Maybe you should take a look at your hero’s recent approval ratings.
Six weeks, which is about ther right time-- too early and people just aren’t paying attention. And while no one can say for sure what caused an election to go one way or the other, all I know is that the Republicans introduced the CwA and shortly thereafter swept into power in numbers that no one predicted. It’s clear that the Dems are trying to repeat that tactic, but without the ability to agree on exactly what they want to do.
They didn’t get in because of the deathless prose of the Contract, they got there because Newt Gangrene was a ruthlessly effective campaign leader, a canny manipulator of the worst instincts of our natures. Still doing it, he thinks the Pubbies best bet is fear, he’s out there selling World War III like it was condo shares in Heaven.
It is more important to have a rough consensus about a collective direction than to attempt to sort out details that will have to adjusted to circumstances.
Clinton’s approval ratings didn’t seem to help the Dems in 2000.
Depends on what you’re trying to do. If you’re trying to get elected, that probably isn’t the best way to go about it. People want to know what a poltiician is going to do when he’s in office, not that he’s headed roughly that-a-way.
Post hoc ergo propter hoc is a logical fallacy. Like I said, the polls indicated that most voters had no familarity with the CWA and that very few said they based their vote on it. The '94 election was swayed by the right wing media’s heavy demonization of Bill Clinton. Right wing talk radio was just coming into its own at the time and I believe that had more effect on the election than the Contract did.
It sounds like they have an agreement of sorts to me, but if they aren’t capable of the same kind of lockstep, goose-stepping, humorless, rigid conformity that characterizes the Pubs, I guess we’ll just have to live with it. Not that this “6 for 6” thing will have the slightest effect on the election. The current administration’s own incompetence and mendacity will more than provide all the ammunition the Dems will need.
Clinton didn’t run for anything in 2000, son.
No they don’t. People vote against candidates, not for them. Elections are about whipping up hatred, not enthusiasm.
Who won the popular vote in 2000?
We’re not talking about something that can be deduced using logic. No one knows why the election went the way it did. The Dems are clearly trying to do something like the CwA, but they just can’t agree among themselves what specifically they want to do. And that’s indicative of why the can’t seem to win decisive victories even when the Pubs’ approval ratings stink.
The Dems obviously think it had something to do with that election or they wouldn’t be trying to copy that tactic.
WTF does that have to do with anything? Bush isnt running for anything either, dad.
Hope so. Still, would be more comfortable if GeeDub would call a Rose Garden conference, get nekkid and sacrifice Dick Cheney to his Dark Lord, munching his still beating heart, Ozzie style. Close the deal.
Bush is still going to be President for another two years. Clinton was done.
And Gore won the popular vote anyway, so your point is kind of refuted just by that.
LOL, since you say so, you win.
Just a parting shot from the sore loser. 
“For an incumbent to be at 46% job approval at this point in an election year has historically always spelled defeat” for presidents since 1950, says Frank Newport, editor in chief of the Gallup Poll. - 2004
That’s why he said, “didn’t seem to help the Dems”, not “didn’t seem to help Clinton”. Since this thread appears to be about congressional elections, then it’s reasonble to conclude that this is what AFAIKnow was referring to. Obviously, he couldn’t have been referring to Clinton garnering votes for himself.
But some nice condescension on your part… :rolleyes:
And in fact, AFAIKnow, if you were referring to the congressional elections, then Clinton’s popularity probably did help the Dems a little bit in that regard. More in the Senate than in the House (though not getting a majority on the election alone in either house).
In the House, the Dems won a net 2 seats away from the Republicans, although it still left them 9 seats fewer than the GOP. So they fell short in their objective of taking back the majority in the House.
In the Senate, they did much better, gaining back 4 seats, and making it a 50-50 split with the Republicans. While not the majority, it definitely gave them a better foothold in the Senate. And, if I correctly recall, it did serve to give them the majority for a short while when one Republican Senator changed parties (until the Repubs won the Senate back in 2002, gaining back 2 seats).
Whether it was Clinton’s ratings that helped boost these congressional gains, who knows? I’m sure it could have been a factor.
I think it’s also noteworthy that the Republicans made gains in both House and Senate in both the 2002 and 2004 elections. I don’t recall what Bush’s approval rating was in 2004, but as he was running neck and neck with Kerry for a while, I’m pretty sure he dipped under 50% during the later part of the campaign. Anybody remember what it was? Even if it was lower than 50%, it certainly didn’t seem to hurt the Repubs in the overall congressional results.
Right-leaning talk radio probably was a factor, but most of those listeners would also have known about the Contract With America. I remember that 1994 was right around the height of Rush Limbaugh’s popularity – he had the TV-show (along with radio), and I’m pretty sure that he talked up Contract With America on his shows consistently. I’d say conservative talk-radio did much to spread the news about the CWA.
All that said, I think that if the Dems make gains in Congress in 2006, it will be more likely due to “voting against the current administration” than voting FOR this new initiative described in the OP. (Not unless the Dems better define their intentions on these 6 points and what they plan to bring up for a vote if they get the majority back. Which is what CWA did, saying “Here are the specific things we will bring up for a vote”).
The Presidential election aside, the Dems did well in 2000, gaining seats in both houses. On the other hand, Bush’s approval ratings were low in 2004 and the Repubs still picked up seats.
It would be interesting to see how presidential approval ratings in general correspond with congressional seat gains/losses. My gut feel is that it’s effect isn’t large compared with other factors, but that’s just a guess.
As for the 6 points, they sound like a good start. The Dems worst problem in the last election was appearing divided and confused. Having a simple couple points that they all agree on, even if their just general catchphrases, seems like a step towards fixing this problem.
I tend to think a strong President can provide coattails for legislative candidates to ride on, but I think the reverse effect is much less pronounced. Ultimately, the biggest issue when it comes to the election of legislators is the local populace. I do not believe most of the electorate who are voting for a Republican who has been their Senator for 12 years and who they want to be their Senator for another six are thinking one bit about Bush (positively or negatively) when they punch the hole in their ballot.
I think it would be a spectacularly bad idea for a democrat trying to win a congressional election to use Bush as someone to beat on extensively. Local elections need to be about local issues, because the candidate that can come off the most affably while appealing to local interests is the one who is going to win. Not the one who can shriek the hardest about a man who’s political power won’t be realistically affected by this election anyway.
I tend to agree. I don’t think national issues decide most state elections, in fact we should HOPE they don’t. Because if national issues are deciding state elections it means our electorate doesn’t really understand what a congressional election is.
I think the national party apparatus is most effective if they can pinpoint the important, winnable races and focus money and support in those areas. Sweeping national platforms in my opinion don’t have that much effect. Voters in congressional elections (especially mid-term elections) I would wager tend to be a more politically adept group than those who vote just every four years, simply because they show more political interest since they at least bother to vote in mid-term elections. And politically adept people will tend to be watching their local newspapers and television stations, where the vast majority of political commentary will be about local issues and how the candidates relate to them. Not about whatever platform the party has cooked up in Washington.
Woulda been nice to include balancing the budget, too. Expose the GOP’s claim to be the party of fiscal responsibility, while reminding everyone of a recent major Democratic success.
But really, there are so many things that can and should be done, in so many directions, to make our country better that it unfortunately does look like diffuseness and unplannedness, at least to those who habitually entertain One Big Idea.
I remember just a year ago, when there was debate over if the Dems would lose filibuster ability in Congress, when the Republicans looked like they might take over the whole thing.
Now, the Dems look like they’re taking 12 seats, easy. Hum.