Should the Democrats try to lose the November election?
With the 2006 midterm elections less than two months away, a growing number of Republicans are desperately hoping that their party will … get its head handed back on a plate. The fashionable conservative theory of the moment is that Republicans would be better off losing control of the House, maybe even the Senate, too—and perhaps even the White House in 2008 while they’re at it.
There is no comparable whooping for defeat on the other side. Democrats universally hold to the prosaic, uncontorted position that it would be good for them to win control of Congress in November and bad for them to lose.
As a matter of political logic, both sides cannot be right. […] If the conservative theory is correct, the election should be a race to the bottom.
But to several other conservative analysts, the case for defeat is explicitly political. National Review writers Jonah Goldberg and Ramesh Ponnuru, among others, think Republicans really would win strategically by losing this election (or, if you prefer, lose by winning it).
Still, there are reasons why the Democrats might be better off denying Republicans the defeat they crave in November. For the Democrats to win the House this year would offer the unappealing prospect of responsibility without power.
Only one thing, Uncle Dave: If the the Republicans remain in power after this election expect more terrorist acts on American soil and a guarantee of a new war with Iran. With 2 years left, and nothing to lose, Bush’s team will move into full gear if the Republicans have a majority. The thought of it should send shivers through every decent man’s nerves. I’ll tell you one thing though, Bush is walking an edge between light and darkness. The Good side of the Illuminati have a score to settle since the Dark Illuminati snuffed the light of JFK.
Who, in their right mind, would want to try to share the responsibility of our current state with limited, or no real power? Oh yeah – I forgot- the Dems. Strategically, I would advocate a lose/win scenario for the Dems, and allow the Bush team to really secure their place in history with little argument. Knowing the Dems, they will lunge toward this measly carrot only to arm future neocon revisionists with fodder for the (future) debate of responsibility.
The Administration is well aware of the midterms, and if at all possible will hold back on any controversial moves. Currently the Iraq situation is on slow boil, and not a major issue with most voters. You have the old patriotic, support the troops mentality going. I can’t understand why so many feel that vocalizing concerns equals treason. The American electorate will keep their heads in the sand over complex issues like the impending Iran showdown. We aren’t the most engaged public in history, and it’s starting to show.
Any political party that wants to lose an election has no business being in politics. Political supporters don’t send in money to lose elections and if the Democrats are shooting to lose 2006 then they will pretty much cease being a party and it’d be time to form a new poltical party. As far as the DNC goes, 2006 is theirs to lose given the polling advantages they’ve had leading into the Novemeber elections. The Republicans on the other hand are being helped tremendously by groups like Moveon.org and the DailyKOS bloggers because they are so far out on the leftwing side that they attack and expell anyone who’s not toeing the party line (e.g. Lieberman) The democrats used to be the party of the big tent, now it’s the small tent.
As far as expecting more terrorist attacks on American soil if the Republicans win is a pathetic attempt to fear monger from the left. Remember that we were so wrapped up in the Clinton scandals in the 90’s that no one recognized the terror threat. It was under Democratic control in 1993 when they controlled Congress, the Senate AND the presidency during the first WTC bombing. And through the remainder of Clinton’s administration we also had the bombings of American embassies in Africa in 1998 and the near sinking of the USS Cole, so insinuating that the USA will be more secure under Democrats doesn’t seem to be a very compelling argument.
Even if the Democrats “voluntarily” lose this election, they will still claim it was “stolen”.
The Good side of the Illuminati have a score to settle since the Dark Illuminati snuffed the light of JFK.
Oh, my… you’re really off the deep end, aren’t you, 1113?
If the publicans lose can I expect Bushy to be impeached? Now that would be worth seeing.
What matters more, the fate of the nation or the fate of a political party? The Bush crowd is systematically dismantling the Constitution, has spent the lives of many thousands of people in its trumped-up war in Iraq, and bungled just about everything it touches, and that rampage must be checked. That the President openly advocates torture and demands Congress legalize it, is a sign of how far done the wrong road we’ve gone. Now we’ve set our sights on Iran, even though Iraq has bee lost to civil war and the Taliban is making a comeback in Afghanistan. And, oh yeah, Osama is still on the loose. The Democrats need to stand up and fight.
I think it woukld be fun to have the Senate evenly divided, so we could watch two years of Cheney casting the deciding vote – anytime there was a party-line vote.
Wouldn’t that be an entertaining lead-in to the 2008 elections? 🙂
I see no downside if the Republicans loose. It may keep GW from doing something stupid. Like expanding the war to include Iran and/or Syra.
>>allow the Bush team to really secure their place in history
As what? The cabal that brought an end to civilization as we know it? The group that brought terrorism to a world-wide lifestyle?
>> As what? The cabal that brought an end to civilization as we know it? The group that brought terrorism to a world-wide lifestyle?
Comment by Mister Mustard — 9/21/2006 @ 7:00 am
Your comment suggests that you hold Republicans responsible for world wide terrorism and not Al Queda and Islamic Terrorists? It’s that kind of extremist left thinking that discredits the Democrats in the eyes of mainstream America.
That is just terrible analysis. One reason the Democrats might want to lose, and probably the only reason, is that it makes it easier to elect a Dem President in 2008, since voters will count on the Republican Congress to check the really bad parts about the Dem candidate. That’s also a good reason for the Republicans to lose. Jonah Goldberg and Ramesh Ponnuru aren’t just Republicans, they’re conservatives, and their argument was that losing would be good for conservatives, that if Democrats are in control then Republicans would focus more on cutting spending instead of pork to keep power, and other things that conservatives want.
The whole “loser will be the winner” concept is pathetically short-sighted. Regardless of who is at fault for the less than glowing state of the nation, further finger pointing and ducking the responsibilities of good government should be offensive to both America’s left and right.
No matter how you interpret the list of things both parties see as critical to making America prosper, most of then need to be addressed now before they become more difficult and expensive to achieve. For anyone that loves to tout the importance of taking responsibility or maintaining the high moral ground, this as an opportunity for both. Seeing the best option here as handing off and letting someone else take the hit doesn’t make you a pragmatist, strategist or realist, it makes you a coward unworthy of a leadership role.
… comment suggests that you hold Republicans responsible for world wide terrorism and not Al Queda and Islamic Terrorists? It’s that kind of extremist left thinking that discredits the Democrats in the eyes of mainstream America…
I don’t think anybody can blame Republicans (or Democrats) for terrorism, 9/11, etc.; what you can blame them for is the way they paint Al Queda’s portrait – as all powerful organization that spreads to many countries around the world, where in fact this is nowhere near the truth. Organization is nowhere near as powerful, what is powerful is the idea and they do nothing to change that, just the opposite – they spread fear and turn mainstream America into a blind, scared mass that is willing to follow their “great” leaders in order to “preserve” the American way of life. What is unfortunate here is that this “blind mass” doesn’t even realize that by giving power to their “great protectors” they actually destroy the very thing they try to preserve.
In the Middle East, on the other hand, people see this and they think that Americans hate them which fuels The Idea even more.
Goldberg and others are wrong– why ever play to lose? Neither scenario is the nightmare both sides suggest. If the Republicans hold on, the screaming Left, even as depressed as they will be, will still exert enough pressure to keep GW from going as crazy as they think. They’ll start focusing on ’08 and will face the same problem they’ve had since Bill– how to convince America they can protect the country. Are we to believe that’s Hillary of all people? On the other hand, if the Republicans lose the House, its very unlikely they’ll lose the Senate too. But even if they do, there will be talk but no reality of impeachment. Ceaseless investigations, perhaps, but they won’t have the guts to go through with impeachment. They’ll be too busy unplugging the listening of Al Qaeda LD calls, tearing down Gitmo, pulling troops out of Iraq, kissing up to Iran and Syria, France and Germany, and busting Israel’s chops. Oh, and blaming Bush for the next terrorist attack.
One other reason Dems want to lose; they wan’t to throw Howard Dean out before the next elections. That’s why they’ve been setting expectations as taking over the House and Senate. Then even with a good year of winning a few Senate seats and 5 House seats, they have the ammo to throw Dean out, plus noone will donate to get close to a majority.
This almost makes sense. The issue that I have is that if the Democrats don’t get control of the House or the Senate, it’s not going to matter that the Democrats win all the marbles for as long as I live. The continuation of the current situation for the remaining two years will not be recoverable. We will hit the tipping point. And I can’t guarantee that we haven’t hit that tipping point already.
The “cure” may be another revolution. And if that happens, I forsee a very long war, ended by what some may say is another revolution.
LMAO – They’re not going to have to try, they’ve already lost it… or at least lost the ability to gain a majority.
Losing as a case for winning has never worked in human history for anything, ever, period.
>> I don’t think anybody can blame Republicans (or Democrats) for terrorism, 9/11, etc.; what you can blame them for is the way they paint Al Queda’s portrait – as all powerful organization that spreads to many countries around the world,
#15/art: All you have to do is read the Moveon.org or dailyKOS websites and you will find the lefty nutters who DO blame Bush for all the terrorism plots If it’s not being dumb and stupid in the execution of the war on terror, it’s that they will claim that Bush, The Republicans and even the Israelis secretly helped/supported/executed the 9/11 plot. Which is clearly ridiculous but it’ll be repeatedly stated as fact. It’s one reason that the so called “Red states” distrust Democrats when it comes to dealing with the war on Terror.
Terrorism is itself a tool of the weak. If you can’t take your enemies headon then you resort to sowing the seeds of Terror. States like Iran will fund Terrorist organizations precisely because they cannont win a direct conflict with the West and the USA in particular from a military standpoint. So they’ll pay out money to all sorts of Terrorist organizations like Hexbollah and others to inflict a million little cuts until we tire of the confrontations and give in through sheer attrition.
All you have to do is look at the global reaction by Islamic reactionaries to the recent comments made by the pope. What he basically said was that spreading faith through the use of violence is basically unreasonable. (I’m not going to get into the finer nuances of that discussion because that in itself could be several pages long.) However the violent proclamations made by Muslims everywhere pretty much made the Pope’s comments seem legitimate.
The thing that we here in the West need to remember is that you cannot negotiate with these people. They will not follow the Geneva conventions and they will not hesitate using whatever means at their disposal to turn the world into a series of Islamic states. And as long as America is left battling the Extremists and stays the focus of their rage, the Europeans, Russia and China will stay quiet and keep selling a variety of military technologies to middle eastern states including Night vision equipment, small arms, comnumication systems and even nuclear technology.
Having said all that, I will add one more thing. Kudos to Charles Rangel on slamming Leftwing nutter President Hugo Chavez:
RANGEL: AN ATTACK ON BUSH IS AN ATTACK ON ALL AMERICANS… ‘You do not come into my country, my congressional district, and you do not condemn my president. If there is any criticism of President Bush, it should be restricted to Americans, whether they voted for him or not. I just want to make it abundantly clear to Hugo Chavez or any other president, but do not come to the United States and think because we have problems with our president that any foreigner can come to our country and not think that Americans do not feel offended when you offend our Chief of State’
I hardly ever agree with Rangel, but I must admit I’m impressed with his comments. Politics should always end at the water’s edge.
First, the Democrats won’t lose. They will gain the House and probably the Senate come November.
I don’t think there will be any impeachment UNLESS Bush tries something else totally out of line. What will happen is there will be several hearings into the Administration’s excesses. It will be here that all the dirt will come out.
Not only will Bush look, or even be made to look, bad, but the Republicans in Congress that rolled over for him. Bush will be the sideshow after the 2006 elections. The Republican Congress of 2001 to 2006 will be the main show.
By 2008, look for a lot of moderate Republicans to be knocking on the Democrats door asking to switch parties.
I say “Cherchez le Clinton,’ meaning Bill. He’s the only major Democrat around. And what’s he doin’?
He’s keeping his promise to his wife to get her elected president. So the party being in disarray, which is of benefit to chez Clinton, won’t be fixed immediately, but slowly, in steps. Someone will take the heat for the midterm losses (there will be some, always are) and there’s no one who really pulls the party together.
Oh, but wait ’til next year!
‘sup!
Democrats or Republicans… Either way, we all lose.
There is no hope for change unless we stop electing the same-old, same-old party choices.
Steve
This sounds like several commentaries that says the Republicans losing would prove positive, as summarized in a Colbert Report The
Word. I read one in the local paper, and wondered if these people can REALLY believe it.
J/P=?
>> First, the Democrats won’t lose. They will gain the House and probably the Senate come November.
Well you’re pretty optimistic on the Dem’s chances of winning. Novak was quoting Rasmussen in their latest polls which are showing that the GOP is closing the gap. One poll online show the Democrats picking up 15 seats in the house, while losing 14 seats. I think it’s getting very close to even money. If they don’t win or win big I predict that Howard Dean’s head will be mounted on a pole outside of the DNC headquarters with the following quote: tinyurl.com/f8hax
As with most elections, everyone is generally okay with their own Senator or Representative, it’s that other SOB who’s causing all the problems.
So gaining the House is a certainty, but you’re not as confident about the Senate. Why are you less confident about the Senate?
I’m not saying that the Democratic takeover of the House is a “Sure Thing” It’s more likely that they’ll pull it off but it’s certainly becoming less so as the races tighten up as we head into November. As the Senate goes, I don’t think it’s very likely that the Democrats will take it over. If the election had been held a couple months ago, then they would probably have pulled it off. They will need to win every race and lose nothing. They just don’t have the numerical edge to make it happen. It COULD happen, but it’s not very likely. And with gas prices dropping, the US Treasury getting more revenue from an improving economy, the thwarted terror plot from the UK, the momentum has been slowly shifting. The big question from the GOP is, has it shifted enough?
One more thing: I think the Democrats (thanks to Moveon.org and DailyKOS) may possibly rue the day they kicked Lieberman out of the Democratic Party. By most accounts, Lieberman will probably win his seat back even if he’s not the Democratic candidate. After the 2006 elections it could come down to 49 Democrats and 49 Republicans in the US Senate. Vermont Senator Jim Jeffords was once a Republican and he’s now an independent but he’s been sending signals for a while that he wants to “go back home” to the GOP. If the Democrats can get Jeffords to support them, then they’ll have an awful lot of sucking up to Joe Lieberman for the shoddy way they’ve treated him to garner his support.
The democrats should not lose anything, the republicans should lose, thats the way it should always be hands down. I think the democrats need a better machine, because I’m really sick of only seeing rick santorum ads (by the way if you dont know who he is look in the dictionary under Santorum). I mean not one Bob Casey ad but a billion of that screwball, You wonder why democrats have a lead until the republican machine gets turned on and everyone starts bashing the democrats. Oh democrats dont have a plan they dont have it together blah blah blah, if the freaking democrats had the amount of propoganda that the republicans are able to get on tv, democrats would destroy.
Translation/condensation of previous post:
The Democrats are OK, until they open their mouths.