Can the Republicans hold on?

[Epee_Pox]

Midterm elections are coming up. All representatives and a large number of senators are up for re-election. Can the Republicans retain control?

I'm not so sure.

Forget the President's coattails or lack thereof. Forget demographics. Forget get-out-the-vote drives. In my experience, such things matter only incidentally to actually having a policy, a platform, a message.

Running without a clear message, other than "I'm not the other guy," is historically a big loser. The Democrats haven't seemed to grasp this lately, and it looks to me like the Republicans are going the same way. It's hard to say what the Republicans stand for any more.

Fiscal responsibility? They're worse than the Dems ever were.

Social issues? They can't agree on anything that really matters to the electorate (and no, abortion and gay marriage don't really motivate most voters).

Defense and foreign policy? Sure, they have a vision and a plan that the Dems lack, but that only really matters in Presidential election years. Midterm elections rarely hinge on stuff beyond our borders. But even so, they haven't said much about how they're going to adapt to achieve a victory in Iraq.

Tax breaks/raising taxes? Haven't heard a peep about this.

Education? Haven't heard a peep about this.

Crime? Haven't heard a peep about this.


Anyway, that's a long way of saying I'm not sure the Republicans have what it takes to retain control of Congress. I wonder what the rest of us think about it.

[chefencer]

Yes, I think they've lost the blade, are retreating and hoping counter 6 is going to pick it up. No plan and no focus b/c coordination b/wn POTUS & Co.and The Hill is considerably hampered by present unpopularity. Of course their opponent is even more clueless, so my bet is more parity, but control remains w/incumbents.

[TrainingDummy]

Sounds to me like you're with the terrorists. SUPPORT OUR TROOPS, DAMMIT! In all seriousness... Kerry should have won, but he (or, at least, his advisers) took a spineless approach against Bush and paid for it. If they do the "we're not the other guy" thing again, they'll probably lose. What's necessary is: A) "This is the other guy" B) "Here is how his/her approach sucks" C) "This is our approach, which is better." Take a stand! Just cause Howard Dean got burned for yelling doesn't mean that spineless stuttering is in order. While I am vehemently anti-Bush I think, yes, Kerry was a flip-flopper. The administration basically says "Here are my jackass ideas, if you don't like them, too bad." The Democrats could learn a thing or two from Rove and Company.

[Inquartata]

Remains to be seen, but I doubt it. Historically the electorate prefers that the branches of government be controlled by opposing parties ( as do I, in all candor ). Success might have extended the current Republican dominance, but they haven't been having much of that lately.

OTOH, the Christian right is very powerful these days. And their loyalties seem all but blind.

[lochinvar]

Originally Posted by Epee_Pox

It's hard to say what the Republicans stand for any more.

They stand for the Rapture, the End Times, and the Triumphant Second Coming. The rest is all window dressing.

Originally Posted by Inquartata

OTOH, the Christian right is very powerful these days. And their loyalties seem all but blind.

And if they continue to grow as they have in the last decade, they will continue to present Dubya and Co. with an unshakable hold on the Hill--until the Millenium doesn't come, anyway...

[fencerbill]

Originally Posted by Epee_Pox

Can the Republicans retain control?

Not if we're lucky.

[PeterGustafsson]

Hi!

Originally Posted by Epee_Pox

Forget the President's coattails or lack thereof. Forget demographics. Forget get-out-the-vote drives. In my experience, such things matter only incidentally to actually having a policy, a platform, a message.

Well, you sure are asking us to forget a lot. Methinks that you are victim of wishful thinking, and I really do not think that a discussion of the given topic, with your limitations, is all that fruitful.


Have a nice time!

Peter Gustafsson

[Epee_Pox]

Originally Posted by PeterGustafsson

Hi!

Well, you sure are asking us to forget a lot. Methinks that you are victim of wishful thinking, and I really do not think that a discussion of the given topic, with your limitations, is all that fruitful.


Have a nice time!

Peter Gustafsson

You do not explain why you think the way you do. So much for fruitful discussion. Regardless, I disagree with what you say.

The president's popularity or lack thereof is rarely a huge factor in midterm elections -- which is why such elections are frequently the ones where the opposing party can make significant gains. Coattails are only a useful indicator when there is a party platform and message that resonates with the voters, so that they identify with or against the president's party. Absent such a message, coattails aren't important.

Except in virtually uncontested races, demographics are not a useful indicator of votes, absent a message to vote on. Bush seems to have won a lot of Democrat-leaning districts, for example, because his opponent ran without a message other than "I'm not him," without a vision and plan of his own.

Likewise, get-out-the-vote drives historically fail miserably, absent a message that gives people who ordinarily wouldn't have voted a reason to make the effort to do so.

It appears to me that these things are all the Republicans are focusing on, without a unified party message to actually campaign on that matters to the electorate. And that is why I think they are making this election more challenging than it needs to be (not even counting the corruption problems in a couple states, where Republicans have even more problems as a result).

So Peter, why do YOU think what you do?

[Feltan]

I think the Republicans are in trouble because they have alienated their conservative base. They forgot who brought them to the dance. They have proven that they are politicians more than conservatives, and front line activists are not likely to be motivated.

Regards,
Feltan

[PeterGustafsson]

Hi!

Originally Posted by Epee_Pox

So Peter, why do YOU think what you do?

I think that things in favor of the GOP (compared to Dems) are:
1. Richer campaign donators
2. Different parts of the voter base less likely to alienate each other
3. Disgruntled core voters less likely to protest by not voting

I still believe that because I have not done a demographic study, or read about any, of this election that I can not predict the outcome with any certainity. However, after the latest election I read that a overwhelming majority of the HofR seats were far from competitive, due to gerrymandering. If that is the case, the GOP should retain the HofR even with low presidential approval ratings.


Have a nice time!

Peter Gustafsson

[Feltan]

Originally Posted by PeterGustafsson

1. Richer campaign donators

This is not as true as it once was -- in fact, if I recall correctly, in the last Presidential campaign the big donors went mostly Democratic, and the GOP had greatly increased grass roots donations.

Regards,
Feltan

[Inquartata]

No. Have a browse around opensecrets.org. The Democrats have closed the gap somewhat, but despite the odd George Soros most of the really wealthy continue to lean Republican...as do those who control the wealthiest corporate sectors.

[Feltan]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

No. Have a browse around opensecrets.org. The Democrats have closed the gap somewhat, but despite the odd George Soros most of the really wealthy continue to lean Republican...as do those who control the wealthiest corporate sectors.

Oh, now you made me go look up what I was reading a week or so ago. I found it on Bloomberg.com

Soros, Big Democratic Donors Targeted by Republican Measure
March 23 (Bloomberg) -- U.S. House Democrats may have to pay a steep price to enact legislation overhauling lobbying rules: agreeing to restrict donations by some of their biggest backers.
.
.
.
In the 2004 presidential campaign, Democratic-leaning 527 groups such as the Soros-backed America Coming Together outspent Republican-leaning groups by $100 million, enabling Democrats to build a campaign treasury almost as big as that of the Republicans for the first time since 1992.

Soros, the 75-year-old chairman of New York-based Soros Fund Management LLC contributed $27 million to Democratic 527 groups in 2004, more than any other donor. Soros spokesman Michael Vachon declined to comment.

At the same time, Bob Perry, a Texas builder, gave $8 million to Republican groups, including $4.5 million to the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, a group that challenged the war record of Massachusetts Senator John Kerry, the Democratic presidential candidate.
.
.
.
Even though Republicans have traditionally raised more money in election campaigns, Democrats have been the top recipients of 527 funds. That's partly because their biggest allies, such as labor unions, helped fund groups including America Coming Together, which was founded by the former AFL-CIO political director, Steve Rosenthal.

Apparantly, Soros is not just a big donor.....he is the 10,000 pound gorilla.

Regards,
Feltan

[lochinvar]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

No. Have a browse around opensecrets.org. The Democrats have closed the gap somewhat, but despite the odd George Soros most of the really wealthy continue to lean Republican...as do those who control the wealthiest corporate sectors.

Faugh. The two parties are different sides of the same coin--both in favor of government of the people, by the rich, for the rich. (With apologies to Lincoln.)

[TrainingDummy]

Originally Posted by lochinvar

Faugh. The two parties are different sides of the same coin--both in favor of government of the people, by the rich, for the rich. (With apologies to Lincoln.)

Well put. From Frank Herbert's Dune: "Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely."

[chefencer]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...040301787.html

[lochinvar]

Originally Posted by chefencer

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...040301787.html

It couldn't happen to a nicer guy.

[chefencer]

http://www.newyorker.com/talk/conten...talk_hertzberg

[Feltan]

Originally Posted by lochinvar

It couldn't happen to a nicer guy.

Well, I don't care what side of the aisle one is on -- when it comes to illegal activities or shady shenanigans we should all rise in protest. Tom DeLay, Jim Wright, or whomever crosses that line should be ousted. It is people like this that could rally us all for a good bi-partisan tar and feathering.

Regards,
Feltan

[Epee_Pox]

Quote:

<