Hostage to Fortune: 2006 Election Forecast

Live dangerously: I predict the GOP will do badly in the 2006 federal elections. The signs are there.

Unfortunately, this doesn't have obvious implications for the 2008 elections. I don't think Hilary Clinton would be a good candidate, in part because I don't think she'd be a good President. And so much depends on who the nominee is.

This entry was posted in Politics: US: 2006 Election. Bookmark the permalink.

14 Responses to Hostage to Fortune: 2006 Election Forecast

  1. wcw says:

    If you’re going to predict four years out, you will be wrong, but that never stopped me: Bayh/Clark.

    I’d like to see Jeb/Rudi beat ‘em.

  2. JC says:

    wcw I could go for Clark, but Bayh showed real weakness in voicing his support early on for the Iraq invasion. He did so at a time when the Dems could have used some solidarity, requiring Bush to come back to Congress after exhausting all options. You know, the kind of stuff Congress is supposed to do when it comes to war.

    I would not be so sure of 2006. Bush, Cheney and Rove will come up with something along the lines of WMD (2002) or homophobia (2004). They thrive on dividing the country.

    JC

  3. Patrick (G) says:

    All the signs were there in 2004 too. And Bush managed to systematically do better than the exit polls predicted he would do, same goes for congressional, I think. Yet lower down on tickets, the republican party lost control of several state houses…

    cognitive dissonance, anyone ?

  4. We disagree as to why Hilary would be a bad candidate…I think she’d do everything by the numbers, she’s very intelligent politically, but she’d still lose. In a landslide. There’s just too much baggage she’ll be carrying, her own or not.

    Isn’t there a democrat out there with some personality we can get behind? I think if nothing else, the 2004 election proved that substance is not job one for the American people. The facts were there, everywhere, and yet 3/4ths of the people that just elected the president had never even read them.
    There’s a reason Fred Thompson, Jesse Ventura, and Arnold Schwarzenegger all got jobs.

    I’m only donating to the party in ’08 if they promise to use it only on wardrobe advice, botox, and prepping for guest spots on Oprah. Anything more concrete is a waste of time….

  5. Sean S. says:

    The 2004 election proved that you have to have substantive differences. There was no radical new vision outlined by John Kerry. Presumably, we were told, it was dangerous to go to far left. Horse crap. Left or not, people want a vision. We didn’t deliever.

    I realize I’m mildly biased by being a revolutionary leftist, but I can’t help but be amused by the weak kneed-ness of many so called liberals, and the fact that they already want to close up shop and go home. For some of us, this fight is not limited to the narrow confines of electoral politics. And I, and a lot of others, are not backing down just because the Republicans won a bunch of dubious elections.

  6. nigel says:

    “So, barring the October Surprise, it’s Kerry by a landslide”

    That was what was said on this site a few months ago. Now you want us to believe this crap about TWO YEARS from now?

  7. Michael says:

    Osama may have acted as the October surprise. There’s a strong argument he knew what to do to get the candidate he wanted.

    As for the value of the local prognostications, I submit they are worth every penny you paid for them.

  8. Mojo says:

    Betting that the incumbent party loses some seats in midterm elections during a president’s second term is hardly going out on a limb. That’s pretty much a foregone conclusion. I don’t know that substantive issues are going to be a negative factor for the GOP though. Are we going to find fewer WMDs than zero? If a thousand dead GIs don’t matter to the voters will a thousand or two more? The economy may not charge forward vigorously, but is it likely that it will actually go backward significantly again? Unless the GOP starts attacking some better-liked minority, I don’t see them doing anything that should hurt themselves more than what they’ve already done, and vague talk of security and values trumped all that.

  9. Exactly, Mojo. This is the point. If the factual backup for another Bush presidency was that nonexistent, and the right simply invented one in their minds, what won’t they refuse to see?

    I actually heard on NPR yesterday congratulations for the administration, as we would’ve obviously had another 9/11 attack but for Cheney’s glowering, and I realized they don’t even have to do anything.

    Just say hell is coming, and that when it didn’t arrive, you stopped it.

    And the fact that we’re already relying on the right to screw up their supermajority to get us a foot in the door is depressing. I’d rather win, not wait for the other guy to lose….

  10. Chris says:

    I think Mojo’s dead on here. We’re assuming that voting behavior is rational, but that notion presupposes voters have an accurate awareness of their self-interest, are educated about whether their leaders are taking effective action to promote their interests, and can think critically to discern when leaders are misleading them.

    The reality of the past four years–with no presidential deed actually benefitting the majority of citizens and lots of deeds that will ultimately lead to harm–didn’t seem to make any kind of dint at all on Bush supporters’ enthusiasm. Even in Nazi Germany in 1945, with the cities lying in smoking ruins and foreign armies advancing at will into the Fatherland, Hitler’s popularity was still undiminished. Stalin could kill and starve tens of millions of his own people, and old-timers in Russia still get tears in their eyes as they think about him. The lesson of history is that once you’ve drunk the kool-aid, reality no longer matters. We may see slight cyclical shifts in voter sentiment from time to time, as Michael noted, but Bush will still be loved by tens of millions even if the federal government sells public land to the Chinese to pay off our national debt.

  11. Exactly. So we need to pass out our own Kool Aid. I hear Brittney Spears is a Republican now, but there must be someone we can trot out from the entertainment industry besides Susan Sarandon and Tim Robbins….we need real fame, tho, not just a connection to it, even Nick Clooney lost this go around, and Madonna’s endorsement of Wes Clarke did nothing….

    Maybe we should take a lesson from the neocons, ignore the reality of the matter, and put forward an archetype for office. Like Santa or the Easter Bunny. Or perhaps Spongebob Squarepants. Its entirely possible no one on the other side would notice…

  12. Mojo says:

    I would vote for Spongebob, but I’m afraid he might be a closet Republican. Obsessed with wearing clothes even though he doesn’t actually have any “naughty bits”, he’s a square (literally), idolizes his abusive boss, he’s obviously gay but still in the closet (we’re not fooled by that “Patrick and I are just good friends” line), he’s made billions (although not from his reported job) but hasn’t paid any income taxes, etc.

  13. Chris says:

    Britney would make a strange, um, bedfellow with the moral values/religious wingnut crowd. How ’bout “…Baby One More Time” at the ’06 RNC? It’d be even more of a riot if she wore a Burqa at the performance as a concession to make radical clerics Falwell, Robertson, and Dobson happy.

  14. dilbert dogbert says:

    There is some boomlet to pass a constitutional amendment to let our dear gropenator run for president. I would hartily support such an amendment if at the same time allowed it The Big Dog to run again. Think of it! The Gropenator vs Big Dog. More damn fun. The fundies would go ape shit.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Notify me of followup comments via e-mail. You can also subscribe without commenting.