Friend: The republicans are losing on purpose in order to position themseleves well for 2008...and the democrats will get killed in 2008 - their biggest loss since 1988.
Mr. Noah: Why do you say that?
Friend: I really already believed this before i read this article - 2006/2008will be a repeat of 1994/1996...
Excerpt from Atlantic Monthly article:
Would it be better to lose November’s elections than to win them?...
In the Machiavellian plotting of political Washington, next month’s elections are merely a prelude to the main event two years from now. And some of the best avenues to winning the White House in 2008 involve losing in 2006...
No matter who wins in November, the next majority in each chamber is likely to be very narrow, and a bare majority is often the worst possible outcome from a partisan standpoint. “If we hold on to both houses narrowly,” says the GOP strategist Tony Fabrizio, “we maintain the illusion of power and control, but actually have none … We can’t really get anything done, but will get blamed for all the problems.”...
Leaving the Republicans in power, many Democrats suspect, might strengthen the widespread perception that the GOP is foundering. Some Republicans, meanwhile, would be happy to share the spotlight with the Democratic congressional leadership, which they see as feckless...So, is it fair to say that self-sabotage is the watchword for the November election? No, that’s going too far. Most strategists on both sides—particularly those without ties to a 2008 presidential candidate—would still prefer to win now.
Mr. Noah responds:
Here's the reasons why it would be good for the Dems to win the House, in purely political terms:
1. Since they currently control zero branches of government, the Dems have no platform to repeatedly tell the public what they're about and how they're different from the Republicans. If they control even just one branch of Congress, they'll get a chance to reach the ear of the nation long before the 2008 contest.
2. With control of the House (and/or Senate), the Dems can start investigating every nasty bad thing Bush and his cronies have done. That's two years of solid guaranteed scandals.
3. Even if Dems were to control both houses of Congress, the "illusion of power" stays with the president. In '92, people blamed Old Bush for the bad economy even though Congress was Democratic. On war and security issues that's even more true. So if Dems take one or both houses of Congress, they'll get a little bit of power and a lot more exposure, but Republicans will still seem to be in charge because Bush is still there.
1996 was a big Clinton victory because the economy was doing great and there were no wars or anything and Lewinski hadn't broke yet. The Republicans had no issues to run on. In 2008 the big problems will be Iraq (Bush's fault, obviously), the economy (which won't be doing as well by then, also obviously due to Bush), and terrorism. Republicans will have the advantage on the third one, unless Dems can come up with a convincing approach toward terrorism that's obviously better than Bush's.
So, who do you think is right - my friend, or me? Would it be better for the Dems if they lost this time around, as my friend and the Atlantic Monthly suggest? Or, as I counter, is a win a win?
For the record, I predict that Dems will win neither house of Congress. Gerrymandering, a cash advantage, a historically strong get-out-the-vote operation, and - yes, I'll say it - suspect voting machines will keep this year's Democratic surge from toppling the Republicans just yet.
In which case, I hope I'm wrong and the Atlantic Monthly is right. Because 2008 means everything.
0 comments:
Post a Comment