Why the GOP Might GAIN Seats This Fall

This title does not represent a prediction, but in keeping with my long tradition of avoiding optimism at all costs, I thought I'd give an nightmare Election Day formula that really isn't as far-fetched as we like to think it is.  Here goes....

The much-hyped premise of disillusioned Republican voters boycotting the polls in November has the party aware of their problems, very much unlike the Democratic Party at this time in 1994.  This strategy will predictably yield the kind of nationalized campaign at all local levels that the Republicans have masterfully employed in the last two election cycles.  Despondent Republicans will be pounded with the "Nancy Pelosi will rule the world" theme and the inspiration of terror will get them back on track very quickly.  Let's face it....in the post-Karl Rove world, the idea that the Republican faithful will be unmotivated to head to the polls simply won't come to fruition.  Republican will show up to vote in large numbers....and the vast majority will be voting for members of their own party.

This leaves the Democrats desperate for the independent vote.  If they're gonna win control of the House and gain 3-5 Senate seats, the independent vote will not only have to be more than 2-1 advantage-Dem, it'll have to be large in overall voters.  It's uncertain that either the huge advantage or high independent turnout will occur, as foreshadowed by Francine Busby's underwhelming performance in last week's special election.  Conservative-leaning independents will be troubled by what they see and hear about Democratic torchbearer Nancy Pelosi (and make no mistake, she will be a huge liability in another four or five months), and many of the voters currently expressing a "generic preference" for Democrats this fall will change their tune once Pelosi is thoroughly filleted in every GOP-held district/state in the nation by the Rove smear machine.  

Furthermore, there doesn't appear to be much in the way of outrage among independent voters.  They're not happy with the current state of the country or especially the current state of Washington, but the sense of urgency felt by both sides during the 2004 Presidential election just doesn't seem to be there right now.  Perhaps this will change by the fall, but if it doesn't, it will be independents who we desperately need in our column that will fail to show up at the polls in November, not the Republican faithful.

That just leaves the Democratic die-hards.  We may be motivated, but our voters are no longer more plentiful than the Republican die-hards.  Our energized base alone is not enough to win back either House of Congress, and may not even be large enough to hang onto the number of seats we currently have.  Consider the Senate seats where a suppressed independent turnout could hamstring us....Missouri, Ohio and Tennessee in our "offensive" races...and Minnesota, New Jersey and Washington in our "defensive" races.  Meanwhile, the combination of higher-than-expected Republican turnout and fear of Nancy Pelosi could hurt us in GOP bastions Montana and Nebraska (don't kid yourselves....Ben Nelson will not be winning cranberry-red Nebraska by a landslide no matter how high his approval ratings are).  

Needless to say, this phenomenon is even more applicable to the House where strong GOP turnout coupled with weak independent turnout will almost assuredly lead to incumbent re-elections for candidates such as Charles Taylor, Geoff Davis, John Hostettler, and Randy Kuhl, but could also lead to defeats of soft Democratic incumbents such as Melissa Bean, Jim Marshall, Charlie Melancon, and Chet Edwards.  

There's no guarantee this scenario will unfold, and I certainly hope it doesn't, but with Republicans acutely aware of their predicament and Democrats continually quagmired in a game of wishful thinking and incompetent leadership, the donkeys will look like asses again this November.  The independents need motivation to vote, and the Democratic Party to give them that motivation or prepare for another bloodbath in 2006.

•  Wow

  What scenario would you present in a year where we weren't up 16 points in the generic vote?

  OK, so what exactly do you think we should do?

  by Major Danby on Mon Apr 17, 2006 at 10:44:15 AM PDT

  •  What reason is there to vote?

    The republicans are running the country in the ground, granted,
    but what are the democrats doing to separate them from the republicans?

    They need to give the democratic voters a reason to go out and get enthused about November....I haven't seen it yet.  

    by jalapeno on Mon Apr 17, 2006 at 10:50:19 AM PDT

    •  Dems are NOT BUSHITE SCUM

      Reasons to vote for Democrats in 2006:

      1. They are not Bushite scum supporters (except for Joe L.)

      2. They may reconnect this country to reality.

      3. They will investigate the Bush crimes.

      4. Dems might actually work for US citizens instead of ultra-rich cronies.

      5. Repub "Culture of Corruption" is hurting our country.

      6. Bush is WPE, Dems will do better.

      7. Are you better off since the Bush slime machine stole the election in 2000?

      by MD patriot on Mon Apr 17, 2006 at 12:17:11 PM PDT

      •  LOL

        From what we seen, Democrats are Republicans. Dems helped pass most Republican bills and still agree on certain conservative ideas like more wars, free trade, and the Patriot Act. There is no difference between the 2 at all anymore. Only fools think otherwise.

        by LiterateWolf on Mon Apr 17, 2006 at 01:04:43 PM PDT

        •  Oh horseshit

          That's the same fucking attitude that got Preznit Dickface elected in the first place. There's a world of difference. Could we use more unity as a party on Capitol Hill? Of course. But please drop that tired "Dems = Repubs" schtick because it's quite old and quite untrue.

          by kobie173 on Mon Apr 17, 2006 at 01:14:12 PM PDT

          •  Bush is the worst

            You have that right, sure Clinton was not the best president, but he looks positively GREAT when compared to this evil idiot Bush.

            Anyone who sticks their head in the sand and keeps voting for the corrupt Repubs is either crazy, deluded, or a greedy rich crony who doesn't give a damn about the rest of us.

            by MD patriot on Mon Apr 17, 2006 at 01:22:27 PM PDT

      •  This comment is far from intelligent.

        But LiterateWolf shouldn't have troll-rated it.

        by rjo on Mon Apr 17, 2006 at 01:51:12 PM PDT

        •  Lit-wolf = Bush apologist

          At best Lit-wolf is just trying to raise a stir on a progressive blog, at worst he's a Bush apologist, trotting out the big lie:  "Bush and the Dems are the same".  Several posters above have commented on this.

          Bush is absolute evil, anyone who equates even the wimpy Dems with Bush is seriously deluded.

          by MD patriot on Mon Apr 17, 2006 at 03:29:27 PM PDT

  •  lol

    I'll cling to my optimistic side when presented with doom and gloom scenarios!

    Fun to ponder everything that could go wrong though ... but ... I'm sure "the base" will have worked out liberals are still killing babies for kicks and worshipping satan and will hopefully launch the Party of Dobson aka the POD people by 2008.

    by UniC on Mon Apr 17, 2006 at 10:51:29 AM PDT

  •  Not sure what your point is

    Are you being critical?

    I think the diarist makes a very good point.

    The main thing we need to do is to get progressive Christians to start fighting the evangelical whackjobs. Right now, progressive Christians make more noise yelling at anyone who acts slightly anti-Christian. Instead, they need to start making their voices heard at the right-wing whackjob churches. Get out there and protest. Do something to wake up the churchgoing nutballs. This is where we keep losing elections.

    by chemsmith on Mon Apr 17, 2006 at 10:51:40 AM PDT

    •  If your third paragraph was the diarist's point

      then I think it's an interesting argument and would be happy to engage it.  But that's not what I picked up from this diary.  Maybe I just missed it.

      by Major Danby on Mon Apr 17, 2006 at 10:58:11 AM PDT

    •  The first thing we need to do

      is embrace the evangelicals and show them that we are the right choice.

      The last thing we need to do is go around calling them "wackjobs".

      by homey on Mon Apr 17, 2006 at 11:31:28 AM PDT

      •  That's good advice in general.

        Quit telling people how much better we are, and start showing them.

        by Moli on Mon Apr 17, 2006 at 10:46:37 PM PDT

  •  Don't Count on 'Disillusioned' Republicans...

    ...dragging our team across the finish line for starters.  The formula Democratic leaders seem to be applying is a foolish one.  If the Republican faithful are unmotivated to vote, then the less political and more cynical independent voters are certainly gonna be unmotivated.  The Dems aren't gonna win this election by default.  They have to give people a reason to vote for them.  It doesn't have to be a replication of the Contract with America, but it does have to be something other than "we're not them."  Thus far, the Dems seem content with "we're not them".  The track record of "we're not them" parties winning elections doesn't strike me as very good.

    by Mark27 on Mon Apr 17, 2006 at 10:52:22 AM PDT

    •  Count on people worried about themselves

      You and the author both seem to ignore the fact that Bush's declining poll numbers aren't merely some generic phenomenon, but represent real people who are actually worried about the direction of this country.

      The numbers on whether this country is going in the right/wrong direction haven't been this negative in a long time.  I anticipate disillusioned Republicans will stay home (rather than dragging us across the finish line), while angry/concerned independents and Dems will turn out heavily in numbers that are fairly unprecedented for a mid-term election.

      It's not just Iraq that's killing this president, it's the anemic economy, the spiraling costs of health care, the "outsourcing" of good jobs, etc.  The old Republican canard that all of our country's ails were because of our lack of Christian morality is wearing thin, and I think people need a change.

      I'm more concerned about vote fraud, en masse.  If form holds, I think we might see outrageous levels of fraud that make Florida 2000 and Ohio 2004 look like child's play.

      by dkmin on Mon Apr 17, 2006 at 11:01:08 AM PDT

      •  Me and the Author...

        are the same person. :)

        I think it's worth noting that there are a number of hard-core Republicans who are expressing disapproval with his job performance when called by pollsters, but who have no interest in voting for Democrats just because their approval of Bush's job performance has eroded in recent months.  Many of these same people may concur that the nation is on the wrong track, but for different reasons than you or I ("activist judges!!!!").

        For me, the CA-50 special election was very telling in the low turnout and the fact that Dems didn't consolidate the independent vote.  That tells me that independents are not yet sufficiently angry, and not yet convinced the Democratic Party is the nation's saving grace.  There are several months left to change this, but I'm seeing little on the part of Democratic leaders to address their perceived shortcomings by the skeptical votes we need to win over (or at the very least, get to the polls).

        by Mark27 on Mon Apr 17, 2006 at 11:08:19 AM PDT

        •  Oops

          Should have read the names, lol.

          California has so many various elections and votes (especially in the last several years), I wasn't surprised by the low turnout there, especially given that it's such a heavily Republican district.

          The people I suspect will not turn out are the Republicans, who admittedly won't vote Democratic, but many of whom are frankly embarrassed to vote for this Republican administration and its Congressional lackeys.  I think Dems and independents will come out in full force in November, while the GOP enablers stay home.

          Or to wit (and I recognize this is a small sample size and totally subjective experience), I don't know any people who voted for Kerry in 04 who are planning to not vote in 06, whereas I've talked to an awful lot of Bush voters who have expressed that they just can't vote for these guys again (but of course won't vote for any Democrat).

          I think this could be an enormous tidal wave.  Republicans across the board are dejected.  Their big issue right now is illegal immigration, and they're pissed that Bush et al. didn't take more decisive action.  Iraq is a mess, CEOs are raking it in while the little guy gets screwed, and no one is trumpeting this current incarnation of the GOP anymore.

          Another number to look at, which was just linked to in the Kos mainpage: the number of unopposed Dems vs. unopposed Republicans.  It's not a good year to run R.

          by dkmin on Mon Apr 17, 2006 at 11:14:58 AM PDT

          •  your scenario is too rosy...

            and depends on your premise that Republicans will stay home on election day.

            And I have plenty of anecdotal evidence to counter yours:  

            I, too, have talked to a number of GOPers and they just don't believe "Iraq is a mess, CEOs are raking it in while the little guy gets screwed". They just don't believe it.  According to them, this is all liberal media propaganda and their "wilfull ignorance factor" is so high they simply won't do any independent research, no matter what the topic.  All they really notice is that their taxes are lower (for some a few hundred$, for others a few thousand$).  And they will all trot off to the polls and vote Republican.  Some may have developed a mild distaste for George W. Bush, but that's not who they'll be voting for...

            by Rudyard on Mon Apr 17, 2006 at 01:02:48 PM PDT

            •  i wouldn't necessarily call it a premise

              i think the data we have indicates that:

              1. the GOP is at historic lows in national popularity;

              2. the intensity of those who disapprove of the GOP is far greater than the intensity of those who approve of it.

              I just can't believe that, however "red" your communities are, you haven't observed a perceptible change in attitudes since 2004.  I've felt it in Georgia, Missouri, Kansas, and even in the coasts (California and NY/DC).  The polls don't back up your statement, and while polls are admittedly limited in usefulness, they do support the hypothesis that Republican fervor has died down dramatically, despite attempts by the party leaders to stoke it (see gay marriage and illegal immigration).

              I should also add that I fully agree with those who say that the Dems ought to be taking bolder stances. They really show view 06 and 08 as opportunities to implement new Democratic ideas, rather than playing ball on Republican issues.

              by dkmin on Mon Apr 17, 2006 at 01:58:33 PM PDT

              •  Every time someone peels off a 'W' bumper sticker

                an angel gets laid.

                I'm in Katherine Harris's congressional district, which is redder than her pimply, poll-spanked ass, and those stickers are few and far between these days.

                How's that for a "perceptible change in attitudes"?

                by Moli on Mon Apr 17, 2006 at 10:59:27 PM PDT

            •  also on republicans

              Were the GOPers you talked to: a) rich and/or b_ devotees of Fox News/Rush/Hannity, etc.?

              I've found that rich Fox News watchers match your description.  And that poor Fox News watchers at least agree that Iraq is not a mess.  But I think even poor Fox News watchers agree that Bush is in the pockets of big business, and taht's not a great thing in this era of outsourcing and rising health care costs.

              And I really think that the sort of apolitical Republicans, the ones who don't really follow politics that closely but who voted for W as a God-fearing Christian in 2004, are the ones that have been most alienated by the Republican party of late.  This very large bloc of people who may not know who Valerie Plame is but who knew in 2004 that W was a good man is the bloc that I think (and I think the polls are consistent with this hypothesis) has had the biggest sea change, and is most likely not to vote in 06.  They won't vote Dem, cuz that would be sacrilegious, but they probably won't vote at all this year.

              by dkmin on Mon Apr 17, 2006 at 02:10:49 PM PDT

        •  AHA! Then

          you admit to collusion!  What some people won't stoop to... or is that will stoop to?  Dag!

          by newfie on Mon Apr 17, 2006 at 01:08:19 PM PDT

      •  I'm independent and angry but

        looking both at 2006 and 2008 see no reason to vote for Democrats. They're going to have to show me what they're going to change. "I'm not a Republican" is not enough to motivate me.

        Are the Democrats going to bring the immoral Iraq war to an end?

        Are the Democrats going to repeal or even curtail the so-called "Patriot" Act, or are they simply going to find new and novel ways to use it to nail people they don't like?

        Are they going to bring runaway government spending under control, or simply redirect it to their own favorite projects?

        In short will anything change? Or will it be deemed "too risky", "extremist", etc.?

        by Enjoy Every Sandwich on Mon Apr 17, 2006 at 11:51:43 AM PDT

        •  I Think You Speak....

          ...for more independent voters than the Democratic Party would like to acknowledge....or even recognize the existence of for that matter.

          by Mark27 on Mon Apr 17, 2006 at 12:08:39 PM PDT

        •  keep voting for Bushie-boy then

          So you'll just keep voting for the Bushite scum?  Yes, the Dems are far from perfect, but what have the Repubs done for the last five years?

          When did ANY Repub stand up to Bush's illegal actions?

          Oh, wait, Bush kiss-up McCain pretended to give a damn about torture, then kept quiet when Bush issued his dictatorial "signing statement" that said he would torture anyone he pleased.

          Repubs control all houses plus the judiciary, so all the problems are theirs.  

          You want to bomb Iran?  Then vote Repub.

          You want to make millionaires into billionaires?  Then  vote Repub.

          You want to continue to shred the US Constitution?  Then vote Repub.

          by MD patriot on Mon Apr 17, 2006 at 12:45:19 PM PDT

          •  Where did I say

            that I was voting for Republicans? Show me.

            by Enjoy Every Sandwich on Mon Apr 17, 2006 at 01:36:27 PM PDT

            •  So who will you vote for?

              Are you then voting for the Greens?  They have an excellent party platform, and have called for the impeachment of Bush and Cheney, but will that vote get the Bushite scum out of power?

              I'm a Green Party supporter, but continue to vote for the "lesser of two evils" until we can institute IRV.

              by MD patriot on Mon Apr 17, 2006 at 03:32:53 PM PDT

        •  In normal times I would agree

          Not now.  Now I am voting for Democrats(Nationally - I will still vote for any "non-Republican" at the local level) and if no Dem is available - my dog Cole will get my vote.

          And I am an independent and angry enough to no where to put it.

          by newfie on Mon Apr 17, 2006 at 01:13:26 PM PDT

        •  I could go on

          about all of the differences in policy between the two; mostly on economic and social policy that does effect people's lives.  but even if that wouldn't convince you I'd want to say this:

          Get out and vote Dem for me and others if not for you.  I'm gay and I'm sick of being under the gun of a powerful party obsessed with pusruing fanatical miscreance against people like me.  I'm very very scared of what life will be like if they get ANY more power.  

          by DemDachshund on Mon Apr 17, 2006 at 02:42:28 PM PDT

    •  We're not REpubs is a good start

      That is an excellent start, then continue by naming the corrupt repubs and their Unitary Dictator ruler, Bushie-boy.

      Just  a few generic ideas after the "We're not Repubs" message:

      1. Fiscal responsibility

      2. Real energy policy to help US citizens

      3. Conserve resources, improve quality of life.

      4. Stop destructive oil wars.

      by MD patriot on Mon Apr 17, 2006 at 12:20:09 PM PDT

•  Think Churches

  You can bet that church leaders across America are crusading as never before to get Republicans out to vote. They are hyped up about the possibility of abortion being overturned, about gays overrunning America, and about evil liberals 'ruining' Bush's wonderful Middle East "we're almost to Armageddon!" policies.

  This is no snark. I believe this.

  You're right on to point out the dangers of being too optimistic. To think we're so easily going to gain seats is silly. I do think we'll gain, but I wouldn't be surprised if we do not gain a majority in either house, and some are now simply assuming.

  On talk shows this weekend, there was a lot of "Dems need to find God" talk. Never did I hear, "the Repubs need to stop shoving their freak-version of Christianity down our throats" talk. All of America is being pushed right. The evangelists know this and are going to go full force. Expect busloads of churchgoers to be out voting Republican this Fall. There is no liberal counteraction to this.

  by chemsmith on Mon Apr 17, 2006 at 10:49:15 AM PDT

  •  Well

    A few years ago I attended a conference where I ran into a woman from Alabama. She told me that the Christian Coalition has a "representative" in every (white, I guess) church in the state.

    by jiacinto on Mon Apr 17, 2006 at 10:51:04 AM PDT

  •  'All of America is being pushed right

    The evangelists know this..."

    Do you mean that (contrary to what conservatives say they think) they actually know that the punditocracy is intentionally and thoroughly demonizing Dems as anti-religion and that they can take advantage of this religiously and politically?  And that that's really scary and we need to do something about it besides force every Dem (secular or religious) to whine and pander and say "like well I have faith tooooooo" on TV?

    If so, I heartily agree.

    by DemDachshund on Mon Apr 17, 2006 at 10:58:05 AM PDT

  •  Agreed....

    I'm still convinced that abortion could turn out to be THE ISSUE of 2006.  With all these state legislatures following South Dakota's lead in criminalizing the procedure, it could generate widespread national media coverage when contested in the courts this fall.  This almost assures an engaged evangelical vote heading to the polls in the interest of shoring up the judiciary with "friendlies" less likely to overturn the abortion bans that will be popping up all over.

    by Mark27 on Mon Apr 17, 2006 at 11:01:51 AM PDT

  •  Yes and gay marriage continues to be a hot-button

    We've got a referendum on the ballot this fall in Wisconsin.  It seems the proponents of the referendum deliberately delayed getting it on the ballot until November.  They could have had it on a ballot this spring.

    by WisVoter on Mon Apr 17, 2006 at 01:18:38 PM PDT

  •  It only goes so far

    These same issues were brought up in the late 90's, and Republicans still lost seats.

    by JamesB3 on Mon Apr 17, 2006 at 01:31:27 PM PDT

•  You also forgot

  the fringe left who won't suport Casey, McCaskill, Ford, Brown, both Nelsons, and Maria Cantwell because they are all "Republican-lite" and because Cynthia McKinney is not running.

  by jiacinto on Mon Apr 17, 2006 at 10:50:20 AM PDT

  •  I Suspect Most of These People....

    ....will fall in line if there's any perception of competitiveness in said races....just as most Nader voters in swing states moved towards Gore in 2000.  The only exception is many pro-choice hard-liners in PA may not be able to stomach voting for pro-life Bob Casey.  Hopefully, Casey's lead over Santorum will remain so insurmountable that a few defections won't matter.

    by Mark27 on Mon Apr 17, 2006 at 10:57:55 AM PDT

    •  I hope you're right

      But I hope all of those candidates with without the militant left. Then no one will have the need to  kiss their asses any more.

      by jiacinto on Mon Apr 17, 2006 at 11:00:51 AM PDT

      •  Ass-kissing

        Seems to me that no one wing of any party has a monopoly on wanting its "ass kissed"; also known as taking its issues seriously.

        by Linnaeus on Mon Apr 17, 2006 at 01:20:07 PM PDT

  •  What?

    Casey supported Alito. What a fucking idiot.

    by jfern on Mon Apr 17, 2006 at 02:29:28 PM PDT

•  I love pessimists

  almost as much as I love conspiracy theorists. If a celebrity dies of a heart attack in front on TV in front of 60 million people, there was foul play somewhere. If the sky is sunny, rain and snow is always in their forecast. You obviously never played on any winning teams in sports, did you?

  by tazz on Mon Apr 17, 2006 at 11:12:09 AM PDT

  •  I Seem to Remember....

    ....alot of guys just as smug as you back in 2002 and 2004.  How many times do you guys have to be humiliated before you quit counting your chickens before they hatch?

    by Mark27 on Mon Apr 17, 2006 at 11:14:26 AM PDT

    •  Oh well,

      I choose to enjoy life regardless of whether I am poor or sick. I refuse to look at life and see dark clouds over the horizon. After facing death a few times, I am not going to worry about things I can't control, like elections in the future. I feel good about the chances of democrats gaining seats in 2006. You want me to feel bad. You are trying to make us all paranoid. It's ok if the majority are not wanting to worry so much about it, we have you there crying the sky is falling to remind us all is not well.

      by tazz on Mon Apr 17, 2006 at 11:36:04 AM PDT

      •  Better to be a Little Worried.....

        ....before the election than alot worried after the election.

        by Mark27 on Mon Apr 17, 2006 at 11:40:10 AM PDT

        •  You should meet my wife

          if someone compliments her dinner, she worries that they are just saying it and it really means the meal sucks. Come to think of it, it usually does suck. You're right, I am going to start worrying.

          by tazz on Mon Apr 17, 2006 at 11:46:14 AM PDT

•  Why the GOP Might GAIN Seats This Fall

  Diebold.

  by DCDemocrat on Mon Apr 17, 2006 at 11:19:33 AM PDT

  •  Brazilian voters, no not the country the number =)

    Every time I read the word Diebold I visualize VP Evil and his pathetic mental midget Preznit Mini Mind celebrating the stealing of BRAZILIANs of votes!
    Still have not figured out how many a Brazilian is but it damn sure seems like enough to steal yet another election.

    by DemiGoddess on Mon Apr 17, 2006 at 11:37:48 AM PDT

  •  Of course

    the votinc machine conspiracists appear here now en masse!

    by jiacinto on Mon Apr 17, 2006 at 12:18:36 PM PDT

    •  there are none so blind

      as they who will not see.

      by DCDemocrat on Mon Apr 17, 2006 at 12:48:40 PM PDT

•  Well, I'm an independent...

  and I'd say I'm pretty motivated to vote.  And if you think I'm gonna vote for a lying, smearing, stunningly corrupt, incompetent, rule of law flaunting, oversight abdicating, fiscal position destroying, warmongering, cronyistic, hate-filled, abuelita-felonizing, homophobic Republican, you're crazy!

  by Viceroy on Mon Apr 17, 2006 at 11:22:04 AM PDT

  •  Are the Soccer Moms in Your Neighborhood....

    ....as motivated to vote for change as you?  If so, I could be way off base here (wouldn't be the first time).  But if they're anything like the 64% of CA-50 voters who sat out last week's special election, the Democrats stay entrenched in the powerless minority.

    by Mark27 on Mon Apr 17, 2006 at 11:31:13 AM PDT

    •  Question

      Isn't CA-50 a very heavily Republican district?  Low turnout would seem to be a good sign for us, no?

      I just think it's tough to make broad assumptions based on one mid-mid term race in a Republican district fatigued by corruption scandals in a state that's arguably fatigued by the number of votes it's had recently.

      by dkmin on Mon Apr 17, 2006 at 11:48:23 AM PDT

      •  44% GOP, 30% Dem, 26% Ind....

        I believe that was the breakdown anyway.  That is decidedly GOP, but 56% of CA-50 voters are not affiliated with the Republican Party yet Busby could only pull off 44% of the independent vote.  If we're gonna win back the House this fall, we're gonna have to do alot better than that in politically similar districts such as MN-06, IL-06, IN-08, NY-29, and NC-11.

        by Mark27 on Mon Apr 17, 2006 at 12:02:33 PM PDT

        •  Gotta love that logic.

          Yes, performing 14 pts above your district's Dem RV % is downright terrible.

          by Desroko on Mon Apr 17, 2006 at 01:58:48 PM PDT

          •  Well It Is If You Wanna Win....

            ....as opposed to settling for "moral victories" by winning more independents in conservative districts than "the other guy" did, then you better set your standards a little higher than simply halving the independent vote.

            by Mark27 on Mon Apr 17, 2006 at 02:27:22 PM PDT

            •  She split it

              with a a double-digit field.

              I'll say that again: in a very large field, a Democrat won half the independents. It wasn't just Republicans and Democrats in that race, either.

              by Desroko on Mon Apr 17, 2006 at 03:13:58 PM PDT

          •  Kerry

            Which is exactly as well as Kerry did. If the political climate has truly changed as much as all these "macro" factors allegedly indicate, why did Busby do no better than Kerry?

            by DavidNYC on Mon Apr 17, 2006 at 10:06:51 PM PDT

            •  Besides

              the dynamics of national and local races being different, Kerry, again, was running essentially against one other person. Busby had a host of competetive Republicans, not to mention indies who drew a nonsignificant share of the vote, and another Democrat.

              by Desroko on Tue Apr 18, 2006 at 11:10:42 AM PDT

    •  Special elections usually have low turnout

      If that is our only guide for November, then we may as well all just stay home and keen and wail on cue.

      by JamesB3 on Mon Apr 17, 2006 at 01:09:13 PM PDT

    •  What's a better baseline

      You are using the CA-50 election somewhat improperly as a baseline as special elections usually have poor turnout and, if memory serves, California Special elections particularly.

      A better baseline will be the upcoming primaries.  Texas had relatively low turnout but Texas's Democratic party is roughly where the Ohio Democratic Party was circa 2002 (the Hagan disaster, it seems much better now though still in need of repair) so that isn't necessarily a good one either.  Check the Missouri, Pennsylvania, New York (for the Congressional seats), California, Florida (some interesting races there), Minnesota, and possibly Ohio (not as many contested primaries for the high level offices outside of AG, but plenty of contested state leg. and Congressional races).

      by Mister Gloom on Mon Apr 17, 2006 at 05:01:02 PM PDT

  •  Well, what if..

    the Republican is sold to you as
    honest, incorruptible, competent, law-abiding, honoring of constitutional freedoms, fiscally responsible, wary of foreign military entanglements, meritocracy oriented, lovable, honoring of grandmothers everywhere, and tolerant of all sexual orientations?

    OK, maybe you still won't vote Republican, but there are plenty out there who will get fooled again.

    by Rudyard on Mon Apr 17, 2006 at 01:15:47 PM PDT

•  Polls

  We keep talking about how the polls give us a huge advantage.  Well, polls don't count as votes.  The reason we lost in 2004 (voter fraud not withstanding) is because the Republicans are better at motivating their base than we are at motivating ours. Their tactics are odious (gay marriage ammendment, anyone?) but they work.

  We can be up 40% in the polls, but if we don't turn those poll numbers into votes, we will lose.

  by out grrl on Mon Apr 17, 2006 at 11:40:43 AM PDT

  •  Yes, you repeat Stalin/Rove's line:

    how they vote doesn't matter, it's how the vote is counted that matters.  Exit polls NEVER LIE.  Why would anyone lie about how they just voted?  What would motivate them to do that?  And the exit polls in 2004 showed Kerry clearly the front runner until the polls closed and suddenly, everything changed for Bu$hCo and KKKarl Rove gave the thumbs up, having ensured the victory with Diebold Fraud Machines.  Yes, Rovian followers on this diary, exit polls don't matter and only how the vote is counted matters when you have the voting machines in your pocket.  So, I'm sure all here are correct in predicting a gain of Rethug seats, when the polls shows even Rethugs are unhappy with the direction the country has taken and are really unhappy with a majority of Rethugs in congress.  Naturally, they will race to vote to keep those same Rethugs in power.  Illogical, but somehow only how the vote is counted will matter once again.

    by Little Lulu on Mon Apr 17, 2006 at 12:36:12 PM PDT

    •  Votes

      Okay, I'll take the bait.  I think there was probably some voter fraud.  Yes. I do.  But I do not believe that there was enough voter fraud to make up the difference in total votes.  Could it have made the difference in Ohio?  Maybe.  But what about all of the states that didn't use Diebold machines?  What about the good folks in Bridge City, like me, that use the old machines?  How do you explain that they mananged more turnout in those areas?  Did they rig our punch machines, too?  No.  They didn't.  We lost in those areas because they turned out their base better than we did.  Until we face that and figure out how to get our people to the polls, they will continue to beat us.

      I didn't say I agree with their tactics.  Note the word "odious".  I said that they work.

      by out grrl on Mon Apr 17, 2006 at 12:47:26 PM PDT

      •  2004 was lost in Ohio and Florida where

        rampant Diebold voter fraud was clear to anyone looking into it.  I don't know where Bridge City is, but that wasn't a location calling Kerry the winner in exit polls that "counted" for electoral votes.  Those are the exit polls I'm talking about and yes, there was more than enough voter fraud.  Read John Conyer's book WHAT WENT WRONG IN OHIO for all the "odious" details.

        by Little Lulu on Mon Apr 17, 2006 at 03:15:34 PM PDT

    •  Some corrections

      As was written in Mother Jones magazine Exit Polls were actually off by more in 1996.  Exit Polls can be wrong for a number of reasons including sampling bias.  It appears that pollsters greatly under sampled rural areas (where those that could be polled were much less likely to talk to the "liberal media" anyways).  Your posting of this erroneous information wrecklessly is why I troll rated you.

      And, in closing, EXIT POLLS ARE NOT INFALLIBLE!

      by Mister Gloom on Mon Apr 17, 2006 at 05:04:03 PM PDT

      •  Troll rate all you want. EXIT POLLS NEVER LIE.

        They may fall a bit short in some areas, but they never show a clear front runner that is suddenly and inexplicably left behind.  That's courtesy of voter fraud and there is plenty of evidence to support the truth of this in both Florida and Ohio.  Documented, absolute truth.  Voter fraud, courtesy of Diebold Fraud Machines in Florida and Ohio stole our democracy and gave Bu$hCo another four years to rape, pillage and plunder.

        by Little Lulu on Wed Apr 19, 2006 at 05:17:22 PM PDT

•  Nancy Pelosi

  Are you thinking NP will be such a liability b/c she is a uppity liberal woman and therefore easy to demonize (a la Hillary except actually liberal)?  Or is there some scandal brewing with her that I'm in the dark about?  Or something else?

  by DemDachshund on Mon Apr 17, 2006 at 11:53:32 AM PDT

  •  She's From San Francisco....

    ....which, fairly or unfairly, represents everything Middle America loves to hate.  Plus she makes predecessor Dick Gephardt seem comparatively charismatic.  Whatever the merits of her politics, her profile puts her right in the bullseye of the culture war.

    by Mark27 on Mon Apr 17, 2006 at 12:07:25 PM PDT

  •  No scandal

    She's easy to demonize.  Bottom line.  So the question is, do you play along with the game or change the rules?

    by Linnaeus on Mon Apr 17, 2006 at 01:23:16 PM PDT

    •  Change the rules

      Everyone is easy to demonize.  If they can demonize a Vietnam vet missing three limbs, they can demonize anyone.  Anyone who puts themselves out there will be demonized.  Yes, it's easier to demonize Pelosi than some others.  That doesn't mean we need to abandon our leaders, just get people out there to counter the BS.

      The only person I haven't seen demonized yet is Fitz.  And believe you me, if there were a way, they would be on it.  They've already tried a few things, but nothing stuck.  The only reason it hasn't stuck is because he hasn't said a peep about politics.  They broke the law, he is in a position and was appointed to enforce the law, so that's what he is doing and will continue to do.  We can't start screaming Fitz '08 either because the second he makes a political statement, his credibility as a non-partisan gets flushed.  He's just the kind of person people would love to see running the country, but he's too smart to try.

      by Slartibartfast on Mon Apr 17, 2006 at 01:52:57 PM PDT

      •  That's what I was hinting at

        One doesn't have to agree with everything Pelosi says or does, but the answer to potential Republican attacks on her is not to validate them by running away from her but by, as you say, countering the BS.

        by Linnaeus on Mon Apr 17, 2006 at 01:59:37 PM PDT

•  Huh?

  Furthermore, there doesn't appear to be much in the way of outrage among independent voters.  They're not happy with the current state of the country or especially the current state of Washington, but the sense of urgency felt by both sides during the 2004 Presidential election just doesn't seem to be there right now.

  Maybe you're not paying too much attention. Does 47% strongly disapprove indicate any outrage? Does a 16 point disadvantage to R's in a generic ballot indicate any outrage? It certainly doesn't indicate any lack of outrage.

  by mjshep on Mon Apr 17, 2006 at 11:58:37 AM PDT

  •  But Just Because You 'Strongly Disapprove'...

    ...of George Bush's job performance does not mean you're gonna vote for Harold Ford or Claire McCaskill.  We made the same mistake in 2004 of assuming that because Bush's approval rating was less than 50%, he couldn't rise above that 45-48ish glass ceiling on Election Day.

    by Mark27 on Mon Apr 17, 2006 at 12:04:48 PM PDT

•  People forget that even after tricky dick Nixon

  the Republicans lost the Presidency the next time but then regained it again with Reagan.
  The independents will turn to Democrats but not if they go as left as many here want.
  The country is not dailyKos or redstate it really is in the middle that nobody seems to want to believe.

  by saul2006 on Mon Apr 17, 2006 at 01:05:29 PM PDT

  •  Actually

    With the single exeception of national security (people want to be kept safe, though they are not hard and fast on the how) people don't really care about most policies.  But they do want to the person they vote for to be strong.  Most of the middle doesn't want to worry about what the government will do next which is part of why Gore and Kerry lost.  The country as a whole would elect a fairly liberal Democratic majority but would not elected the mushy centrists that you favor (see the 2002 and 2004 elections where a hoard of mushy centrist had a slew of near losses).  Let's show some sanity and not repeat the behavior that has led to continual failure.

    by Mister Gloom on Mon Apr 17, 2006 at 05:06:55 PM PDT

•  You say two different things

  You say the GOP doesn't have as much urgency as they did in 2004, yet you also say that the GOP is aware of their problem. So using that logic, they would be pretty urgent, if they're afraid of losing their majority.

  You say that independent voters won't be motivated to vote, yet you also say that Nancy Pelosi will mean Republicans benefit from independent votes.

  The only reason Busby's performance in a very Republican district was underwhelming is because of those who assumed she would win, or those who knew she would not win without a runoff and spun this as some horrible defeat.

  If you think most people give a shit about Nancy Pelosi, you will be very surprised.

  by JamesB3 on Mon Apr 17, 2006 at 01:07:31 PM PDT

  •  Republican Party vs. Republican Voters....

    First of all, the "sense of urgency" I spoke of for 2004 applied to Democratic voters, Republican voters, and independents who aligned themselves with one of the two.  As it applies to Republicans, the GOP voters don't have the urgency right now, but the party bosses recognize they have a problem, and if recent history is any indication, will rectify that problem in the months ahead by comparing Brad Ellsworth, Heath Shuler, Charlie Melancon and Chet Edwards to Nancy Pelosi....and, of course, to Osama bin Laden.

    Independents will turn out in smaller numbers than 2004, and probably even 2002, which had a pretty high turnout for a midterm.  We need big numbers of angry independents to turn out if we're gonna retake the House.  As for those who do show up, I'm suggesting that GOP nationalization of the campaign (and subsequent comparisons to Pelosi) will bring voting independents, who may currently be leaning our way in phone surveys, back into the Republican fray.

    People will give a shit about Pelosi when the GOP draws the comparison....just as they gave a shit about Ted Kennedy and Hillary Clinton when Tom Coburn and Richard Burr came from behind to win Senate seats after the GOP pounded the comparisons to Democratic challengers into their brains.

    by Mark27 on Mon Apr 17, 2006 at 01:15:53 PM PDT

    •  There's a huge difference

      Ted Kennedy and Hillary Clinton were nationally known figures who were involved in various scandals and held major positions of power or were in prominent families. Pelosi is the minority leader and at worse she gets a lot of Botox and is a bit shrill and is very liberal. Coburn and Burr won because they were in GOP states with a huge turnout for Bush.

      If independents are so easily duped into voting GOP, as you seem to think they will, then won't it help Democrats if they stay at home?

      Nancy Pelosi wasn't anything in 2002, the minority leader was the milquetoast Gephardt. Shouldn't we have won tons of seats in 2002?

      by JamesB3 on Mon Apr 17, 2006 at 01:29:30 PM PDT

      •  Who's to Say....

        ....that Kennedy and Clinton won't be included ALONG WITH Pelosi in the 2006 round of GOP attack ads?  And I strongly disagree with your contention that Bush's coattails destroyed Carson and Bowles in their respective Senate races.  Both men and comfortably and consistently ahead for months before the final-quarter GOP ads came out making the "scary liberal" comparison.  And not only did Carson and Bowles lose, they lost BIG.  Coattails alone don't create 15-20 point poll swings in two months.  The Republican nationalizing strategy worked like cream.

        Here's what I'm suggesting could occur with independents:  turnout will be low, which is bad because we need large numbers of them on our side to offset the GOP base where I doubt turnout will be low.....but among those independents who do turn out, they will vote Democratic by a substantial margin, but not substantial enough to win back the House, partly because the more conservative independents will be compelled to the polls to obstruct an insurgent Democratic Party led by Nancy Pelosi.

        by Mark27 on Mon Apr 17, 2006 at 01:52:42 PM PDT

        •  Republican nationalizing strategy...

          then why did Salazar win in Colorado, and Mongiardo only barely lost in Kentucky? Different states have different attitudes. Coburn had a big lead before he was buffeted by scandal. When those started to abate, his lead returned. The only thing these states had in common was that Bush on the ticket helped the GOP candidates in states most heavily devoted to Bush. That's why the Republicans won a seat in Florida and kept one in Kentucky.

          Maybe you're right. Maybe Democrats will lose seats, and Nancy Pelosi will be to blame. Honestly, it's hard for me to predict anything. I just think this type of concept pretty much tells people not to even bother voting or giving money or volunteering, because the little things will ensure the GOP wins.

          by JamesB3 on Mon Apr 17, 2006 at 02:13:05 PM PDT

          •  A Fair Point....

            ....but I think a balance has to be drawn between defeatism and overconfidence, the latter of which seems to be the conventional wisdom in Democratic Party circles these days.  Both defeatism and overconfidence often lead to same unfavorable end.

            Salazar won in Colorado because a number of factors are shifting that state leftward....one of very few states where that is the case.  Mongiardo got close in Kentucky because he was running against one of the laziest, most incompetent, and least sane Congressmen in the nation.  Even after campaign missteps that would have sunk nearly any candidate in the country, Bunning still prevailed.  But I'll grant you that Bush coattails alone may have contributed to Bunning's victory, and probably Murkowski in Alaska as well.  Coattails certainly didn't hurt Vitter, DeMint, Burr, and Coburn either, but they would have won handily without Bush because of the GOP nationalizing strategy.

            by Mark27 on Mon Apr 17, 2006 at 03:40:06 PM PDT

        •  Bowles didn't lose big

          I was there on Election night.  Bowles scored the 48% he had had consistently in the race.  Bowles's big problem was that he could never "close the door" and receive the extra 2% + 1 vote needed to win.  And Carson ran behind Coburn fairly early on.

          by Mister Gloom on Mon Apr 17, 2006 at 05:08:57 PM PDT

          •  Note

            I meant watching the results on election night not in NC.

            by Mister Gloom on Mon Apr 17, 2006 at 05:10:13 PM PDT

          •  Bowles Was Ahead by 10....

            ....in nearly every poll throughout the summer.  Then in September, the lead was gone overnight.  He lost by more than four points.  You're right that doesn't necessarily qualify as "losing big" but it sort of does when you blow a 10-point lead.

            Coburn had a lead early on over Carson (albeit tiny), but for months in the summer, Carson led.....then lost it all big time, losing to Coburn by double digits.  I knew when Coburn beat Humphreys in the primary that this seat was likely out-of-reach, not only because Coburn speaks fluent "Oklahoman", but also because he shared Carson's eastern Oklahoma turf, splitting the vote with him in the only region of the state that remains Democrat.

            by Mark27 on Mon Apr 17, 2006 at 05:24:29 PM PDT

            •  He was ahead but

              Bowles was ahead with about a 48-38 number.  The problem was that he never closed the door and win over the rest.  He had a lead but an entirely illusionary lead (much like Cuomo's lead over Pataki in the NY Gov race in 1994, he led with something like 47% but couldn't close the door).

              If memory serves part of the reason that Carson lost by as much as he did was that a quasi-Green (she had run for their VP spot but was enough of an oddball that they more or less disavowed her) ran and received a surprisingly high percentage (I believe Coburn won with something like 51-41-8).

              by Mister Gloom on Mon Apr 17, 2006 at 05:35:07 PM PDT

            •  Further

              Just as an adendum to my last poll:  Burr had been gradually closing on Bowles for months not just quickly.  

              by Mister Gloom on Mon Apr 17, 2006 at 05:40:50 PM PDT

•  Let's not be so pessimistic....

  but seriously...if people elect Republicans again I will seriously fight my way onto every news network to tell the American people who voted Republican that they are FUCKING MORONS and they need to go get a fucking education.

  As it is I don't have a lot of sympathy for Republicans....another election in which they win....I think I'd flip the fuck out!

  by Elise on Mon Apr 17, 2006 at 02:12:58 PM PDT