The Democrat collapse; McCain would defeat both liberals

[R.R.]

McCain leads 46 percent to 40 percent in a hypothetical matchup against Obama in the November presidential election, according to the poll.

Matched up against Clinton, McCain leads 48 percent to 40 percent.

"It's not surprising to me that McCain's on top because there is disarray and confusion on the Democratic side," Zogby said

--------------

This is a big turnaround. The Dems were supposed to walk away with this thing. I guess not. Fresh polls have McCain even winning in Democrat strongholds Pennsylvania and Michigan.

McCain was not even my first choice for president in the primary, nor was he my second or even third. But with these crazy libs he's running against, he now has become my first choice. The Democrat party is now in total disarray. Who can save them? If the convention is deadlocked, do the delegates turn to Al Gore?

[R.R.]

This is from Larry Kudlow:

According to Oklahoma Republican Tom Cole, chairman of the Republican Congressional Committee, 61 House Democrats are running in districts that President Bush carried in 2004, while only 8 Republicans are running in districts carried by John Kerry.

What?s more, of the twenty-five districts in which the Democrat was last elected with less than 55 percent of the vote ? historically a sign of vulnerability ? all but eight are districts carried by Bush.


The current breakdown in the House is 231 Democrats and 198 Republicans, with 2 vacant seats formerly held by Democrats and 4 vacant seats formerly in GOP hands. 218 would constitute a majority. So, if my math is right, the GOP would need a 20-seat pickup this November to carry the House. It doesn?t seem a likely outcome according to nearly all the pundits. But, then again, pundits continue to underestimate the strength of John McCain at the head of the GOP ticket.

--------------

ME: It's entirely possible for the GOP to retake the House. These are pretty weak Democrat liberals running in Republican districts. They carried a good tide in 2006 to win these seats. But that was just a "sixth year itch." These seats could flip back to the GOP.

I hope it happens. The Dems in congress have been a disaster. They haven't carried out a damn thing they promised when they were elected. It's a disgrace that Nancy Pelosi is the Speaker of the House. She is a San Francisco liberal, who doesn't represent the majority view of the American people.

This was supposed to be such a great year for the Dems. I can't wait to see the look of shock on election day on their mopey, long faces.

[fatman]

It's a disgrace that Nancy Pelosi is the Speaker of the House. She is a San Francisco liberal, who doesn't represent the majority view of the American people.


And I don't think that she should.  She should represent the majority view of the people of the district who elected her.  She was not elected by the American people as a whole, but by the people in her district.  It is wrong to expect her to reflect the views of the American mainstream, if they're not the views of those who elected her.  I'm not positive how Congressional leadership is decided, but I think that the members vote for the positions.  If the Representatives in the House elected Pelosi, then they can be cancelled by the voters in two years.  We'll see if that happens, because I really don't think that the Republicans will win either the House or the Senate.  I think that the Democrats will either maintain their lead, or grow it, especially with the exodus of Republican retirees.  If I thought otherwise I'd vote for a Democratic President.

[Xavier_Onassis]

If the people want an end to this stupid, expensive war, they will not elect McCain.

Nor should they.

McCain represents the past, and not the best parts of it, either.

No party has ever deserved to be thrashed as the asshole Republican Party.

Pelosi is doing the job she wasa elected to do.

The Democrats have not fulfilled their promises because of the Republicans and Juniorbush.

[R.R.]

We'll see if that happens, because I really don't think that the Republicans will win either the House or the Senate.

I agree the Senate is gone. There are too many GOP seats to defend and a poor effort was made to recruit quality candidates, especially in South Dakota and Arkansas. Huckabee could have raised himself to hero status if he challenged Pryor in Arkansas, but he didn't.

The House is a different story. I had forgotten that the Dems won around 50 seats in '06 in strong GOP districts, mostly because of poor turnout due to the disgust with Mark Foley and because of the sixth year issue. As you were saying about Pelosi matching her very, very liberal district, these liberal Dems are out of step in their districts, and their seats are ripe for a takeover. With McCain at the top of the ticket, I wouldn't be surprised if the GOP retakes the House in an under the radar fashion. The pundits have been wrong about pretty much everything so far  -- Hillary was supposed to storm into the White House-- and they are probably wrong about this.

You are voting for McCain so I won't push the issue too hard with you.

[R.R.]

The Democrats have not fulfilled their promises because of the Republicans and Juniorbush.

More accurately, they lied. They knew they couldn't lower the price of gas, yet they said they would. They knew they couldn't end the Iraq war, yet they said they would. They knew they wouldn't work a full work week, yet they said they would. Anybody who voted for "change" in '06 got more of the same.

[fatman]

The House is a different story. I had forgotten that the Dems won around 50 seats in '06 in strong GOP districts, mostly because of poor turnout due to the disgust with Mark Foley and because of the sixth year issue. As you were saying about Pelosi matching her very, very liberal district, these liberal Dems are out of step in their districts, and their seats are ripe for a takeover. With McCain at the top of the ticket, I wouldn't be surprised if the GOP retakes the House in an under the radar fashion. The pundits have been wrong about pretty much everything so far  -- Hillary was supposed to storm into the White House-- and they are probably wrong about this.

I think that the main issue that this hinges on is whether or not the Democrats can portray a lack of success as a Republican obstructionism.  If they can sell that to the voters, that the Republicans restricted and obstructed their attempts to roll back the war, then I believe that the Democrats will gain in the House.  If they aren't successful at that, then I tend to think that they'll lose some seats, but still retain a majority.  There are arguments for and against both positions.


You are voting for McCain so I won't push the issue too hard with you.

My vote isn't carved in stone, there's a long time until November and I could go either way at that point, depending upon the circumstances.  It's ironic that I voted for a Democrat that I really didn't care for in 2004 (though I voted for Bush in 2000), for pretty much the same reasons that I would vote for McCain at this point.

[R.R.]

If they can sell that to the voters, that the Republicans restricted and obstructed their attempts to roll back the war, then I believe that the Democrats will gain in the House.

That would be a very damaging message to have in those 50 Republican House districts where those liberal Dems squeezed by in a very narrow margin in 2006. Those liberal Dems then went on to vote for Nancy Pelosi to be Speaker of the House.

Democrats showed very poor judgment and strategy by opposing the troop surge last year.  It has been a dazzling success by bringing violence down by 50% around Iraq. The Dems were wrong about that, and the whole Iraq war issue is pretty much off the table right now because of it.

So, yes, I hope those liberals run on who they are in those 50 GOP leaning districts this year, proudly proclaiming that they wanted to cut and run and surrender Iraq to al qaeda, so they can lose their jobs.

[Xavier_Onassis]

The surge was a "dazzling success" because only half as many troops are getting killed. Wow.

Not invading Iraq in the first place would have been super-ultra dazzingly successful by that standard.

McCain is ancient. His claim to fame was that he bombed N. Vietnam, surely killing innocent people from a mile up there, got shot down, and was thrown in jail and mistreated, though not as poorly as the people he was bombing. Vietnam was a hideous mistake. Iraq seems to be an attempt to find a rhyme for Vietnam, and it is also a hideous mistake, with even more threatening circumstances. I have not heard McCain say either of these grotesque blunders was even sort of an error, which means he approved of both and would probably try for another rhyme.

We need John McCain like we need a goiter. A goiter with a tumor inside.

[fatman]

I saw this article this morning and thought of our discussion last night.

Excerpt:

GOP's House odds fade further
By The Washington Post and The Associated Press

WASHINGTON ? Rep. Thomas Reynolds, R-N.Y., said Thursday he will not seek another term in office, becoming the latest member of the former GOP leadership team to step down in the past two years.

Reynolds is the fifth departing member of the Republican leadership team that ran the House with an iron fist for 12 years until Democrats took control in the 2006 election. His decision was another blow to Republican chances against Democrats, who appear likely to widen their majority with more than two dozen GOP seats coming open this year.

Twenty-nine House Republicans have said in the past year they will not run for re-election, have decided to seek another office or have simply quit midterm.

Only seven seats are being given up by the Democrats, who see the opportunity to fatten their majority in the House ? and the Senate.
Less-partisan analysts suggested a Democratic gain of 10 to 20 seats in the general election, when all House seats are on the line. The current House breakdown: Democrats 233 seats, Republicans 198, four vacant.

The situation is also troublesome for the GOP in the Senate, where Democrats are confident of picking up departing Republican John Warner's seat in Virginia and are campaigning hard for GOP seats being vacated in Colorado and New Mexico. Republicans have failed to recruit top-tier candidates to challenge Democratic senators in GOP-leaning Montana, South Dakota and Arkansas.


Full article http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/politics/2004296248_gopwoes21.html

[R.R.]

That's certainly the conventional wisdom, Fatman. But I remember reading similar articles last year proclaiming that Hillary was inevitable and that she was unstopable on Super Tuesday. We saw how well that went. The Dems were supposed to sweep into the White House, but now it looks like it is going to be a McCain route, with as many as 20% of disgruntled Dems voting for him. XO claims that he would never vote for McCain, but a lot of Dems will be saying that while secretly voting for the war hero. The disarray on the Democrat side is fun to watch.

[fatman]

That's certainly the conventional wisdom, Fatman. But I remember reading similar articles last year proclaiming that Hillary was inevitable and that she was unstopable on Super Tuesday. We saw how well that went.

I concede your point.  The talking heads have been consistently wrong about a lot of things, and truth be told I'm kind of glad that this race has been unpredictable, and that it has gotten traction on some issues that need to be addressed.  My gut though, says that the Dems will win Congress in Nov, though I don't think that they'll win as big as they think.  But that is simply an opinion, and should be taken as such.


but now it looks like it is going to be a McCain route, with as many as 20% of disgruntled Dems voting for him. XO claims that he would never vote for McCain, but a lot of Dems will be saying that while secretly voting for the war hero.

There's a lot of time between now and November.  Remember that it wasn't that long ago that Giuliani looked like a shoo-in for the GOP nod.  Once the Dems have settled on a ticket, it will be very interesting to see how things shake out from there.  I do believe though that it is far too early to predict a winner with any kind of accuracy.

The disarray on the Democrat side is fun to watch.

I don't know that I consider it to be fun, so much as sad.  All three candidates (McCain, Obama, Clinton) have some very good thoughts on the direction of this country.  It's always bothered me a bit that instead of any kind of rational discussion, most of those thoughts and ideas are just thrown into the mud pit with the candidates.  There is disarray on both sides, the Republicans in the Congress and the Democrats in the Presidency.  I don't think that either is fun.

[Xavier_Onassis]

secretly voting for the war hero.
==============================
WHAT war hero? A guy who drops bombs, gets captured and gets tortured is a war hero?
If he had dropped those bombs on Muncie, Davenport or (god forfend!) New York City, he'd have been a war criminal.

A guy who got captured? And didn';t bite the cyanide pill, like Gary Powers didn't?
Gary Powers was called a coward for not commiting suicide in the 1950's.

How about getting tortured?
That makes you a war VICTIM. Like the guys in Gitmo and Abu Graib.

So please, not even McCain calls himself a war hero.

He did divorce his poor wife and marry a megazillionaire heiress. That isn't heroic, either, but it sure helped him run for President.

I think one of you right wingers needs to 'splain how anything McCain has done qualifies him more than Obama or Hillary. Or even Nader.

It was nicer that he took a firm stand against torture, but he didn't make them stop, did he?

He's better than Juniorbush Or Cheney.
But so is my cat.

[Amianthus]

WHAT war hero? A guy who drops bombs, gets captured and gets tortured is a war hero?

I'd say his awards (Silver Star, Legion of Merit, Bronze Star, Distinguished Flying Cross) pretty much define it.