Wager on Dean's effectiveness

I’m offering bets that the Democrats will not gain a seat in the House or in the Senate in 2006.

I had said earlier that I’d wait until the DNC chair was chosen, and now that Dean has the job, I believe he will work to push the party left, and this strategy will not result in the pickup of any seats.

So - does anyone have enough confidence in the Democrats’ winning seats in the midterm election to put up a bet?

Is your vote in the pot?

You really should start a casino, Bricker! :smiley:

I’ll abstain, officially - I am a poor college student, after all! - but I’ll have to agree with your bet, but for other reasons: IMO the country is leaning more to the right in general, but not as a reaction against the hard left.

Of course, I hope I’m wrong. :smiley:

My bet is that the Democratic party will do better with Dean as the figurehead than Kerry. I suspect they’ll earn a seat or two in 2006, considering that by then we’ll still be in Iraq, we’ll still be in the middle of the worst government financial crisis anyone can remember, and Social Security benefits will start being cut because they were dependent on freedonkeyporn.com’s stock value before social conservatives made porn illegal.

Even with all of that going against the Repubs in 2006, I would say that with Kerry at the helm the Dems would have a decent chance of getting slaughtered again. Dean is charismatic, visionary, and succinct where Kerry always seemed to look down his nose, never elaborated on his ideas (“I have a plan that will reduce America’s spending while increasing socialist benefits by 200%, while simultaneously giving every male a blowjob and automatically doing your dishes while striking fear into the hearts of terrorists everywhere. I have a plan. It is a good plan. Trust me. ::wink::”).

It’s ironic that the only Dem primary candidate who had a real chance to lose in 2004 was the one that got maneuvered into the candidacy. There’s got to be a friggin’ conspiracy somewhere.

I think a push to the left is what the party needs (and this isn’t just because I’m a flaming pinko). Nobody wants to vote for Republican Lite. We tried it twice and it didn’t work. Dems have let the Pubbies set the rules and redefine the middle for way too long. We’ve lost all relevence.

America is not a country of warlike oil interests with a hard on for homosexuals. But because we’ve abandon the left, there can be no middle, and when there is no left and no middle, of course the right will win. If we rebuild the left, they will come. It’s really our only choice.

Meanwhile I’m still waiting for the war in Iran to start so I can collect my twenty bucks.

Come on, Bricker. This is hardly a fair bet. Once the contenders are known, I would wager on how many seats the Republicans will gain, but how many they will lose? It’s a suckers bet, and you know it. :wink:

Speaking of bets, Bricker, you never replied to me about the Iran invasion thing. We are on, right?

My vote is. I want a party that is more moderate. I have always described myself just right of center and have traditionally voted Republican. I’m not happy at this time with either party.

Granted that this is an editorial, but I’m not sure the “Dean = hard left” stuff is very accurate. At least it didn’t seem to be during the Democratic primaries, when the people who supported Dean were much more liberal than he was and generally overlooked the difference because he was outspoken against the war. And perhaps because they were perhaps inexperienced politically and wanted someone to rally behind.

Hmm. I might be interested in a little of that action. Do you mean “pickup of any seats” or net pickup of any seats?

On Dean, I’m rethinking how bad an idea it was. The neat thing about a party chair is he isn’t running for anything. Candidates can choose to be close to or distant from him without any political penalty. If the Democrats play it smart, Dean can run around raising cash and energizing the base whilst actual candidates run their own races, left right or center depending on the constituencies (or if one is less cynical, the correct left, right or center candidates to represent those constituencies will emerge).

All that is of course if the Democrats play it smart. They have a demonstrated talent for, uh, not. So we shall see.

Let me get this straight. Let’s say I take your wager, and the Dems gain at least one seat in the House and one in the Senate; I assume I’d win. If the GOP holds steady and loses no seats in either house, I assume you win. What if the Dems gain three in the House and lose one in the Senate?

I will take your bet, I just want clarification of the rules, and a guide for what your stakes are.

Yeah, me too, Bricker. Are we talking net or any?

Whenever you’re ready.

I like Dean, and I say that as a Southern Democrat.

Dean is a damn good talking head for the Democrats, which is part of what the DNC chair has to be. I am looking forward to his appearances on Meet the Press on behalf of the party.

Dean is most definitely not a hard-left liberal. He is historically a moderate in all things but the war in Iraq.

C’mon. It would have to be a net shift, as things always shift about.

2004 wasn’t a great year for the Democrats, yet Obama picked up a Republican seat. The Democrats lost a good many elsewhere to compensate, though. :smiley:

I don’t see the Democrats having much luck in 2006. Even if they gain a net seat or two (which would be hard) they’re a long way from being a majority party again.

Who cares about being a majority party? I just want Bricker to buy me a bottle of Wild Turkey rye. :stuck_out_tongue:

I think Bricker’s wager is rooted in an unfounded supposition that the party Chairman has any measurable effect on elections. I don’t see any reason to think the country is going to become any less right wing so I see no reason to beleive the Dems will pick up any seats. That won’t be Dean’s fault. I just hope he pushes the Dems to the left where they belong. they need to become the opposition again. They need to become a lot more aggressively anti-Bush. They need to make noise about how evil this administration is, not because it will help the Dems win (that’s irrelevant) but simply because it’s morally imperative that they call Bush on his tyranny.

:confused: So, when you say your vote is “in the pot,” are you saying that you’re planning to vote Pub or Dem in 2006?


Hm…if we are talking net gain then I would be willing to do a gentlemans bet (i.e. for nothing :wink: ) that the Dems will pick up a seat or two. I’m not really very confident that this will be the case, but I THINK it might…depends on how the rest of this year goes as far as the economy and Iraq. There are a few contests that could go either way and I doubt Dean will have any impact at all.

If we are talking about the Dems winning a few but losing more (i.e. not a net gain) then I’m more confident and might even be willing to wager something substantial on it (like a bottle of scotch perhaps).

Are we talking about the Dems taking a net gain or the Dems unseating any Republican at all?