2006, 2008 Elections: Political Tsunami Coming

Discontent over the Iraq war among US citizens is so great right now that the Republicans are in store for a political tsunami in the upcoming elections. They are still in denial at the moment, so the seachange in congress this year will stagger them.

The discontent with US foreign policy is so great that no GOP shenanigans and electoral theft will be able to stop this shift to Democrat authority. The senate will probably go Democrat and the House very much could.

Watch the upcoming primary election in Connecticut (Tuesday). This will be a huge demonstration of what I am saying. Lackey Lieberman's gonna lose his a double s because of his support for the war. For no other reason.

Everyone in politics will be watching, I know.

I say bring it on.

Here's an intersting take on this by former Senator Gary Hart. I tell ya, everyone's watching the lackey Lieberman race and putting their wet fingers in the wind.

An October Surprise

Depending on the fate of Senator Joe Lieberman on Tuesday, it should come as no surprise to anyone when (not if) the Bush administration announces a dramatic plan to exit Iraq sometime before the Congressional elections this fall.
www.huffingtonpost.com...

Leadership under Republicans or Democrates.. what exactly is going to change? There will still be absolutly nothing done here in America regarding healthcare, border security, minimum wage and so on and so on. Will Democrates handle the war differently? I don't think so, and if Hillary runs for president how many actually think she would be any different then all the other flip floping politicians? They are all the same.

First of all, Hillary is not going to be elected president in '08. Probably never. Too many people dislike and distrust her. Too bad.

A lot of things will change. Will there still be a problem with lobbying and pork? Of course.. but other things will change. If Clinton's FEMA had been in charge when Katrina struck, I honestly believe (as a Republican) the response would've been a world of difference.

There will be a tsunami of investigations opening up, too. It will reflect the latter days of the Nixon administration and the Church Committee hearings of the late '70s. I actually dread what might occur to derail all of that change. Even though I anticipate (with hope) a realignment in congress.

Here's more proof of the discontent I am talking about. Shifting plates within the Republican party. This is but one example. Moderate Republicans are getting sick and tired of being blown off b/c of the hold the religious right and the Neo Cons have on the GOP. Good people are bailing to the other side. I say, as a Republican, so be it. The GOP deserves to be abandoned. The only reason I have not yet jumped ship is b/c I think we realist Republicans should purge the devils from OUR party, choose better leadership and strike out on a newer, better path of leadership. I don't have much hope, though.

Therefore, I support these moves.

Republican state senator joins Democratic Party

TIM TALLEY
Associated Press Writer
OKLAHOMA CITY — Republican state Sen. Nancy Riley, complaining there is no room in her party for moderates, switched to the Democratic Party Thursday and threw a new obstacle at GOP hopes of taking control of the Senate for the first time in state history.

Riley, flanked by a half dozen Democratic Senate leaders, announced her change in party allegiance while criticizing Senate Republicans for what she said was their "lack of compassion for people" and for ignoring her and other political moderates.
ap.ardmoreite.com...

Originally posted by EastCoastKid
The discontent with US foreign policy is so great that no GOP shenanigans and electoral theft will be able to stop this shift to Democrat authority. The senate will probably go Democrat and the House very much could.

I think you may have it backwards, to be honest. I believe House elections are much more likely to become a referendum on Bush than Senate elections because of the relative obscurity of House members as opposed to Senators.

This factor is mitigated by the fact that midterms tend to see lower turnouts, with those who still turn out tending to be older, better off financially, and thus more interested in local issues (and that such people tend slightly to the political right as compared to the presidential year crowd).

Another crucial factor is that all congressional districts are up for grabs. Therefore the Democrats have a better chance of achieving what I have heard machine gunners refer to as "accuracy by volume" in the House.

Then there are the senate seats which are in play. Indiana is not going to get rid of a 5 term Republican who took 65% of the vote last time any more than Massachusetts is going to get rid of Ed Kennedy.

I'm willing to bet money on the Republicans losing Ohio, Pennsylvania and Montana.

I could realistically see the Republicans losing Rhode Island, Missouri and Virginia.

I don't think anything else is truly up for grabs. The Democrats have a chance for 6 states and they need exactly six states. I expect them to actually take 3 or 4.

The thing to watch out for is that the Republicans might even manage to make a pickup (which most people would tell you just isnt going to happen in a "referendum on Bush"). With low approval ratings in states that were won by narrow margins last time, New Jersey and Minnesota could be in play.


I wouldn't call it a political Tsunami. I'd call it a political lightning strike. Maybe it'll start a fire, maybe it won't.
What I mean by that is that the Democrats are going to get just enough in this election to mount a serious opposition. If they are willing to get in there and fight once they've got some ammunition, as opposed to sitting back decrying everything Bush does, then it will catch on and they may be able to bring about your Tsunami in 2008.

With the popular move in 2008 to end the Republican presidency, there will be enough coat tails to make a dramatic change; I think there could be as many as 8 vulnerable republican seats in 2008 if the Democrats really do something between 2006 and then.

If they try to keep the war in Iraq as a campaign issue for 2008 though it could backfire. They can't spend 2 years voting appropriations to continue the war and then claim they wanted to pull out. Once they've got the purse strings they have to use them, or this political lightning strike will be nothing but a brief spark.

Originally posted by EastCoastKid
There will be a tsunami of investigations opening up, too. It will reflect the latter days of the Nixon administration and the Church Committee hearings of the late '70s. I actually dread what might occur to derail all of that change. Even though I anticipate (with hope) a realignment in congress.

Wouldnt the Dems be commiting political suicide if those investigations took place ?
IMH unless the Dems get rid of everyone who even remotely supported the mess in Iraq the investigations wont take place. IMH the Dems will blow a lot of hot air and take little action.

[edit on 8-8-2006 by xpert11]

The tsunami nobody sees is the backlash against those who voted for and expecially for those who still support the Bush plan in Iraq.

Their days are numbered.

Biggest example: Shillary's backsteppin.. calling for Rumsfeld's head. That, to me, is the pot calling the kettle black. But I don't care. It's still nice to see. They should both go down.

Originally posted by EastCoastKid
Watch the upcoming primary election in Connecticut (Tuesday). This will be a huge demonstration of what I am saying. Lackey Lieberman's gonna lose

But that only tells us what some democratic voters are thinking. Indeed, CT is odd, because the Independents are the largest voting block there. So those who are registered as democrats are probably to the left of the party, and lieberman is one of the most hawkish democrats.

Indeed, the democrats can't afford to loose every pro-war democrat. The majority of democrats voted for the war, and support it. They might criticise bush or rumsfeld, or say that the war isn't being fought properly, but they're not calling for instant withdrawl. If they all get thrown out in the democratic primaries, then the democrats will probably loose in the general elections.

There will be a tsunami of investigations opening up, too.

Probably. But equally probably, nothing will come of them. Maybe some small political players will get eaten up, but we're not going to see Bush or Cheney being hit up. Heck, the democrats couldnt' even get behind a censure, which has no actual consquences and is just a statement of dissatisfaction. I wouldn't be counting on the old party to go progressive all of a sudden.

the vagabond
which most people would tell you just isnt going to happen in a "referendum on Bush

But think about it, the public, it dislikes bush, and yet, votes him into the maximum number of terms. There isn't much substantially different between now and the '04 election (though, i will agree, the facts are the same, the opinion is more hostile), and yet the reaffirmed their support for the war effort, in spite of it. Given the choice between a relatively leftist democrat, and the national security issues that bush brings along, they went for bush.

Now imagine a republican candidate that can bring all those same issues to the table, national security, fighting terrorism, standing up to the world, AND at the same time can say "i am not bush" and "i will prosecute the war better". I wouldn't underestimate that happening. It'd be a good bid, and if the best the democrats have to offer is a political unknown who's saying he will pull out of iraq right now, and is a leftist on other political issues, then the republican situation becomes even better (as opposed to a democrat who's seen as tough on national security and a moderate on social, economic, legal issues).

Once they've got the purse strings they have to use them

And one of the things that the public hates about the war is that its not properly funded: there aren't enough troops, they're not paid enough, they're not given enough medical treatment when they're hurt and sent home, we're not rebuilding iraq enough, the troops don't have enough armor, etc.
Everytime they suggest the funds be cut, the republicans merely need to suggest what that will entail. If they lay low and do it after getting elected, people will see it as a trick, and reject them as near saboteurs and obstructionists in the presidential election.

[edit on 10-8-2006 by Nygdan]

You must believe Bush won the 2004 election fair and square. I do not. I think he and his apparatus in Ohio stold the election. So I do not believe Bush ever had any kind of mandate. The peoples' will was trampled.

Originally posted by NygdanBut think about it, the public, it dislikes bush, and yet, votes him into the maximum number of terms. There isn't much substantially different between now and the '04 election (though, i will agree, the facts are the same, the opinion is more hostile), and yet the reaffirmed their support for the war effort, in spite of it. Given the choice between a relatively leftist democrat, and the national security issues that bush brings along, they went for bush.

I agree but I draw a subtle distinction between a presidential election and a referendum on the president. IF the election were to be viewed as a referendum on Bush (which it can't be 100%, though perhaps for certain seats), it's a simple "vote for Bush, vote against Bush" proposition. This was not the case in 2004 there were four options: vote for kerry, vote against kerry, vote for bush, vote against bush. I believe that most of the votes cast were votes against. It's not the Republicans were excited about Bush across the board; some of them were excited about kicking Kerry in those mozza balls he was bragging so much about.

With the democrats (and their sins) at the local level being so much more obscure, the "vote against Bush" category holds a significant advantage.

Now imagine a republican candidate that can bring all those same issues to the table, national security, fighting terrorism, standing up to the world, AND at the same time can say "i am not bush" and "i will prosecute the war better".

This is something that I believe needs to be done, and I've got a short list of people who might be able to lead the way (I give any one of them about a 5% chance of actually doing it though). Unfortunately, anyone who isn't already mounting a primary challenge in a red state is looking at slim to no chance because there aren't any senate seats open right now that could be firmly and undeniably called "democrat-occupied red states", so that comes in 2008 for the most part.

I think that makes it a pretty good shot that the Democrats come close (but probably fail) to take the senate and make appreciable gains in congress (probably enough to control it, though I don't remember which districts I was eyeballing to fall when I judged it last).


As for the fallout for pulling the purse strings, I agree the accusations will be made and it will be a deeply devisive issue, but IF they are able to get elected on an anti-war platform, THEN it follows that the voters are prepared to see us pulled out somewhat roughly. I'm not talking about "rolling back" funding. I'm talking about "we're taking a page from the Gingrich playbook, we're going to shut down the government via the budget and the only thing we'll pass is an appropriation for emergency withdrawl".

We lose 100, 200 guys, a little economic trouble, everyone is mad at the democrats and the democrats say "hey, it would have been more deaths over a logner period of time if we hadn't done that" and right wrong or indifferent the voters will say "hey, this IS the job we hired the democrats to do for us".

I don't think it's sound policy but I think it's sound politics. If the Democrats take power, the Republicans have to be VERY wary of such a move on the horizon and preempt with a safer, more practical withdrawl proprosal. Yes that will make the Democrats the heroes of the day as far as their voters are concerned and it will look like the Republicans lost (which they would have), but it won't kill our troops and it will save Republican face at least with their own constituents.

Originally posted by EastCoastKid
The peoples' will was trampled.

If that was the case, then they're certainly never going to give up the apparatus of control, and there will never be any 'sea change' sweeping the democrats into victory. And if there were, it'd just be a front for the same puppet masters.

the vagabond
This was not the case in 2004 there were four options: vote for kerry, vote against kerry, vote for bush, vote against bush. I believe that most of the votes cast were votes against.

Indeed, and I am speculating that come the next election, it might play out hte same. Forget the candidates, look at the platforms, the republicans are 'trusted' on national security, the democrats are seen as weak on that. The public considers that we are at war, one way or another, and thus they are going to tend to support the ones that they 'trust' on national security. I think that that is why bush won the 04 election, not because of bush himself, but because kerry was seen as too weak on national security (and he wasn't even calling for a withdrawl, imagine a 'peace' candidate).

the "vote against Bush" category holds a significant advantage.

But bush ain't running. I wouldn't put it beyond the GOP to be able to present their candidate in such a way as to be acceptable to people that would vote "against bush"

but IF they are able to get elected on an anti-war platform, THEN it follows that the voters are prepared to see us pulled out somewhat roughly

You are making an 'if..then' statement, iow, a logical statement.
Please explain why you think logic is applicable.

and the only thing we'll pass is an appropriation for emergency withdrawl".

That would at least be putting the cards on the table. I suspect that there simply isn't enough anti-war sentiment to support that though. Once people start dying because of a lack of funds, the worm will turn. The republicans can cite the need to 'fight the good fight' and stay in iraq, without taking the blame for the losses. How long would the democrats be willing to hold out on the funding then? A cold calculation, to be sure. Lots of peopel that are anti-war will freak and turn.

If the Democrats take power, the Republicans have to be VERY wary of such a move on the horizon and preempt with a safer, more practical withdrawl proprosal.

If they have control of congress, they can just end the war by fiat, no need to cut the funding, no? If they have a large enough voting block so that they can't make a positive pullout, but can block the funds, then that strategy comes into play no?

Iraq war is an afterthought for me. Sure I have friends stationed in Iraq in the Marines and the Army and I have a cousin in boot camp now, but it does not worry me. I am more worried about whether I will be able to continue to apply for student loans, if the pot holes on the roads of my daily commute will be filled, the evacuation plan in case of a hurricane for the city, federally funded research, NASA, NSF, and the flow of both legal and illegal immigration.

Foreign students, in 2005, made up the majority for first year graduate physics students. What does this mean about America's R&D capability in 10-15 years?

When I retire in 50 years, will I be able to pay the minimum payments on my credit card with SS?

If the US does wane itself of oil imports, what effect does this have on the agriculture industry and materials and basic chemicals industry?

Iraq war? Not very concerned at the moment. I imagine once the US leaves, the amount of oil on the market will increase, reduce price per barell and reduce the price of gasoline per gallon.

Originally posted by Nygdan

the "vote against Bush" category holds a significant advantage.

But bush ain't running. I wouldn't put it beyond the GOP to be able to present their candidate in such a way as to be acceptable to people that would vote "against bush"

Correction, Bush's job isn't up for grabs. He may indeed be running if the conventional democratic wisdom that many races will be a referendum on Bush holds true. That IS in large part what's going on here. A vote for a democrat is a vote against Bush's ability to continue with his current policies. This time though, there is no Kerry to vote against. You vote against Bush's polices/for a democratic majority or you vote against "democrats" as a predominantly faceless whole without the benefit of knowing all of the dirty secrets of 1 particular democrat as we all did in 2004.

When you step into the polling place and see your choice's name, can you picture his face, can you remember his voice, have you ever heard him speak about the issues, and for that matter did you know his name before you got to the booth and read it? How many people can answer yes across the board? Half? 1 in 3? Fewer? Because those people can't vote for or against an individual. They get into that booth and they've got two letters in front of them. A "D" and an "R". The names beside those letters mean nothing to them. Any place where the candidates are fairly obscure and/or where those people show up in appreciable numbers, the election becomes a yes/no vote on congress cooperating with Bush.

You are making an 'if..then' statement, iow, a logical statement.
Please explain why you think logic is applicable.

Touche perhaps, but word out of CT is that your constituents are not to be screwed with. If the democrats come out of these elections with anything like a win, the democratic voters are gonna be making like a house just landed on the wicked witch. I can just about promise you that if the democrats win that someone will prematurely declare "The war is over!".
And what happens if the war doesn't end then? Then you're dang skippy logic isn't applicable. The voters are gonna be ticked. They aren't going to want to hear about "workable time tables" and "a stable Iraq". They're gonna be demanding some serious magic wand action. At least that's my guess, and as a college student in California I'd like to think that I know a thing or two about democrats: I observe them in their natural habitat every day.

A cold calculation, to be sure. Lots of peopel that are anti-war will freak and turn.

We will probably remain at an impasse over this one so long as it doesn't happen (god forbid). I don't think either side would really want to back down; I think both sides would kill as many of our men as they had to and just blame the other side. I think opinion would split right down party lines in terms of who was to blame and that nothing would change. Eventually the clock would run out on the Republicans and they'd have to concede, because time and the constitution are on the Democrat's side if they control the funding for the war (and keep in mind that's if they only have the house. If they find themselves just one vote under in the senate like I'm expecting, it would only take two defections to break the stalemate, and I think McCain would find some other redheaded stepchild of his party to defect with him at that point just to get our men out of the middle of this political tug of war. Easier still, it is hypothetically possible that I'm wrong for the first time and the democrats will take both houses outright, in which case purse strings aren't necessary- they can just repeal the resolution (which, if they had any brains, they would have already challenged in the SCOTUS as an unconstitutional delegation of legislative powers)

If they have control of congress, they can just end the war by fiat, no need to cut the funding, no? If they have a large enough voting block so that they can't make a positive pullout, but can block the funds, then that strategy comes into play no?

Right. This mainly applies if they only take the House. The senate can't orgininate a budget and thus a democratic congress can purse string the war simply by refusing to send up a budget that includes war funding, even though a Republican Senate will never actually agree to cut the funding nor pull us out, they will have no say in the matter because if the House digs in its heels and says no money, there will be no money. And of course the LAST thing Bush needs (and the thing the democrats would love most) is for Bush to keep spending by executive order during this impasse: if they can get Bush to openly and undeniably defy the constitution there will be HELL-TO-PAY.