About Me

Name: Dingo
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Blog Roll

 

politics goes back to the eighties

Posted by Dingo on Tuesday, August 07, 2007 12:50:31 PM
 
I have thought for some time now that we are headed back to the 80's.

What I mean is that, if I were a betting man, I would bet that the status quo will prevail in the 2008 elections. The Democrats will pick up some Senate seats (the Republicans have done a horrendous job at attracting candidates, and the Dems simply have more targets). The Republicans will pick up House seats, probably between 5 and 10, but the Democrats will still hold that chamber. (Sorry kossacks, there is almost always a "snap-back" after a tide election. And I have seen little evidence to show that the Dems will duplicate the 1934 election.) And the Republicans - believe it or not - will hold onto the President.

There are some reasons for believing this.

The worst thing to happen to the Democrats in 2006 was that they swept both Houses of Congress.  Immediately, their buddies in the media began to trumpet a "historic repudiation" of the Bush Administration. This prompted the Democrats to make the cardinal mistake - they began to believe their own propaganda. My own belief is that the (independent swing) voters in 2006 were angry at Bush about Iraq, which they believe is a pointless war (it isn't, but this is what they believe, largely because Bush has been so inarticulate in responding to this media meme) so they voted to punish him for it. What they didn't do, however, is come out on the Democrats side, and vote for an immediate surrender. They also did this because they "knew this was a free vote" i.e., according to the conventional wisdom, the Congress doesn't control foreign policy, so the Dems "couldn't" really do anything about Iraq. They could only punish Bush, through oversight and subpoenas. But after the election, the Dems began to meddle where they didn't belong (i.e., foreign policy), as they began to do everything they could to cause our defeat in Iraq (other than the one constitutional thing they can do, which is stop the funding). The swing voters, and the Democratic base, began to get angry - the former for reasons I already explained, and the latter because the Democrats stupidly got their base believing that they (the Democrats) could actually end the war, which they simply can't do, without Republican assistance. So now we have the situation we have now, where there is a pox on every one's houses, with low approval ratings for both.

But this is not all. Americans, as everyone knows, favor divided government. And the easiest way to keep divided government in 2008 is to vote Republican for President. It is "conventional wisdom" that the Dems have a lock on the Congress today; thus, the swing voters can only go right in the Presidential race if they want to prevent one party from sweeping the election. With the pox on both sides mentallity in place, this is most logical vote for them.

Plus, there is the Hillary problem. Hillary is still the most likely nominee for the Democratic party, and yet she is incredibly unpopular with both Republicans and the swing voters. But in the Democratic primaries, she leads in the polls, has the best organization, and is very controlled - she will make few mistakes. Perhaps her greatest strength is her (and her husband's) utter political ruthlessness - Obama and Edwards don't have much of a chance. (I feel bad for Obama, who although a liberal, seems like a principled, nice man.) So she will probably win the nomination.  This leads her to the general election, where she will be the distinct underdog, as all the polls currently show. The Republicans hate her - they will come out to vote against her in droves. The swing voters dislike her, as she is known for her corruption, and has a shrill and mean personality, so they will swing against her. (No, it is not simply that she is a woman - have you guys seen her on tv?) The Republican will be either Fred, Mitt or Rudy, with an outside chance of McCain. Any one of them should beat her. Fred and Mitt both come across as presidential and pleasant; Mitt's major problem is still his religion. (This is simply a fact people; it is not my problem with him.) Rudy comes across as a born leader, although a meanie - still, as an executive he has more experience, and the mean factor will cancel out. (McCain can beat her too, although he seems unlikely to make it that far.) In other words, Hillary can only win if she manages to beat the hell out of the GOP nominee, even while escaping his own counterattacks, and she is also able to capitalize on his unforced mistakes. This is tough to do (but not impossible).

This leads us back to the 1980's, where the Republicans had a "lock" on the Presidency, and the Democrats had a "lock" on the Congress. That is what I think will happen in 2008.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

McCain should have won but won't

Posted by Dingo on Tuesday, August 07, 2007 12:29:28 PM
Although not a John McCain guy myself, earlier on I thought he would almost assuredly win the GOP nomination.

Rudy Giuliani was too liberal on social issues and too hard edged in personality to win.  He also is too easily identified as an ethnic New Yorker, and has all those marriage problems.  And Mitt Romney had the Mormon problem (which doesn't bother me, but seems to bother other people) and his endless flip flopping (immigration, abortion, gay marriage, etc.) - both of which hamper him.  Further, he always comes across as a little too suave and charismatic - he seems almost like a robot candidate, too perfect to be true. 

Compared to these two, I thought McCain would get the social conservatives as a social conservative, get the economic conservatives as an economic conservative, and get the establishment as the "next in line."

Now I tend to doubt McCain will win. On seemingly every issue, McCain continues to attack various Republican subgroups that might actually vote for him if only he would treat them with some respect. He refuses to go to CPAC; the only major Republican to do so. He picks pointless fights with prominent conservatives like Grover Norquist. He proudly mentions the campaign finance bill during the debates, when he should downplay it. And, he parachutes into the immigration legislation to take credit for it, when it was well known that most of the base would hate the plan and that the compromise negotiations were actually led by other Senators (AND NOT MCCAIN!) The smart move would have been to sign on later, and try to avoid the issue.

And now he has no money.  IMAGINE THAT - doing all the things I mentioned before actually makes it hard for you to win the support of Republican donors?  Who would have thought!

I strongly suspect that Fred Thompson is going to be the primary beneficiary of McCain's eager desire to shoot himself in the foot. (Sorry, I just don't buy into the Romney spin - the guy is doing well because he is the only man on the air in those early states - this will change.)
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

the house - 2008

Posted by Dingo on Tuesday, August 07, 2007 12:14:27 PM
 

Thanks to info found on Hugh Hewitt's blog about Rep. Boyda and about Rep. Space, I am now more optimistic about the GOP taking back the House in 2008.


As Tom Davis has stated before, the normal "snap-back" after a wave election is five to ten seats.  (In 1996, the Dems won back nine seats.)  Therefore, if the normal snap-back is met, this would, at the maximum range, still leave the Republicans five seats short.  Thus, they need to put in play more than this normal range of numbers to win back the House.

For this reason, it is comforting to hear about freshmen like Zack Space and Nancy Boyda.  Although I am concerned that the GOP is not united to take on these Dems (stand down Ryun, you blew a race you shouldn't have lost in 2006) it is good to see that the Dems haven't put into office extremely strong candidates in these Republican districts.


For example, Boyda has also refused to take the Democratic money available to her under their ROMP-like program.  While she will no doubt point to this as a positive, i.e., her refusing to kowtow to the Dem leadership, in reality this is a silly move that simply denies her needed money without giving her much "indy cred" in the election.


Other weak Dem incumbents include Tim Mahoney (I told everyone I don't like my job in Congress), Steve Kagen (I acted like a child and threatened Karl Rove while he was in the bathroom), and Carol Shea-Porter (I called up my constituents after they criticised me and berated them).  Each one of these people needs to be pounded by conservative independent groups until the election.  (Don't whine to me about being positive - this doesn't work in American elections).  If each of these guys lose, including Boyda and Space, the GOP will only need nine more seats to win back control.


Other freshmen Dems worth zeroing in on include Nick Lampson, who isn't really a freshman and is actually a strong candidate but represents such a strong Republican district; Baron Hill, who also isn't a real freshman but represents a tough district and faces a strong challenger; Chris Carney, who is a strong candidate but holds a strong Republican seat; Jason Altmire, who unexpectantly won and is, by all accounts, a non-entity in a leaning Republican seat; Jerry McEnery, who is an extreme lefty green kook mistake-waiting-to-happen in a strong Republican district; John Hall, who is a former musician one note anti-war candidate in a heavily Republican district facing a millionare opponent (hopefully); and Kristin Gillibrand, who is a strong Dem in a heavily Republican district who also might be facing a millionare opponent.  There are, of course, other Dem freshmen, but those, I think, are actually stronger positioned to win re-election.


Of course, let's not forget about the non-freshmen representing strong Republican districts.  Let's focus on Jim Matheson, Chet Edwards, Jim Marshall, Earl Pomeroy, Christine Herseth-Sandlin, Melissa Bean, and others.  These Dems need to be challenged for empowering a radical defeatist Democratic leadership led by the embarrassing San Francisco liberal Nancy Pelosi. 


BTW, with the exception of personal scandals like those of Don Young and Heather Wilson, I don't think many Republicans have to worry about re-election.  The tough year - 2006 - is past; 2008 can only be better, with the Dems having partial control over government and thus facing some blame.  For all the Dem talking points - we will challenge all GOPers - they are fighting history and logic on this one.  (BTW, does anyone remember Newt Gingrich and the GOP crowing about winning another twenty seats in 1996?  I do; as we can see, such silliness is bipartisan.)  


It is a shame that the Senate continues to be out of reach in 2008.  With Ted Stevens now endangering a safe seat, and with an embarrassing inability of the GOP to entice Republicans in heavily Republican states like Montana and South Dakota to run against Dems, it seems likely that the only question is how many seats can the GOP lose.  Before Stevens, I thought one or two (Louisiana should switch Republican); now we are looking worse. 


PS: BTW, how bad is it that in states like Michigan and Iowa, the GOP is also not fielding a strong challenger?  In Iowa, Harkin has never won big, is an extreme liberal, and the GOP has two Congressmen, plus a former one and a former Governor, all of whom could give Harkin a race.  And in Michigan, apparently the two GOP minor statewide officials, Representatives Hoekstra and Candice Miller (also a former state wide official), and former Governor candidate Dick Devos ALL want to run for governor four years from now, even though only one of them can actually win that election.  Logic would seem to dictate that one of them might want to run for Senate instead, where at least they would have a better chance of winning the nomination.  And Levin is not unbeatable; I actually think he is very overrated.


PS 2: I still think we hold onto the Presidency, since the Dems are going to nominate Hillary, perhaps one of the most annoying candidates to the swing voters, against our choice of F.Thompson - Rudy - Romney - McCain.

 

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous1Next »