Not quite. The nation is becoming more suburban, not more urban. The suburbs lean slightly to the right, I believe.
Could be. But unless the Dems start proposiing a “pull the troops out now” policy, what advantage do they have?
Bush is blowing this one badly, and Republicans in Congress are distancing themselves from him on this issue. Still, this could be the Democrat’s version of the gay marriage issue.
Maybe, but what plan do the Dems have about lowering the price of oil? I think most people associate them with **higher **gas prices (ie, increased taxes).
They do slightly now. But what do these suburbanites see? An ever-increasing gulf between the wealthy and themselves. A seemingly endless war with periodic locals dying. Haliburton brazenly engaging in war profiteering. A party with allegiences to social issues that they don’t share. A party that seems content to ignore the plight of the middle class.
They have the advantage of not having started the silly thing. There is no doubt that this is a Republican war. A failure is going to be a Republican failure. Just as Bush benefitted politically when the war was popular, the Dems are going to reap the benefits of dissatisifaction. And if the war is unpopular now, it’s going to be even more so with another year of stalemate by the mid-term elections.
The beauty is that the Dems don’t need to have a plan. They benefit from non-incumbency when things go bad.
Wow. They see everything exactly the same way you do. That’s amazing!
Maybe. Bush benefits or suffers along with the ups and downs of the Iraq war, but I’m not sure that Congresscritters get the same rap. It certainly doesn’t help the Pubs that the situtation in Iraq is dragging on and doesn’t appear to be getting better. Do you actually see any evidence that it’s hurting the Republicans in Congress? Not saying I disagree with you so much as I’m saying I don’t see enough evidence to agree with you.
When the overall economy is doing poorly, you’re right. But I think most people are smart enough to realize that they’ can’t blame the government for the decision they made to by a gas guzzling Suburban.
In truth, we’ll never know until the 2006 election. But it’s hard to imagine Iraqalypse is helping the Republicans. How much it hurts is anyone’s guess.
A good historical reference might be how well or poorly Democrats in congress did in the mid-late 60’s during the Vietnam war. Did it seem to adversely effect how they did getting re-elected…or have no noticable effect? Yeah…I know I’ve claimed several times that Iraq does not equal Vietnam…but on this point they may be pretty similar.
I have no idea the answer btw…I’m at work and kind of getting to the keyboard inbetween meetings and preparing for another overseas trip. I leave it as an intellectual excersize if anyone things its a valid point and wants to look it up.
Gotta ding you on this one, John. If gas prices stay high the republican WILL be forced to do something to confront the issue for the mid-terms or face a harder row than they would otherwise have to hoe. For well or good two things will work against them:
They’re the party in power when prices got high.
The administration is, to the publics eye, inextricably linked to the oil/energy industry. Were I a democrat I’d be preparing my ‘See, the oil guys got in and gas prices and profits got out of control.’ speech.
I think X is right that NO one knows how the war will play during the midterms. The situation is too fluid for that. If things calm down it’s start easing tension. If the constant drip-drip-drip of casualties and other bad news continues it’ll be a strong anti-republican issue as long as we’re in-country.
That’s an interesting question that I’m trying to find out the answer to, actually. I’m only looking at the '66 election, because the '64 and '68 elections were presidential years, and so that would affect the numbers, and after '68, Vietnam was the Republican’s problem. I found an interesting editorial in the Harvard Crimson about the effect of Vietnam on the race:
I’m finding one site (which actually looks at the relationship between election results and the Dow) that says that, in the 1966 election, the Democrats went from 295 seats in the house to 248 seats, a net loss of 47 seats.
Of course, there are a few important caveats to make. First, that was one election, and one election doesn’t make a trend. Second, the president’s party usually loses seats in the midterm election anyway.
Unfortunately, that would probably suck as a reference, because at that exact time, they would also have been affected by the Civil Rights movement, which began the shift for the South from Democrat to Republican. Whatever election trends you can see in examining the period’s electoral returns can’t possibly examine the Vietnam War as an issue in isolation.
I also think this method of calculating the appropriate ratios of representatives by party is highly suspect. I have argued extensively against it, however it seems to have prevailed as part of the arguement for Congressional redistricting in Texas this past year.
McGovern, Mondale and Dukakis were extraordinarily weak candidates who did poorly throughout the entire county, not just in the South.
And while Carter and Clinton were both Southerners, they both successfully managed to package themselves as moderates. I promise you, a Democratic candidate could have a Southern accent as thick as grits, but it won’t do him any good if he sucks up to the likes of Michael Moore and Al Sharpton.
And yet, oddly, Mr. Kerry, who most likely wouldn’t know a grit if it bit him, polled roughly half the electorate. Is it your contention that if the Dems were to dump the likes of Moore and Sharpton, they would bitch-slap the Pubbies from one end of the Republic to the other?
Might be being whooshed here by you 'luci, but I think the point he was trying to make was more about Democrats coming across as moderates…not necessarily being from the South. Kerry did better than McGovern, Mondale and Dukakis because I think he was perceived as being closer to a moderate (though still on the left…American scale that is) than they were. I also think Kerry did fairly well because it was Bush he ran against…I still find it hard to believe Bush actually managed to win, or that the Dems could possibly find a candidate that could lose what looked to me to be nearly automatic.
I understand what the author is saying, but I don’t understand what makes it unfair. I can easily picture voters being concentrated in small areas vs voters all spread out. But what can you do about it but force the concentrated voters to move or redistrict every few years? Maybe the dems ought to encourage their voters to head to the country…
The discouraging thing, though, is that the Dems lost two presidential elections by a narrow margin to a weak candidate like Bush Jr. and still don’t seem to have learned anything from it–as is evident by some of the comments we’ve seen on this thread.
Well, it’s not like you haven’t brought up this tired old canard dozens of times before, either. But you keep thinking there, rjung. That’s what you’re good at. Democrats don’t need to change a thing. Just eliminated those evil Diebold machines, and the Dems will sweep into office like wind off the sea.
