But times have changed.
Republicans are increasingly expecting to lose the presidential election in 2008 and lose big.
But they're also raising the rhetorical standards for landslides. Bush's three point win in 2004 was practically a landslide but even a fourteen point Hillary win could be easily dismissed.
According to Rep. Tom Cole, the chairman of the Congressional Republican Campaign Committee (via David Broder):
"That is no landslide election . . . The Republican nominee, whoever he is, wins at least 43, 44, 45 percent against her, and that gives us a base for congressional races.
I wouldn't dispute that the Republicans will still have a base in the South, Plains States, and rural areas after 2008. It's not like they're going to dry up and die.
But if Hillary wins 57-43, that will be a landslide.
That's also my very preliminary prediction for the final outcome.
In Addition: Glenn Greenwald brutalizes Broder for reporting Cole's views as though they were actually true.
Posts
3 comments:
Republicans do have a base. A somewhat fractured base, but it is intact. They aren't going away but they will have to forgo the idea of ruling the roost in the House, the Senate, or The White House for quite some time. Their best bet is to try and keep most of what they have, recognizing that even some of that will be lost. To exist. That should probably be their goal in the short-term.
They need to get used to the idea of being the minority party again. They have imploded on their own corrupt agenda.
Voters want a government responsive to the needs of our families and our communities.
In 1937, Franklin Roosevelt spoke of “one-third of a nation ill-housed, ill-clad, ill-nourished,” and called for renewing the New deal. Throughout his tenure is office, President Bush has ignored 16 million Americans in extreme poverty, and called for spending more money on the military, while making deep cuts in health care, home heating, and food programs for the poor and the disabled. That is a clearer statement of values than any speech can provide. And this is what Americans are rejecting.
Americans are generous people. Certainly better than the leadership inflicted upon us since January, 2001. People want better leadership and we deserve it.
We all understand that national defense is important and that we must maintain a strong technologically advanced military. However, people are beginning to understand that the priorities of the right-wing are not in our interests.
Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. said, “A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual death.” People sense that death and they reject it.
The 2006 midterm elections marked the end of a twenty-five year conservative era. It is clear that this trend will continue into the next three or four election cycles. There can be no doubt that this will be a catalyst for positive, people-oriented change. To what degree this occurs will depend upon how mobilized citizens become. But one thing is clear, the direction has changed, the conversation has begun. We’re ready to debate how to get things done for the country, not simply how to stop bad things from happening.
The 2006 midterm elections marked the end of a twenty-five year conservative era.
I tried pretzel logic, but even it did not work. How do you define this 25 year Conservative era?
Just a couple days ago you had her at 53%, and thought she should be worried. Now, 57% is a landslide? The changes are within the margin of error. If you are chasing poll numbers 13 months before the elections, and before either party has selected their nominee, you are likely to go crazy, if you are not already.
Post a Comment