Outlook for Congress even gloomier than POTUS

[Mike1951]

All year long I've been hearing various announcements about senators and congressman retiring or resigning. This just sums it up. We stand to lose ground in both houses.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/pol ... 37410.html

March 20, 2008, 11:04PM
GOP sees incumbents dwindle as election nears
26 Republicans are calling it quits, giving Dems hope

By CHARLES BABINGTON
Associated Press

WASHINGTON — The news just keeps getting worse for Republicans in this year's campaigns for Congress.

When New York Rep. Tom Reynolds announced he was retiring Thursday, that made it 26 GOP lawmakers who are calling it quits, opening up chances for Democrats this November.

Only seven seats are being given up by the Democrats, who see bright opportunities to fatten their majority in the House — and the Senate as well.

That doesn't even count this month's shocker in Illinois, where Democrat Bill Foster won a special election in the district long represented by Republican former Speaker Dennis Hastert. Democrats say Foster's win to replace the retiring Hastert is a sign of things to come in the general election, when all House seats are on the line.


Lack of recruitment
Things are not much better for the GOP on the Senate side, where Democrats feel confident of picking up retiring Republican John Warner's seat in Virginia and are campaigning hard for GOP seats being vacated in Colorado and New Mexico. Republicans have failed to recruit top-tier candidates to challenge Democratic senators in GOP-leaning Montana, South Dakota and Arkansas.

The Democrats' current Senate margin effectively is 51-49, including two independents who align themselves with the Democratic Party.

Money is pouring into the party's coffers, and some are talking about making a serious run for as many as 50 House seats now held by Republicans. That's an astounding number considering most incumbents usually coast to re-election.

Less-partisan analysts suggest a Democratic pickup of 10 to 20 seats. The current House breakdown: Democrats 233 seats, Republicans 198, four vacant.

Republicans insist matters are not so dire. Nearly all the GOP-held House seats that Democrats are targeting are in Republican-leaning districts.

"Republicans are going to continue voting Republican," said NRCC spokeswoman Karen Hanretty. She said GOP candidates have good chances of regaining seats in California, Florida and Arizona.

As for fundraising, Hanretty resorted to a line that Democrats often employed before winning control of Congress.

"They're the majority party," she said, "and when you're the majority, you raise more money. Campaigns are about more than money."

In the Senate, former Virginia Gov. Mark Warner is a clear front-runner in the race for that state's open seat. And two Democratic House members named Udall — Mark in Colorado, Tom in New Mexico — are running well-financed campaigns for seats being vacated by Republicans Wayne Allard in Colorado and Pete Domenici in New Mexico.

Aiming at incumbents
Democrats also are waging strong Senate campaigns to oust Republican incumbents in New Hampshire, Minnesota, Alaska, Oregon and Maine. Their biggest worry is Democrat Mary Landrieu of Louisiana. She struggled to win her first two Senate races and is scrambling again this year.

Democrats' highest hopes for knocking off a Senate incumbent focus on John Sununu in New Hampshire. He is locked in a rematch with former Gov. Jeanne Shaheen, who lost to him in 2002.

Anti-Bush sentiments run fairly high in New Hampshire, and the Senate race will be closely watched.

[frankie_the_yankee]

Anytime the economy is in a bumpy spot it's tough for incumbents.

Our only hope rests on two things.

1) The fact that the approval rating of Congress is lower than a snake's belly.

2) If the Democrats botch up their nomination process enough McCain could end up winning big and carrying some GOP senate and house candidates along with him.

Number 2 would would be more likely if the Republicans made an effort to "nationalize" the congressoinal campaign as Gingrich did with "The Contract With America" in 1994. The gist of it is that while Joe Blow, the Democrat in your local district, might not be half bad, electing him means that Pelosi will be Speaker, Leahy will be the chairman of the Judiciary Committee (and control the agenda for judicial appointments), etc.

And that if you elect a GOP majority, our priority agenda will be "X, Y, and Z".

Unfortunately, I do not see the Republicans making any such effort or argument. You'd think they would take a lesson from what has worked successfully in the past, but I guess not.

And of course, complicating all of this is the war. A lot of people are ready to throw in the towel, even on the conservative side. And the Democrats promise to do just that, which is likely to pull some votes across the aisle.

The irony is that most people don't realize that no matter who gets elected, our war policy will end up looking much the same. This is because if Hillary or Obama got elected, one of the first things that would happen is that they would be told what kind of a bloodbath to expect if we summarily pulled out, and would not want to be blamed for it. So whatever policy they were campaigning on would be quickly shoved aside and a more pragmatic approach would take its place. This would SOUND a lot different from our current policy, but in practice would be pretty similar.

Neither Hillary or Obama will say this of course, because they couldn't get nominated if they did. So their supporters will have to wait until after they are sworn in to be betrayed and disappointed.

But I have to figure that Democrats must be used to that.

[tarkus]

1) The fact that the approval rating of Congress is lower than a snake's belly.

Looking at the percentage of congress that gets re-elected, you must be talking about snakes on a plane.

What is it these days? 90% 95%

[sbb]

Yea, all of those politicians are crooks. Except my guy, he brings money to the district. That is the pervasive attitude in almost every district. I have friends from the Boston area and they say that when asked almost no one admits to voting for Kennedy or Kerry. Sooooo, how do they get reelected?

[frankie_the_yankee]

Yea, all of those politicians are crooks. Except my guy, he brings money to the district. That is the pervasive attitude in almost every district. I have friends from the Boston area and they say that when asked almost no one admits to voting for Kennedy or Kerry. Sooooo, how do they get reelected?

They get re-elected on mostly local issues. They certainly don't campaign on a platform of installing justices on the SCOTUS who will finally "do the right thing" and impose recognition of gay marriage on the country, whether the people want it or not.

Or, "We Democrats are committed to the goal of open borders and American citizenship for anyone who manages to make their way here."

And they don't campaign saying, "Vote Democrat because we will raise your taxes big time, and with a Democrat president in the White House there will be nobody to stop us."

Or, "Vote Democrat and we will hand Iraq over to Al Qaeda and the Shiite extremists and, yes, there will be a huge bloodbath after we leave, but it will soon be over and dead people tend to be pretty quiet." (We know this from Vietnam and Cambodia.)

Most of these issues, except possibly the last one, break well for Republicans in national polls. And McCain will be doing the heavy lifting on war and national security issues anyway.

So IMO, if the Republicans ran on national issues rather than local ones, they could take advantage of Congress' overall low rating and score an upset.

Now we will get to see if they have the brains and the guts to do it. What they need is a Newt Gingrich to give them focus and prod them along in the right direction.

[thejtrain]

They get re-elected on mostly local issues.
...
So IMO, if the Republicans ran on national issues rather than local ones, they could take advantage of Congress' overall low rating and score an upset.

Yeah, that's where I've been frustrated so far in my only 5-years-old self-education in politics & principles of government: with how candidates for national office run on local issues (read: emotional appeals designed specifically for whatever locality that day's speech is occurring in). Congresscritters, Senators, Presidents: they should be concerned with national things only, and the people electing them to those offices should only be concerned with their stances on national issues, given that national offices have (or ideally should have) very little influence on how things work in Podunk, MO.

Gah. Just frustrates me how people think (or don't, as is more often the case) and how the career politicians just eat that right up.

JT

[anygunanywhere]

Yea, all of those politicians are crooks. Except my guy, he brings money to the district.

Whose money does he bring to the district? His?

I believe it was earned and paid in taxes by someone.

Your congresscritter is still a crook.

Anygunanywhere

[sbb]

Anygun, that comment was tongue in cheek. The government produces nothing in and of itself except debt. I was just giving an example of how the same ignorant people elect the same self-serving politicians over and over. Believe me, most all of us know where the money comes from, unless you are one who waits with their hand out. Then you don't care.

[anygunanywhere]

Anygun, that comment was tongue in cheek. The government produces nothing in and of itself except debt. I was just giving an example of how the same ignorant people elect the same self-serving politicians over and over. Believe me, most all of us know where the money comes from, unless you are one who waits with their hand out. Then you don't care.

Missed the tongue. Facial expressions are hard to read on-line.

I recall several times where elected officials stated that their "job" was to bring as much money into their district as possible.

I really, really, really, am tired of paying all these taxes and watching how it is given away. Really.

Anygun

[sbb]

Anygun, I should have been more discriptive in my language. I agree that it is sometimes hard to get the real meaning of messages that are written and not spoken face to face.

I forget the source, it may be Roman, that said that a civilization is doomed once the electorate is able to vote themselves largess from the treasury. We've been going down that road for too many decades. There are too many that truly believe that there is a free lunch. Best Regards.

[thejtrain]

I forget the source, it may be Roman, that said that a civilization is doomed once the electorate is able to vote themselves largess from the treasury.

My memory said it was Franklin, but that could have been colored by the quote in your sig. Apparently my Google-fu is stronger than my memory.
A smart guy I read regularly until he hung up his keyboard last Fall attributes it to British historian Alexander Tytler:

“A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can exist only until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse out of the public treasury.�

But this other guy isn't sure, but it may or may not be the case:

The truth is that despite their frequent use, the author(s) of the above quotes are unknown. With regard to the first quoted paragraph, the Library of Congress' Respectfully Quoted writes, "Attributed to ALEXANDER FRASER TYTLER, LORD WOODHOUSELEE. Unverified." The quote, however, appears in no published work of Tytler's.

Whoever said it and whenever they said it, our society has become a textbook test case proving more and more every year how brilliant the guy was.

[sbb]

As the cowardly lion said,"ain't it the truth, ain't it the truth".

[HankB]

. . . if the Republicans made an effort to "nationalize" the congressoinal campaign as Gingrich did with "The Contract With America" in 1994 . . . Unfortunately, I do not see the Republicans making any such effort or argument. You'd think they would take a lesson from what has worked successfully in the past, but I guess not.

I'm firmly of the opinion that a lot of Republicans are liberals at heart, and really didn't like the original "Contract with America" any more than the rest of the GOP platform, and proceeded to undo the best parts of it as fast as they could. (Former senator Phil Gramm even made a speech asking in effect "Hey, WE won - why are we undoing our own platform at the behest of the Democrats?)

As for learning a lesson . . . there's a reason the GOP has been called "The Stupid Party" . . . it's a nickname they continue to earn every day.

[frankie_the_yankee]

I don't know that they are liberals, but they certainly don't have the same courage of their convictions as the Democrats do. It's like they are afraid to make an argument for their side.

This puzzles me all the more because for the most part it is the Democrats whose arguments are garbage. Like they are going to make the price of gas go down by raising taxes on oil companies, limiting drilling and refining, and opposing nuclear power.

The Republicans mostly have better arguments but are afraid to make them. For instance, it's obvious that introducing competition into the educational system by way of vouchers that people could use for private schools would bring up the quality of education in all schools, public and private, just as competition has been such a huge benefit to every other segment of our economy for the last few hundred years. In spite of this, the Democrats proudly beat the drums to maintain the public school (virtual) monopoly while the Republicans stutter and stammer about vouchers, when they even bring up the subject at all.

Just a couple of examples. There are dozens more.

Gingrich's strategy worked in 1994, and it could work again if they had the courage to run with it.

[thejtrain]

For instance, it's obvious that introducing competition into the educational system by way of vouchers that people could use for private schools would bring up the quality of education in all schools, public and private, just as competition has been such a huge benefit to every other segment of our economy for the last few hundred years. In spite of this, the Democrats proudly beat the drums to maintain the public school (virtual) monopoly while the Republicans stutter and stammer about vouchers, when they even bring up the subject at all.

Oh, man. Don't get me started on the voucher argument. I had one with an elementary school teacher who's the nicest lady in the world.... until you bring up vouchers.
It went kinda like this:

JT: I wish we could get vouchers to enable school choice.
Teacher: But with the state our schools are in we can't afford to be taking money AWAY from public schools!
JT: But vouchers would...
Teacher: We need MORE money to go to the schools, we need higher per-pupil spending!
JT: The current voucher proposal would actually INCREASE per-pupil spending in the public school for each student who used a voucher to transfer to private school.
Teacher: Huh?
JT: Currently the public schools spend about $9000 per student, right?
Teacher: Uhh.......
JT: Right. So it could be said that each student brings with him $9000 in tax money to the public school he's assigned to. The current proposal would, for each single student to transfer out to private school, give a $4500 voucher to the parent to help pay for that private school, leaving the other $4500 in tax money allocated to the same public school, even though the student no longer goes there.
Teacher: Uhh........
JT: So if you had a school with 100 students, that's $900,000 in tax money, divided among the 100 students. If 10 of them use these vouchers to go to private school, the enrollment is being reduced to 90, or by 10%, while the tax money coming in is only being reduced to $855,000, or 5%. The 90 students who remain will then be getting $9500 spent on each of them, instead of the $9000 before. So by 10 students leaving and taking only half their "spending" allocation with them, the education received by the remaining 90 should be improved, right?
Teacher: ... ... ... But, but, it'll be taking money AWAY from the schools!
JT: <shrugs and takes another swig of beer> Whatever.