commentary by Wayne Allyn Root

[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 [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img].

[/ 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

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.