What are the Dems' REAL chances this Nov.?

Forums: Politics
Email this Topic • Print this Page

Don't Count the Republicans Out
By Molly Ivins
Creators Syndicate

Thursday 19 October 2006

Stunning coincidence. The verdict in the long-running trial of Saddam Hussein in Iraq is now due two days before our congressional elections in November. Astounding. How ineffable.

Sometimes you know the Republicans have just lost the rag completely. This week, Dick Cheney said to Rush Limbaugh regarding the Iraqi government, "If you look at the general, overall situation, they're doing remarkably well." The vice president also acknowledged there's some concern because the war wasn't over "instantaneously." We have now been in Iraq just one month shy of the entire time it took us to fight World War II. Seventy Americans dead so far in October. Electricity in Iraq this year hit its lowest levels since the war started.

What infuriates me about this is the lying. WHY can't they level with us? Just on the general, overall situation.

Put me in the depressive Dems camp. We always look good going into the last two weeks, until we get hit with that wall of Republican money (though I do think Ohio is beyond political recall at this point for the R's). Of course, both sides always complain about unfair advertising, but I must admit that almost all political advertising strikes me as ludicrous and I don't notice the D's looking simon-pure. A little shading, a little emphasis here and there - I'm hard to shock on political ads, but I do get more than miffed when they take the truth and just stand it on its head.

For example, if ever there has been a friend to Social Security it would be Rep. Chet Edwards from Waco, Texas, a D loyal to the FDR, LBJ and government-exists-to-serve-the-people tradition. So what are the R's attacking him on? Not supporting Social Security. All this kind of thing does is render political debate completely meaningless.

The argument now is that D's have a seven-point structural deficit going into any election. I see the problem, I just have no idea what the actual numbers are.

Let's start with the easy end, the Senate. From the book "Off Center" by Jacob S. Hacker and Paul Pierson, as recently quoted by Eric Alterman in his blog: "The mismatch between popular votes and electoral outcomes is even more striking in the Senate. Combining the last three Senate elections, Democrats have actually won 2.5 million more votes than Republicans. Yet now they hold only 44 seats in that 100-person chamber because Republicans dominate the less populous states that are so heavily overrepresented in the Senate. As journalist Hendrik Hertzberg (of the New Yorker) notes, if you treat each senator as representing half that state's population, then the Senate's 55 Republicans currently represent 131 million people, while the 44 Democrats represent 161 million people."

OK, we all know about the small-state advantage in the Senate. How did the People's House get so far out of fair? Paul Krugman explains: "The key point is that African-Americans, who overwhelmingly vote Democratic, are highly concentrated in a few districts. This means that in close elections many Democratic votes are, as political analysts say, wasted - they simply add to huge majorities in a small number of districts, while the more widely spread Republican vote allows the GOP to win by narrower margins in a larger number of districts."

I should also point out that Democrats used to pack minority voters into the same districts when they drew the redistricting lines because of simple racism. Minority candidates need more votes to win, as polling consistently shows them several points ahead of where they actually finish because some people still cannot bring themselves to vote for black politicians even if they agree with them.

For instance, race is a factor this year in Harold Ford's Tennessee Senate contest - even though political people keep pretending it's not.

I'm the one who has been writing for two years that the American people are fed up with the war in Iraq and with the Bush administration's lies and incompetence. I'm the one that keeps beating the Washington press corps about the head over how out of touch it is. I'm the one who has been insisting there's a Democratic tide out here, and that the people are so far ahead of the politicians and the media it's painful to watch.

So how come I'm not thrilled? Because I watched this happen two years ago - same rejection of the Iraq war, same disgust with Bush and Co., same understanding Republicans are for the rich, period, same polls showing D's with the lead going right into Election Day. And the same geographic gerrymander and same wall of money in the last two weeks. I'm not close to calling this election, and I'm sure not into celebrating anything yet.

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 6,507 • Replies: 135

No top replies

I mean no disrepect to you Merry, but I hate this article.

The Democrats have a great chance in November-- they just need to close the deal. Articles about how Democrats can never win are part of the problem, especially when the conditions are so favorable.

Well first, the most important key to winning for the Democrats is getting out the vote. This is actually an advantage because people who tend to vote Democrats are angry and are more likely to vote than ever (assuming there not discourage by pessamistic articles).

The election is about winning. There is nothing we can do about the small state advantage in the Senate... it is not even worth complaining about. Democrats in western states have been very intelligently taking positions on issues like protecting hunting rights that are important to their constituencies.

If you want to get a realistic picture of the Democrats chance you need to look at facts (including polling data) for each race. Democrats are comfortably ahead in Senate races in Montana (one of the western sparsely populated states), Tennesee, Ohio etc. The tight race in Virginia may tip the balance.

The House is looking even better. The analysts give the Democrats the advantage (based on polls etc.) in most of the 40 most competitive races and most of these are currently held by Republicans.

Respectable analysts are now predicting a Democratic pickup of 17-22 (backed up by polls and trends) and some (perhaps more partisan, but respected nonetheless) have predicted a change of up to 40 seats.

The Democrats need to pick up 15 seats to take the House. The is looking very likely.

The author of this article identifies herself as a depressive Democrat. This is not the time for this.

We are in Congressional elections that Democrats can and must win. We should get off our butts, vote, talk to friends and familes to vote, give money that candidates need, right now more than ever to win or even volunteer to do the work it takes to close the deal.

Depressive Democrats will stay on the sidelines.

Motivated, Energized and Determined Democrats will do what it takes to win-- seat by seat.

0 Replies

I also agree. I've been participating in MoveOn's Calling program. This week, I've spoken with over a hundred potential Dem voters in PA, Florida, and RI. Only ten of them hung up on me. Over 50 of them thanked me for calling and said they already planned to vote dem. One of them sounded suspicious, asked where I was from, and then proceeded to call me a 'pinko commie fag jewboy,' which was a new one for me.

I said, Hey! You can tell that over the phone?

He responded that everyone in Berkeley is a pinko commie fag. Laughing

I don't think he's going to vote Dem this cycle. But overall it has been a great use of my time these last few days and a good way to fight the Republican GOTV machine.

The Dems are in historic position right now. They need one of a few things to happen:

1, I would like to see a coalition of Dems getting together on the steps of the captial, Class of 94 style, and outline a simple plan for beginning to deal with several issues such as corruption, Iraq, the deficit, healthcare, college funding.

2, another shoe could drop in a Republican scandal. One more big one, and they are going right over the edge; it doesn't take more than a 2-3% loss in one's base right now to decide 15 seats.

3, The elections need to be monitored and watched clearly. There is too much of a chance of vote hacking, and the Republicans sure don't seem to concerned about that fact.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

One of them sounded suspicious, asked where I was from, and then proceeded to call me a 'pinko commie fag jewboy,' which was a new one for me.

I said, Hey! You can tell that over the phone?

He responded that everyone in Berkeley is a pinko commie fag.

He wouldn't have been named "Bernard," would he?

0 Replies

My personal opinion is that the Dems will make gains but not enough to gain control. In the end, repubs will hold their noses and vote the party line in just sufficient enough numbers for the repubs to keep their majority. and by and large they will do it out of fear. Pussy bastards.

0 Replies

Who knows?

0 Replies

From the predictions I've heard, the Democrats will take the house and the senate is up for grabs by one seat.

0 Replies

Debra Law wrote:

From the predictions I've heard, the Democrats will take the house and the senate is up for grabs by one seat.

Where'd you hear that, Debra? The scuttlebutt I hear is that the GOP has already written off the Senate as a lost cause and are hoping to shore up some sort of control over the House. In some ways the House is easier to retain -- the voting dsitricts are all gerrymandered anyway.

0 Replies

I caught a couple of election experts making predictions on c-span a few days ago.

0 Replies

there are so many pundits and experts making widely differing predictions it's hard to keep up with. one thing on NPR, another on MSNBC, another on Fox..... I need a drink....

0 Replies

Dropping something off for Bernie from my current fave mag.

Could the Democrats Lose?

Quote:

<snip>

Quote:

Quote:

<snip>

Quote:

0 Replies

The latest from the Cook Political Report

Quote:

Election Day is three weeks from now, and unless something happens fast, this will be one of those once- or twice-in-a-generation elections when a party enjoys unbelievable gains or endures horrendous losses that prove to be the exceptions to Tip O'Neill's adage that "all politics is local." In midterm elections, Democrats last suffered such a defeat in 1994; for Republicans, it was 20 years before that in the Watergate election of 1974.

The direction, barring some unforeseen event, is clear. What is less clear is which specific seats will fall and how far inland this wave will go.

In the Senate, it would be a real shocker if Republicans Conrad Burns in Montana, Rick Santorum in Pennsylvania or Mike DeWine in Ohio got re-elected. Some would put Rhode Island's Lincoln Chafee on the same list, but you could at least get a debate going on that one. Besides Chafee, the GOP seats still teetering on the edge are Jim Talent in Missouri, George Allen in Virginia and the open seat in Tennessee, although it's still worth keeping an eye on Jon Kyl in Arizona if Republican turnout truly goes through the floor.

On the Democratic side, it's appointed Sen. Robert Menendez in New Jersey hanging onto a very precarious lead. GOP strategists aren't sure they want to commit to funding a three-week TV buy in New York City and Philadelphia that would cost upwards of $7 million for a state that has disappointed Republicans so many times over the last dozen years. The GOP's chances against incumbent Debbie Stabenow in Michigan, Maria Cantwell in Washington and an open seat in Maryland are now long shots, at best. Right now, the Senate looks most likely to reflect a five- or six-seat gain for Democrats, putting the chamber at 50-50 or giving Democrats a hair-thin 51-49 majority. A four- or seven-seat gain is also quite possible, and a three- or eight-seat gain is theoretically possible, but highly unlikely.

In the House, there are now four GOP-held seats that are leaning toward Democrats and 26 more in the toss-up column. Keep in mind the Cook Political Report's almost iron-clad rule that unindicted incumbents don't get designated worse than a toss-up. Twenty more Republican seats are only leaning Republican. Another 15 seats are in the likely Republican column -- not quite in our competitive categories yet, but they could potentially be so, and some of these may be moving any day now. So call it 50 seats in jeopardy now, but a few more aren't too secure in this kind of environment.

0 Replies

Thanks, bethie. It's a good piece.

I've been tuning into a lot of commentary over the last while, print and tv. The consensus view is that dems will take control of Congress and perhaps Senate. David Brooks and Mark Shields both figure 30 seats in the house and that's not at all unusual as estimate. The increased lift from redistricting is understood in these estimates.

There are folks like Molly and Eric Alterman however, who temper their enthusiasm. Three weeks to go and the Republicans have big money to pour into this period, and they have a formidable get-out-the-vote machine. We'll see.

One aspect which hasn't gotten any press I've seen is the legal machinery which is certainly being put into place. I think it is almost certain that legal challenges will be numerous and preparation for that will have been going on for a while in both camps. Voting machine problems will be common, I'd guess.

0 Replies

I have long felt, and long said, that i doubted that the Democrats could capture the House or the Senate because of the power of incumbency. With the recent Republican melt-down though, i'm beginning to think that even that might not save them.

The Democrats don't need to take an absolute majority in either House, though, to make the Republicans play nice with them. It is rare that either House is completely filled, and the entire job of the majority and minority whips is to assure that the rank and file vote as expected on important issues. But a Republican who represents an industrial, urban district is not going to vote for an agricultural bill opposed by his consituency, and might even make a point of showing up to vote against it. So either party needs a comfortable margin to overcome possible defections and to assure that they can get a majority of whatever quorum is present. If the Democrats fell a single seat short of majority in the House, they still will have gained enormous power, both because of the possibility of defections on particular votes, and the resultant uncertainty of the outcome of important votes in quorum, when the entire House is not in attendance.

This is even more true in the Senate, where the rules call for a three-fifths vote to close debate and force a floor vote. Even if the Democrats don't win next month, coming really close will give them enormous leverage.

0 Replies

I dont know which party will win.
I know the repubs are in trouble,and I know the dems think they will win.

Of course,the repubs were in trouble and the dems thought they would win in 04 and in 2000 also.
Neither time did it happen.

What I am more curious about is what will happen to the dem party if they dont win.

From what I have read,both on here and on other sites,is that the dems expect to win the house and maybe the senate.
Anything less will be a loss for the dems.
Now,what happens if they dont win?

Personally,I think it will be fun to watch if the dems lose.
I think that the finger pointing and the name calling that will go on will eventually split the dem party.

The George Soros moveon.org bunch and the loony left bunch will form one party,and the more rational members of the dem party will form another party.

Either way,its gonna be fun to see happen.

So,I ask all of you,what happens if the dems lose?

0 Replies

mysteryman wrote:

I dont know which party will win.
I know the repubs are in trouble,and I know the dems think they will win.

Of course,the repubs were in trouble and the dems thought they would win in 04 and in 2000 also.
Neither time did it happen.

What I am more curious about is what will happen to the dem party if they dont win.

From what I have read,both on here and on other sites,is that the dems expect to win the house and maybe the senate.
Anything less will be a loss for the dems.
Now,what happens if they dont win?

Personally,I think it will be fun to watch if the dems lose.
I think that the finger pointing and the name calling that will go on will eventually split the dem party.

The George Soros moveon.org bunch and the loony left bunch will form one party,and the more rational members of the dem party will form another party.

Either way,its gonna be fun to see happen.

So,I ask all of you,what happens if the dems lose?[/quote

you gloat and no one cares....

0 Replies

Bi-Polar Bear wrote:

mysteryman wrote:
I dont know which party will win.
I know the repubs are in trouble,and I know the dems think they will win.

Of course,the repubs were in trouble and the dems thought they would win in 04 and in 2000 also.
Neither time did it happen.

What I am more curious about is what will happen to the dem party if they dont win.

From what I have read,both on here and on other sites,is that the dems expect to win the house and maybe the senate.
Anything less will be a loss for the dems.
Now,what happens if they dont win?

Personally,I think it will be fun to watch if the dems lose.
I think that the finger pointing and the name calling that will go on will eventually split the dem party.

The George Soros moveon.org bunch and the loony left bunch will form one party,and the more rational members of the dem party will form another party.

Either way,its gonna be fun to see happen.

So,I ask all of you,what happens if the dems lose?[/quote

you gloat and no one cares....[/quote]

I'm not gloating.
The election hasnt happened yet,so its not possible to gloat about the outcome.

And,since I am neither a dem or a repub,it doesnt matter to me.

I am truly curious about what will happen to the dem party if they lose.
They seem to be staking everything on this election,and they dont seem to be willing to accept the fact that the voters might not agree with them.

If the dems lose,are they gonna call the voters stupid (they have done that before),are they gonna say that all the voting machines were rigged,are they gonna claim that there was voter fraud?

What will they do,and what will happen to the dem party.

It is a question worth considering.

0 Replies

mysteryman wrote:

So,I ask all of you,what happens if the dems lose?

What do you mean by a "loss" for the dems? Do you mean a loss in the total seats that they now hold? If the Democrats cannot gain seats in a political climate such as the one that currently exists, then the Democrats need to take a good look at the public persona of the party and engage in some major restructuring. The party will not divide. However, I expect the Democrats to gain seats in the upcoming elections. Even if they don't collectively win the majority power, I agree with Setana--they will gain enormous leverage.

0 Replies

Debra Law wrote:

mysteryman wrote:

So,I ask all of you,what happens if the dems lose?

What do you mean by a "loss" for the dems? Do you mean a loss in the total seats that they now hold? If the Democrats cannot gain seats in a political climate such as the one that currently exists, then the Democrats need to take a good look at the public persona of the party and engage in some major restructuring. The party will not divide. However, I expect the Democrats to gain seats in the upcoming elections. Even if they don't collectively win the majority power, I agree with Setana--they will gain enormous leverage.

I mean a "loss" if they dont gain the majority in both houses.

From what I have read and heard,the dems expect to take both houses,and that anything less would be a loss.

I agree that they will gain some seats,and some major leverage.
But,it seems to me that many in the dem party are unwilling to settle for anything less then capturing both houses,and anything less is unacceptable.

So,what happens if they dont do that?

I still say its gonna be fun to watch if the dems dont take either or both houses.
The self recrimination and the name calling and the finger pointing will be,IMHO,very fun to watch.

0 Replies

mysteryman wrote:

I mean a "loss" if they dont gain the majority in both houses.

From what I have read and heard,the dems expect to take both houses,and that anything less would be a loss.

One has to wonder what you read, and to what you listen to have heard such a silly contention. In 1994, the Republicans acheived a majority in the House for the first time in 40 years. That's because of the power of incumbency. An incumbent has franking privileges, an incumbent can get his/her mug on the teevee screen for what is essentially self-promotional silliness, an incumbent can attract campaign donations which the challenger cannot dream of, an incumbent can shower his/her district with pork. It took the Republicans from 1955 to 1995 to claw their way back in the House because everything favored the Democrats who already held seats.

The same is true now for the Democrats. Only the partisans who get whipped-up by media rabble-rousers believe in such silly scenarios with dramatic "wins" and "losses" and the collapse of a two-hundred-year-old political party. People who pay attention to how politics work in the long run will understand that increasing the number of seats they hold on the part of the Democrats will have been a significant "victory" on their part, even if they don't attain a majority. The party is not going to fragment because political insiders understand how the current system is stacked against third parties, and that the organizational machine is the supreme effective means of political accomplishment. There are not going to be any "finger-pointing" and recriminations--for as much as you might like to see it.

People who make their living from politics (which is a lot more people than just those who run for office) don't indulge in melodrama--they know better. They leave that to the rabble-rousers, the pundits, and those foolish enough to get emotionally worked up over what is one of the most pragmatic and unemotional of professions.

In short, MM, you're indulging fantasies.

0 Replies

What are the Dems' REAL chances this Nov.?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know