Reflecting on the midterm elections

[StrykerFSU]

If McCain can win the republican nomination, he'll win.

...in a perfect world. There was a piece in the Washington Times today citing McCain as the big winner last night but I fear that he's too moderate and, like mholtz said, mostly extremists vote in the primaries.

Just like the reason there were more deaths in Iraq in October is because the insurgents were trying to influence the elections.

Like I said, it might be a coincidence but my feeling is that terror leaders around the world were certainly paying attention to this election. I suppose it is possible that the leaders of our enemies could care less about who is in power in this country and I wouldn't sarcastically dismiss such a notion.

The Lieberman/Lamont battle was mentioned before...Lamont was the poster boy for the anti-war Left and was trounced by the hawkish Lieberman, what does this say about our future in Iraq? I have a feeling that despite all of the rhetoric we are going to see the Dem led Congress continue our involvement in Iraq because the majority of the American people recognize the importance of that conflict. At least if the Dems have some different direction in mind, I haven't heard it mentioned by any of them.

[laxfan25]

I've never posted on political topics, but I'll try here:

1) Thank god the advertising cycle is over!!

2) I love the spin today that losing control of the House and Senate is just a normal election cycle. Certainly wasn't hearing those comments in the days leading up. Someone was even saying that there was no way they would lose either house. Today he described it honestly as a thumping.

3) There was a tremendous amount of bitterness in the electorate, and it wasn't coming from the bases, it was the independents, who swung hugely to the Dems. People finally got fed up with all the "happy talk" about how well things are going - they're not total idiots. I felt like people were on a mission. The size of the turnout was very large - I haven't seen numbers, but it had to be close to a mid-term record. People were pissed, and wanted change.

4) Will this correlate to long-term gains for the Dems? We'll have to wait and see. If they're smart (and I know they are!) they will push for a centrist agenda, which compared to where we've been, is anything to the left of Neandertal. They can act as a party of moderation, one that is populist in strategy, and recognize that just like the Republicans, they're never going to lose their base, and the opportunity is there to grab more of the middle ground.

5) Hopefully Bush recognizes that these last two years are his last chance to salvage any kind of positive legacy, and he will reach out and be more conciliatory. If both sides can meet somewhat, how wonderful would that be? (As well as incredibly naive).

6) Nothing drastic will happen with Iraq. Everyone realizes we are stuck there, with no really good solutions. The Baker/Hamilton commission is going to come out with it's report, and everyone will rally around its suggestions, whcih will include some kind of timetable for phased withdrawal and an attempt to bring in Iraq's neighbors into a solution - all of which have a vested interest in stabilizing a very unstable situation. Iran with the Shiites, Syria with the Sunnis and Turkey with the Kurds.

7) It's funny that someone was mentioning a move towards the center, away from "Billary". How quickly they forget! Bill made his mark with the Democratic Leadership Forum, which was a group of centrist Democrats. Broadening the Democratic tent to include pro-life and pro-gun members can only be a good thing.

Keep your eye on Barak Obama. He will be President one of these days.

[sohotrightnow]

I love how Republicans immediately are expecting an answer from Democrats on Iraq. They have been f'ing things up there for almost 4 years and the day after the election they want an answer. Too bad! I imagine they will come up with a rational plan and use their collective minds as opposed to blindly going with their gut instinct like this administration.

[StrykerFSU]

How quickly they forget! Bill made his mark with the Democratic Leadership Forum

And I always thought he made his mark on a blue dress...okay, last Bill joke I promise.

Seriously though, the 6th year itch is well documented. In 6th year midterm elections over the last 106 years, the President's party has lost about 30 seats in the House. The only exception was during 1998 when Clinton avoided this fate. Theories I have heard for his luck were either the public was fed up with the Star investigation and impeachment proceedings or that he had already lost everything there was to lose in 1994.

[sohotrightnow]

The 6th year itch is common, but 30 seats is not the norm. Nobody envisioned this, especially Karl Rove and his "math", so please stop saying that this type of loss was expected.

[Sonny]

The 6th year itch is common, but 30 seats is not the norm. Nobody envisioned this, especially Karl Rove and his "math", so please stop saying that this type of loss was expected.

What is the norm for seats changing hands in your "6 year itch"?

[sohotrightnow]

Dunno, perhaps 30 is the norm. Just don't think that people on the right were expecting this big of a loss. In previous midterm elections, I think the shift of power was more expected. In addition, more Independents helped the shift this time around.

[Sonny]

In the span of 16 minutes you have made conflicting statements...

Dunno, perhaps 30 is the norm.

The 6th year itch is common, but 30 seats is not the norm.

Inquiring minds want to know... Which is it?

[sohotrightnow]

Um, because I maybe got a little carried away and wasn't sure? Maybe it is 30 seats? I don't know and haven't taken the time to be an internet sleuth and look it up. My point was more the fact that the right did not see this coming, whereas it was more expected during other 6th year midterm elections. Chill bro. Your party lost. Deal with it. The world is a better place now.

You finally nailed me on something Sonny! Congrats! What does that make the score now? 100 for me, 1 for you?

[OAKS]

In the span of 16 minutes you have made conflicting statements...

Dunno, perhaps 30 is the norm.

The 6th year itch is common, but 30 seats is not the norm.

Inquiring minds want to know... Which is it?

http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crysta ... 2005040501

states

Let's look at the last half-century of midterm elections for the U.S. Senate from 1950 to 2002. Note that we are including all midterm elections, both the first midterm election of a presidency and the second one in the sixth year of the two-term presidency. On average, the president's party has lost three Senate seats in each of those 14 elections.

not sure where he gets the numbers though. If Dems win VA that'll be twice the average for the Senate.

The Elephants won 52 seats back in '94 in the House.

[DanGenck]

I hate to say it, but part of me wishes the republicans would have stayed in control to go down with their ship. Democrats will struggle to get anything done in the next 2 years, which will fuel people to once again vote Republican in 2008. I think a republican house/senate/president until 2008 would have guarenteed a full scale shift in 2008.

Sorry to people who love the current administration, but from my vantage point, they are an extreme disappointment. I wish they'd have to squirm longer in office with their mistakes.

I know, I know... two wrongs don't make a right.

[StrykerFSU]

I love how Republicans immediately are expecting an answer from Democrats on Iraq. They have been f'ing things up there for almost 4 years and the day after the election they want an answer. Too bad!

I think the expectation arises because the Democrat leadership has been slamming the Iraq War since about 15 minutes after voting to give the President the authority to invade. It's pretty easy to point out that something is broken but it's a little harder to find a solution. I think the further success of the Dems lies in finding some sort of solution in Iraq. If there is no change after all of their grandstanding, I think the electorate will not be kind in '08. The Dems framed this election about Iraq so now they have to deal with it. You can't make the election issue Iraq and then expect the country to be happy just because you raise the minimum wage or ensure that all underage girls can get abortions without parental consent.

[DanGenck]

One more aside-

One of my best friends is a Virginia resident and she is gay. My heart aches for her and many other gay men and women in this country who were dealt the blow of not being allowed a basic constitutional right that we grant every one else in this country.

It's not about the cost.
It's not about the importance of "marriage".
It's not about faith and morals.

It's that some people are fundamentally intolerant of others, which in this day and age is extremely disappointing.

[sohotrightnow]

Of course Stryker! If they don't come together with a plan, they are no better than the current administration.

[Sonny]

In the span of 16 minutes you have made conflicting statements...

Dunno, perhaps 30 is the norm.

The 6th year itch is common, but 30 seats is not the norm.

Inquiring minds want to know... Which is it?

http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crysta ... 2005040501

states

Let's look at the last half-century of midterm elections for the U.S. Senate from 1950 to 2002. Note that we are including all midterm elections, both the first midterm election of a presidency and the second one in the sixth year of the two-term presidency. On average, the president's party has lost three Senate seats in each of those 14 elections.

not sure where he gets the numbers though. If Dems win VA that'll be twice the average for the Senate.

The Elephants won 52 seats back in '94 in the House.

Thanks Oaks. I've also seen data that shows 20 - 25 is the norm for the president's party losing House of Representatives seats at the "6-year itch mark" going back over the last 100 year period or so. Don't have a link handy, but it was in an article I read yesterday (if memory serves).

sohotrightnow - you need to stop making things personal, OK?