Thoughts on the Election
As everyone knows, the Democrats have very happily come back to Congress. The nutroots think that they have their way.
Since I am a Republican, all I have to say is that I am not happy with the election. That's a duh. Some of you leftists think that is how I think, but you are wrong - which is why you are a leftist. In any case, since politics is a hobby of mine, I need to weigh in on some of my observations.
1) It was the Republicans that lost, and the Democrats really didn't win.
The Republicans got the country mad at them. As the exit polls indicate, it was primarily over them scandals. The next thing was Iraq. Supposedly, the country was mad over the immigration stance - although some have said that winning Democrats went to the right of Republicans on immigration. Maybe some illegals voted? The Hispanic vote certainly went Democrat.
In any case, the country did not vote for a set of Democrat proposals. We know that Nancy will raise the minimum wage. But hardly anyone gets super excited about that.
Unlike in 1994, the country voted against Clinton, but there was a Republican program - The Contract with America. This was what was promised by Newt - and he delivered. And everyone knew this is what changed Congress over. Had Republicans run totally on anti-Clinton, they would never had regained control of Congress.
2) Thus, Democrats need to work with the minority
As Evan Bayh of Indiana stated, because the country did not vote for Democrat proposals, Congressional Democrats need to find common ground on many issues. They have conceded that gun control is bad (finally). Now, they will try to demand universal, single-payer health care. Trying to force single-payer is going to bring Democrats down, because business will go after them, drying up fundraising. They have to think up more creative solutions besides relabelled dogma. They will have to find common ground to achieve what they want to get, and if they want universal health care, they will have to allow a (huge) role for the market.
BTW: If you like single-payer, look at an Englishman's teeth, and tell me that is something you like (brought to you via a single-payer system that has virtually eliminated the dental industry)
Especially since the Democrats elected a Buchannite in Virginia. Yes, he ran on opposing the war, but so does Buchannan. In fact, they might have brought a Trojan Horse into the party. Now, the nutty survivalists will start voting Democrat, and will start working their way into their structure. Not that I denounce them, but sympathize with them (if they are non-bigoted, as most of them are). And there will be good fireworks at Democrat conventions in the upcoming years, as the nutroots and the survivalists battle it out on the floor.
Unless they do not placate Jim Webb. At which point, he might look favorably at Republicans - especially if there is no war issue, and they get really pushy on some of their leftwing issues.
3) Take heed from the last time you saw on the slogan "Had Enough"
This is not a new slogan. This was tried in 1946. And the slogan worked. The Republicans were returned to Congress, and were set to win the White House in 1948.
Then, Dewey defeated Truman. At least as one headline put it. Truman won handily in 1948 due to Republican high-handedness. As it turned out, this was only one of two breaks in a nearly 64 year Democrat control of Congress. Not a lot got accomplished.
This looks like 1946-1948 again. The Democrats have Dewey. Hillary. Sure, she is not with them on every issue, but neither was Dewey a mainline Republican. While Truman cannot run again, we do have potential to field a scrappy candidate who can surprise all on election day 1948 - er, 2008.
If the Democrats step too much in it, the label "Do-Nothing Congress" can be pinned on them, because they will not accomplish much of anything. And it will show their ultra partisanship, which this country is really sick of right now, so this "do-nothing" label might work (as it did in 1948).
4) We need new methods of running public opinion polls
This election was supposed to be close, per the polls. Instead, the Democrats pulled way ahead of where they were supposed to be. There was supposedly a Republican surge - which didn't materialize on election day.
This is not the first time polls failed us. At one time, they leaned to favor Democrats. Now, they seem to favor Republicans. Remember what happened in 1998? Remember what happened in 2004? That was with the best public polling science out there.
Pollsters need to once again analyze society, to see how they can best gauge attitudes. In fact, they cannot stick to a static model, but now, polling organizations are going to have to hire experts who have an ability to see how society communicates - like sociologists (those not brainwashed into Marxism by their professors) - to get an idea of whom to measure. The famous Literary Digest poll of 1936 showed Langdon handily defeating Roosevelt - but that is because they did their polling via phone - when not a lot of people had one (it was the Depression, and phone and phone minutes were way more expensive then than now). Roosevelt won 46 states (out of 48).
Yes, not everyone today owns a phone. Instead, many people own several. And many of those are not so well off. One can easily get a cheap phone by dumpster diving. Which shows that society constantly changes, so those changes will need to be analyzed to be able to gauge it better - to get more accurate polling results around election time.
5) Seahawks are lucky to survive without their two stars, while the Huskies need to learn to play catch.
Seattle is fortunate in that we have won two games without Hasselback or Alexander, albeit one was a squeeker. It keeps us in the running for the playoffs. Two in one week, and we remain in first place for our division. That is something for this Republican to be happy about.
Something that this Republican was not happy about this week, besides the election, was the fact that the Huskies played an absolutely horrible game. They have no running game. So they decided to play a passing game. Except for the fact that none of the receivers could catch the ball. And this is the game I attended. In fact, every single play the announcer said, again and again, "pass incomplete." Which makes it even worse when an incomplete pass stops the clock. This is torture. At least they could have had a running game and ended the game earlier. In fact, the Huskies had a way worse game than the Republicans had this election.
While this has nothing to do with the election, I thought it is important to bring this up.
6) Lincoln Chafee is a dumbass
There is (was) Lincoln Chafee, a genuine RINO. He did nothing positive to advance the Republican agenda. The Democrats greatly admired him for his stands against Republican legislation. But not enough to not field a candidate against him - in Rhode Island, a blue state, in a blue year, that people long suspected to be a blue year. And as it was quite obvious, he lost.
Now, it is rumored that he will renounce his Republican affiliation. A little late for that. He should have run as a Democrat this year. Everyone knows he has a Democrat voting record. And he would have been returned to Congress as one.
As Forest Gump said, stupid is as stupid does.
7) Joe Lieberman is playing games
Joe Lieberman lost the Democrat primary to Ned Lamont (whose great-grandfather was "the man", by the way). So he ran as an "independent." With the help of Republicans, he won.
It was asked if he would switch party affiliations. He did not rule if out. So some bloggers think it is a possiblity. I think not.
Remember, this was the Democrat Vice-President nominee in 2000. And he almost became Vice-President, too, as we all remember. And he fought tooth-and-nail to try to VP, as we remember. On top of the fac that his ACU voting record is lower than that of Kucinich (who actually has quite a high ACU voting record for someone rumored to be so Progressive), I very highly doubt that he will ever become a Republican.
Despite being elected as an "Independent," he will supposedly head up the Senate Homeland Security Committee. He has an incentive to remain a D. I think that, more than anything, he is playing games with the Democrats, threatening them by indicating that he maybe might leave to the R's if he doesn't get his way. And a maybe might really means "no." He says this to keep his committee chair, and get them to back off on the war. Republicans should not get their hopes too high up.
Which leads to...
8) We will remain in Iraq
The House will pressure the Bush administration to pull out of Iraq. But it will have a harder time in the Senate. A much harder time.
The Senate is made up of an even amount of Democrats and Republicans. There are two "Independents" who almost always vote with Democrats, especially on procedural matters.
Now, despite the fact that anti-war Democrats won in almost every tight race, most of the Republican Senators are of some kind of conservative persuasion. Joe Lieberman will support the administration on this position - especially to get back at the Democrats for getting at him for this issue. Bush might be able to peel away one of two blue Senators from a very red state to vote for the war. If they get 50 votes, Cheney will break a tie.
Thus, for the remainder of this term, I see that it will be very difficult to get out of Iraq.
9) We will see investigations, investigations, investigations
The various House committees know they cannot do much, but they can try to embarass the Bush administration to get an issue for 2008. So expect them to investigate as much as they can possibly investigate.
Fortunately, we have historical experience on how to deflect these things. While the Clintons hid a lot during their term in office, they did teach us about various counter tactics. I think I have said this earlier, but I heard Rush allude to them over the weekend. While Clinton got impeached, it was after four years. They only have 1 1/2 years to do this to Bush. And the American people do not have the patience for all that legal minutia used to block investigations. Unless Bush uses it to hid the facts he is getting blow jobs in the oval office, after a while, independent Joe Voter will not be much interested in what leftist wonks find fascinating.
The Democrats do not intend to impeach Bush, but they intend to use the House to make him look as bad as possible for 2008. At which point, we can use the term "do-nothing Congress."
10) The Democrats should have stuck with Dave Ross
Dave Ross ran against Dave Reichart in 2004, when Jennifer Dunn retired. It was a close race, but in a red year, Dave Reichart won - in a district that went for Kerry.
I believe that Dave Ross, a talk-show host, could have won. He certainly has the gravitas to do so. But instead, the nutroots had to nominate one of their own; someone who spent more time in loony Seattle than in the moderate district herself.
So it was close again. But now, she conceded. Because she lost. So the Democrats will have to find someone else to run again, in a former R District.
Darcy Burner, my age, supposedly had a problem about the truth. She lied a lot about herself. She was not really a manager at Microsoft, but a worker bee. Which isn't a bad thing, considering it is Microsoft, but one ought not give out gross lies.
Speaking of gross, she had a face that looks like a butt. I'm serious. While this may hinder a man in getting elected to office, he might have enough going for him to get elected (see Richard Nixon). But women are not supposed to have a face that looks like a butt. That gets you in trouble electorally. If the Democrats had not elected Buttface, they might have gotten another seat, and had an easier time getting their agenda thru.
Maybe in 2008 they will get another strong challenger. But Dave Reichart seems to be playing a smart game, where he is a conservative on some issues that the base likes, but is a pragmatist on issues that matter to his constitutients - which is a moderate district, and likes to see Representatives who are willing to work to get stuff accomplished.
11) Finally, parties need to give good lecturers to new elected officials about upright behaviour
It was scandals that brought down Republicans. Perverted sex scandals, financial scandals, ethical scandals. And many of these could have been avoided if my plan is followed.
Parties should select candidates who are there to serve a cause. They need to realize that the cause is more important than they themselves. If they have problems with money, they can retire and get some lucrative corporate job. Yes, this isn't Cincinatius, but at least, they are honest. If they are perverted, they should be forced out to "spend more time with their family" and go pursue their own sexual pecadillos outside of range of the press.
The leadership knows about what is going on. We need leadership with more guts in dealing with their own bad boys. In getting this kind of leadership, they will be in a stronger position to get their own agenda across.
That's all. I hope my lessons serve well.
Since I am a Republican, all I have to say is that I am not happy with the election. That's a duh. Some of you leftists think that is how I think, but you are wrong - which is why you are a leftist. In any case, since politics is a hobby of mine, I need to weigh in on some of my observations.
1) It was the Republicans that lost, and the Democrats really didn't win.
The Republicans got the country mad at them. As the exit polls indicate, it was primarily over them scandals. The next thing was Iraq. Supposedly, the country was mad over the immigration stance - although some have said that winning Democrats went to the right of Republicans on immigration. Maybe some illegals voted? The Hispanic vote certainly went Democrat.
In any case, the country did not vote for a set of Democrat proposals. We know that Nancy will raise the minimum wage. But hardly anyone gets super excited about that.
Unlike in 1994, the country voted against Clinton, but there was a Republican program - The Contract with America. This was what was promised by Newt - and he delivered. And everyone knew this is what changed Congress over. Had Republicans run totally on anti-Clinton, they would never had regained control of Congress.
2) Thus, Democrats need to work with the minority
As Evan Bayh of Indiana stated, because the country did not vote for Democrat proposals, Congressional Democrats need to find common ground on many issues. They have conceded that gun control is bad (finally). Now, they will try to demand universal, single-payer health care. Trying to force single-payer is going to bring Democrats down, because business will go after them, drying up fundraising. They have to think up more creative solutions besides relabelled dogma. They will have to find common ground to achieve what they want to get, and if they want universal health care, they will have to allow a (huge) role for the market.
BTW: If you like single-payer, look at an Englishman's teeth, and tell me that is something you like (brought to you via a single-payer system that has virtually eliminated the dental industry)
Especially since the Democrats elected a Buchannite in Virginia. Yes, he ran on opposing the war, but so does Buchannan. In fact, they might have brought a Trojan Horse into the party. Now, the nutty survivalists will start voting Democrat, and will start working their way into their structure. Not that I denounce them, but sympathize with them (if they are non-bigoted, as most of them are). And there will be good fireworks at Democrat conventions in the upcoming years, as the nutroots and the survivalists battle it out on the floor.
Unless they do not placate Jim Webb. At which point, he might look favorably at Republicans - especially if there is no war issue, and they get really pushy on some of their leftwing issues.
3) Take heed from the last time you saw on the slogan "Had Enough"
This is not a new slogan. This was tried in 1946. And the slogan worked. The Republicans were returned to Congress, and were set to win the White House in 1948.
Then, Dewey defeated Truman. At least as one headline put it. Truman won handily in 1948 due to Republican high-handedness. As it turned out, this was only one of two breaks in a nearly 64 year Democrat control of Congress. Not a lot got accomplished.
This looks like 1946-1948 again. The Democrats have Dewey. Hillary. Sure, she is not with them on every issue, but neither was Dewey a mainline Republican. While Truman cannot run again, we do have potential to field a scrappy candidate who can surprise all on election day 1948 - er, 2008.
If the Democrats step too much in it, the label "Do-Nothing Congress" can be pinned on them, because they will not accomplish much of anything. And it will show their ultra partisanship, which this country is really sick of right now, so this "do-nothing" label might work (as it did in 1948).
4) We need new methods of running public opinion polls
This election was supposed to be close, per the polls. Instead, the Democrats pulled way ahead of where they were supposed to be. There was supposedly a Republican surge - which didn't materialize on election day.
This is not the first time polls failed us. At one time, they leaned to favor Democrats. Now, they seem to favor Republicans. Remember what happened in 1998? Remember what happened in 2004? That was with the best public polling science out there.
Pollsters need to once again analyze society, to see how they can best gauge attitudes. In fact, they cannot stick to a static model, but now, polling organizations are going to have to hire experts who have an ability to see how society communicates - like sociologists (those not brainwashed into Marxism by their professors) - to get an idea of whom to measure. The famous Literary Digest poll of 1936 showed Langdon handily defeating Roosevelt - but that is because they did their polling via phone - when not a lot of people had one (it was the Depression, and phone and phone minutes were way more expensive then than now). Roosevelt won 46 states (out of 48).
Yes, not everyone today owns a phone. Instead, many people own several. And many of those are not so well off. One can easily get a cheap phone by dumpster diving. Which shows that society constantly changes, so those changes will need to be analyzed to be able to gauge it better - to get more accurate polling results around election time.
5) Seahawks are lucky to survive without their two stars, while the Huskies need to learn to play catch.
Seattle is fortunate in that we have won two games without Hasselback or Alexander, albeit one was a squeeker. It keeps us in the running for the playoffs. Two in one week, and we remain in first place for our division. That is something for this Republican to be happy about.
Something that this Republican was not happy about this week, besides the election, was the fact that the Huskies played an absolutely horrible game. They have no running game. So they decided to play a passing game. Except for the fact that none of the receivers could catch the ball. And this is the game I attended. In fact, every single play the announcer said, again and again, "pass incomplete." Which makes it even worse when an incomplete pass stops the clock. This is torture. At least they could have had a running game and ended the game earlier. In fact, the Huskies had a way worse game than the Republicans had this election.
While this has nothing to do with the election, I thought it is important to bring this up.
6) Lincoln Chafee is a dumbass
There is (was) Lincoln Chafee, a genuine RINO. He did nothing positive to advance the Republican agenda. The Democrats greatly admired him for his stands against Republican legislation. But not enough to not field a candidate against him - in Rhode Island, a blue state, in a blue year, that people long suspected to be a blue year. And as it was quite obvious, he lost.
Now, it is rumored that he will renounce his Republican affiliation. A little late for that. He should have run as a Democrat this year. Everyone knows he has a Democrat voting record. And he would have been returned to Congress as one.
As Forest Gump said, stupid is as stupid does.
7) Joe Lieberman is playing games
Joe Lieberman lost the Democrat primary to Ned Lamont (whose great-grandfather was "the man", by the way). So he ran as an "independent." With the help of Republicans, he won.
It was asked if he would switch party affiliations. He did not rule if out. So some bloggers think it is a possiblity. I think not.
Remember, this was the Democrat Vice-President nominee in 2000. And he almost became Vice-President, too, as we all remember. And he fought tooth-and-nail to try to VP, as we remember. On top of the fac that his ACU voting record is lower than that of Kucinich (who actually has quite a high ACU voting record for someone rumored to be so Progressive), I very highly doubt that he will ever become a Republican.
Despite being elected as an "Independent," he will supposedly head up the Senate Homeland Security Committee. He has an incentive to remain a D. I think that, more than anything, he is playing games with the Democrats, threatening them by indicating that he maybe might leave to the R's if he doesn't get his way. And a maybe might really means "no." He says this to keep his committee chair, and get them to back off on the war. Republicans should not get their hopes too high up.
Which leads to...
8) We will remain in Iraq
The House will pressure the Bush administration to pull out of Iraq. But it will have a harder time in the Senate. A much harder time.
The Senate is made up of an even amount of Democrats and Republicans. There are two "Independents" who almost always vote with Democrats, especially on procedural matters.
Now, despite the fact that anti-war Democrats won in almost every tight race, most of the Republican Senators are of some kind of conservative persuasion. Joe Lieberman will support the administration on this position - especially to get back at the Democrats for getting at him for this issue. Bush might be able to peel away one of two blue Senators from a very red state to vote for the war. If they get 50 votes, Cheney will break a tie.
Thus, for the remainder of this term, I see that it will be very difficult to get out of Iraq.
9) We will see investigations, investigations, investigations
The various House committees know they cannot do much, but they can try to embarass the Bush administration to get an issue for 2008. So expect them to investigate as much as they can possibly investigate.
Fortunately, we have historical experience on how to deflect these things. While the Clintons hid a lot during their term in office, they did teach us about various counter tactics. I think I have said this earlier, but I heard Rush allude to them over the weekend. While Clinton got impeached, it was after four years. They only have 1 1/2 years to do this to Bush. And the American people do not have the patience for all that legal minutia used to block investigations. Unless Bush uses it to hid the facts he is getting blow jobs in the oval office, after a while, independent Joe Voter will not be much interested in what leftist wonks find fascinating.
The Democrats do not intend to impeach Bush, but they intend to use the House to make him look as bad as possible for 2008. At which point, we can use the term "do-nothing Congress."
10) The Democrats should have stuck with Dave Ross
Dave Ross ran against Dave Reichart in 2004, when Jennifer Dunn retired. It was a close race, but in a red year, Dave Reichart won - in a district that went for Kerry.
I believe that Dave Ross, a talk-show host, could have won. He certainly has the gravitas to do so. But instead, the nutroots had to nominate one of their own; someone who spent more time in loony Seattle than in the moderate district herself.
So it was close again. But now, she conceded. Because she lost. So the Democrats will have to find someone else to run again, in a former R District.
Darcy Burner, my age, supposedly had a problem about the truth. She lied a lot about herself. She was not really a manager at Microsoft, but a worker bee. Which isn't a bad thing, considering it is Microsoft, but one ought not give out gross lies.
Speaking of gross, she had a face that looks like a butt. I'm serious. While this may hinder a man in getting elected to office, he might have enough going for him to get elected (see Richard Nixon). But women are not supposed to have a face that looks like a butt. That gets you in trouble electorally. If the Democrats had not elected Buttface, they might have gotten another seat, and had an easier time getting their agenda thru.
Maybe in 2008 they will get another strong challenger. But Dave Reichart seems to be playing a smart game, where he is a conservative on some issues that the base likes, but is a pragmatist on issues that matter to his constitutients - which is a moderate district, and likes to see Representatives who are willing to work to get stuff accomplished.
11) Finally, parties need to give good lecturers to new elected officials about upright behaviour
It was scandals that brought down Republicans. Perverted sex scandals, financial scandals, ethical scandals. And many of these could have been avoided if my plan is followed.
Parties should select candidates who are there to serve a cause. They need to realize that the cause is more important than they themselves. If they have problems with money, they can retire and get some lucrative corporate job. Yes, this isn't Cincinatius, but at least, they are honest. If they are perverted, they should be forced out to "spend more time with their family" and go pursue their own sexual pecadillos outside of range of the press.
The leadership knows about what is going on. We need leadership with more guts in dealing with their own bad boys. In getting this kind of leadership, they will be in a stronger position to get their own agenda across.
That's all. I hope my lessons serve well.
posted by EricMatthew at 9:35 PM
<< Home