commentary by Wayne Allyn Root

[whangarei]

Root commentary (http://www.theonlinewire.com/articleView.aspx?ID=2012)

Interesting article by author of "Millionaire Republican." Claims UIGEA was the coup de grace for the current Republican party.

[malo]

Good article. The first (rather long) paragraph actually clearly articulates what has been rumbling through my mind for a while now---just couldn't sum it up succinctly.

[addictontilt]

can someone past - NSFW link apparently darn IT nazis

[MinusEV]

[ QUOTE ]

11/12/2006
Why the GOP Lost Big on Election Day 2006: Understanding Addition & Subtraction!


The GOP suffered a humiliating and demoralizing defeat on Tuesday. Why? The answer is pretty simple to this “Millionaire Republican.” I am proud to call myself a Jewish Libertarian Republican. And I think an old Holocaust story passed down by my Yiddish grandmother explains the problem we as Republicans encountered on election day. The story about the Holocaust goes like this: “First the Nazis came for the Jews. And no one spoke up. Then they came for the gays- and no one spoke up. Then they came for the gypsies- and no one spoke up. Then they came for the crippled- and no one spoke up. Finally they came for us- and there was no one left to speak up.” That reminds me of the problem the GOP has created for our party. First the GOP alienated literally every moderate voter in America- the centrists, independents, blue dog Democrats- with the idiotic Karl Rove/Ken Mehlman strategy of pandering to the religious right and mobilizing the base- while ignoring everyone else. Then President Bush and the GOP finished the job by showcasing their extreme religious views on Terri Schiavo, stem cells, and teaching evolution in the classroom. Next the GOP alienated any moderate soccer moms that were still left with their outspoken desire to overturn Roe vs. Wade. Then the GOP alienated all gay voters with their intense desire to make gay marriage the most important issue in American politics. Then GOP politicians screamed from the highest rooftops about throwing all the illegal immigrants (and their children) out of the country- thereby alienating Hispanics (and most other immigrants as well). Then there was the brilliant Bush stand against funding of stem cell research- mixed in with a Rush Limbaugh tirade against one of Hollywood’s biggest (and most sympathetic) stars Michael J. Fox. Whoops- out went the votes of anyone with a disease- or with a friend or parent or child or spouse with a disease (including Ronald Reagan’s widow Nancy). Bush actually chose the only veto of his entire Presidency to stop federal funding of embryonic stem cell research. Yet he never thought it important enough to use a single veto to stop the greatest expansion of government spending and bureaucracy in modern history- thereby losing the votes of fiscal conservatives. Finally the straw that broke the GOP’s back was their support of the bill to ban online gaming. What the brilliant GOP leaders didn’t realize was that more than 20 million Americans love to play poker and gamble online (including me) and felt their freedoms and rights had been violated- thereby turning off Libertarians, small government advocates (conservatives), and those 20 million angry gamblers (mostly college educated, high income males who tend to vote Republican). So tell me ladies and gentleman- who is left to vote Republican?

There you have the simple problem for the Republicans: MATH. Someone at GOP

headquarters needs to learn about addition and subtraction! You cannot win elections with only devout Christians and a few Country Club golfers. That just doesn’t add up to a majority of American voters! Pretty soon, we’ll be a party of one: George W. Bush. Or perhaps a party of three: Bush, Rove and Mehlman (Which is good, because “W” will need someone to hold the door open for the last Republican and turn off the lights). With a strategy of exclusion (as opposed to inclusion) like that- the party is over…in this case the Republican Party. How sad. As I pointed out in my book “Millionaire Republican”- the GOP held every advantage possible to dominate American politics for many years to come. We have an uplifting, inclusive message that appeals to anyone and everyone looking to achieve the American Dream: lower taxes, smaller government, reduced spending, reduced bureaucracy, protecting the freedoms and rights of the individual. And more importantly, we have the demographics- millions of Americans with money, education, skill and ambition are migrating to red Republican states- thereby giving the GOP a huge electoral advantage for years to come. Yet we managed to blow the greatest political opportunity since FDR. All because some brain surgeon decided that we should pander to one group- the religious right- and ignore the rest of America. All because the ideas of the religious right often seem intolerant and encourage big government- thereby creating the “Nanny State” and making the GOP look like complete hypocrites supporting bigger government. Exit polls on election day proved that 59% of Americans want smaller government, but many of those same voters now see the GOP as the party of BIGGER government, bigger spending, and more tax burden for the middle class. Ronald Reagan must be rolling over in his grave. Reagan once said the 9 worst words in the English language are: “I’m from the government and I’m here to help.”

Do you now understand why the GOP lost control of the House, Senate, and a majority of Governorships? The Bush, Rove, Mehlman strategy was a recipe for disaster. These GOP geniuses ruined the greatest opportunity the GOP has ever had, or will ever have, to dominate politics at all levels of government. Thanks guys. By the way, are you done? There must be some other group left somewhere for you to alienate? Who needs ‘em? Afterall we have the Christian right. Oh right, I forgot- the Mark Foley incident turned them off too. I guess that’s what happens when you put all your eggs in one basket, huh?

Here’s my final thoughts on winning the next big election in 2008: History ALWAYS repeats. All elections are won by the party that moves to the center. We are a center right country. Let’s get back to basics. Let’s choose a moderate candidate who appeals to a majority of Americans- including centrists, independents and Reagan Democrats. Let’s keep our message simple- lower taxes, smaller government, cut spending and waste, protect Americans from terrorists. That’s it. Stay out of people’s bedrooms. Oh and one other thing- let’s make sure our next Republican Presidential candidate supports stem cell research, understands global warming, opposes a ban on online gaming (or anything else), and believes in evolution. Do those simple things and the GOP will be back to dominating all levels of government by 2008.
Wayne Allyn Root is the author of the Amazon # 1 Best-Seller "Millionaire Republican." He is a Libertarian Republican- fiscally conservative, but progressive on social issues.

Published November 12 2006 - 7.30am EST - TheOnlineWire.com


[/ QUOTE ]

[Uglyowl]

Fantastic article. Everyone here should read this and there are many talking points in here to use when talking to your elected officials when arguing about poker.

I hope that some of the bigger political blogs pick this article up. I will start e-mail the link, but have to work another 5 hours.

[imsobroke]

Great read thanks for sharing.

[checkmate36]

NH

[NCAces]

While it may make us feel good to think that we had something to do with the defeat, this article is contrary to any of the analysis by mainstream political analysts (and commonsense, in my opinion). If anything, the Republicans didn't motivate their base because they were not true enough to their conservative roots, not because they held too closely to them.

But, the main four reasons are clear:

1. Historically, the President's party in power in the 6th year of an 8 year president's term gets their ass handed to them. The losses that the Republicans suffered are well within (and even under) the historical losses in similar situations.

2. Iraq and the war, which energized the left, and demoralized the Republican base.

3. A perception (arguably reality) that Katrina was handled badly.

4. Scandal within the party (Delay, Foley, the Indian gambler guy, etc.)

I am a Republican, and I think that we got what we deserved. I am none to pleased with my party and don't think they deserved to be reelected. But, the thought and analysis in this article is very weak. It reminds me of the shallow level of thought that would be proffered by someone who wrote a book with the word "millionaire" in the title.

NCAces

[John_Manley]

vnh

[Uglyowl]

[ QUOTE ]
If anything, the Republicans didn't motivate their base

[/ QUOTE ]

I thought the article was right on. The Republicans base has been shrinking significantly in party identification polls. I know of a lot of people who are outraged at the stem cell funding veto and yes that dwarfs the poker community.

- In October, just 31.5% of Americans considered themselves Republicans. That’s a startling decline of nearly six percentage points from 37.2% two years ago.

- Today, 30.7% are not affiliated with either major party. That’s up from 24.1% in October 2004.

But to say the poker community had (and has) "nothing" to do with anything is also a very bold lie. In elections that are this close it is dangerous to think otherwise.

Did poker players single handedly sway any seats from one party to another? Don't really know, could be one or two?

[NCAces]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If anything, the Republicans didn't motivate their base

[/ QUOTE ]

I thought the article was right on. The Republicans base has been shrinking significantly in party identification polls. I know of a lot of people who are outraged at the stem cell funding veto and yes that dwarfs the poker community.

- In October, just 31.5% of Americans considered themselves Republicans. That’s a startling decline of nearly six percentage points from 37.2% two years ago.

- Today, 30.7% are not affiliated with either major party. That’s up from 24.1% in October 2004.

But to say the poker community had (and has) "nothing" to do with anything is also a very bold lie. In elections that are this close it is dangerous to think otherwise.

Did poker players single handedly sway any seats from one party to another? Don't really know, could be one or two?

[/ QUOTE ]

Then we shall agree to disagree. And, thanks for calling me a liar ... seems you've adopted that loose definition of the word "lie" that seems to get bantered about these days. How about we just disagree about the impact that poker players had on the election.

NCAces

[larsjones]

[ QUOTE ]
While it may make us feel good to think that we had something to do with the defeat, this article is contrary to any of the analysis by mainstream political analysts (and commonsense, in my opinion). If anything, the Republicans didn't motivate their base because they were not true enough to their conservative roots, not because they held too closely to them.

But, the main four reasons are clear:

1. Historically, the President's party in power in the 6th year of an 8 year president's term gets their ass handed to them. The losses that the Republicans suffered are well within (and even under) the historical losses in similar situations.

2. Iraq and the war, which energized the left, and demoralized the Republican base.

3. A perception (arguably reality) that Katrina was handled badly.

4. Scandal within the party (Delay, Foley, the Indian gambler guy, etc.)

I am a Republican, and I think that we got what we deserved. I am none to pleased with my party and don't think they deserved to be reelected. But, the thought and analysis in this article is very weak. It reminds me of the shallow level of thought that would be proffered by someone who wrote a book with the word "millionaire" in the title.

NCAces

[/ QUOTE ]

Just to touch on a few of your points, which I feel are right, for the most part.

First of all, Katrina WAS mishandled. Rita was a FREAKIN debacle. Trust me, I was there. Enough said...this is not the debate.

I don't feel like the Hurricane, however weighed heavily on the minds of many, besides those from, or living in that regions of the country affected. Texas, as a whole, and most of Louisiana are pretty conservative. Good luck getting Texas, specifically to go blue for ANY reason.

Now, the war is a different story.

I think the actions of the USA in Iraq are and were a major cause for concern for voters. I think it left many wondering who the terrorists really are.

History, although it seems infallible at times, is highly overrated in a world of free thinking people such as the USA.

Just thought I'd post these thoughts where I had them.

[TheRover]

Root is total scum and I wouldn't want him advocating my positions.

[ QUOTE ]
I think the actions of the USA in Iraq are and were a major cause for concern for voters. I think it left many wondering who the terrorists really are.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm pretty sure the number of people wondering that is so small it is irrelevant to anything.

[JoseGonzlez]

what's funny about Root is I used to watch him on USA today (probably the only paid advertisement i ever watched) picking football games and hyping his 1 800 number.

Probably 15 years after i used to watch that show i hear him on a conservative radio show (i think Glen Beck who is probably very opposed to gambling hyping his book.

Just kind of funny a guy who made his money on 1 800 pick lines writing political books. maybe its not that funny.

[aces_full]

[ QUOTE ]
While it may make us feel good to think that we had something to do with the defeat, this article is contrary to any of the analysis by mainstream political analysts (and commonsense, in my opinion). If anything, the Republicans didn't motivate their base because they were not true enough to their conservative roots, not because they held too closely to them.

But, the main four reasons are clear:

1. Historically, the President's party in power in the 6th year of an 8 year president's term gets their ass handed to them. The losses that the Republicans suffered are well within (and even under) the historical losses in similar situations.

2. Iraq and the war, which energized the left, and demoralized the Republican base.

3. A perception (arguably reality) that Katrina was handled badly.

4. Scandal within the party (Delay, Foley, the Indian gambler guy, etc.)

I am a Republican, and I think that we got what we deserved. I am none to pleased with my party and don't think they deserved to be reelected. But, the thought and analysis in this article is very weak. It reminds me of the shallow level of thought that would be proffered by someone who wrote a book with the word "millionaire" in the title.

NCAces

[/ QUOTE ]


I liked the article bceause even if it is more opinion than fact, I agree with it. What exactly is the Republican base? By all accounts, I should be a Republicans wet dream. I am a 30 something, well educated, upper middle class,white,male professional who leans more to the right than left, and I don't like the Democrats,bleeding heart liberals in general, and tree hugging hippies. But after GW 2.0 and the recent Republican congress, I am now registered as an independent and I vow to never vote Republican again.

My disdain for the GW era began three years before I ever played a single hand of online poker. I am not a Christian and I don't believe in God. My personal perception is that Bush has been pandering to the Religious right, and not being a Christian, but being a firm believer in the seperation of church and state, this in my mind is one of the biggest turn offs. The issue of gay marriage absolutely infuriates me. Why is this an issue that is even on the political radar screen? I could care less if [censored] want to get married. It doesn't bother me one bit. I was just disappointed that our leaders weren't focusing on real issues that were important to real Amercians. I also was infuriated over the white house response to the Janet Jackson Superbowl incident. Immediately after this the FCC went on a morality and censorship crusade that drove Howard Stern of the public airwaves. Again as I see it, Republicans are pandering to the religious right. I'm no political expert by any means, but what am I??? I am a voter, and from where I sit, the Republicans sucks not because they are not conservative enough, but because I feel that they simply pander to the religious right and the mahogany row fatcats. They are completely out of touch with what is actually important to me (and I suspect to much of the middle class as well). Did poker lose them the election? Well it certainly didn't help. If the UIGEA didn't happen, there was about a 99.9999999% chance that I would not have even bothered to vote this election day. I have been old enough to vote for nearly 18 years now, and this is the first time I have ever voted in a midterm election.

Mishandled war in Iraq,Foley scandal,gas 3X more expensive than when Bush took office...... I could go on and on making a list of reasons why I will no longer be voting Republican, but you get the point.

[NCAces]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
While it may make us feel good to think that we had something to do with the defeat, this article is contrary to any of the analysis by mainstream political analysts (and commonsense, in my opinion). If anything, the Republicans didn't motivate their base because they were not true enough to their conservative roots, not because they held too closely to them.

But, the main four reasons are clear:

1. Historically, the President's party in power in the 6th year of an 8 year president's term gets their ass handed to them. The losses that the Republicans suffered are well within (and even under) the historical losses in similar situations.

2. Iraq and the war, which energized the left, and demoralized the Republican base.

3. A perception (arguably reality) that Katrina was handled badly.

4. Scandal within the party (Delay, Foley, the Indian gambler guy, etc.)

I am a Republican, and I think that we got what we deserved. I am none to pleased with my party and don't think they deserved to be reelected. But, the thought and analysis in this article is very weak. It reminds me of the shallow level of thought that would be proffered by someone who wrote a book with the word "millionaire" in the title.

NCAces

[/ QUOTE ]


I liked the article bceause even if it is more opinion than fact, I agree with it. What exactly is the Republican base? By all accounts, I should be a Republicans wet dream. I am a 30 something, well educated, upper middle class,white,male professional who leans more to the right than left, and I don't like the Democrats,bleeding heart liberals in general, and tree hugging hippies. But after GW 2.0 and the recent Republican congress, I am now registered as an independent and I vow to never vote Republican again.

My disdain for the GW era began three years before I ever played a single hand of online poker. I am not a Christian and I don't believe in God. My personal perception is that Bush has been pandering to the Religious right, and not being a Christian, but being a firm believer in the seperation of church and state, this in my mind is one of the biggest turn offs. The issue of gay marriage absolutely infuriates me. Why is this an issue that is even on the political radar screen? I could care less if [censored] want to get married. It doesn't bother me one bit. I was just disappointed that our leaders weren't focusing on real issues that were important to real Amercians. I also was infuriated over the white house response to the Janet Jackson Superbowl incident. Immediately after this the FCC went on a morality and censorship crusade that drove Howard Stern of the public airwaves. Again as I see it, Republicans are pandering to the religious right. I'm no political expert by any means, but what am I??? I am a voter, and from where I sit, the Republicans sucks not because they are not conservative enough, but because I feel that they simply pander to the religious right and the mahogany row fatcats. They are completely out of touch with what is actually important to me (and I suspect to much of the middle class as well). Did poker lose them the election? Well it certainly didn't help. If the UIGEA didn't happen, there was about a 99.9999999% chance that I would not have even bothered to vote this election day. I have been old enough to vote for nearly 18 years now, and this is the first time I have ever voted in a midterm election.

Mishandled war in Iraq,Foley scandal,gas 3X more expensive than when Bush took office...... I could go on and on making a list of reasons why I will no longer be voting Republican, but you get the point.

[/ QUOTE ]

I hear you and I am frustrated as well. Question: We are a two party country ... if you don't vote Republican, you vote Democrat (putting aside Libertarian, etc.). What exactly is it that the Democrats offer that you find more compelling, or perhaps a better way to say it is, "what is it that the Dems offer that make them a lesser evil to choose from?"

Also, from your post you say that you are a Republican wet dream, but then state you are (1) an atheist, (2) pro gay marriage, and (3) for Janet Jackson showing her breasts and Howard Stern being able to say whatever he wants on the public air.

So, what exactly is it that you are that the Republicans would like? I am not trying to pick a fight ... as I said, I am none to pleased with the Republicans. But the three positions you set forth above are typically counter to those that the Republican party would attract. You mention that you lean right ... where exactly? Could it be that you are one of those who hold themselves out to be "fiscally conservative, socially liberal?" I tend to lean that way, myself.

In all three of the issues above, you are in the minority ... non-religious, pro gay marriage, and an advocate of less regulation of morality on the public airwaves. Why would a party move in that direction where they would be moving away from the majority and to the minority.

Again, I stress I am not picking a fight as many do on these types of sites. Just asking some probing questions based on your interesting post.

NCAces

[Uglyowl]

[ QUOTE ]
What exactly is it that the Democrats offer that you find more compelling, or perhaps a better way to say it is, "what is it that the Dems offer that make them a lesser evil to choose from?"

[/ QUOTE ]

Other than "revenge" for me, the realistic answer is to no longer give the Republicans (or either party) carte blanche.
In my opinion the privilege that the American people gave Bill Frist and his party was greatly abused.

Also I probably overreacted with the word "lie" and I apologize. I get fired up at the thought that a group of people can not make a difference.

[NCAces]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What exactly is it that the Democrats offer that you find more compelling, or perhaps a better way to say it is, "what is it that the Dems offer that make them a lesser evil to choose from?"

[/ QUOTE ]

Other than "revenge" for me, the realistic answer is to no longer give the Republicans (or either party) carte blanche.
In my opinion the privilege that the American people gave Bill Frist and his party was greatly abused.

Also I probably overreacted with the word "lie" and I apologize. I get fired up at the thought that a group of people can not make a difference.

[/ QUOTE ]

Accepted, and who knows, in Virginia and Wyoming it very well could have been the difference!

I agree with you on the idea of not giving either party carte blanche ... in fact, I think having the power split is the best for us all ... gridlock is good! That is kind of why I wish that the Repubs had maintained the Senate and lost the House. Oh, well, so long as we get a Dem Pres and the Senate goes back to the Repubs, or a Repub Press and the Senate stays the same, its good old gridlock.

NCAces

[aces_full]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
While it may make us feel good to think that we had something to do with the defeat, this article is contrary to any of the analysis by mainstream political analysts (and commonsense, in my opinion). If anything, the Republicans didn't motivate their base because they were not true enough to their conservative roots, not because they held too closely to them.

But, the main four reasons are clear:

1. Historically, the President's party in power in the 6th year of an 8 year president's term gets their ass handed to them. The losses that the Republicans suffered are well within (and even under) the historical losses in similar situations.

2. Iraq and the war, which energized the left, and demoralized the Republican base.

3. A perception (arguably reality) that Katrina was handled badly.

4. Scandal within the party (Delay, Foley, the Indian gambler guy, etc.)

I am a Republican, and I think that we got what we deserved. I am none to pleased with my party and don't think they deserved to be reelected. But, the thought and analysis in this article is very weak. It reminds me of the shallow level of thought that would be proffered by someone who wrote a book with the word "millionaire" in the title.

NCAces

[/ QUOTE ]


I liked the article bceause even if it is more opinion than fact, I agree with it. What exactly is the Republican base? By all accounts, I should be a Republicans wet dream. I am a 30 something, well educated, upper middle class,white,male professional who leans more to the right than left, and I don't like the Democrats,bleeding heart liberals in general, and tree hugging hippies. But after GW 2.0 and the recent Republican congress, I am now registered as an independent and I vow to never vote Republican again.

My disdain for the GW era began three years before I ever played a single hand of online poker. I am not a Christian and I don't believe in God. My personal perception is that Bush has been pandering to the Religious right, and not being a Christian, but being a firm believer in the seperation of church and state, this in my mind is one of the biggest turn offs. The issue of gay marriage absolutely infuriates me. Why is this an issue that is even on the political radar screen? I could care less if [censored] want to get married. It doesn't bother me one bit. I was just disappointed that our leaders weren't focusing on real issues that were important to real Amercians. I also was infuriated over the white house response to the Janet Jackson Superbowl incident. Immediately after this the FCC went on a morality and censorship crusade that drove Howard Stern of the public airwaves. Again as I see it, Republicans are pandering to the religious right. I'm no political expert by any means, but what am I??? I am a voter, and from where I sit, the Republicans sucks not because they are not conservative enough, but because I feel that they simply pander to the religious right and the mahogany row fatcats. They are completely out of touch with what is actually important to me (and I suspect to much of the middle class as well). Did poker lose them the election? Well it certainly didn't help. If the UIGEA didn't happen, there was about a 99.9999999% chance that I would not have even bothered to vote this election day. I have been old enough to vote for nearly 18 years now, and this is the first time I have ever voted in a midterm election.

Mishandled war in Iraq,Foley scandal,gas 3X more expensive than when Bush took office...... I could go on and on making a list of reasons why I will no longer be voting Republican, but you get the point.

[/ QUOTE ]

I hear you and I am frustrated as well. Question: We are a two party country ... if you don't vote Republican, you vote Democrat (putting aside Libertarian, etc.). What exactly is it that the Democrats offer that you find more compelling, or perhaps a better way to say it is, "what is it that the Dems offer that make them a lesser evil to choose from?"

Also, from your post you say that you are a Republican wet dream, but then state you are (1) an atheist, (2) pro gay marriage, and (3) for Janet Jackson showing her breasts and Howard Stern being able to say whatever he wants on the public air.

So, what exactly is it that you are that the Republicans would like? I am not trying to pick a fight ... as I said, I am none to pleased with the Republicans. But the three positions you set forth above are typically counter to those that the Republican party would attract. You mention that you lean right ... where exactly? Could it be that you are one of those who hold themselves out to be "fiscally conservative, socially liberal?" I tend to lean that way, myself.

In all three of the issues above, you are in the minority ... non-religious, pro gay marriage, and an advocate of less regulation of morality on the public airwaves. Why would a party move in that direction where they would be moving away from the majority and to the minority.

Again, I stress I am not picking a fight as many do on these types of sites. Just asking some probing questions based on your interesting post.

NCAces

[/ QUOTE ]

I think your fiscally conservative socially liberal comment is a pretty accurate way to sum up my views. My point about being in the desirable Republican demographic is based on my income level and the fact that I am an educated professional.

I don't really like the two party system either. I don't like the Democrats, but I dislike them less than the Republicans. I have voted independent in the past, but unfortunately none of the independent candidates seem to ever be able to mount a serious campaign.

[Grisgra]

[ QUOTE ]

But, the main four reasons are clear:

1. Historically, the President's party in power in the 6th year of an 8 year president's term gets their ass handed to them. The losses that the Republicans suffered are well within (and even under) the historical losses in similar situations.

[/ QUOTE ]

This probably belongs in Politics>, but you can't minimize the thumpin' put on here by saying that it always happens historically. It hasn't happened at all in recent history (i.e., not to Clinton, and not to Reagan, and I'm not sure what happened under Nixon is generalizable, obviously).

Also -- not a single Dem incumbent lost. Not one. I don't think any governors lost either, much less Senators or Reps. Has that ever happened? Ever?

Gloating aside, I'm afraid I have to agree with #2 through #4, though. But I think that in general the Repubs are doomed unless they can figure out how to hold onto social conservatives and fiscal conservatives/social liberals at the same time, and their attitude about stuff like the UIGEA is a symptom of things to come. Good luck with that /images/graemlins/wink.gif.

[NCAces]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

But, the main four reasons are clear:

1. Historically, the President's party in power in the 6th year of an 8 year president's term gets their ass handed to them. The losses that the Republicans suffered are well within (and even under) the historical losses in similar situations.

[/ QUOTE ]

This probably belongs in Politics>, but you can't minimize the thumpin' put on here by saying that it always happens historically. It hasn't happened at all in recent history (i.e., not to Clinton, and not to Reagan, and I'm not sure what happened under Nixon is generalizable, obviously).

Also -- not a single Dem incumbent lost. Not one. I don't think any governors lost either, much less Senators or Reps. Has that ever happened? Ever?

Gloating aside, I'm afraid I have to agree with #2 through #4, though. But I think that in general the Repubs are doomed unless they can figure out how to hold onto social conservatives and fiscal conservatives/social liberals at the same time, and their attitude about stuff like the UIGEA is a symptom of things to come. Good luck with that /images/graemlins/wink.gif.

[/ QUOTE ]

I take no comfort in number 1, but it can't be ignored either. The only exception to the "6 year itch" since FDR has been Clinton (and the amazing dot.com economy could have had to do with that ... 1998 and all). Even Reagan lost 6 Senators and control of the Senate. And his ratings were pretty good at that point, especially when compared to Bush42. To me, that is not the type of history you can ignore ... it is far too consistent to be an aberration. That said, we agree that 2-4 clearly were the reasons.

[soooted]

These after-the-fact commentaries are all BS... yes, repubs lost the majority, but it wasn't anything close to a "thumpin" by any means. Repubs lost fewer seats than the average # of seats lost in mid-term elections by the majority party. It happens every mid-term election for all the same reasons - i.e. there are always reasons to want change.

All these "analysts" going around talking about what a huge "thumpin" the repubs took is like us going around a card room and say "wow, look at that 100BB swing" as if it was something that only happens once in a life time.

LOL - I wish these analysts would get educated before jumping on bandwagon pretending to be experts with their generalities and analysis of poll results.

[NCAces]

[ QUOTE ]
These after-the-fact commentaries are all BS... yes, repubs lost the majority, but it wasn't anything close to a "thumpin" by any means. Repubs lost fewer seats than the average # of seats lost in mid-term elections by the majority party. It happens every mid-term election for all the same reasons - i.e. there are always reasons to want change.

All these "analysts" going around talking about what a huge "thumpin" the repubs took is like us going around a card room and say "wow, look at that 100BB swing" as if it was something that only happens once in a life time.

LOL - I wish these analysts would get educated before jumping on bandwagon pretending to be experts with their generalities and analysis of poll results.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am a Republican, yet I agree that it was a thumpin'. In case you missed it, we no longer have control over judicial nominations (the one really long term advantage to controlling the Senate), and we could have the sitting President impeached. Not sure what you call a thumpin' but that is a thumpin' in my book. Sure, we were historically going to lose some seats, but you are underestimating the loss of both houses.

Did I get educated enough for you? In my opinion, you are the one being delusional by relying on historical trends (which played a part), and ignoring the reality that things are not well within the Republican party.

Finally, seeing how you want to bring a poker comparison in ... I'll give you the real one ... your sample size is to small ... you haven't played enough hands. In about 500 years, when there has been maybe 100 6th years of a second term President, then you may have a significant sample size and we can talk about it then.

I wish I could take credit from that, but I read it in a Slate article:

Slate Article on 6th Year Itch (http://www.slate.com/id/2153281/)

Now, who needs to get educated?

NCAces

[gonebroke]

Great article..but the democrats are just as guilty. They sat back and let everything happen without saying a word. They only won because they are perceived as the lesser of two evils. All politicians are criminals. [censored] EM ALL.

[Uglyowl]

Each election is different and you really can't compare them to an "average".

How many incumbents are defending their seats, how many democrat/republican seats are up for grabs (I actually think it was 18D/15R this time), who's seats they are (are the "rookie" senators or long time untouchables).

All the pregame analysis of the Senate pointed to it being almost impossible for the Democrats to get their 6 seats.



NOTE: 6 seat loss is the average by the way for the lame duck mid term election- which was hit

[spatne]

Exactly. You have to look at the map (which was unfriendly for Dems), and the players in the individual races. Winning the Allen and Talent seats was major coup for the Democrats. They also pulled serious upsets in places like KY-02, PA-04, IN-08, NH-01 and KS-02. And they came close in places like WY-AL and ID-01. These are seats that should never have been competitive.

If that's not enough thumpin', the Democrats gained 6 governorships and completely routed the Republicans in the state government races. 275 state seats and 10 state legislative houses flipped from red to blue. It's easy to ignore the down-ticket races, but in every region of the country, the Democrats won big at the state level.

Yes, the Dems shot themselves in the foot in the CA-Gov race, and they should've done better in the Ohio congressional races. Still, those races were the difference between a rout and a massacre, and any Democrat who isn't happy with these results is probably looking for results that are impossible without neutral (read: computer generated) congressional redistricting.

[NCAces]

[ QUOTE ]
Exactly. You have to look at the map (which was unfriendly for Dems), and the players in the individual races. Winning the Allen and Talent seats was major coup for the Democrats. They also pulled serious upsets in places like KY-02, PA-04, IN-08, NH-01 and KS-02. And they came close in places like WY-AL and ID-01. These are seats that should never have been competitive.

If that's not enough thumpin', the Democrats gained 6 governorships and completely routed the Republicans in the state government races. 275 state seats and 10 state legislative houses flipped from red to blue. It's easy to ignore the down-ticket races, but in every region of the country, the Democrats won big at the state level.

Yes, the Dems shot themselves in the foot in the CA-Gov race, and they should've done better in the Ohio congressional races. Still, those races were the difference between a rout and a massacre, and any Democrat who isn't happy with these results is probably looking for results that are impossible without neutral (read: computer generated) congressional redistricting.

[/ QUOTE ]

While you are certainly correct, don't get overly excited. Sooted's basic point is correct, even if I thought he overplayed his hand. The Repubs had the same level of excitement 12 years ago and now look what happens. If you don't think that could happen to the Dems in the next elections you havn't followed politics for very long.

For example, in today's news I see the Dems want to bring back the draft. While I understand this is a tactical move by Rangel to turn people against the Iraq war more than they already are, it shows how tone deaf the Dems are. In one statement he insults the current military and their families, and scares the hell out the online poker community, most of whom are of draft age. How you guys feeling this morning now that you might get drafted? Still glad you voted Dem? Hey, the good side of it is that you would be able transfer your money more easily online when you are living in Iraq ... then you can play 8 tables for the hour between your scouting missions in Iraq. Love the dems.

NCAces

[spatne]

Of course it could happen in reverse. It can always happen in reverse. That, however, was not the point. The point was whether or not the 2006 elections were, in the words of our current president, a "thumpin'" Whether they were or weren't has nothing to do with what happens in 2008 and beyond. After all, the Democrats recaputring the HoR in 2006 doesn't change the fact that they got whipped in 1994.

Not to get too off topic, but out of curiosity, how is Rangel's draft legislation an "insult" to the military and their families? FWIW, I don't necessarily agree with reviving the draft, but I have no problem with Rangel using this bill to make a very valid point-- that we should honor the lives our soldiers so that when we send them away do die, we do so with the utmost care and for a cause that's just.

[NCAces]

[ QUOTE ]
Of course it could happen in reverse. It can always happen in reverse. That, however, was not the point. The point was whether or not the 2006 elections were, in the words of our current president, a "thumpin'" Whether they were or weren't has nothing to do with what happens in 2008 and beyond. After all, the Democrats recaputring the HoR in 2006 doesn't change the fact that they got whipped in 1994.

Not to get too off topic, but out of curiosity, how is Rangel's draft legislation an "insult" to the military and their families? FWIW, I don't necessarily agree with reviving the draft, but I have no problem with Rangel using this bill to make a very valid point-- that we should honor the lives our soldiers so that when we send them away do die, we do so with the utmost care and for a cause that's just.

[/ QUOTE ]

You missed my point, then. I stated that I agreed that it was a "thumpin" ... but the rest of your post goes way overboard on the level of importance that the thumpin' was and is. That is all.

The way Rangel is pitching his idea is that our current military are a bunch of uneducated, low class hicks. And, that with a draft we will get more educated, better qualified people. It is implicit in his argument, and I can assure you that is the way the miliatary is taking it ... I've spoken to many recently and that is how they see it. That doesn't sit well.

NCAces

[peritonlogon]

The major thing that this "analysis" misses (which, most mainstream media analysis that I've seen or read also misses) is that it is not so much that the majority of Americans support you, but that the majority of Americans who turn out to vote do.

The Republicans alienated their base in many ways, and generally people weren't feeling too good to be or to vote Republican, and therefore didn't turn out in very large numbers. Whereas, people opposed to the Republicans and their policies did.

People don't need to change their mind about issues much at all, they just need to change their minds about getting into their cars or walking down the street to vote. This is the logic behind pandering to your "base" and it works. Unfortunately for the Republicans, their scandals, lack of congressional oversite and mismanagement of an unpopular war left their base feeling let down. If a group of people are disillusioned, they do not vote as often.

[spatne]

Well the military does entice a lot of people who can't afford college and have few other options. Rangel in no way means to insult these people; in fact, he's sticking up for them by pointing out that the people with the power to wage war rarely have to be bothered with the consequences. They don't have sons and daughters who feel compelled to enlist just to get an education or otherwise have a career. And that parts of our society (often poor and/or rural and/or uneducated and/or minority young people) are forced to bear a disproportionately large chunk of the human cost of war.

It's an indictment of the system rather than the soldier, and it's not unique to the U.S. or our military. Poor men die fighting rich men's battles all over the world and that's a truly awful truth. One thing that makes me skeptical of going back to a draft is that rich congressmen will always find ways to keep their kids tucked away somewhere. Texas National Guard anyone? I hear that attendance is optional.

At any rate, YMMV. Feel free to take the last word on this one (I'd look forward to it, actually), but I'll just agree to disagree on this one.