like she was pretty much blindsided by the news:

Padgett, already campaigning, sounded surprised. "As far as I know I have a green light. If this were the case, it's something I need to know about," she said. "Yesterday, everything was rolling forward."

Yeah, I guess knowing whether you're eligible or not is something a candidate needs to know.

Personally, I think Ohio's law is bad and probably unconstitutional. It's intended to prevent a candidate popular with the general public, but resistant to toe the party line, from coming back to bite the party that dissed them (i.e. - it's intended to prevent situations like Joe Lieberman in Connecticut).

Whether it's Republican or Democrat, good to see a law designed to protect the parties from the voters come back to bite them.

 

[Gokul43201]

Update: With 98% of precincts reporting, Lamont has won by a margin of only about 3.5%So after all the (unfounded) accusations that Lamont was responsible for Joe Lieberman's site going down today, it turns out that in fact the $15/month server that hosts the site was down.

With a multimillion dollar campaign chest, why on Earth would you settle for a $15-a-month webhosting service?

 

[Astronuc]

With a multimillion dollar campaign chest, why on Earth would you settle for a $15-a-month webhosting service?

Frugality?

 

[Mickey]

I don't know... I don't know anybody who actually votes for congressional candidates, so it's hard for me to take the beat of my constituency. ;)

I'd rather not re-elect Herb Kohl (I'm uncomfortable with senators serving more than two of their long ass terms), but the only alternative is someone who thinks that we are in a trade war and a culture war in addition to the war on terror. I don't believe in trade wars or culture wars, and I've already resigned myself into thinking that the "war on terror" is a dumbified name for something more serious. I mean, I'd have to *really* hate Kohl to elect this other guy.

And, I'm not an anti-semite but, will Wisconsin ever have a senator again who isn't Jewish? Let's get some diversity up in here.

 

[Astronuc]

I was listening to a 'debate' between the two contenders for the Republican Party for Senatorial candidate in the national election in November. The Republican candidate will run against Hillary Clinton.

John Spencer - former mayor of Yonkers, New York (1995-2003). On March 6, 2006, he was endorsed by Congressman Vito Fossella. He is the current party designee after the convention on May 31, 2006.

Kathleen Troia McFarland - former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense under President Reagan, as well as a wife and mother of five according to her website. McFarland has made national headlines by claiming that Senator Clinton has hired "helicopters to fly over my house at night taking pictures" and people that "peek through my window at night".

from Wikipedia - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_United_States_Senate_election,_2006

Well, it was nasty. It was a verbal brawl. Very little in the way of substantive discussion. I think they both came off as somewhat worse than Hillary.

 

[wasteofo2]

Rasmussen just released a poll showing Leiberman leading a 3-way race 46-41-6. Sample size was 550 voters, with a given MOE of 4%. Not much of a lead for Joe, he'll have to do some GREAT campaigning to pull this race off well. I still think he'll win, but it'll probably be with less than 50% of the vote. I think the Republican (scheslinger or sommat) will definitely pull off more than 6%, leaving both Lamont and Leiberman somewhere in the low-mid 40's.

http://uselectionatlas.org/POLLS/SENATE/2006/polls.php?action=indpoll&id=9200608100

 

[Astronuc]

Eye on Election, Democrats Run as Wal-Mart Foe
By ADAM NAGOURNEY and MICHAEL BARBARO, NY Times, Aug 17, 2006

The focus on Wal-Mart is part of a broader strategy of addressing what Democrats say is general economic anxiety.

Hmmm, is this anyway to run an election? Are Democrats addressing or exploiting the public's anxiety?

Do the Democrats have a more effective solution or policy, which would improve the economic condition of the country? That is the issue regarding this matter.

 

[russ_watters]

That's why I don't see the Democratic party being relevant any time in the near future, Astronuc. There are problems in this country and relevant issues to address, but by and large, I don't see Democratic candidates doing/saying anything useful.

I'm sure they'll pick up a few seats (which is how I voted) because people don't like Bush, but these are local elections and if disliking Bush wasn't enough to get Kerry elected, it won't be enough to get a lot of people who aren't running against Bush elected.

And the anti-Wal Mart tactic is potentially worse - unlike the anti-Bush tactic, it has a big possibility of backfiring. Wal Mart employs an awful lot of people in towns they supposedly exploit and an awful lot more shop there.

 

[Office_Shredder]

That's why I don't see the Democratic party being relevant any time in the near future, Astronuc. There are problems in this country and relevant issues to address, but by and large, I don't see Democratic candidates doing/saying anything useful.

What republican candidates do you see doing anything about them?

 

[Skyhunter]

Eye on Election, Democrats Run as Wal-Mart Foe
By ADAM NAGOURNEY and MICHAEL BARBARO, NY Times, Aug 17, 2006

Especially since Wal-Mart is currently changing their business practice in a way that addresses the major criticisms directed at the company.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9815727/

Wal-Mart Stores Inc. has unveiled an environmental plan to boost energy efficiency, cut down on waste and reduce greenhouse gases tied to global warming as part of a wider effort to address issues where it has been pummeled by critics.

Not that everyone agrees.

One Wal-Mart critic dismissed the green targets as a diversion, saying Wal-Mart has declined to raise wages that labor groups and others criticize as being at or below the poverty level.

But I must agree that if Democrats want to gain my confidence they need to have a positive message, with solutions, not criticism.

I criticize because there is not a lot more that I can do. As elected representatives, they should be more positive in their message and more effective in their jobs.

I expect a shift in the balance of power this election cycle and I have hopes that it will result in better government. If the Dem's take one or both houses, the resulting shakeup in the Republican party should result in real conservatives like George Voinovitch and John McCain being elevated as party leaders.

Hopefully the winning Dems, will get the message and get busy doing the peoples work, and not the corporations.

The first bill I would like to see passed is public financing of elections to remove the undue influence exerted by K street.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/16/AR2006081601598.html

Washington lobbying firms, trade associations and corporate offices are moving to hire more well-connected Democrats in response to rising prospects that the opposition party will wrest control of at least one chamber of Congress from Republicans in the November elections.

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

 

[SOS2008]

I'm sure they'll pick up a few seats (which is how I voted) because people don't like Bush, but these are local elections and if disliking Bush wasn't enough to get Kerry elected, it won't be enough to get a lot of people who aren't running against Bush elected.

Things have changed a lot since 2004.

First and foremost the unpopularity of the invasion/occupation in Iraq. Aside from the Abramoff scandel, Katrina fiasco, etc., etc., I believe inflation (beginning with increased gas prices) is going to become a growing issue. By 2008 it will be a major issue (in particular housing, but also health care, education, etc.). The Dems will probably get the minimum wage increased in 2006 as a first positive action, and then hopefully an exist strategy from Iraq -- a great start if I might say.

 

[wasteofo2]

Update on competitive seats:

CT:
Every post-primary poll has Leiberman winning definitively.

RI:
Chaffe(R) is barely ahead of Laffey(R) in Primary polls, and trailing Whitehouse(D) in General Election Polls.

OH:
Brown(D) is leading in all the latest polls.

MO:
McCaskill(D) and Talent(R) are still trading the lead back and forth and staying very close, but allegations of illegal drug use in McCaskill's past have just surfaced, which will probably hurt her.

PA:
Santorum(R) is polling much better lately, with a gap tending to be 10-6 percent.

MT:
Latest Rasmussen poll shows Burns(R) and Tester (D) tied, no other poll has yet confirmed this. Almost all previous ones had Burns down 5 or so points.

VA:
Allen(R) recently made a supposedly racist comment about a Native American Webb(D) volunteer, and possibly as a result, Webb has pulled within 3 points in the latest poll.

TN:
Corker still leads

AZ:
DNC just pumped more than 1.5million in ad dollars into this race, but Kyl(R) still leads Penderson(D) by huge odds.

This is my current prediction (red=dem, blue=rep)

 

[Gokul43201]

VA:
Allen(R) recently made a supposedly racist comment about a Native American Webb(D) volunteer, and possibly as a result, Webb has pulled within 3 points in the latest poll.

The Webb volunteer was of Indian (South Asian) descent, not native American. His name is Sidharth, but Allen calls him "Macaca" (a kind of SE Asian monkey).

[MEDIA=youtube]pL3Q9gUEvtA[/MEDIA][/URL]

 

[BobG]

Things have changed a lot since 2004.

First and foremost the unpopularity of the invasion/occupation in Iraq. Aside from the Abramoff scandel, Katrina fiasco, etc., etc., I believe inflation (beginning with increased gas prices) is going to become a growing issue. By 2008 it will be a major issue (in particular housing, but also health care, education, etc.). The Dems will probably get the minimum wage increased in 2006 as a first positive action, and then hopefully an exist strategy from Iraq -- a great start if I might say.

The Dems having an 'exist strategy' would be a change from 2004, when they seemed to have a problem figuring out who they were. ( Oh, I just slay myself! )

Actually, they'd better have a real good exit strategy if they want to last more than one term. The reason Presidential hopefuls have been hesitant to endorse pulling out of Iraq is because Iraq has the potential to be as gruesome as Rwanda - having opponents hang responsibility for that on a Democratic President would kill momentum pretty quickly.

Of course, the way things are going, staying is going to be a pretty big momentum killer, as well. Anyone with any kind of realistic shot of replacing Bush probably curses his name every night, because, short of pulling off some kind of miracle, his successor will probably serve only one term.

 

[McGyver]

Budget Deficit to become No. 1 Issue in 2008 Presidential Election

Things have changed a lot since 2004.

First and foremost the unpopularity of the invasion/occupation in Iraq. Aside from the Abramoff scandel, Katrina fiasco, etc., etc., I believe inflation (beginning with increased gas prices) is going to become a growing issue. By 2008 it will be a major issue (in particular housing, but also health care, education, etc.). The Dems will probably get the minimum wage increased in 2006 as a first positive action, and then hopefully an exist strategy from Iraq -- a great start if I might say.

Amen! The Republicans have been playing a real life Manopoly Game with the U.S. economy, not to mention will waste upwards of a trillion dollars on the Iraq invasion (where the real threat was and is Iran, requiring more spending). Given the corporate and personal wealth tax breaks, rapidly rising Medicare (and Social Security) spending, and a new era of state insolvencies (asking for federal funds) - the U.S. budget is in the crapper! I predict this issue will creep up in '07 and '08, as no one is talking much about it now. Then, it will be called a crisis.

 

[russ_watters]

What republican candidates do you see doing anything about them?

The republicans have a pretty coherent strategy that focuses on national security and points out (but doesn't really do anything to improve) how prosperous our country is.

Not very deep, but simple works.

Things have changed a lot since 2004.

First and foremost the unpopularity of the invasion/occupation in Iraq.

That's a change since 2004? Uh, IIRC, the 2004 election was decided mostly on the Iraq war based on people not liking it but not thinking it would help to elect Kerry. It was a divisive issue then and that hasn't changed.

...Katrina fiasco, etc., etc.,

So much blame to go around, I doubt anyone will risk using Katrina.

I believe inflation (beginning with increased gas prices) is going to become a growing issue.

Well, economics is always important, but with virtually every economic indicator doing well, the possible future risk of inflation just isn't going to be something the Democrats will be able to get their votors to sink their teeth into. Its just too nebulous a concern that people won't care about. What they will care about is that they bought a house in the past 4 years and are likely to be better off financially than they were 4 years ago.

By 2008 it will be a major issue (in particular housing, but also health care, education, etc.). The Dems will probably get the minimum wage increased in 2006 as a first positive action, and then hopefully an exist strategy from Iraq -- a great start if I might say.

With the Republicans controlling the legislature, there is simply no way for the Dems to profit from those things. You saw what the Reps did with the minimum wage bill a few months ago, right? The reps will make the dems pay for it big time and will still be able to say they passed it themselves.

 

[wasteofo2]

With the Republicans controlling the legislature, there is simply no way for the Dems to profit from those things. You saw what the Reps did with the minimum wage bill a few months ago, right? The reps will make the dems pay for it big time and will still be able to say they passed it themselves.

Democrats have put initiatives on the ballot in 10 states to raise the state minimum wage. Montana, Missouri, North Dakota, Michigan, Ohio, Nevada, Arizona, Colorado, Arkansas and Oklahoma.

Most or all of these will pass, and Democratic activists will rightly be able to claim credit for proposing and seeing the ballot initiatives through. In Ohio, Montana and Missouri, these initiatives could help secure the wins of Senate Candidates. Same with House candidates.

 

[BobG]

The Webb volunteer was of Indian (South Asian) descent, not native American. His name is Sidharth, but Allen calls him "Macaca" (a kind of SE Asian monkey).

[MEDIA=youtube]pL3Q9gUEvtA[/MEDIA][/URL][/QUOTE]
That may be an embarrassing comment that portrays him as insensitive, but surely Virginia voters will be more concerned about important lesilation that Allen has sponsored:

41. S.3288 : A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on handheld electronic can openers.
Sponsor: Sen Allen, George [VA] (introduced 5/26/2006) Cosponsors (None)
42. S.3289 : A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on electric knives.
Sponsor: Sen Allen, George [VA] (introduced 5/26/2006) Cosponsors (None)
43. S.3290 : A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on toaster ovens with single-slot traditional toaster opening on top of oven.
Sponsor: Sen Allen, George [VA] (introduced 5/26/2006) Cosponsors (None)
44. S.3291 : A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on ice shavers.
Sponsor: Sen Allen, George [VA] (introduced 5/26/2006) Cosponsors (None)
45. S.3292 : A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on dual-press sandwich makers with floating upper lid and lock.
Sponsor: Sen Allen, George [VA] (introduced 5/26/2006) Cosponsors (None)
46. S.3293 : A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on electric drink mixers with tilt mixing heads and two-speed motors.
Sponsor: Sen Allen, George [VA] (introduced 5/26/2006) Cosponsors (None)
47. S.3294 : A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on electric juice extractors greater than 300 watts but less than 400 watts.
Sponsor: Sen Allen, George [VA] (introduced 5/26/2006) Cosponsors (None)
48. S.3295 : A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on electric juice extractors not less than 800 watts.
Sponsor: Sen Allen, George [VA] (introduced 5/26/2006) Cosponsors (None)
49. S.3296 : A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on open-top electric indoor grills.
Sponsor: Sen Allen, George [VA] (introduced 5/26/2006) Cosponsors (None)
50. S.3297 : A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on electric coffee grinders.
Sponsor: Sen Allen, George [VA] (introduced 5/26/2006) Cosponsors (None)
51. S.3298 : A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on electric percolators.
Sponsor: Sen Allen, George [VA] (introduced 5/26/2006) Cosponsors (None)
52. S.3299 : A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on automatic drip coffeemakers other than those with clocks.
Sponsor: Sen Allen, George [VA] (introduced 5/26/2006) Cosponsors (None)
53. S.3300 : A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on automatic drip coffeemakers with electronic clocks.
Sponsor: Sen Allen, George [VA] (introduced 5/26/2006) Cosponsors (None)
54. S.3301 : A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on electronic under-the-cabinet mounting electric can openers.
Sponsor: Sen Allen, George [VA] (introduced 5/26/2006) Cosponsors (None)
55. S.3303 : A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on food slicers and shredders with top-mounted motors and replaceable mixing bowls.
Sponsor: Sen Allen, George [VA] (introduced 5/26/2006) Cosponsors (None)

Fifteen bills on small appliances introduced in a single day. Surely, that has to be a new record!

What the heck, you ask? Well, let's see, it's got to be one of the reasons below:

a) May 26th was the day George Allen came out of the closet and admitted a fetish for small kitchen appliances.
b) God only knows! He meant to stop at three in the "How many small appliances bills can you introduce?" pool, but the bidding just got out of hand.
c) His tie got caught in the office paper shredder and everyone knows kitchen appliances are the arch enemy of office appliances.
d) Hamilton Beach, manufacturer of small appliances, has its headquarters in Richmond, VA.

 

[russ_watters]

Democrats have put initiatives on the ballot in 10 states to raise the state minimum wage. Montana, Missouri, North Dakota, Michigan, Ohio, Nevada, Arizona, Colorado, Arkansas and Oklahoma.

Most or all of these will pass, and Democratic activists will rightly be able to claim credit for proposing and seeing the ballot initiatives through. In Ohio, Montana and Missouri, these initiatives could help secure the wins of Senate Candidates. Same with House candidates.

Yes, when local politicians keep their focus local, they'll have a chance. But federal legislators have to hook their wagons to national policy and I'm much more interested in where the country is going than where Arkansas is going anyway.

 

[Astronuc]

Fifteen bills on small appliances introduced in a single day. Surely, that has to be a new record!

What the heck, you ask? Well, let's see, it's got to be one of the reasons below:

a) May 26th was the day George Allen came out of the closet and admitted a fetish for small kitchen appliances.
b) God only knows! He meant to stop at three in the "How many small appliances bills can you introduce?" pool, but the bidding just got out of hand.
c) His tie got caught in the office paper shredder and everyone knows kitchen appliances are the arch enemy of office appliances.
d) Hamilton Beach, manufacturer of small appliances, has its headquarters in Richmond, VA.

I'll guess 'a'. Unbelieveable waste of time and taxpayer money.

Meanwhile -

Alaska's Murkowski Faces Challenging Primary
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5685235

All Things Considered, August 21, 2006 · Alaska's Gov. Frank Murkowski faces a primary election for his second term Tuesday. Polls show the former senator with a positive rating of only about 20 percent in his own party. Murkowski has been criticized by many as being too close to the oil industry, and his primary challengers are both running on their plans to renegotiate unpopular deals with the industry.

The latest developments in Prudhoe Bay may not help the governor's prospects either.

How will this affect the voters' choices in the federal election?

Other NPR Stories on Election 2006
http://www.npr.org/templates/topics/topic.php?topicId=1067

November is going to be very interesting.

 

[Skyhunter]

Russ, how could you confuse me with SOS2008 She is younger and much prettier. :!)

The republicans have a pretty coherent strategy that focuses on national security and points out (but doesn't really do anything to improve) how prosperous our country is.

Really

Oh, you mean talking about national security, not really doing anything about it.

With the Republicans controlling the legislature, there is simply no way for the Dems to profit from those things. You saw what the Reps did with the minimum wage bill a few months ago, right? The reps will make the dems pay for it big time and will still be able to say they passed it themselves.

It has not been passed, and will not be passed as long as the reps insist on tying it to the inheritance tax and doing away with a minimum wage for people working for tips.

The problem the reps have is that they have been in charge and everything is screwed up. The American people are unhappy with Bush and the Congress. The Republicans are going to bear the brunt of the blame because, well, it is their fault.

 

[Astronuc]

I don't know how this link will work, but try this -
http://www.nytimes.com/ref/washington/2006ELECTIONGUIDE.html?currentDataSet=senANALYSIS (Flash, registration maybe required for NYTimes)

Governor Finishes Third in Alaska G.O.P. Primary
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/24/washington/24alaska.html

ANCHORAGE, Aug. 23 — Gov. Frank H. Murkowski was decisively defeated in a Republican primary on Tuesday, a loss the governor interpreted as a rejection of his leadership style but one that also echoed an anti-incumbent mood elsewhere in the country.

Mr. Murkowski, 73, a former United States senator who left Washington in his fourth term to run for governor in 2002, won 19 percent of the vote in his bid for a second term, placing third in a three-way race, according to partial results released Wednesday.

Sarah Palin, 42, a former mayor of the little town of Wasilla who rose to prominence as a whistle-blower uncovering ethical misconduct in state government, won the nomination for governor with 51 percent of the vote.

John Binkley, a former state senator, received 30 percent. Mr. Murkowski promised to support Ms. Palin in November, when she faces former Gov. Tony Knowles, a Democrat who left office in 2002 because of term limits. Mr. Knowles, who made an unsuccessful bid for the United States Senate two years ago, won the Democratic primary with 69 percent of the vote.

I think both parties need a big turnover. Let some some new people into government, who hopefully aren't beholden to lobbyists and monied interests.

I hope Sarah Palin keeps it up. We could use more like her in government, particularly in Congress.

 

[BobG]

This is probably barely on topic only because it discusses the gerrymeandering that has made it so hard for something like the '94 Congressional election to be duplicated, but the headline is too funny to ignore: New York Times finds a non-gerrymandered district – expresses incredulity . (What's up with the New York Time's sudden interest in Colorado? They've written editorials about a proposed toll road in Colorado, as well.)

Closer to being on topic, at least one Colorado district seems probable to switch from Republican to Democrat (the district discussed in the article). Republicans are having higher than expected difficulty in two other districts, as well.

- Marilyn Musgrave looks like she's headed for yet another close race - her strong pro-religion and anti-abortion crusades in Congress appeal to a lot of voters in her district, but she doesn't seem to care or even have any competence on any other topics. In fact, her feuds with other members of Congress have cost her district in federal dollars (at least she's not guilty of adding to Congressional pork).

- Joel Hefley, retiring Republican Congressman, not only tossed the Republican candidate for his district under the bus, but backed over him a couple times: http://cbs4denver.com/topstories/local_story_241133149.html . When Lamborn won the nomination, there was some serious urging from Republicans that maybe it was a couple of years too early for Hefley to retire. The idea of Lamborn hanging on to a strong Republican district as incumbent for the next 10, 20 years is pretty upsetting. A lot of Republicans would like another chance to get a better Republican nominee in 2008, especially in a district where the federal government could devastate the economy by closing military bases around the city (we have five, if you count the Air Force Academy). Then, when announcing that Hefley would not be running as a write-in candidate, his staff had to toss in the fact that Hefley would "find it very difficult to endorse Lamborn, who relied on dirty campaigning to sway voters." It will be interesting to see if he really drives the stake in by endorsing the Democratic candidate.

 

[russ_watters]

Russ, how could you confuse me with SOS2008 She is younger and much prettier. :!)

Oops, sorry.

Really

Oh, you mean talking about national security, not really doing anything about it.

If you want to see it that way, fine. It still works for a campaign - kinda like the Dems talking about economics and not doing anything about it.

It has not been passed, and will not be passed as long as the reps insist on tying it to the inheritance tax and doing away with a minimum wage for people working for tips.

Sorry, that was a prediction on my part. I wasn't clear on that. It died shortly before they broke for the summer and I rather suspect with the election coming and it being a hot issue, they will pass it soon after they reconvene.

The problem the reps have is that they have been in charge and everything is screwed up. The American people are unhappy with Bush and the Congress. The Republicans are going to bear the brunt of the blame because, well, it is their fault.

"Everything" is a big word and even if there are some things that are screwed-up, now more than ever, the causes can easily be argued to be external. This isn't 1980, when there was only one issue (the economy) and with the exception of the gas prices at the time, there was no way to externalize the problem.

Today, our problems (as Democrats see them) are:
- Iraq
- Terror
- Gas prices
- The economy
- Perhaps Katrina

But they can't really use any of those issues safely.

- For Iraq, a significant fraction of the population believes that even without finding wmd, the invasion was a good idea. Few people believe it is going well now, but then few people trust a Democrat to run a war either way.
- There are two parts to the terror issue, internal and external. As with Iraq, few people trust a Democrat to run a war. One issue they may be able to hang their hat on is Patriot Act type stuff, but that is easily countered with pictures of 9/11, so it is risky to try to use it.
- Gas prices are on the way down and the election is in November, not February.
- The economy is pretty close to as good as it gets, and Democrats will not be able to find a way to convince people otherwise. They'll target the usual suspects, though: poverty and healthcare.
- Katrina cuts both ways. Discussed in a separate thread.

 

[russ_watters]

A little more on this:

If you want to see it that way, fine. It still works for a campaign...

Maybe you guys will find this incredibly cynical, but the reality is that a campaign is not about what is good or bad for/in the country, it is about what politicians can convince the public is good/bad for/in the country (which includes the politician's character). Like the movie quote: "It doesn't matter what I believe, it only matters what I can prove."

That means that great care has to be taken in selecting issues because public perception is everything. One of the critical things that killed Kerry, for example was the perception of him as an America-hating hippie. He made his Vietnam service an issue because he wanted o seem tougher (that thing above about votors not wanting a democrat to fight a war). But that made him a target for an easy one-two counterpunch about an embellished record and his after the war conduct (the Jane Fonda connection).

The point is, a lot of issues are double-edged and if they want to win, the Democrats have to be smart in how they pick them and how they attack them.

 

[BobG]

Today, our problems (as Democrats see them) are:
- Iraq
- Terror
- Gas prices
- The economy
- Perhaps Katrina

But they can't really use any of those issues safely.

- For Iraq, a significant fraction of the population believes that even without finding wmd, the invasion was a good idea. Few people believe it is going well now, but then few people trust a Democrat to run a war either way.
- There are two parts to the terror issue, internal and external. As with Iraq, few people trust a Democrat to run a war. One issue they may be able to hang their hat on is Patriot Act type stuff, but that is easily countered with pictures of 9/11, so it is risky to try to use it.
- Gas prices are on the way down and the election is in November, not February.
- The economy is pretty close to as good as it gets, and Democrats will not be able to find a way to convince people otherwise. They'll target the usual suspects, though: poverty and healthcare.
- Katrina cuts both ways. Discussed in a separate thread.

Actually, the most recent polls indicate people have more trust in Democrats to handle Iraq than they do in Republicans. Not that either party can get over 50% of surveyees to say they have trust in them. In fact, as things get worse, the "Neither" option is the one making gains.

And only one poll has more people believing the Iraq invasion was a good thing than bad thing (Newsweek), and that's only by 49-47.

Dems giving an honest answer about what they'll do about Iraq is their biggest problem. Bush's comments about the consequences of Iraq is about the only thing he's gotten right about it. The problem is that Americans are deciding a stable government in Iraq is unattainable. Dems can't easily say they'll "stay the course", but surely they don't want to be held accountable for the carnage that ensues as soon as we leave. The only bright spot for Dems is watching Reps try to come up with a safe comment about Iraq.

http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm

 

[SOS2008]

So here it comes, some more national security fear-mongering!

Rummy continues with the claim that the war on terrorism is a war against fascism -

"Rumsfeld: War critics have ‘moral ... confusion’
Defense secretary tells veterans that U.S. faces a ‘new type of fascism’" --
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14570794/

Rummy alludes to history, and how we need to learn lessons from it. Bush continues with that theme now likening terrorists to Nazis -

Bush: Iraq a 'decisive ideological struggle'
President predicts victory despite disillusionment

SALT LAKE CITY - President Bush on Thursday predicted victory in the war on terror at a time of increasing public anxiety at home, likening the struggle against Islamic fundamentalism with the fight against Nazis and communists.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14599961/?GT1=8404

Yes, let's learn from history, starting with the absurd use of these terms. There is some aspects of fascism in Islamic fundamentalism, but not enough for the term to properly apply. Nazis and communists are even further off the mark.

In unusually explicit terms, Rumsfeld portrayed the administration’s critics as suffering from “moral or intellectual confusion” about what threatens the nation’s security and accused them of lacking the courage to fight back.

First, in regard to intellectual confusion, these idiots need to look in the mirror! And let's stop with the usual cherry picking (if we can even find the tree!). Nazis/Hitler were able to rise in power because people did not QUESTION AUTHORITY until it was too late!

And one might note that Bush is making the connection of Nazism to the war in Iraq. It has already been established that Iraq is a separate issue from terrorism/Al Qaeda. Of course since most Americans don't know history, including current events, many will fall for this Bush!t.

Second is the claim of "moral confusion." Once again, these idiots (and certain conservatives, particularly the religious-right) need to look in the mirror!

Bush's moral compass out of whack

...President Bush has made his position clear on a number of occasions: he believes even a fertilized human egg is an individual human life and that sacrificing human lives, even to save the lives of others, crosses a moral boundary off-limits to decent societies.

For the sake of discussion, let’s assume Mr. Bush is correct about the blastocysts being people. Further, let’s do him the courtesy of taking his position - no lives sacrificed to save lives - seriously. That’s his belief and he’s entitled to it. Here’s what logically follows:

No more wars, certainly not wars that kill civilians. That means no Afghanistan, no Iraq. Not even to save American lives - remember, that would cross Mr. Bush’s moral line.

Terrorism is out in any case, but so is responding in a way that leads to the death of innocent non-combatants. So, no Israeli bombing of Lebanon.

The death penalty has to go. No human enterprise is carried through without error; inevitably, wrongly convicted prisoners will be killed.

Unless Mr. Bush is willing to give on these points or own up to his contradictions, his particular moral objection to the destruction of unconscious cell clusters carries no weight.

He won’t. So there we have it: major medical advances are being resisted on moral grounds by a president whose own moral compass - by his own definition - is out of whack.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14230700/

FREE MY PEOPLE, if not from tyranny, then from sheer stupidity. Replace the likes of Frist, Santorum, etc., with the Rule of Reason once more. Than impeach Bush/Cheney -- we cannot afford two more years of this!

 

[BobG]

Today, our problems (as Democrats see them) are:
- Iraq
- Terror
- Gas prices
- The economy
- Perhaps Katrina

But they can't really use any of those issues safely.

- For Iraq, a significant fraction of the population believes that even without finding wmd, the invasion was a good idea. Few people believe it is going well now, but then few people trust a Democrat to run a war either way.
- There are two parts to the terror issue, internal and external. As with Iraq, few people trust a Democrat to run a war. One issue they may be able to hang their hat on is Patriot Act type stuff, but that is easily countered with pictures of 9/11, so it is risky to try to use it.
- Gas prices are on the way down and the election is in November, not February.
- The economy is pretty close to as good as it gets, and Democrats will not be able to find a way to convince people otherwise. They'll target the usual suspects, though: poverty and healthcare.
- Katrina cuts both ways. Discussed in a separate thread.

As for terror, if we don't have another attack in the US in the next 2 1/2 years, Bush can tie Clinton's record on terrorism (at least in the number of events, if not the number of casualties).

To be honest, you're right about people's perceptions about Bush and terrorism. Fear works.

The reality is we've had two terrorist attacks in the US in 13 years. If we don't have another before 2009, then Bush is maintaining par for the course. If we don't have another by 2017, maybe you could make a case for our anti-terrorism actions having an impact.

 

[SOS2008]

- The economy is pretty close to as good as it gets, and Democrats will not be able to find a way to convince people otherwise. They'll target the usual suspects, though: poverty and healthcare.

The price of gas (even if it becomes a bit lower, it will still be high) is not an isolated issue from the bigger issue of a poor energy policy -- No one cares for Bush/Cheney and their oil backgrounds -- or the even bigger issue of inflation.

Rising costs are a general topic--not just health care, but education, and housing as well as energy. Here is a link to an article last year on housing in Arizona, which is all the more relevant now. http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/news/articles/0911affordable11.html

I find it interesting that you and others think the economy is good when the median price of a home is $163,000 where local residents only earn a median of $17/hour, or worse where the median price of a home is $454,500 where local residents only earn a median of $21/hour. The American Dream is out of reach for most people now.

The Dems are not going to just target a certain problem within the economy such as health care, but more importantly how to increase incomes. This is why props to increase the minimum wage to a living wage will be their target. If the Republicans think the American people are cognisant of the games they are playing with legislation in an attempt to make Dems look bad, think again. Americans barely read or watch the news. Those like me who do follow such games can see how ugly the GOP is.

Because the truth often is cynical:

A little more on this: Maybe you guys will find this incredibly cynical, but the reality is that a campaign is not about what is good or bad for/in the country, it is about what politicians can convince the public is good/bad for/in the country (which includes the politician's character). Like the movie quote: "It doesn't matter what I believe, it only matters what I can prove."

Sad, don't you think, that our futures are dependent on marketing rather than real caring for America? How odd that Republicans seem to be so proud of this. It must be a trait of capitalism as it has evolved. It is only important to win, the means do not matter, nor the destruction of the world if that is required.

And BTW, Kerry did not want attention focused on his war record, because he knew the opposition would twist it in an unfavorable way (per his previous campaigns), and the Swifties/GOP did just that. The mistake was that Kerry should have put a spot light on Bush's National Guard record before they had the chance.

 

[Gokul43201]

The Webb volunteer was of Indian (South Asian) descent, not native American. His name is Sidharth, but Allen calls him "Macaca" (a kind of SE Asian monkey).

[MEDIA=youtube]pL3Q9gUEvtA[/MEDIA][/URL][/QUOTE]Correction: The term [i]macaca[/i], as used by Allen, is the French-Tunisian equivalent of 'cool person'.

 

[russ_watters]

Actually, the most recent polls indicate people have more trust in Democrats to handle Iraq than they do in Republicans.

Hmm - didn't realize that. That was different 4 years ago. I see the "neither" category is making the biggest gains. Certainly, though, the issue holds a lot of risk for Bush as well.

And only one poll has more people believing the Iraq invasion was a good thing than bad thing (Newsweek), and that's only by 49-47.

Well, I didn't say a majority/plurality - I just meant that there is little swing potential in that issue.

Dems giving an honest answer about what they'll do about Iraq is their biggest problem.

Well, that's the thing - with the election coming up, they'll need to talk about it more if they want it to be an issue. And like last time, talking but saying nothing will hurt them.

As for terror, if we don't have another attack in the US in the next 2 1/2 years, Bush can tie Clinton's record on terrorism (at least in the number of events, if not the number of casualties)...

The reality is we've had two terrorist attacks in the US in 13 years. If we don't have another before 2009, then Bush is maintaining par for the course. If we don't have another by 2017, maybe you could make a case for our anti-terrorism actions having an impact.

Well, there are lots of ways to look at that, tooo - Clinton failed to stop a rising star in the terrrist world, and 9/11 was soon enough after Bush took office that Clinton must share the blame.

Also, "record" is wins vs losses. Bush has had to come up to bat a lot more times than Clinton did (because Clinton failed to stop that rising star). Maybe it has mostly been one man (bin Laden, not Clinton), but radical islamic terrorism has been on the rise since the early '90s.

Also, you don't necessarily need to call it terrorism, but you won't gain a lot of fans by leaving the Cole and embassy bombings off the batting average.

 

[selfAdjoint]

Bush has had to come up to bat a lot more times than Clinton did

Not "had to"; he elected to invade Afghanistan and Iraq, and do it in the particularly ineffective way he did. The contunuing bad news and low poll ratings in result cannot be blamed on anything that was forced on the President.

 

[russ_watters]

The price of gas (even if it becomes a bit lower, it will still be high) is not an isolated issue from the bigger issue of a poor energy policy...

Clearly. But energy policy in the US took a wrong turn in 1979. Though it won't help him in this campaign, Bush may well be remembered as the President who put energy policy back on track by restarting the nuclear program. And I think you overestimate the level of blame people will throw on Bush for gas prices. Frankly, my confidence in Democrats' understanding of economics is pretty thin, but many people DO understand the causal relationship between supply and demand. With Katrina a year ago and gas prices dropping now, I don't think Dems will be able to profit from that issue.

-- No one cares for Bush/Cheney and their oil backgrounds...

Sure, but so what? Without some reality to sink their teeth into, how will the Democrats be able to convince the votors that that is a real problem? To a lot of people it is an irrelevancy.

-- or the even bigger issue of inflation.

People keep bringing that up, but have you looked at the numbers? Neither you nor I are old enough to even remember the last time the US had an inflation problem. Bringing it up can only hurt the Democratic party.

ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/cpi/cpiai.txt[/url] [quote] Rising costs are a general topic--not just health care, but education, and housing as well as energy.[/quote] Of course, but complaints about these issues are quite simply based on a misunderstanding of economics. Democrats can't win an election by being straightforwardly wrong. It is just not possible to convince people of things that are not true. [quote] Here is a link to an article last year on housing in Arizona, which is all the more relevant now. [PLAIN]http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/news/articles/0911affordable11.html [/quote] Excellent example of what I'm talking about. This reporter just plain doesn't understand the issue she is writing about. It topped out in 2004, but the current housing boom is a straightforward matter of low interest rates driving more people to buy houses, which drives housing prices up. Democrats cannot convince people who just bought houses that they can't afford to buy houses. Home ownership rates were reasonably good under Clinton, but under Bush, the records have been shattered.

What's more, the other 65% of households who already owned homes made a ton of money from the boom. Democrats will not be able to convince them that a 25% increase in net worth in 6 years is a bad thing.

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/housing/hvs/historic/histt14.html

I find it interesting that you and others think the economy is good when the median price of a home is $163,000 where local residents only earn a median of $17/hour, or worse where the median price of a home is $454,500 where local residents only earn a median of $21/hour. The American Dream is out of reach for most people now.

I find it interesting that Democrats choose to draw conclusions about what facts should be when there is data available that tells you how things are. You think that people shouldn't be able to buy houses, but the fact is that they can.

The Dems are not going to just target a certain problem within the economy such as health care, but more importantly how to increase incomes.

Unfortunately for Democrats, the 2005 income numbers came out last week: http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/histinc/h03ar.html

Last year's income gains for the bottom 20% easily wiped out the previous two years of income losses. We're passed the bottom of the cycle and incomes will continue to rise (which will be a huge problem for Democrats in 2008). Yes, they are still below what they were when he took office, but now that they are rising again, it will even be tough to claim that the stagnant minimum wage has hurt them...

This is why props to increase the minimum wage to a living wage will be their target.

The minimum wage quite correctly was/has never meant to be a living wage. Regardless, I renew my prediction that the Republicans will pass a minimum wage increase in the next two months, making it impossible for the Democrats to use the issue.

If the Republicans think the American people are cognisant of the games they are playing with legislation in an attempt to make Dems look bad, think again. Americans barely read or watch the news. Those like me who do follow such games can see how ugly the GOP is.

Uh, didn't you just agree with me (well, sort of - you partially missed my point)? Yes, most Americans will not see the games the Republicans are playing.

Sad, don't you think, that our futures are dependent on marketing rather than real caring for America? How odd that Republicans seem to be so proud of this.

Actually, you misinterpret my feelings on that. I'm not proud, I'm smug, because Democrats are losing their own game. I'd much prefer a country where the rightful winner of the 2000 election (John McCain) was in power, but for now I'm fine with one where Democrats consistently shoot themselves in the foot.

It must be a trait of capitalism as it has evolved. It is only important to win, the means do not matter, nor the destruction of the world if that is required.

The destruction of the world would pretty badly hurt a capitalist, so no, that can't be a capitalist trait. I see it as a trait of ideologues - from both sides. But right now, the idealogues in the Democratic party are doing more harm to their party than the ones in the Republican party.

And BTW, Kerry did not want attention focused on his war record, because he knew the opposition would twist it in an unfavorable way (per his previous campaigns), and the Swifties/GOP did just that.

Then someone screwed up badly when they opened his appearance at the DNC with a 20 foot poster of him in his uniform. In addition to that, as I've discussed in other threads and above, the PACS do more harm than good to the party because they can't see past their own ideology. The SBV existed a much as anything else, as a response to MoveOn's (among others) ongoing attacks on Bush's service record.

The mistake was that Kerry should have put a spot light on Bush's National Guard record before they had the chance.

I'm not sure where you were during the campaign, but the attacks on Bush's service record started long before anyone ever heard of the SBV. Heck, Bush's service record was an issue in 2000 as well. I'm guessing the PACs simply didn't realize they didn't have the same leverage (ie, the same candidate) in 2004 as they did in 2000.

 

[russ_watters]

Not "had to"; he elected to invade Afghanistan and Iraq, and do it in the particularly ineffective way he did.

It is clear from his activity level prior to 9/11 that Bin Laden's star was on the rise before the invasion of Afghanistan, peaking at 9/11, not long after Clinton left office. Bush didn't allow Bin Laden to become who he is today: Clinton did. Clinton made no meaninful response to multiple attacks, which is a great prestige builder for a terrorist.