Compared To What?
Charles Krauthammer asks a question about The Greatest Electoral Defeat In Recorded History Ever™ that the media keeps cheering like a mystical spell. Channeling Henny Youngman, he asks, "Compared to what?"
WASHINGTON — According to the pollsters, pundits and pols — Democrat and nervous Republican — a great anti-Republican wave is a-coming. Well, let's assume major Democratic gains: between 20 to 25 House seats, and four to six Senate seats. The House goes Democratic for the first time in 12 years. The Senate likely stays Republican, but by such an excruciatingly small margin that there is no governing majority.
What to say about such a victory? Substantial, yes. Historic, no. Before proclaiming a landslide, one has to ask Henny Youngman's question: "Compared to what?'' (His answer to: "How's your wife?'') Since the end of World War II, the average loss for a second-term presidency in its sixth year has been 29 House seats and six Senate seats. If you go back to Franklin Roosevelt's second term, the House loss average jumps to 35. Thus a 25/6 House/Senate loss would be about (and slightly below) the historical average.
….
Nonetheless, even if just one chamber falls to the Democrats this time, it will be interpreted as a repudiation of two things: Bush and Iraq. The Democrats have certainly nationalized the election by focusing on Bush and the war — with an overwhelming number of Democratic campaign ads doing little else than showing their Republican opponent hugging or praising or merely shaking hands with the president.
Indeed, the anti-Bush feeling is so strong that Democrats — ignoring the niceties of federalism and enjoying the benefits of guilt-by-association — have been running ads linking Bush with Bob Ehrlich, the popular Republican incumbent in the Maryland gubernatorial race.
Yes, the campaign has been nationalized. But will the results be? In the House, a good five seats (Bob Ney, Tom DeLay, Don Sherwood, Mark Foley, Curt Weldon) are very likely to be lost to scandals having nothing to do with Bush or Iraq. Of the losing Senate races, only Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island and Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania can be said to be dying for the sins of their party.
But the other races, if lost, will be lost largely for local reasons. In Ohio, the state is rocked by an enormous Republican scandal at the gubernatorial level that is taking the whole party down with it, Sen. Mike DeWine included. In Montana, Conrad Burns is in trouble because of his association with Jack Abramoff, not George Bush.
In Virginia, a state that should not even be in play, George Allen has run the worst campaign in living memory, stumbling onto one ethnic land mine after another — macaca, the Yiddishe mama, N-word allegations. And in New Jersey, the one Democratic seat that could conceivably go the other way and save Senate control for the Republicans, the drag on Sen. Bob Menendez is the very non-national issue of official corruption.
Krauthammer points out that all this means that although the Democrats have said this is all about Iraq, it really has not been. That will be the conventional wisdom that the media will report if at least one chamber changes hands. It will not be true any more than the CW that says Kerry lost because of the Swift Boat Vets. (Kerry lost because Kerry is Kerry, as been amply demonstrated this week). It is not really clear that there will be a loss even though the CW at the moment says there will be. We'll see in four days or so. (Or longer depending on how many lawyers get work after the polls close.)
By mokus, November 3, 2006 @ 10:54 am
I disagree with the CW, the GOP is going to do much better than the pundits expect. Dems are over confident, the GOP has a better ground game, the momentum is all on the Republican side, and perhaps most importantly Conservatives are not going to sit this one out.
Dems oppose voter ID requirements because it would put a stop to their fraudulent efforts to give illegal aliens the vote, and it would hamper their usual graveyard constituency from participation as well.
American voters aren’t quite as complacent or as pliable as Dems assume. And, enough voters know, or at least fear, that given half a chance Dems will cut and run in Iraq, that’s what’s at stake. Vote Democrat and it won’t be long before we’ll be fighting Al Qaeda’s terrorists in the middle of Main Street, USA.
Dems are wrong on Iraq, wrong on immigration, wrong on taxation, wrong on social issues, and wrong for America.
Dems represent a hate filled and arrogant elite attempting to dominate electoral politics by concealing their true nature while their allies in the media portray them favorably and denigrate the GOP opposition.
I don’t believe Americans are stupid, lazy, or gullible enough to buy Dem/MSM snake oil. We’ll know by Tuesday evening PST.
By The Hand Grenade of Quiet Reflection, November 3, 2006 @ 11:13 am
Well, Krauthammer’s point is well taken, but I do expect a slaughter next week. I actually think Burns can pull this one out. Allen is going to hang on by his fingertips, but of course, no White House run for him.
The one that has me livid is DeWine, who may not be a great shining city on a hill of a politician, but still doesn’t deserve to lose to middleweight leftist Sherrod Brown. The biggest problem IMO is Voinovich, who is more popular and could and should have spent some time these past couple weeks campaigning for Mike DeWine. Instead he’s spent all his time opposing a ballot measure that would allow some form of gambling. See this story here: http://www.cantonrep.com/index.php?ID=315555&Category=9&subCategoryID=
We get it — he hates Issue 3. Anything about DeWine? Nope.
Mr. Blue Crab, you should write about that: We might lose the Senate because Voinovich is off on a quixotic quest to end gambling as we know it. Wait, not end gambling, just hold off certain kinds. Completely moronic.
By mokus, November 3, 2006 @ 4:16 pm
It also occurs to me that the far-left netroots are demoralized because their big push to toss Joe Liebermann overboard and anoint Ned Lamont in his place has fallen flat.
The netroosters who only a month ago were flying high are now outside the big tent looking in. They were going to be kingmakers in the Democrat Party and now they have become today’s untouchables.
The netroosters are getting the cold shoulder from establishment Dem leadership, their calls don’t get returned. Kos who? Howard Dean has pulled financial support from Lamont, and Harry Reid has already started sucking up to Liebermann, offering to let him retain his seniority which puts him in line for a choice committee chairmanship, if only he’ll forgive and forget, you know, throw in with the guys who stabbed him in the back.
Given the confusing state of affairs, the Dem base isn’t going to the polls in anywhere near the numbers necessary to win. Dems are divided against themselves and fighting over core values.
The old guys have lost every time out for the last 12 years, and the new guys have blown it big time with Lamont. And, not even good old reliable Dan Rather is around to ride to the rescue at the last moment this time.
Additionally, Dem Congressional leadership, Harry Reid and Nancy Pilosi are nowhere to be seen. They’re afraid to show their faces for fear of turning off potential voters. They’ve become too loathsome to be seen in public.
Karl Rove and GWB are optimistic for good reasons.