Reflecting on the midterm elections

[StrykerFSU]

Why haven't they come up with a plan in the last 2 years?

[sohotrightnow]

Are you serious? How would it have been implemented? The fact is, there will now be oversight of this war, people will be held accountable, and the majority of Congress will actually listen to what the generals say and attempt to implement their recommendations.

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.

You mean how the last 4 years Republicans have been touting the economy? Please.

[FLAK]

Are you serious? How would it have been implemented? The fact is, there will now be oversight of this war, people will be held accountable, and the majority of Congress will actually listen to what the generals say and attempt to implement their recommendations.

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.

You mean how the last 4 years Republicans have been touting the economy? Please.

you shouldn't take politics so seriously, man. It can make good people extremely irritable and bitter, you should also try to be a good winner cause karma can come back at ya.

[UofMLaxGoalie11]

According to a quality source, this was a phenomenal election for all politicians.
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/54918

[EvanFSU]

As someone who spent a good nine months working on these elections, I truly believe both the Republican and Democratic parties in conjunction are wrecking American society.

What I learned is that most people, not all, fall into a category neither far left nor far right.


While far fetched, I would like to see the abolishment of political parties. They no longer are used for their original intended purposes. I belive the passion and creativity of many politicians are diminished because if they want to gain or maintain office, they must pander on many issues, rather than argue issues the way they see them.

Imagine a politician that spoke and acted for EVERYTHING he/she believed in without fear of repercussion. Our country might just be better off...

[Sonny]

Imagine a politician that spoke and acted for EVERYTHING he/she believed in without fear of repercussion. Our country might just be better off...

Many Libertarians candidates already do this.....

http://www.lp.org

[EvanFSU]

Yea and how many people vote libertarian

[Sonny]

Yea and how many people vote libertarian

But that wasn't your original point Evan.

[mholtz]

RE: the six year itch

1998 - Clinton - Dems GAINED 5 seats
1986 - Reagan - Reps lost 5
1974 - Nixon was already out of office
1958 - Eisenhower - Reps lost 49 (most blame it on a recession)
1938 - Rosevelt - Dems lost 72 - Great depression
1918 - Wilson - Dems lost 22 - WW I
1876 - Grant - Reps GAINED 33

I am attempting to make ZERO point, just trying to save people time of figuring out this "6 year itch" thing. These are house only numbers. I was too lazy to do the senate.

[Campbell]

Yea and how many people vote libertarian

I vote libertarian. The problem with Libertarians is they also span from left to right both socially and economically. Texas Libertarians are often tagged as conservatives, which is true in a lot of cases.

To touch on a couple of points, my fear is that the Democrats will go after the Bush administration in an attempt to dissuade the American voter away from the Republican party for 2008. What they really need to do is take some high ground and try to repair the divide that grows every day between these two parties. I think the Foley scandal was very telling as to the state of American politics in that people took sides. This was not an issue to take sides on, it was an issue that needed someone to take leadership and make things right. Democrats used it to attack the Repblicans and Republicans tried to shift blame or make it seem less tragic than it was. Same thing with the DeLay scandal. People need to start taking some responsibility in Washington and LEAD this country rather than towing party lines.

As far as Republicans crying for an Iraq plan from the Democrats? Well why not? That is what they have been spouting for the last few years. They have had the time to get it together, they used it as a campaign platform, and now they have to put their money where their mouth is. As I said earlier, I don't think Democrats "won" this election. They are like the second string that is getting put in because the "A" team dropped the ball. They have two years earn their spots.

And also on Iraq, I think everyone wants to get out of Iraq, probably Bush more than anyone. What better legacy could he leave than a stable Iraq? And this is why the partisan crap has to end so that we can all be done with this war.

[Sonny]

Recent Congressional results from Ms. Coulter's latest column....

In fact, if the Democrats' pathetic gains in a sixth-year election are a statement about the war in Iraq, Americans must love the war! As Roll Call put it back when Clinton was president: "Simply put, the party controlling the White House nearly always loses House seats in midterm elections" -- especially in the sixth year.

In Franklin D. Roosevelt's sixth year in 1938, Democrats lost 71 seats in the House and six in the Senate.

In Dwight Eisenhower's sixth year in 1958, Republicans lost 47 House seats, 13 in the Senate.

In John F. Kennedy/Lyndon Johnson's sixth year, Democrats lost 47 seats in the House and three in the Senate.

In Richard Nixon/Gerald Ford's sixth year in office in 1974, Republicans lost 43 House seats and three Senate seats.

Even America's greatest president, Ronald Reagan, lost five House seats and eight Senate seats in his sixth year in office.

But in the middle of what the media tell us is a massively unpopular war, the Democrats picked up about 30 House seats and five to six Senate seats in a sixth-year election, with lots of seats still too close to call. Only for half-brights with absolutely no concept of yesterday is this a "tsunami" -- as MSNBC calls it -- rather than the death throes of a dying party.

During eight years of Clinton -- the man Democrats tell us was the greatest campaigner ever, a political genius, a heartthrob, Elvis! -- Republicans picked up a total of 49 House seats and nine Senate seats in two midterm elections. Also, when Clinton won the presidency in 1992, his party actually lost 10 seats in the House -- only the second time in the 20th century that a party won the White House but lost seats in the House.

[StrykerFSU]

BAH!!!! Sonny beat me to it...(probably all lies because the information can be found in an Ann Coulter column)

I think the Republican party was well aware that they were in trouble going into this election. The leadership may have not stated it in public but the pundits sure were. How many times has your head coach told the team before a game against a favored opponent, "Eh, we're probably going to lose this one"? You hardly mobilize your party by conceding defeat before a vote is cast.

The big question is still can the Dems do enough in two years to ensure success in '08? It will be hard because the Prez will likely veto any Dem led legislation and the Dems are going to be sifting around the back rooms trying to ruin the Prez with scandals...not good for the country on either count. We will see a travesty of "immigration reform" granting amnesty to illegal aliens but not much else. I don't buy this Pelosi/Bush hand holding for a second, those two can't possible even stand being in the same room as one another.[/quote]

[Zeuslax]

As far as Republicans crying for an Iraq plan from the Democrats? Well why not? That is what they have been spouting for the last few years. They have had the time to get it together, they used it as a campaign platform, and now they have to put their money where their mouth is. As I said earlier, I don't think Democrats "won" this election. They are like the second string that is getting put in because the "A" team dropped the ball. They have two years earn their spots.

Our system works differently than this. When one party has an overwhelming majority the minority party is not fully obligated to offer solutions in a public manner. It's not a parliamentary system. (Unfortunate in many instances. I would love to see Bush have to stand up and answer questions like Tony Blair does. It would provide the Daily Show with material for 5 decades.)

Why did the Dem's attack the Reb's so hard with the Fooley scandal? 3 reasons.

1) it's a known fact that most of the Reb's don't give a crap wether people are gay or not, they pander to the extreme. Including Bush, remember the tapes that were leaked.

2) Lot's of gay Reb's running around Washington and the capital

3) If this happened on the Dem side of the aisle, could you imagine the attacks from the righteous right?

[mholtz]

Recent Congressional results from Ms. Coulter's latest column....

That chick is "Tom Cruise" crazy. You can't quote her, or Rush, or any of the other crazy left wingers like Al Franken as a serious source of facts.

I'd argue that because of all the redistricting, most of the house seats are totally safe and secure and won't be lost unless the Rep is caught with "a dead girl or a live boy".

Dingell from Detroit has been there for over 50 years. He's been through so much redistricting that he doesn't represent one square inch of the same ground he was originally elected to.

[StrykerFSU]

She gives the same numbers you did in between examples of Crazy Ann-ness. The numbers have no politics.

I understand your gerrymandering argument but that has been true for decades so can't be only applied to Election 2006.

When one party has an overwhelming majority the minority party is not fully obligated to offer solutions in a public manner.

I disagree. While they may not be able to implement an alternative strategy I do think they are obligated to offer one, especially if their opposition is a major component of their platform. Is it constructive to constantly scream, "You're wrong!" without any statement of what's right?