Congressmen generally, no, but Rangel gives the impression of being (and I mean this in an entirely good way) very realistically calculating. I may be overrelying on my personal impression of him, but I would count on him both to have the best possible idea of what the real odds are, and not to say anything that would be likely to put him in a position he wouldn't stand by.
Oh, I could be wrong. He could just be old, and tired, and sick of waiting for his chance to exercise some real power. He might be happy to retire if they can't get back control this time.
"I'm a poker player and I've had good hands all night long. This is all in," Rangel said in an interview. "I would not put everything on the table if I thought for one minute we would lose."
I don't know, that really doesn't sound like confidence, especially read in context with the Post's latest "Dems in disarray" story (the one that had Rahm Emmanuel not speaking to Dean). It sounded like the exasperation of a guy who can't imagine why any sane country would keep the Republicans in power any longer, but is very much afraid that this will be the case come November. I add the usual disclaimer regarding the press's fixation with media narratives (in this case the "Democrats can't get it together" narrative, which seems to be in effect even when they have nearly every possible advantage going into an election).
Razzafracking New York Times. Leaving out a little thing like "by the way, this guy's saying this because he totally thinks his side's going to win" completely skews the tone of the piece.
4 sounds like exactly what I was thinking of. I may overvalue Rangel's smarts and realism because I like him so much, but I just keep thinking that if anyone knows how things will turn out, it's him, and if anyone is cynically competent enough not to say something that will make him look stupid in retrospect, it's him.
I think Rangel despairing would involve no statements of this kind at all, and a retirement announcement in the second week of November, if they lost.
Yeah, what does Kos know? A smart outsider is going to come up with better answers than a dumb, or corrupt, or self-deceiving insider, but he's still going to know less than a smart insider. Rangel is a smart insider.
(Again, I really don't know what I'm talking about.)
I'm 45% saying 3 because of gerrymandering, incumbency and GOP money advantages. I'm 25% saying it because I recall the extraordinary ability of Democrats to screw up in recent years. I'm 20% saying it because I don't want to get my own hopes up. And I'm 10% saying it out of innate pessimism.
Kos doesn't actually say no: "One thing Cook doesn't account for, and can't account for when looking strictly at numbers -- the GOP's recent demonstrated ability to close the deal on Election Day. I'm never underestimating them again. I think Dems will make significant gains, but I'm not ready to predict a Democratic House (or Senate) just yet."
Has anyone looked at the myDD polling? I confess that I've only skimmed it, but I'm really worried that this "Culture of Corruption" line isn't going to be enough.
Weiner, how are things in Lubbock? I don't expect the Dems to win there, but has Republican support eroded to 54% or something like that?
Gerrymandering and incumbency should count for way more than 45% of that
Yeah, but you have to leave room for my personal neuroses. Or do you want to take percentages away from Democratic ineptitude? Which I wouldn't, because you know, it's pretty awesome.
bg, think they're still praying for rain, and serving "freedom fries" and "freedom toast" in the pancake house I like. (Though I haven't been there in a while.)
Also, I gotta say, I trust us more than I trust Rangel or Cook. There's nothing instrumental about my prediction; it has no value as a speech-act. But Rangel needs to Project Confidence! Cook needs to sell Counterintuitive Ideas! Both probably need to fool themselves a little, too.
On the slol matrix, I say 15-40-10-10. Not clear to me that the GOP has any money advantages, I think the six-year curse may balance out a lot of incumbent advantages, and while gerrymandering is bad (they're trying to use the illegal congressional district as a pretext for even more stupid shit in Texas) the Dems don't need to take over that many seats.
And the other thing about gerrymandering (this is general, rather than specific to this election. I don't know enough about the specifics to know if it's likely to come into play) is that in a big enough swing, it hurts you. Gerrymandering involves concentrating your opponents' support and spreading your own, so with the same number of votes they win three districts with 90% while you win five with 56%. In a big enough swing, though, they keep their districts and yours start dropping faster than if they weren't gerrymandered.
The serious answer is I don't know of an example where it has happened (and wouldn't if it had -- I don't know much about this stuff at all), but it's clear that it could in principle. The question is just how close are the gerrymandered districts cut, and whether swings big enough to override the margin of error happen.
My impression (and again, I'm talking off the top of my head) is that all of the discussion of increased precision and effectiveness in gerrymandering refers to a process of spreading the same number of votes over more districts -- creating districts with narrower margins. But I don't knwo that that's true.
I am saying it because the last time I heard 'we're gonna win we're gonna win no way we can't win' we had a lot of people wondering why Kansas was so dumb because everyone they knew voted for Kerry. I am not sure that enough has changed, on either the Democratic mindset or the Kansas mindset. Culture of corruption goes away as 'all them politicians are corrupt.' Democrats are still perceived as weak on terror, no one cares about civil liberties, and the economy doesn't suck that much.
Well, it's a good example of a rigorously testable social scientific theory. I just don't have the time right now to dig up data. If I do, you can co-author the article.
27: You're arguing we won't win either the House or the Senate, right? And I'm not sure if you're saying this (if you are, I agree with you): fuck Kansas. Look at the '04 election, look at present polling and figure out who your friends are. Then go build the coalition out West. We're like some sad, pathetic college boy mooning over the high school girl who dumped him. Sooner or later, you have to get over it and move on.
Yes, I am. And I agree. But I'm not running the Dem machine and I'm seeing roughly the same issues as '04 and roughly the same answers. Yes, Iraq is worse- but how many people care?
Doesn't it? 'Growth in the economy' isn't bad, but job growth and wages are pretty lousy. And I don't think people vote as much on 'how they understand the economy is doing from the reporting they read about it' as 'how they, personally, are doing'.
And Iraq has, I think, gone from 'still in progress, what do you nervous nellies expect, that we were going to finish in a week?' to 'Oh, man, this is a problem'. It may not be the most salient issue, but even if the GWOBadness is still a positive for Republicans, Iraq has changed from a positive in some people's eyes, to a pretty solid negative.
We'd need a recession. GWOBadness (pwnage, btw) only gets trumped by wallets if wallets are really hurting. Gas prices suck, but I'm not sure the Democrats can get them to go down, either.
It's quite early yet. But if Iraq calms down at all, it can and will be spun as a success -- see, nervous nellies, we just had a bad spell. You would have quit after Pearl Harbor! Etc.
What is it about Kansas? Did I miss something? This is not Thomas Frank again, is it? Because Kansas hasn't gone for a Democrat for President since 1964. In fact, I think in the twentieth century it only went Democrat five times (Wilson twice, FDR (only) twice, Johnson). What on earth do you expect from Kansas?
"Kansas" = shorthand for the certainty in 2004 that the Democratic ticket was really popular because it really was in everyone's best interests in the swing states to vote Democratic.
My point was the out of touchness. I was going to say "Ohio" but that didn't convey 'what's the matter with these people who vote Bush?' sentiment of bewilderment. Also, I was eating pad thai. This makes it hard to type and make sense, apparently.
But I'm not running the Dem machine and I'm seeing roughly the same issues as '04 and roughly the same answers.
That's crazy. No one was ever that certain, numbers-wise, about Kerry beating Bush, at least as certain as they are that Democrats will make serious gains in Congress this election cycle. For most of the '04 race, Bush and Kerry were neck and neck in the polls. That's not true of either generic congressional ballots or individual races right now. In general, Dems are polling Republicans rather well. It's not a question of whether we'll do well or not; it's just a question of how well we'll do.
Oh Lord, sj, you're a Pollyanna too? (I'd expected an sj to be a little more Jesuitical.)
1. Events, my dear boy. Just you wait and see. Remember the OBL video?
2. Slime. It's probably too early yet for the big slime roll-out, but I'd expect it in September or so.
Man, I want to believe, you know, but it's just hard.
The Dem nominee will win Connecticut, whether it be Joe or Ned. Most big-time Dems will feel obliged to help the nominee beat Joe. You just can't let a non-Democrat win in a deep Blue area. And running against a non-Dem Joe allows people to buy credibility with the anti-Joe/netroots community at essentially zero cost.
Yeah, I'm actually reasonably optimistic about Lamont, too. I think Lieberman's going independent will only actually cost Lieberman whatever residual credibility he has and probably only cut into Republican or "independent" support. I don't know if independent support is critical in CT.
Here's a small admission: I'm OK with Lieberman squeaking out a small victory in the primary. The established coterie of DC Dems have already been scared to death, and that was the real point of challenging Joe.
41: Yes, yes, yes, slol, and if Osama bin Laden crashes a giant gay fetus into the Sears Tower in late October, or the Diebold Cyborgs rise with their terminator army, we'll be pretty much fucked, but barring that I think we're doing okay.
Look, I think downplaying expectations is fine, which is why I'm telling myself we're not going to win back either house. But it does look like we're going to pick up seats, from every reasonable projection out there. There are a lot more vulnerable Republicans than there are Democrats, and by and large the vulnerable Republicans are much more vulnerable than the vulnerable Democrats. I think most of this "we're dooooomed, we're doooooomed!" business I keep hearing is shell-shock from the last few elections. The Bad Man touched you in the Bad Place and you don't want to talk about it. Fine. But in the real world we have to get over this, and, you know, start winning stuff again.
I agree with 43. And, really, with 39, at least insofar as it gives us reason to be more optimistic about '06 than about the last couple cycles. And, where in the past cycles polls showed Dems maybe in reach in the swingy elections, right now in the Senate it looks like Dems are pwning in the swingy elections (MN, WA, PA, RI) and maybe in reach in some of the pony! elections (AZ, MO, TN).
Of course we need some pony! seats to take back the Senate, and the Dems can screw it up -- that's the 40%. But, it's not just the same optimism again.
The Republican challenger Schlessinger isn't compelling (and rumored to have a gambling problem), though, and Lieberman has drawn considerable Republican support in the past.
49: "Rumored" = has said, "So I gambled under a fake name, so what?" and has been sued by a couple of casinos. That guy will never be in the Senate. They'd like a better challenger.
22: Praying for rain isn't so bad. It's pretty much how we got Thanksgiving. (That and a lot of agitation which got Lincoln to extend Thanksgiving beyond the New England States hoping to create a unifying national holiday.)
You all should feel free to skip the extended quotation unless you're particularly interested in New England history.
In 1623, the colony was still struggling to survive. The colonists were critically low on food. For months they had been expecting a ship with supplies and additional colonists. The spring planting of Indian corn and beans began well. By mid-July, however, “it pleased God, for our further chastisement, to send a great drought, insomuch as in six weeks after the latter setting there scarce fell any rain; so the stalk of that which was first set began to send forth the ear, before it came to half growth, and that which was later was not like to yield any at all, both blade and stalk hanging the head, and changing color in such a manner, as we judged it utterly dead. Our beans also ran not up according to their wonted manner, but stood at a stay, many being parched away, as though they had been scorched before the fire. Now were our hopes overthrown, and we discouraged, our joy being turned into mourning.” Additionally, the expected ship had not been heard of for three months, “only the signs of a wreck were seen along the coast, which could not be judged to be any other than the same.” The colonists were devastated. “The most courageous were now discouraged, because God, which hitherto had been our only shield and supporter, now seemed in his anger to arm himself against us.”
These misfortunes “moved not only every good man privately to enter into examination with his own estate between God and his conscience, and so to humiliation before him, but also more solemnly to humble ourselves together before the Lord by fasting and prayer. To that end a day was appointed by public authority,....” Winslow did not describe the religious exercises, but stated that they lasted “some eight or nine hours.” The next morning “distilled such soft, sweet, and moderate showers of rain, continuing some fourteen days, and mixed with such seasonable weather, as it was hard to say whether our withered corn or drooping affections were most quickened or revived.” Captain Myles Standish, returning from the north, brought further good news. The supplies and new colonists were safe, although delayed, and again on their way.
Their prayers answered, the colonists thought “it would be great ingratitude, if secretly we should smother up the same, or content ourselves with private thanksgiving for that, which by private prayer could not be obtained. And therefore another solemn day was set apart and appointed for that end; wherein we returned glory, honor, and praise, with all thankfulness, to our good God, which dealt so graciously with us;....”4
This, then, was the first Thanksgiving Day held in Plymouth Colony. It occurred most likely at the end of July and consisted of a lengthy church service. Probably, there was no feasting. Bradford lamented in his history, that when the new colonists arrived soon after, the “best they could present their friends with was a lobster or a piece of fish without bread or anything else but a cup of fair water.”5 Descriptions of later observances in surviving church records provide more details of the probable structure of the services.
The Bad Man touched you in the Bad Place and you don't want to talk about it
Maybe a little, if by this you mean, I lost some faith in my fellow Americans long about fall of 2004. Have you ever seen a people so easily bought or rooked?
But also, have you ever seen a party and a set of candidates so vigorously fritter away such obvious advantages as Gore and Kerry?
in the real world we have to get over this, and, you know, start winning stuff again.
Yeah, okay, if we're part of that "we". But I'm not; my predictions have, as I say above, no instrumental value. I'll vote, and do a few other things that might help, but I'm not a candidate or a party strategist.
If the Dem politicians come out hard for Lamont, I can't see Lamont doing worse than Kerry did in CT. Basically, the strategy is going to be to tar Lieberman and Bush-lite. It's hard to believe that Bush is more popular in CT than he was in '04. (In fact, that's what Lamont ought to do--imply that a vote for him somehow undoes the moral sin of having voted for Bush in '04.)
I lost some faith in my fellow Americans long about fall of 2004. Have you ever seen a people so easily bought or rooked?
In late 2002, early 2003, yeah. But I know what you mean. But I'm not basing my predictions on any faith in the intelligence or basic human decency of my fellow man; I'm basing this entirely on poll numbers and trends in poll numbers. If those numbers start changing to look dramatically worse for Democrats, then I'll change my expectations accordingly. For right now, though, they look good, so I'm thinking Democrats will do alright.
If you want to really know- read Michael Barrone's blog. Although polling shows that the voters are preferring Democrats in nationwide polling, elections are race by race. You have to look at the individuals running in all 435 races to have any idea. There are what 25 (?) competetive districts in the whole country. The Democrats may have a better chance of retaking the Senate.
To me it still smacks too readily of the 'ZOMG there is no way we can lose' buzz in '04 for me to really dive in with the belief. I'm also unconvinced that the Democratic party is doing much more than counting on Republicans to lose. If the Dem leadership has crafted a message of what we favor, and communicated it, and created a unifying big-picture theme, then I have yet to hear about it. Banking on the Republicans to fumble the ball is no way to score, and I will have zero good expectations of that strategy.
If the Dem leadership has crafted a message of what we favor, and communicated it, and created a unifying big-picture theme, then I have yet to hear about it.
But this early in the game, most likely voters aren't paying attention anyway.
61: Short of race-by-race numbers, which are unlikely to be public in most cases, this NPR poll is probably the best way to look at the picture for now.
Heh, okay (you expect me to remember yesterday's rant?). But the article points beyond Kansas. There's the guy running in Virginia who was a Reagan official, etc.
I hear that VA tends to vote conservatively in senatorial elections except when they prematurely nominate Ollie North (anyone think he wouldn't be right at home today?), so that might be part of it. Also Allen *spit* was expected to cruise, so there might have been some trouble recruiting heavyweights. (The other case cited, in SC, looks like all win to me, like Jeffords; would that guy have lost to a real Democrat if he hadn't switched?)
But I'm ambivalent too. Overall it makes sense for the Democrats to start encompassing all non-crazies, which will include some old moderate Republicans. But this is only great if it leads to the non-crazy party crushinating the crazy party. If the country remains split between Dems and Repubs, it's not that much comfort for the Democrats to have old sane Republicans making up part of the coalition; as Republicans, they're still wrong.
I've mentioned that Barbara Hafer, the Republican I used to vote for, is now a Democrat. Actually I'd rather have her than Casey as the nominee.
Don't worry, the mustache has plenty of bad ideas left in him. Iraq, yes; shame, that. But just wait for the next crazy idea. After all, he appears really to believe in the bedrock principle underlying the craziness, which is, roughly, "Left to themselves, things just keep getting better! Globalization will provide PocketPC's for all! Flat-tastic!"
Robertson, now that's weird. You'd think the world being consumed by fire would work well with the whole eschatology thing.
I think this is the only way things can usefully go, actually. You get the sane people over here and the wackos over there and you hope that there are more people over here. I gather, though, that Israeli politics went down that road ten or twenty years ago, and there appear to be more people over there.
The original thrust of my objection was, I would like to see real Democrats. But that was, of course, adolescent-level naivete; they're extinct in the wild.
Gore Vidal said back in the 1970s or so that we're heading for a clash between the Party of God and the Party of Man. Which is I think roughly what you're saying.
Unless, of course, Pat Robertson and his church join an eco-sensible coalition.
You'd think the world being consumed by fire would work well with the whole eschatology thing.
This is the guy who blamed 9-11 on gays and feminists, isn't it? I think he knows enough of hate to say that for destruction ice is also great and would suffice.
What I was thinking was, if the current blithering lunatics get obliterated like Kim Campbell did, maybe politics could go back to a nice reasonable LBJ vs. Nixon dynamic in the battle of ideas. If the real Democrats have been driven into hiding, perhaps they could emerge later.
And I think the real priority for real (and ersatz) Democrats now has to be to stop the madness. O'course we're not seeing enough of that either, not strong enough opposition to Bush's insane power grabs, though I do like the press releases about how he's broken umpty-ump different laws. Because they're true.
(Did you know Kim Campbell's real name was "Avril"? When I started typing this post I thought her last name was "Parker," so I'm not one to say.)
Yeah, forget sticking up for pop that people hate, I'll take my stand for Robert Frost against all you sneering highbrows. C'mon, take a swing at me, I dare ya.
I wouldn't give congressmen this much credit for forsight.
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 08- 3-06 10:08 AM
Congressmen generally, no, but Rangel gives the impression of being (and I mean this in an entirely good way) very realistically calculating. I may be overrelying on my personal impression of him, but I would count on him both to have the best possible idea of what the real odds are, and not to say anything that would be likely to put him in a position he wouldn't stand by.
Oh, I could be wrong. He could just be old, and tired, and sick of waiting for his chance to exercise some real power. He might be happy to retire if they can't get back control this time.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 08- 3-06 10:12 AM
They're not going to win the House, you know.
Posted by slolernr | Link to this comment | 08- 3-06 10:13 AM
From the AP version of the story:
"I'm a poker player and I've had good hands all night long. This is all in," Rangel said in an interview. "I would not put everything on the table if I thought for one minute we would lose."
Posted by Felix | Link to this comment | 08- 3-06 10:14 AM
I don't know, that really doesn't sound like confidence, especially read in context with the Post's latest "Dems in disarray" story (the one that had Rahm Emmanuel not speaking to Dean). It sounded like the exasperation of a guy who can't imagine why any sane country would keep the Republicans in power any longer, but is very much afraid that this will be the case come November. I add the usual disclaimer regarding the press's fixation with media narratives (in this case the "Democrats can't get it together" narrative, which seems to be in effect even when they have nearly every possible advantage going into an election).
Posted by strasmangelo jones | Link to this comment | 08- 3-06 10:15 AM
4: Okay then, forget what I wrote.
Posted by strasmangelo jones | Link to this comment | 08- 3-06 10:15 AM
Razzafracking New York Times. Leaving out a little thing like "by the way, this guy's saying this because he totally thinks his side's going to win" completely skews the tone of the piece.
Posted by strasmangelo jones | Link to this comment | 08- 3-06 10:18 AM
3: Charlie Cook and Sabato are saying Democratic tidal wave. Kos is not. I'm pretty confident.
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 08- 3-06 10:18 AM
4 sounds like exactly what I was thinking of. I may overvalue Rangel's smarts and realism because I like him so much, but I just keep thinking that if anyone knows how things will turn out, it's him, and if anyone is cynically competent enough not to say something that will make him look stupid in retrospect, it's him.
I think Rangel despairing would involve no statements of this kind at all, and a retirement announcement in the second week of November, if they lost.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 08- 3-06 10:19 AM
Agree with slol. As per usual.
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 08- 3-06 10:19 AM
Yeah, what does Kos know? A smart outsider is going to come up with better answers than a dumb, or corrupt, or self-deceiving insider, but he's still going to know less than a smart insider. Rangel is a smart insider.
(Again, I really don't know what I'm talking about.)
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 08- 3-06 10:22 AM
I'm using Kos's track record as evidence for a Democratic tidal wave.
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 08- 3-06 10:23 AM
I'm 45% saying 3 because of gerrymandering, incumbency and GOP money advantages. I'm 25% saying it because I recall the extraordinary ability of Democrats to screw up in recent years. I'm 20% saying it because I don't want to get my own hopes up. And I'm 10% saying it out of innate pessimism.
Posted by slolernr | Link to this comment | 08- 3-06 10:25 AM
Kos doesn't actually say no: "One thing Cook doesn't account for, and can't account for when looking strictly at numbers -- the GOP's recent demonstrated ability to close the deal on Election Day. I'm never underestimating them again. I think Dems will make significant gains, but I'm not ready to predict a Democratic House (or Senate) just yet."
Sounds more like not trying to get his hopes up.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 08- 3-06 10:25 AM
13: Gerrymandering and incumbency should count for way more than 45% of that. They are the big obstacles.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 08- 3-06 10:27 AM
Has anyone looked at the myDD polling? I confess that I've only skimmed it, but I'm really worried that this "Culture of Corruption" line isn't going to be enough.
Weiner, how are things in Lubbock? I don't expect the Dems to win there, but has Republican support eroded to 54% or something like that?
Posted by Bostoniangirl | Link to this comment | 08- 3-06 10:27 AM
Gerrymandering and incumbency should count for way more than 45% of that
Yeah, but you have to leave room for my personal neuroses. Or do you want to take percentages away from Democratic ineptitude? Which I wouldn't, because you know, it's pretty awesome.
Posted by slolernr | Link to this comment | 08- 3-06 10:30 AM
On the slol matrix: 30/50/15/5. I have zero faith in a significant part of our leadership.
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 08- 3-06 10:37 AM
bg, think they're still praying for rain, and serving "freedom fries" and "freedom toast" in the pancake house I like. (Though I haven't been there in a while.)
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 08- 3-06 10:39 AM
Also, I gotta say, I trust us more than I trust Rangel or Cook. There's nothing instrumental about my prediction; it has no value as a speech-act. But Rangel needs to Project Confidence! Cook needs to sell Counterintuitive Ideas! Both probably need to fool themselves a little, too.
Posted by slolernr | Link to this comment | 08- 3-06 10:41 AM
19: Not on Capitol Hill, though.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 08- 3-06 10:41 AM
Pray for Lubbock website. With a whole lot of broke-ass links (in Firefox).
On the slol matrix, I say 15-40-10-10. Not clear to me that the GOP has any money advantages, I think the six-year curse may balance out a lot of incumbent advantages, and while gerrymandering is bad (they're trying to use the illegal congressional district as a pretext for even more stupid shit in Texas) the Dems don't need to take over that many seats.
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 08- 3-06 10:50 AM
And the other thing about gerrymandering (this is general, rather than specific to this election. I don't know enough about the specifics to know if it's likely to come into play) is that in a big enough swing, it hurts you. Gerrymandering involves concentrating your opponents' support and spreading your own, so with the same number of votes they win three districts with 90% while you win five with 56%. In a big enough swing, though, they keep their districts and yours start dropping faster than if they weren't gerrymandered.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 08- 3-06 11:01 AM
Which is why DeLay's district is no longer reliably Republican.
Posted by teofilo | Link to this comment | 08- 3-06 11:04 AM
gerrymandering ... in a big enough swing, ... hurts you
This is plausible, but is there any empirical evidence for it? I'm being serious, not snotty, here.
Posted by slolernr | Link to this comment | 08- 3-06 11:04 AM
The serious answer is I don't know of an example where it has happened (and wouldn't if it had -- I don't know much about this stuff at all), but it's clear that it could in principle. The question is just how close are the gerrymandered districts cut, and whether swings big enough to override the margin of error happen.
My impression (and again, I'm talking off the top of my head) is that all of the discussion of increased precision and effectiveness in gerrymandering refers to a process of spreading the same number of votes over more districts -- creating districts with narrower margins. But I don't knwo that that's true.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 08- 3-06 11:09 AM
I am saying it because the last time I heard 'we're gonna win we're gonna win no way we can't win' we had a lot of people wondering why Kansas was so dumb because everyone they knew voted for Kerry. I am not sure that enough has changed, on either the Democratic mindset or the Kansas mindset. Culture of corruption goes away as 'all them politicians are corrupt.' Democrats are still perceived as weak on terror, no one cares about civil liberties, and the economy doesn't suck that much.
Posted by Cala | Link to this comment | 08- 3-06 11:11 AM
I don't know of an example where it has happened
Well, it's a good example of a rigorously testable social scientific theory. I just don't have the time right now to dig up data. If I do, you can co-author the article.
Posted by slolernr | Link to this comment | 08- 3-06 11:16 AM
27: You're arguing we won't win either the House or the Senate, right? And I'm not sure if you're saying this (if you are, I agree with you): fuck Kansas. Look at the '04 election, look at present polling and figure out who your friends are. Then go build the coalition out West. We're like some sad, pathetic college boy mooning over the high school girl who dumped him. Sooner or later, you have to get over it and move on.
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 08- 3-06 11:18 AM
Yes, I am. And I agree. But I'm not running the Dem machine and I'm seeing roughly the same issues as '04 and roughly the same answers. Yes, Iraq is worse- but how many people care?
Posted by Cala | Link to this comment | 08- 3-06 11:21 AM
the economy doesn't suck that much.
Doesn't it? 'Growth in the economy' isn't bad, but job growth and wages are pretty lousy. And I don't think people vote as much on 'how they understand the economy is doing from the reporting they read about it' as 'how they, personally, are doing'.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 08- 3-06 11:22 AM
And Iraq has, I think, gone from 'still in progress, what do you nervous nellies expect, that we were going to finish in a week?' to 'Oh, man, this is a problem'. It may not be the most salient issue, but even if the GWOBadness is still a positive for Republicans, Iraq has changed from a positive in some people's eyes, to a pretty solid negative.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 08- 3-06 11:24 AM
We'd need a recession. GWOBadness (pwnage, btw) only gets trumped by wallets if wallets are really hurting. Gas prices suck, but I'm not sure the Democrats can get them to go down, either.
It's quite early yet. But if Iraq calms down at all, it can and will be spun as a success -- see, nervous nellies, we just had a bad spell. You would have quit after Pearl Harbor! Etc.
Posted by Cala | Link to this comment | 08- 3-06 11:31 AM
What is it about Kansas? Did I miss something? This is not Thomas Frank again, is it? Because Kansas hasn't gone for a Democrat for President since 1964. In fact, I think in the twentieth century it only went Democrat five times (Wilson twice, FDR (only) twice, Johnson). What on earth do you expect from Kansas?
Posted by slolernr | Link to this comment | 08- 3-06 11:32 AM
You guys are making David Weman weep.
Posted by Clownæsthesiologist | Link to this comment | 08- 3-06 11:38 AM
"Kansas" = shorthand for the certainty in 2004 that the Democratic ticket was really popular because it really was in everyone's best interests in the swing states to vote Democratic.
Posted by Cala | Link to this comment | 08- 3-06 11:41 AM
the swing states
Yeah, my point was that Kansas isn't a swing state.
Posted by slolernr | Link to this comment | 08- 3-06 11:46 AM
My point was the out of touchness. I was going to say "Ohio" but that didn't convey 'what's the matter with these people who vote Bush?' sentiment of bewilderment. Also, I was eating pad thai. This makes it hard to type and make sense, apparently.
Posted by Cala | Link to this comment | 08- 3-06 11:49 AM
But I'm not running the Dem machine and I'm seeing roughly the same issues as '04 and roughly the same answers.
That's crazy. No one was ever that certain, numbers-wise, about Kerry beating Bush, at least as certain as they are that Democrats will make serious gains in Congress this election cycle. For most of the '04 race, Bush and Kerry were neck and neck in the polls. That's not true of either generic congressional ballots or individual races right now. In general, Dems are polling Republicans rather well. It's not a question of whether we'll do well or not; it's just a question of how well we'll do.
Posted by strasmangelo jones | Link to this comment | 08- 3-06 11:52 AM
This is heartening. I'm not sure Lamont can take Connecticut, though, if Lieberman runs as an independent.
Posted by Cala | Link to this comment | 08- 3-06 11:52 AM
it's just a question of how well we'll do
Oh Lord, sj, you're a Pollyanna too? (I'd expected an sj to be a little more Jesuitical.)
1. Events, my dear boy. Just you wait and see. Remember the OBL video?
2. Slime. It's probably too early yet for the big slime roll-out, but I'd expect it in September or so.
Man, I want to believe, you know, but it's just hard.
Posted by slolernr | Link to this comment | 08- 3-06 11:54 AM
The Dem nominee will win Connecticut, whether it be Joe or Ned. Most big-time Dems will feel obliged to help the nominee beat Joe. You just can't let a non-Democrat win in a deep Blue area. And running against a non-Dem Joe allows people to buy credibility with the anti-Joe/netroots community at essentially zero cost.
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 08- 3-06 11:58 AM
40: I think the bandwagon effect will probably sink Lieberman's chances, even as an independent.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 08- 3-06 11:58 AM
Yeah, I'm actually reasonably optimistic about Lamont, too. I think Lieberman's going independent will only actually cost Lieberman whatever residual credibility he has and probably only cut into Republican or "independent" support. I don't know if independent support is critical in CT.
Posted by slolernr | Link to this comment | 08- 3-06 12:00 PM
Here's a small admission: I'm OK with Lieberman squeaking out a small victory in the primary. The established coterie of DC Dems have already been scared to death, and that was the real point of challenging Joe.
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 08- 3-06 12:01 PM
41: Yes, yes, yes, slol, and if Osama bin Laden crashes a giant gay fetus into the Sears Tower in late October, or the Diebold Cyborgs rise with their terminator army, we'll be pretty much fucked, but barring that I think we're doing okay.
Look, I think downplaying expectations is fine, which is why I'm telling myself we're not going to win back either house. But it does look like we're going to pick up seats, from every reasonable projection out there. There are a lot more vulnerable Republicans than there are Democrats, and by and large the vulnerable Republicans are much more vulnerable than the vulnerable Democrats. I think most of this "we're dooooomed, we're doooooomed!" business I keep hearing is shell-shock from the last few elections. The Bad Man touched you in the Bad Place and you don't want to talk about it. Fine. But in the real world we have to get over this, and, you know, start winning stuff again.
Posted by strasmangelo jones | Link to this comment | 08- 3-06 12:03 PM
46: Hey, sj, thanks for jinxing us.
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 08- 3-06 12:04 PM
I agree with 43. And, really, with 39, at least insofar as it gives us reason to be more optimistic about '06 than about the last couple cycles. And, where in the past cycles polls showed Dems maybe in reach in the swingy elections, right now in the Senate it looks like Dems are pwning in the swingy elections (MN, WA, PA, RI) and maybe in reach in some of the pony! elections (AZ, MO, TN).
Of course we need some pony! seats to take back the Senate, and the Dems can screw it up -- that's the 40%. But, it's not just the same optimism again.
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 08- 3-06 12:05 PM
The Republican challenger Schlessinger isn't compelling (and rumored to have a gambling problem), though, and Lieberman has drawn considerable Republican support in the past.
Posted by Cala | Link to this comment | 08- 3-06 12:05 PM
49: "Rumored" = has said, "So I gambled under a fake name, so what?" and has been sued by a couple of casinos. That guy will never be in the Senate. They'd like a better challenger.
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 08- 3-06 12:07 PM
47: He already has giant gay fetus technology? Shit.
Posted by strasmangelo jones | Link to this comment | 08- 3-06 12:07 PM
22: Praying for rain isn't so bad. It's pretty much how we got Thanksgiving. (That and a lot of agitation which got Lincoln to extend Thanksgiving beyond the New England States hoping to create a unifying national holiday.)
You all should feel free to skip the extended quotation unless you're particularly interested in New England history.
In 1623, the colony was still struggling to survive. The colonists were critically low on food. For months they had been expecting a ship with supplies and additional colonists. The spring planting of Indian corn and beans began well. By mid-July, however, “it pleased God, for our further chastisement, to send a great drought, insomuch as in six weeks after the latter setting there scarce fell any rain; so the stalk of that which was first set began to send forth the ear, before it came to half growth, and that which was later was not like to yield any at all, both blade and stalk hanging the head, and changing color in such a manner, as we judged it utterly dead. Our beans also ran not up according to their wonted manner, but stood at a stay, many being parched away, as though they had been scorched before the fire. Now were our hopes overthrown, and we discouraged, our joy being turned into mourning.” Additionally, the expected ship had not been heard of for three months, “only the signs of a wreck were seen along the coast, which could not be judged to be any other than the same.” The colonists were devastated. “The most courageous were now discouraged, because God, which hitherto had been our only shield and supporter, now seemed in his anger to arm himself against us.”
These misfortunes “moved not only every good man privately to enter into examination with his own estate between God and his conscience, and so to humiliation before him, but also more solemnly to humble ourselves together before the Lord by fasting and prayer. To that end a day was appointed by public authority,....” Winslow did not describe the religious exercises, but stated that they lasted “some eight or nine hours.” The next morning “distilled such soft, sweet, and moderate showers of rain, continuing some fourteen days, and mixed with such seasonable weather, as it was hard to say whether our withered corn or drooping affections were most quickened or revived.” Captain Myles Standish, returning from the north, brought further good news. The supplies and new colonists were safe, although delayed, and again on their way.
Their prayers answered, the colonists thought “it would be great ingratitude, if secretly we should smother up the same, or content ourselves with private thanksgiving for that, which by private prayer could not be obtained. And therefore another solemn day was set apart and appointed for that end; wherein we returned glory, honor, and praise, with all thankfulness, to our good God, which dealt so graciously with us;....”4
This, then, was the first Thanksgiving Day held in Plymouth Colony. It occurred most likely at the end of July and consisted of a lengthy church service. Probably, there was no feasting. Bradford lamented in his history, that when the new colonists arrived soon after, the “best they could present their friends with was a lobster or a piece of fish without bread or anything else but a cup of fair water.”5 Descriptions of later observances in surviving church records provide more details of the probable structure of the services.
Posted by Bostoniangirl | Link to this comment | 08- 3-06 12:09 PM
The Bad Man touched you in the Bad Place and you don't want to talk about it
Maybe a little, if by this you mean, I lost some faith in my fellow Americans long about fall of 2004. Have you ever seen a people so easily bought or rooked?
But also, have you ever seen a party and a set of candidates so vigorously fritter away such obvious advantages as Gore and Kerry?
in the real world we have to get over this, and, you know, start winning stuff again.
Yeah, okay, if we're part of that "we". But I'm not; my predictions have, as I say above, no instrumental value. I'll vote, and do a few other things that might help, but I'm not a candidate or a party strategist.
But "the giant gay fetus" was pretty funny.
Posted by slolernr | Link to this comment | 08- 3-06 12:09 PM
Um, reading comprehension problem in 50. It's stronger than a rumor, and that reinforces Cala's point that Republicans would likely be voting for Joe.
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 08- 3-06 12:10 PM
Right -- I can't see Conn. Republicans voting for Schlessinger, so they can either stay home, or vote for Lieberman.
Posted by Cala | Link to this comment | 08- 3-06 12:11 PM
"But also, have you ever seen a party and a set of candidates so vigorously fritter away such obvious advantages as Gore and Kerry?"
Neither had any strong advantages. 49% in 04 was a very impressive result.
Posted by David Weman | Link to this comment | 08- 3-06 12:15 PM
If the Dem politicians come out hard for Lamont, I can't see Lamont doing worse than Kerry did in CT. Basically, the strategy is going to be to tar Lieberman and Bush-lite. It's hard to believe that Bush is more popular in CT than he was in '04. (In fact, that's what Lamont ought to do--imply that a vote for him somehow undoes the moral sin of having voted for Bush in '04.)
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 08- 3-06 12:17 PM
I lost some faith in my fellow Americans long about fall of 2004. Have you ever seen a people so easily bought or rooked?
In late 2002, early 2003, yeah. But I know what you mean. But I'm not basing my predictions on any faith in the intelligence or basic human decency of my fellow man; I'm basing this entirely on poll numbers and trends in poll numbers. If those numbers start changing to look dramatically worse for Democrats, then I'll change my expectations accordingly. For right now, though, they look good, so I'm thinking Democrats will do alright.
Posted by strasmangelo jones | Link to this comment | 08- 3-06 12:32 PM
The likelihood of a House Dem takeover just increased.
Posted by BDM | Link to this comment | 08- 3-06 12:50 PM
Ex-cellent. </Monty Burns>
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 08- 3-06 12:54 PM
If you want to really know- read Michael Barrone's blog. Although polling shows that the voters are preferring Democrats in nationwide polling, elections are race by race. You have to look at the individuals running in all 435 races to have any idea. There are what 25 (?) competetive districts in the whole country. The Democrats may have a better chance of retaking the Senate.
Posted by Tassled Loafered Leech | Link to this comment | 08- 3-06 12:55 PM
To me it still smacks too readily of the 'ZOMG there is no way we can lose' buzz in '04 for me to really dive in with the belief. I'm also unconvinced that the Democratic party is doing much more than counting on Republicans to lose. If the Dem leadership has crafted a message of what we favor, and communicated it, and created a unifying big-picture theme, then I have yet to hear about it. Banking on the Republicans to fumble the ball is no way to score, and I will have zero good expectations of that strategy.
Posted by Robust McManlyPants | Link to this comment | 08- 3-06 12:56 PM
If the Dem leadership has crafted a message of what we favor, and communicated it, and created a unifying big-picture theme, then I have yet to hear about it.
But this early in the game, most likely voters aren't paying attention anyway.
Posted by strasmangelo jones | Link to this comment | 08- 3-06 12:58 PM
Oh, I'm not confident. If the election is losable, we'll find a way. I just find it encouraging that Rangel seems to be confident.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 08- 3-06 12:58 PM
61: Short of race-by-race numbers, which are unlikely to be public in most cases, this NPR poll is probably the best way to look at the picture for now.
62: Not just banking on failure.
Posted by BDM | Link to this comment | 08- 3-06 1:02 PM
On the general uselessness of Democrats, there's this.
I mean, I'm all for Republicans switching sides but seriously, the best Democratic candidate you can get is a disgruntled Republican?
Posted by slolernr | Link to this comment | 08- 4-06 7:33 AM
See the last sentence of 34.
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 08- 4-06 7:50 AM
Heh, okay (you expect me to remember yesterday's rant?). But the article points beyond Kansas. There's the guy running in Virginia who was a Reagan official, etc.
Posted by slolernr | Link to this comment | 08- 4-06 8:29 AM
I hear that VA tends to vote conservatively in senatorial elections except when they prematurely nominate Ollie North (anyone think he wouldn't be right at home today?), so that might be part of it. Also Allen *spit* was expected to cruise, so there might have been some trouble recruiting heavyweights. (The other case cited, in SC, looks like all win to me, like Jeffords; would that guy have lost to a real Democrat if he hadn't switched?)
But I'm ambivalent too. Overall it makes sense for the Democrats to start encompassing all non-crazies, which will include some old moderate Republicans. But this is only great if it leads to the non-crazy party crushinating the crazy party. If the country remains split between Dems and Repubs, it's not that much comfort for the Democrats to have old sane Republicans making up part of the coalition; as Republicans, they're still wrong.
I've mentioned that Barbara Hafer, the Republican I used to vote for, is now a Democrat. Actually I'd rather have her than Casey as the nominee.
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 08- 4-06 8:57 AM
Welcome to Oddworld. Tom Friedman's moustache has finally run out of six-month windows of opportunity, and Pat Robertson says global warming is real and an immediate threat.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 08- 4-06 9:05 AM
Don't worry, the mustache has plenty of bad ideas left in him. Iraq, yes; shame, that. But just wait for the next crazy idea. After all, he appears really to believe in the bedrock principle underlying the craziness, which is, roughly, "Left to themselves, things just keep getting better! Globalization will provide PocketPC's for all! Flat-tastic!"
Robertson, now that's weird. You'd think the world being consumed by fire would work well with the whole eschatology thing.
Posted by slolernr | Link to this comment | 08- 4-06 9:52 AM
the non-crazy party ... the crazy party
I think this is the only way things can usefully go, actually. You get the sane people over here and the wackos over there and you hope that there are more people over here. I gather, though, that Israeli politics went down that road ten or twenty years ago, and there appear to be more people over there.
The original thrust of my objection was, I would like to see real Democrats. But that was, of course, adolescent-level naivete; they're extinct in the wild.
Gore Vidal said back in the 1970s or so that we're heading for a clash between the Party of God and the Party of Man. Which is I think roughly what you're saying.
Unless, of course, Pat Robertson and his church join an eco-sensible coalition.
Posted by slolernr | Link to this comment | 08- 4-06 10:03 AM
Robertson/Nader on the Greenalyptic ticket.
Posted by Clownæsthesiologist | Link to this comment | 08- 4-06 10:08 AM
You'd think the world being consumed by fire would work well with the whole eschatology thing.
This is the guy who blamed 9-11 on gays and feminists, isn't it? I think he knows enough of hate to say that for destruction ice is also great and would suffice.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 08- 4-06 10:11 AM
What I was thinking was, if the current blithering lunatics get obliterated like Kim Campbell did, maybe politics could go back to a nice reasonable LBJ vs. Nixon dynamic in the battle of ideas. If the real Democrats have been driven into hiding, perhaps they could emerge later.
And I think the real priority for real (and ersatz) Democrats now has to be to stop the madness. O'course we're not seeing enough of that either, not strong enough opposition to Bush's insane power grabs, though I do like the press releases about how he's broken umpty-ump different laws. Because they're true.
(Did you know Kim Campbell's real name was "Avril"? When I started typing this post I thought her last name was "Parker," so I'm not one to say.)
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 08- 4-06 10:13 AM
is also great and would suffice
Yeah, forget sticking up for pop that people hate, I'll take my stand for Robert Frost against all you sneering highbrows. C'mon, take a swing at me, I dare ya.
Posted by slolernr | Link to this comment | 08- 4-06 10:18 AM