A couple of weeks ago I asked who among the Republicans would switch parties if the Democrats were to win.
http://www.dailykos.com/...
The MSNBC Politics site has a National Journal article asking the same. It is especially interesting and I suggest you go to the complete article for some rather good insights into the political calculus involved in party switching. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/...
...losing the House might be just the beginning of the House Republicans' troubles: The post-1994 political era has demonstrated that a congressional caucus newly relegated to minority status continues hemorrhaging long after Election Day.
more below the fold
That was the bitter, unexpected lesson that Democrats learned in the aftermath of the 1994 upheaval. Within a year, the scent of majority power had enticed five House Democrats and two Senate Democrats to switch their allegiance to the Republican Party. And that wasn't the end of the Democratic Party's bleeding. As the durability of the House GOP's majority became clear, three more Democrats found their way to the Republican Conference between 2000 and 2004, each defection making the party's climb back to power that much steeper.
This election has the potential of being one of the transformational political events akin to 1932. I watched CNN's Broken Government special and after tamping down my irritation with them began to read the crawl at the bottom of the screen with quotes from all over the country. I was amazed at the level of vitriol leveled at the Republicans. It would seem that we kossacks were merely the vanguard of a movement against the raging excesses of the Republican power structure.
They just couldn't help themselves. They overplayed their hand and came to believe that they were invincible and that they possessed the secret knowledge to hold on to power forever. (see Rome, Egypt and England)
So, now I wonder again - who among those who manage to avoid the bloodbath will switch.
As the article points out:
However, if the Democrats retake the House this November 7, the self-serving calculus used by a generation of Southern politicians in defecting from the Democratic Party may well begin to make sense for nail-biting, blue-state Republicans across the Northeast and in parts of the Midwest as they begin to ponder a future without chairmanships, a future weighed down by the drag of a socially conservative, Southern- and Western-based national party.
Rethinking loyalties
If the past decade is any guide, these Republican lawmakers will ask themselves the value of remaining in a powerless party that doesn't exactly reflect their beliefs and didn't entirely trust them in the first place. They will pore over precinct returns, review the pipeline of potential competitors in both parties, and begin to handicap the 2008 GOP presidential primary field. Then they will begin to entertain -- or solicit -- Democratic offers of retained seniority, choice committee slots, fundraising assistance, and protection from primary election competition if they were to make the switch.
These guys are nothing if not self-serving power grabbers. Most of the Northeast Republicans no longer share the philosophy, goals and vision of this Republican Party and I wouldn't be surprised to see some major defections. I would argue that Arlen Specter might be one to switch. He is an old time Rockefeller Republican and his party doesn't like or respect him anymore. He's in a state that is getting bluer by the minute.
I also wonder if any of those cheese eaters who switched to the Republican Party would switch back. I seem to recall Winston Churchill commenting on his switch from Conservative to Labor and back to Conservative as "re-ratting."
It should make for interesting times.