Get a new schtick, Rick.
The difference between Kerry the senator and Kerry the candidate, in terms of his perceived or actual place on the liberal/centrist/conservative spectrum, is a very natural thing. Kerry represents one of the most liberal states in the US. To the extent that a senator needs to conform his votes to the will of his constituents(that’s one for GD), one would expect any senator from Massachusetts to appear liberal based on his voting record. OTH, we keep having close presidential elections. Anyone challenging an incumbent would need to appeal to his own base and the undecided center to get anywhere. Not an easy trick.
The best way for a senator to become president is to become vice president first. As noted by Fear Itself, Kennedy was the last senator to go in directly, and he wasn’t in the senate very long.
That will cause me to believe that my present opinion is wrong, obviously. Why do you ask that question? Do you base your opinions on something other than reality?
I yet again invite the presentation of any data that suggests that Dean (or Pelosi or Reid) are having an adverse affect on the Democrats. Money for Democrats is up, polling numbers for Republicans (notably Bush) are down, etc, etc.
By the same token, what does the fact that a Democrat who very vocally and forcefully criticized the Bush administration nearly turned over a HR seat in the reddest of red areas in Ohio do to your opinion about the likelihood of a net gain for the GOP in the House and Senate? Anything at all? Or are you somewhat more impervious to reality?
Sitting vice-presidents don’t have a great record of winning the election recently either. Gore lost, Bush the elder won, Humphrey lost, Nixon lost. They do, however, have a great record of becoming president when the president dies. 
I read the signs and portents a bit differently than you do, it appears.
I am convinced that the midterms will result in a GOP gain in both House and Senate. We can debate, fruitlessly for now, which of us is more grounded in reality. When November '06 comes around, I’d just like you to acknowledge - then - that I was more grounded in reality now.
I’d be careful about extrapolating from these results. The turnout for special elections is often so low that anomalous results can easily result.
Hell, we were able to get a Republican elected to the Arlington County Board in a special election. You can’t find a more anomalous result than that. 
What do you read in a 20 point swing in a solidly Republican district? Do you believe it is merely an aberration?
Obviously, a special election is different in many ways, but I just don’t see how you can dismiss it as having nothing to do with reality.
I believe nothing useful can be extrapolated from that election.
You disagree, it seems.
But when November '06 rolls around, and the GOP has won more seats than it has lost… will you then acknowledge I was right?
Why wouldn’t I?
:dubious:
If that happens, I will have been wrong.
Should there be no net gain in the House and Senate for the Republicans, will you admit not only that you were wrong, but that you behaved like a fucking excited chimpanzee for the two years between the elections?
He’s quite a one Rick pony, huh?
Yup.
I’ll even add in “moronic” as an adjective for no additional charge.
Anything you’d care to admit to right now, just in case?
Nope. I’m serenely confident.
How about YOU? What do you predict for 2006?
Crapping your pants eh Brinky?
I’ve got a prediction. The Republicans will maintain control of both houses, but will lose seats in both. (Not many in the Senate - maybe only one.) It’s a long way away though, Bricker, and things could look very different a year from now.
You know how earlier in this thread I criticized Shodan for suggesting that, by virtue of voting for the winner, we was more qualified to bloviate on political strategy than I am? Way I see it, he and I (and pretty much everyone else here who bothers to educate themselves on the issues) have exactly the same bloviating credentials, and the “but we won!” card gives no credence whatsoever to the opinions of a person who wasn’t instrumental in enacting the winning strategy.
I stand by that. However, I will acknowledge that at certain times, especially when a politician is speaking in a manner that isn’t congratulating themselves or their party, we should give extra credence to what a politician says.
Bricker, you say that you don’t think we can read anything useful from the recent special election.
That said, I maintain that, while Dean’s firebrand tactics aren’t necessarily hurting the Democratic party, they’re not what the party needs. The party needs its own Gingrich: it needs someone who can set out a multi-tiered program of easily-understood, visionary programs for the country.
These don’t need to be moderate programs–certainly the Contract with America wasn’t a set of moderate programs. They need to be sincere, philosophically consistent, easily understood, and detailed.
It ain’t easy. But “we’re not as bad as the other guy!” is only half of the equation necessary for an electoral victory.
Daniel
Something else you didn’t mention: The power of money.
This is where, IMO, Dean comes through for the Democrats. I was a soft Dean supporter in 2004, and since he became DNC chair, I’ve often been disappointed in his choice of rhetoric. But after Ohio, he’s been proven right in another sense: Don’t give up on or ignore the local elections, and raise money from the grassroots.
The Deaniacs were too “in your face” in 2004, but I believe Dean has learned from that as well. The support for Hackett was much more “under the radar” and sophisticated.
Bricker’s prediction about 2006 could easily be right. How many competitive races are there, in either the House or the Senate? Redistricting, increasing polarization within districts and states, available funds, and the “right” candidates will be the deciding factors.
Can’t do anything about the first two now, and they favor the Republicans going in. The latter two are what the Democrats should be concentrating on. Let’s see if they do that.
Fair enough–money’s a meta-issue (i.e., you can’t get your opinions out in the public sphere very effectively unless you’re feelthy rich), and Dean has certainly rocketed the Democratic Party forward on its fundraising. I’ll give him props for that.
I maintain that he’s not enough, that the current Democratic strategy does not appear to be enough. We need fundraisers, sure; we need attack-dogs (who here thinks that the Gingrich revolution would’ve been nearly so powerful absent Rush Limbaugh? A show of hands please); but we also need the visionaries to put forward a positive, inspiring, multitiered, specific plan.
Voters need to look at Bush and say, “Man, these last eight years have sucked.” But then they need to look at the Democrats and say, “Wow, the country they’re describing to us sounds bitchin!”
The Democratic party has focused far too heavily on bitching, and not heavily enough on bitchin.
Daniel
Of course it’s not enough. But how do you imagine these “visionaries” (should we have or find them) will get the message out? Gingrich had Limbaugh, and the rest of the media echo chamber. Who do we have?
Dean gets coverage because he throws out the red meat to his base. The right-wing media picks up on it, because their audience loves red meat (and think they can use his meat to smear the Democrats).
The test will be if Dean can take his media exposure and turn it into a visionary appeal as the elections come closer. Admittedly a long shot, but have you got a better idea we can use now?