How big a hit are the Republicans going to take in the 2006 House & Senate elections?

[ElvisL1ves]

[QUOTE=John Mace]
I don’t see that playing into the decision at all. If anything, it’ll be a purely political move by Bush to help retain the House.
[/quote]
Oh, he may well try, but it will backfire as I’ve said.

the Dems take over the House, they’ll subpoena his ass faster than you can say Nancy Pelosi, House Majority Leader.

He isn’t the only one worried about that, either. That’s all they have left to defend, sadly - their own asses.

If the summer driving season is slack, then prices will come down even sooner.

Um, no, recheck your causality relationships. The summer driving season will be slack *because * the prices will stay high.

If the Iraqi government fails to coalece and the insurgency gains in strength, then we may not see troop draw downs.

Three years now after “Mission Accomplished” Day, there is no “If” remaining about that - only Bush’s pigheadedness and belligerence, and the broad public sentiment that he needs to be restrained until he can be replaced.

[ElvisL1ves]

@sevastopol

The winning strategy in the US is to do exactly what the really rich people want. It just wouldn’t be the same if there were things money couldn’t buy there.

True, and it’s almost perverse. For many generations we’ve embraced the ideal that America is the “land of opportunity” where anyone with a dream and a lot of hard work can become rich. With so many people in previous generations having done exactly that, achieving stable jobs and home ownership and college educations for the kiddies, they naturally came to associate themselves with the truly rich who had “made it”, and adopted their philosophies of minimum taxation. It’s been startling how dirt-poor some people can be and still faithfully parrot “fairness” as driving their support for regressive flat taxes. All the while, the more-even wealth distributions of an earlier age held back the envy factor so the incentive factor could predominate.

Even though median personal and family incomes have been falling back for a generation now, since while wealth has concentrated heavily in the top percentiles to 1929 levels, the “land of opportunity” rhetoric still holds sway over simple, factual reality for enough people for the GOP to include in a winning coalition.

[XT]

[QUOTE=Oy!]
Really willing to go out on a limb there, aren’t you?
[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Sevastopol]
The winning strategy in the US is to do exactly what the really rich people want. It just wouldn’t be the same if there were things money couldn’t buy there. That’s why the Dems will always be behind the 8-ball.
[/QUOTE]

Interesting analysis. So, what you are saying here is that its your belief that the majority of US voters are ‘really rich people’. I’ve never really heard that before but if you say so…

Conversely, perhaps the Dems could try a new program that actually appeals to the majority of voters who actually live in the US? I know, its a crazy plan, but kick it around and see what you think…

-XT

[Renob]

[QUOTE=ElvisL1ves]
. . . the “land of opportunity” rhetoric still holds sway over simple, factual reality for enough people for the GOP to include in a winning coalition.
[/QUOTE]

If we are going to get off on a tangent here, let’s go!

The “land of opportunity” rhetoric still holds sway because it’s true. Anyone (with a few exceptions like people with severe disabilities) can have a moderate level of success in America (meaning having a job that supports them and their family) as long as they make some simple choices (graduate high school, stay off the crack and meth, don’t have illegitimate babies, etc.). There are no barriers to success in America except self-created ones. No one is holding anyone else back.

Of course, liberals prefer to see the world as full of victims, so they have included that rhetoric as part of their losing coalition. They fail to realize that most people don’t view success as taking part in a government handout. It reminds me of a ridiculous article I read in Harper’s a few years ago where the author was seriously trying to say that Bush was bad for small businesses because the Small Business Administration was not receiving enough funding. Liberals seem to think the only way government can help is to have more money and become more involved in the lives of citizens. The majority of the citizens (as the recent elections seem to show) disagree with that. And for holding that belief, they get called stupid by liberals. And then liberals wonder why they can’t win any elections.

[ElvisL1ves]

[QUOTE=xtisme]
So, what you are saying here is that its your belief that the majority of US voters are ‘really rich people’. I’ve never really heard that before but if you say so…
[/quote]
No, he’s saying that the majority *see themselves * as rich, or on their way to becoming rich. See my post directly above yours.

Renob, it just isn’t true for the majority anymore that the opportunities are as great as ever. Some can still make it. Most no longer can, no matter what.

Of course, liberals prefer to see the world as full of victims

But there’s no point in discussing your strawmen.

[ElvisL1ves]

Oh, yeah, Congressional projections. Since rjung hasn’t asked yet, I will - how many districts use Diebold machines?

[Oy]

[QUOTE=Renob]
If we are going to get off on a tangent here, let’s go!

The “land of opportunity” rhetoric still holds sway because it’s true. Anyone (with a few exceptions like people with severe disabilities) can have a moderate level of success in America (meaning having a job that supports them and their family) as long as they make some simple choices (graduate high school, stay off the crack and meth, don’t have illegitimate babies, etc.). There are no barriers to success in America except self-created ones. No one is holding anyone else back.
[/QUOTE]

Yes, and *so many * kids between the ages of, say, 10 and 18, when all of those decisions are of critical importance, are capable of seeing that clearly when their parents have taught them nothing about this kind of thing and they’ve never known anyone who actually followed your plan and succeeded!

Yes, we’re a land of opportunity in that your distant ancestors don’t influence much of what society thinks of you, and that’s certainly an improvement over the class systems that held sway in the past. We’re a land of opportunity in that someone who gets his or her act together, regardless of upbringing or peer group or exposure, before there are too many hampers to success to realistically expect it.

A few kids wise up early, and can get out. But they are almost always exceptional in one way or another - either they have a remarkably level head for a kid, or they encounter an adult admirable enough to inspire and capable of conveying what is necessary and have had enough self-discipline to do it.

Legally, Renob, you’re absolutely dead right - there is nothing *legally * blocking a ghetto kid from becoming president of the US or heading up a major corporation or becoming a nuclear physicist. But if it’s truly a level playing field, why is it that so much smaller a percentage of the children of very poor, very poorly educated parents manage to achieve academic and/or financial success than do the children of the middle class and and especially the wealthy? Is it because they’re just born naturally stupid? If so, why not return to the birth-based class system? I mean, if they’re all pretty much stupid anyway, we might as well start off the way it’s going to continue.

I’m not talking welfare here. I’m talking education. I’m talking social change. I’m talking about making it easier for kids to see and recognize the opportunities and pitfalls at and earlier age. I’m talking about maybe just once thinking “I’ve got mine because I had privileges (such as parents who there and gave a shit, or native brilliance and/or self-discipline, or at least an environment where you could learn from the example of others) that others didn’t - maybe I should work on helping others a little bit more.” instead of “I’ve got mine; the fact that you don’t means you must deserve it, so screw you, little kid - you don’t get a damn thing extra from me.”

[Renob]

[QUOTE=ElvisL1ves]
Renob, it just isn’t true for the majority anymore that the opportunities are as great as ever. Some can still make it. Most no longer can, no matter what.
[/quote]

The opportunities have changed as our economy has changed, and people need to make the right choices, but the opportunities are there. Sure, manufacturing jobs are rarer, but computer jobs (whether working for Microsoft, in a company’s IT department, or an independent web designer) are much more prevalent. You can’t just look at all the opportunities that no longer exist without looking at the opportunities that have been created.

But there’s no point in discussing your strawmen.

Why not? I discussed yours.

[SilentStorm]

[QUOTE=Oy!]
Apparently not. See this: link

Let’s see. Deliberately whipping up a furor among people who had little or no way of knowing better based on non-existent ties between Al Qaida and Iraq, and highly suspect (to put it mildly) evidence of WMDs? Refusing to accept the military’s own estimate on what resources it would take to do the job well? “There’s no way we could have predicted the levees would break?” “Heckuva job, Brownie?”

[/QUOTE]

9.11 contributed to the “furor” more than Bush could have, whether or not you agree with what was done afterwards (Iraq war). I wasn’t terribly supportive of the war when it first started. The evidence for ties between Al Qaeda and Saddam was far stronger than “non-existent,” but I didn’t think it justified war. Neither was I threatened that Saddam might have WMDs that may be able to reach cities like Riyadh or Tel Aviv. What should have been said is that we were invading because Saddam had kicked out weapons inspectors, and that we consider it grounds for war against a hostile regime. That certainly would’ve been the message to send to North Korea and Iran. But now that we’re in it, I think that we’ve removed a very bad dude from power, saved a lot of people, and are making a lot of progress in almost every area over there.

There’s no way that I can justify blaming Bush for Katrina. State and local governments did a crappy job handling the evacuation and ensuing disaster.

[QUOTE=Oy!]

You want less government, but the biggest threat to your privacy and rights around is The so-called Patriot Act, closely followed by ignoring the FISA statutes. Oh, not to mention the dictating of “science” based on ideology. Or does it only count as less government when we’re talking about taxes?

[/QUOTE]

No it’s not. The Patriot Act is a nuisance and the whole wiretapping thing is even less important. Both are bad ideas with good intentions, but not worth my attention at the moment.

Less government and privacy are not necessarily the same thing. There are lots of things that I would like to do to reduce the size of government that go beyond cutting taxes. I would severely cut back on agriculture, education, energy, and most of the government’s economic involvement at the federal level. Government is bad at those things. But that’s a debate for another thread.

[QUOTE=Oy!]

Never mind. If you don’t consider there to be any difference between the honesty and competence of this administration and previous ones (including Republican admins whose policies I have personally despised and you probably loved, such as Reagan’s or Nixon’s), nothing can penetrate your belief system and you *certainly * should vote for the Replublican congressional candidates (and support the current administration should it declare that an emergency condition exists in Nov 2008 and suspect elections, which, ftr, I don’t consider a likelihood).
[/QUOTE]

The lack of a logical progression in this statement confounds me. Many things have penetrated my belief system over the years. I was a christian and a hardcore Republican when I was 16. I’m 20 now, and I’m an atheist and a Libertarian. It’s only statements like this that fail to influence my beliefs.

[Renob]

[QUOTE=Oy!]
I’m not talking welfare here. I’m talking education. I’m talking social change. I’m talking about making it easier for kids to see and recognize the opportunities and pitfalls at and earlier age. I’m talking about maybe just once thinking “I’ve got mine because I had privileges (such as parents who there and gave a shit, or native brilliance and/or self-discipline, or at least an environment where you could learn from the example of others) that others didn’t - maybe I should work on helping others a little bit more.” instead of “I’ve got mine; the fact that you don’t means you must deserve it, so screw you, little kid - you don’t get a damn thing extra from me.”
[/QUOTE]

Just because I hold the views that I hold doesn’t mean I don’t think that people need help. Don’t simply make assumptions to fit your view of conservatives (or libertarians, in my case).

Of course I recognize that there are a variety of factors that prevent people from succeeding. I grew up in a very poor area and I know why many people don’t succeed. Helping them succeed certainly isn’t being done by the government, however. Taxing the rich does nothing to help the poor.

The high taxes and onerous regulations proposed by liberals only destroy jobs, making opportunities for work scarcer. Their generous social welfare programs only incentivize poverty. Their opposition to vouchers and any meaningful change to public education destroy the school systems that should be educating our kids. I’m all for helping the poor. I just don’t think that liberals have a clue about how to do this.

By treating people as victims (you can’t succeed no matter how hard you try, as ElvisL1ves says) you encourage people to remain in poverty. By telling them you can succeed if you just made some different life choices (which is the truth), and then educating them on how to make those choices, you have a much better chance of success.

[Oy]

[QUOTE=Renob]
Of course, liberals prefer to see the world as full of victims, so they have included that rhetoric as part of their losing coalition.
[/QUOTE]

I can’t speak to most liberals, but I can guarantee that I don’t see the world as full of victims. But when you have one group that largely succeeds and one group that largely fails, you’ve got two choices: either the succeeding group is intrinsically more capable than the failing group, or the first group operates under different conditions from the second group.

Do you honestly believe that growing up middle-to-upper class is no different from growing up in a ghetto? Or does the conservative motto of “People should take responsibility for themselves” only apply to the poor? Certainly we have no scarcity of examples of the scions of wealthy folks being bailed out from their own mistakes repeatedly by their families and friends! Let’s look at the Bush brothers for starters, shall we? Were they victims? Then why were they more worthy of being bailed out repeatedly than poor kids? Because their parents could affort it? Nice.

I have nothing against taking responsibility for yourself, as long as you aren’t demanding that poor children of uneducated families are expected to function at a higher level of maturity and understanding than rich young folks in their twenties and even thirties.

[ElvisL1ves]

[QUOTE=Renob]
Sure, manufacturing jobs are rarer, but computer jobs (whether working for Microsoft, in a company’s IT department, or an independent web designer) are much more prevalent.
[/quote]
Great, all the people who used to go work on assembly lines can just go design Web sites instead. And eat cake, while they’re at it. :rolleyes:

Why not? I discussed yours.

Go look up what a “straw man” is.

[Oy]

[QUOTE=Renob]
Just because I hold the views that I hold doesn’t mean I don’t think that people need help. Don’t simply make assumptions to fit your view of conservatives (or libertarians, in my case).[/

Or you about liberals.

[QUOTE=Renob]

Of course I recognize that there are a variety of factors that prevent people from succeeding. I grew up in a very poor area and I know why many people don’t succeed. Helping them succeed certainly isn’t being done by the government, however. Taxing the rich does nothing to help the poor.

Did you have parents? Did they care whether or not you got an education? Did they make an effort to keep you out of trouble? Did you have dealers on every corner flashing wads of cash and offering some to you if you’d just help out a little? Did you know people who had succeeded in getting out of poverty and into something at least bearing some relationship to the mainstream?

[QUOTE=Renob]
The high taxes and onerous regulations proposed by liberals only destroy jobs, making opportunities for work scarcer. Their generous social welfare programs only incentivize poverty. Their opposition to vouchers and any meaningful change to public education destroy the school systems that should be educating our kids. I’m all for helping the poor. I just don’t think that liberals have a clue about how to do this.

[/QUOTE]
And I think you’re completely clueless as well! Generous social welfare programs, my Aunt Fanny! I’m no great believer in Welfare (I have other ideas in that respect), but if you think that people actually think “well, I get $300/week, *plenty * to support me and my five children, so why bother working?” I want to know these people! Because they’re further out of reality than you are, and that’s saying a lot!

Yes, tax relief (vouchers) is enormously helpful to people who are struggling to feed themselves day-to-day, and taking away public funding from public schools will certainly *improve * them vastly! Just as adding a for-profit layer will make them vastly less expensive, and without making working conditions worse for the folks who work there or cutting the quality of the education whatsoever. I have yet to have anyone explain this to me where it actually made sense!

[QUOTE=Renob]
By treating people as victims (you can’t succeed no matter how hard you try, as ElvisL1ves says) you encourage people to remain in poverty. By telling them you can succeed if you just made some different life choices (which is the truth), and then educating them on how to make those choices, you have a much better chance of success.
[/QUOTE]

Yes, because nothing says “You can succeed if you just put a little effort into it!” like ignoring them entirely, and everyone knows that programs like HeadStart exist only to tell children that no matter what they do, they will fail. And most twelve and thirteen year olds I know are well able to make mature choices that go against the prevailing culture they have been raised in and are likely to get them laughed at or harassed.

[Renob]

[QUOTE=Oy!]
I can’t speak to most liberals, but I can guarantee that I don’t see the world as full of victims. But when you have one group that largely succeeds and one group that largely fails, you’ve got two choices: either the succeeding group is intrinsically more capable than the failing group, or the first group operates under different conditions from the second group.
[/quote]

I agree that it’s the latter. You get no argument from me there.

Do you honestly believe that growing up middle-to-upper class is no different from growing up in a ghetto?

Did I ever say that? Of course I don’t believe that.

Or does the conservative motto of “People should take responsibility for themselves” only apply to the poor?

Did I ever say that, either?

Certainly we have no scarcity of examples of the scions of wealthy folks being bailed out from their own mistakes repeatedly by their families and friends! Let’s look at the Bush brothers for starters, shall we? Were they victims? Then why were they more worthy of being bailed out repeatedly than poor kids? Because their parents could affort it? Nice.

I’m no fan of the Bushes, and of course they weren’t victims. There is a big difference between having your family bail you out repeatedly and having the government do it, though.

I have nothing against taking responsibility for yourself, as long as you aren’t demanding that poor children of uneducated families are expected to function at a higher level of maturity and understanding than rich young folks in their twenties and even thirties.

If you are born poor and you want to succeed in life, you have to make better choices than you do if you are born rich. It’s shitty, but it’s true. If you don’t start out with money you must be more careful with money than if you have it in excess. To simply excuse the poor monetary skills of those who are poor because the rich also waste money is ridiculous. If you don’t get skills, waste money, and induldge in the nicer things in life when you are poor, then you will be a failure. So in that sense, yes, I expect more out of poor kids than I do out of rich kids.

Generous social welfare programs, my Aunt Fanny! I’m no great believer in Welfare (I have other ideas in that respect), but if you think that people actually think “well, I get $300/week, plenty to support me and my five children, so why bother working?” I want to know these people! Because they’re further out of reality than you are, and that’s saying a lot!

Besides TANF, they get free medical care (Medicaid), child care (Head Start), housing (Section 8 vouchers), and often subsidized transportation. With all these benefits (which they will probably lose once they get a job), and only a low paying job facing them (because they probably don’t have good job skills), it’s quite logical for them to remain on welfare rather than seek work. I’m not blaming them, either. It’s a rational choice. It’s the government’s fault for creating that situation.

Yes, tax relief (vouchers) is enormously helpful to people who are struggling to feed themselves day-to-day, and taking away public funding from public schools will certainly improve them vastly!

Well, vastly increasing funding for public schools sure doesn’t improve them, so maybe we should try something different.

[Airblairxxx]

Can we drop the debates and get back to the political forecasting?

Regarding the Senate: Currently, it’s 55 R, 44 D, 1 I. So the Democrats need six. However, of the 33 seats up, 18 are currently held by Democrats, and only 15 by Republicans.

Assuming the Democrats hold serve with their 18, the likeliest where they could pick up their six are the following races with GOP incumbents:

Pennsylvania–Santorum (R) has trailed Casey badly, although the gap has narrowed recently.

Tennessee–Frist is retiring, so Ford (D) has the name recognition; however, Southern states are not typically too receptive to black Democrats.

Ohio, Montana–Burns and Dewine could each be hurt by their links to the Abramoff scandal, however both lead in the polls. However, both are down towards the bottom in “net approval ratings” as seen here.

Arizona–Kyl (R) leads by 10-15 points, but Pedersen lately has been closing the gap.

Nevada–Ensign is a first-term incumbent and they’re the most vulnerable. However, Carter’s campaign hasn’t really gotten any traction yet.

Missouri–Talent fills Missourans with a big heaping bowl of “meh” and could be vulnerable to McCaskill.

Virginia–Allen recently was the subject of a hugely unflattering New Republic profile, and may be distracted by running for the Senate in '06 and the presidency in '08 at the same time. The Democratic primary, where they will choose between Harris and Webb, is in June.

Rhode Island–The moderate Chaffey will have a tougher fight in the primary against conservative Laffey than he will in the general against Whitehouse.

[Renob]

[QUOTE=Oy!]
I can’t speak to most liberals, but I can guarantee that I don’t see the world as full of victims. But when you have one group that largely succeeds and one group that largely fails, you’ve got two choices: either the succeeding group is intrinsically more capable than the failing group, or the first group operates under different conditions from the second group.
[/quote]

I agree that it’s the latter. You get no argument from me there.

Do you honestly believe that growing up middle-to-upper class is no different from growing up in a ghetto?

Did I ever say that? Of course I don’t believe that.

Or does the conservative motto of “People should take responsibility for themselves” only apply to the poor?

Did I ever say that, either?

Certainly we have no scarcity of examples of the scions of wealthy folks being bailed out from their own mistakes repeatedly by their families and friends! Let’s look at the Bush brothers for starters, shall we? Were they victims? Then why were they more worthy of being bailed out repeatedly than poor kids? Because their parents could affort it? Nice.

I’m no fan of the Bushes, and of course they weren’t victims. There is a big difference between having your family bail you out repeatedly and having the government do it, though.

I have nothing against taking responsibility for yourself, as long as you aren’t demanding that poor children of uneducated families are expected to function at a higher level of maturity and understanding than rich young folks in their twenties and even thirties.

If you are born poor and you want to succeed in life, you have to make better choices than you do if you are born rich. It’s shitty, but it’s true. If you don’t start out with money you must be more careful with money than if you have it in excess. To simply excuse the poor monetary skills of those who are poor because the rich also waste money is ridiculous. If you don’t get skills, waste money, and induldge in the nicer things in life when you are poor, then you will be a failure. So in that sense, yes, I expect more out of poor kids than I do out of rich kids.

Generous social welfare programs, my Aunt Fanny! I’m no great believer in Welfare (I have other ideas in that respect), but if you think that people actually think “well, I get $300/week, plenty to support me and my five children, so why bother working?” I want to know these people! Because they’re further out of reality than you are, and that’s saying a lot!

Besides TANF, they get free medical care (Medicaid), child care (Head Start), housing (Section 8 vouchers), and often subsidized transportation. With all these benefits (which they will probably lose once they get a job), and only a low paying job facing them (because they probably don’t have good job skills), it’s quite logical for them to remain on welfare rather than seek work. I’m not blaming them, either. It’s a rational choice. It’s the government’s fault for creating that situation.

Yes, tax relief (vouchers) is enormously helpful to people who are struggling to feed themselves day-to-day, and taking away public funding from public schools will certainly improve them vastly!

Well, vastly increasing funding for public schools sure doesn’t improve them, so maybe we should try something different.

[Malodorous]

[QUOTE=alphaboi867]
So even if 50 Democrats and Sanders agree on the same majority leader and president pro term the Republicans are still in control? Isn’t Sanders considered a member of the Demorcratic causus in the House? If so why wouldn’t he be in the Senate?
[/QUOTE]

No you’re right. I read the 50-49-1 split in Hentor’s post to be 50 Republicans, 49 Dems for some reason. But 50 Dems and Bernie would give the Dems control of the Senate.

[Kimstu]

@Evil One

Neither chamber will change hands.

In a way, speaking as a Democrat, I almost hope you’re right. Because ISTM that a lot of things in the current mess simply are not going to improve significantly over the next two years, no matter which party controls Congress.

At this point, a Democratic takeover would be about the best face-saving maneuver the Republicans could hope for. Then the Pubs could point to the Dems struggling with all the shit and say “See? They criticized what we did but they don’t have a better plan! They’re no more effective than we are! Hah!”

From a strictly PR point of view, if a party is going to fuck things up while in control of the government, there’s something to be said for fucking them up so badly that they’ll be very difficult and time-consuming to fix. Then the fucker-uppers can argue that their opponents “only know how to criticize” and “don’t have an effective strategy of their own”. And if/when the opponents take over and can’t fix the problems quickly, the fucker-uppers don’t look as bad as they would if the opponents turned things around right away.

The best thing for the Dems’ political interests at present might actually be to have the Pubs stay in control of the whole government up to 2008, and let the public resentment against them build up. If even Sam Stone is now arguing that the Pubs deserve an ass-kicking, they’ve obviously developed some serious credibility problems. By 2008, those problems might be massive enough to turn over the whole federal government to the Dems by a pretty large margin.

Which wouldn’t necessarily be the best thing for the country, but which would definitely be the happy ending as far as Dem political strategy is concerned.

[John_Mace]

[QUOTE=Kimstu]
If even Sam Stone is now arguing that the Pubs deserve an ass-kicking, they’ve obviously developed some serious credibility problems.
[/QUOTE]

Somewhat of a nitpick: Yes and no. Yes, they have a serious credibility problem, but **Sam *is not your typical Republican. He’s part of the libertarian leaning wing, which isn’t all that big. There are a lot of social conservatives in the US, and they are grossly underrepresented on this board.

*or would be if he lived in the US

[Kimstu]

@John Mace

Yes, they have a serious credibility problem, but Sam is not your typical Republican.

Yes, I know, and I should have explained more clearly what I meant. I know that Sam, not being a party-line conservative or Republicans, is generally quite willing to criticize Republicans where their policies conflict with his principles. However, in my years exchanging views with Sam on these boards, I’ve definitely got a strong impression that he usually considers, or used to consider, Republican governments to be much more strongly aligned with his principles than Democratic ones.

So if even Sam is now saying that we need to throw the (Republican) bums out, then the old elephant must really be in desperate need of a makeover.

@John Mace

There are a lot of social conservatives in the US, and they are grossly underrepresented on this board.

True, but I would argue that the Pubs are having some credibility problems with the social conservatives too. Social conservatives are usually concerned about a number of moral issues besides the typical scarecrows of gay marriage/school prayer/Hollywood; these include personal integrity, financial honesty, and gambling. Crony capitalist conservatives involved in corruption scandals such Tom DeLay, Jack Abramoff, and Ralph Reed are really starting to smell, even according to many social conservatives who used to support them enthusiastically.