• Secure your account

    A friendly reminder to our users, please make sure your account is safe. Make sure you update your password and have an active email address to recover or change your password.

  • Xenforo Cloud has scheduled an upgrade to XenForo version 2.2.16. This will take place on or shortly after the following date and time: Jul 05, 2024 at 05:00 PM (PT) There shouldn't be any downtime, as it's just a maintenance release. More info here

Republicans can benefit from losing the mid-term elections and hurt the Democrats?

hippie_hunter

The King is Back!
Joined
Nov 23, 2003
Messages
53,322
Reaction score
0
Points
31
Fortune Magazine said:
Why the Republicans need to lose
Losing the election could be good for the GOP in the long term - and winning it could be bad for the Democrats, says Fortune's Cait Murphy.
http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune
By Cait Murphy, Fortune assistant managing editor
October 25 2006: 10:13 AM EDT

NEW YORK (Fortune) -- Power may be corrupting, but it is also addictive. That's why no party likes to lose an election. But the truth is that sometimes a loss is just what is needed to regain a sense of purpose and energy. And that's why the Republicans need to lose in November.
In 1974, for example, Britain's Conservative Party lost. Disillusioned Tory voters failed to turn out and more than a few, tired of the tired Edward Heath, decided what the hell, and voted Labor.

In the aftermath, small groups of Tories, both in and out of government, sat down and thought. In think tanks, and party clubs, through pamphlets and speeches and arguments and chats over tea, they set out to define what it meant to be a Conservative. The answers - lower taxation, rolling back the state from the private economy, a reassertion of British confidence - brought the Tories four straight wins.

Tired of losing, the Labor party eventually went through a similar rite of passage. The result was "New Labor," a term coined in 1994. The party jettisoned its socialist moorings and accepted the union legislation it had fought tooth and nail in the 1980s. New Labor emphasized fiscal prudence, competitiveness and integration with Europe, while reconnecting with core British values. One slogan that captures its essence: "tough on crime; tough on the causes of crime."

In the United States, there are similar examples. After getting killed in the 1974 mid-terms and losing the White House in 1976, Republicans took a look at the party and saw that, among other things, the GOP was failing to differentiate itself from the Democrats. (Remember, it was Nixon who introduced wage-and-price controls, the kind of economic interventionism more associated with the other guys.) Result: the Reagan Revolution.
And in 1994, after the loss of the White House, the Republicans unveiled the Contract with America. This was a list of 10 bills that a Republican Congress pledged to try to pass - ranging from things like a balanced budget amendment, to welfare reform, to tort reform, small business incentives and term limits.

Like it or not, the Contract (critics derided it as the "Contract on America") represented a set of ideas and principles. Faced with a coherent vision, voters went for it, giving the GOP one of the biggest mid-term jumps in history - 52 seats in the House, and nine in the Senate - more than the Democrats got after Watergate.

Losing the 2006 mid-terms could provide such a watershed moment for the GOP.

Time for change in the GOP

The Republicans are a tired party right now, in need of a good internal shake-up. The evidence for this is overwhelming. Take Congress - please.
According to a recent poll, only 16 percent of Americans approve of its performance. This, of course, is not entirely the GOP's fault; after all, there are lots of Democrats filling office space there, too. But fish rot from the head down. Leadership means accepting responsibility, and this is about as incompetent, dysfunctional and trivial a Congress as this proud nation has ever seen.

Or take the economy. Republicans have long argued for smaller government; they were supposed to be the stingy ones. Not any more, apparently.

According to estimates in a September research report by the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think-tank where almost everyone can be expected to vote Republican, federal spending has risen 45 percent during Bush's presidency, three times as fast as it did under Bill Clinton.
Almost half of the increase is in discretionary spending (not entitlements, a whole other issue the GOP has disdained to address in any sustained fashion). And no, Osama is not to blame. As the exasperated Heritage folks note, non-military spending has gone up by 44 percent. Gross ploys like earmarks (putting pet projects into non-related appropriations bills) have ballooned. Although the economy is doing okay, with growth and productivity stable, the GOP's grade on fiscal management is awful.


Then there's trade; Republicans are supposed to be the free traders on the block, but it's hard to tell. The steel tariffs were a protectionist boondoggle by any measure; there is also the total lack of leadership to unstick the Doha round of world trade talks. Free trade agreements with, say, Jordan, don't add up to much compared to this.

What about defense, another traditional GOP emphasis? There's not much thinking here, either. Clearly, no rational person can look at Iraq and say that, yes, this is what we intended. In a larger sense, though, consider the following questions: What is national security? How do we support it? Is what we have now doing the job? Are there other ways? What is America's role in the world?

These are questions that the public has the right to expect a ruling party to answer, or at least wrestle with. That isn't happening. As for the lobbying/fundraising scandals, they reflect a culture more absorbed with staying in power than doing anything useful with it.

At bottom, the Republicans right now are a party that has no discernible sense of direction on any of the really important issues that face the country and the world. A whacking loss could be just the thing to get them thinking seriously again.

Defaulting to the Donkeys

Of course, the Democrats have swallowed regular doses of defeat without bothering with this kind of self-examination. One emblematic moment:
Congress Daily quoted Charles Rangel, the New Yorker who would head
the Ways and Means Committee in a Democratic Congress, saying in late September he would consider tax increases across the spectrum. A few days later, Rangel retreated. It's too soon to discuss either increases or cuts, he told the New York Sun. Great - the head of the nation's tax-writing committee has no views on taxes. But then, no one else in his party does, either.

Democrats may well benefit politically from the mess in Iraq - but only by default, because the only discernible Democratic policy on the matter is to blame Bush for it. More troops? Fewer? A timetable for withdrawal? With conditions? Who knows?

On immigration, entitlement reform, military tribunals, education, the environment - the Democrats have been intellectually missing in action. (Hint: Bashing Wal-Mart (Charts) is not an economic policy and trashing Big Oil is not an environmental one.) If they take Congress in November, it will not be because they did the soul-searching Labor did in the '90s or the Republicans in the '70s. It will be because the public wants to spank Bush.

That might be enough to take the mid-terms. But the party will have to be more than not-Bush to win in 2008. And let's face it - the Democrats have not exactly been an idea factory.

In a sense, then, both parties could benefit by losing this election. And there is a certain justice to that, because both deserve to.

http://money.cnn.com/2006/10/23/news/economy/pluggedin_murphy_election.fortune/index.htm?postversion=2006102510

Discuss. Does anyone think that losing Congress could be beneficial to the Republicans?
 
If the Republicans lost Congress, they would benefit by being able to clean house of all the deadwood at last.
 
This article really illustrates why the Democratic party sucks.

The ****ers need to learn what it means to be a liberal and back off from all this crap of trying to move to the right and being hazy on where they stand.
 
Maxwell Smart said:
This article really illustrates why the Democratic party sucks.

The ****ers need to learn what it means to be a liberal and back off from all this crap of trying to move to the right and being hazy on where they stand.

I assume your getting this from Jim Webb. He's not really a democrat he's just running as one because dems are favored. The guy is a very racist republican, who's apologized time and time again for letting the N word slip out. He's also one of those "women belong in the kitchen" kind of conservatives. He had been a republican and even served as something or another for Raegan. he switched parties to protect his ass from getting fired.

I do not like the guy.

The dems current chairman is a far left liberal. Nancy Pelosi is a far left liberal. Look at Ford JR running in Tennesee. A far left liberal. Look at Steve Kagen kicking John Guard's ass in Wisconsin. A far left liberal. 2 years ago demorats said "I'm against gay marriage" even though they voted to move the country in that direction. Now they come out and say it honestly. "we want equal rights with gays, not superior rights over them"

On taxes? what does our party say? higher taxes for the rich, not the middle class and raise minimum wage to help the poor. On war? Bring the troops home!

Our party is more liberal than it's ever been. Were just trying to sneak our liberalness under the radar while everybody is so distracted by Bush's inability to chew gum and walk at the same time.
 
dems winning congress will help dems. it takes a long time to shift the power of the house from one party to the next. Republicans have had congress for 12 years. Dems had it before that for so long nobody can even remember when republicans had it. we aren't winning the presidency in 2008, so we might as well have congress. It will take a long time for republicans to take back the house.

were even on the verge of taking the senate.
 
Spider-Bite said:
dems winning congress will help dems. it takes a long time to shift the power of the house from one party to the next. Republicans have had congress for 12 years. Dems had it before that for so long nobody can even remember when republicans had it. we aren't winning the presidency in 2008, so we might as well have congress. It will take a long time for republicans to take back the house.

were even on the verge of taking the senate.
I just want to see the Reps get handed their a$$. I'm tired of them and their President.

Has anyone else noticed that MSNBC is turning into FoxNews light?
 
LOL! What kind of BS spin article is this? Geez!

jag
 
comicgirl said:
I just want to see the Reps get handed their a$$. I'm tired of them and their President.

Has anyone else noticed that MSNBC is turning into FoxNews light?
Oh I don't know. I still like Hardball and Keith Olbermann. Tucker Carlson has gotten a little better since he left CNN and I find myself agreeing with SOME of what he says but he's still too conservative for me. I don't like Scarborough at all.

All in all I think MSNBC is more "Balanced" than most of them. IMO :yay:
 
jaguarr said:
LOL! What kind of BS spin article is this? Geez!

jag

NO, don't you see? if they lose they win!!!! what are you blind?
this is exactly what the republicans need.




:whatever::whatever::whatever::whatever::whatever::whatever::whatever:
 
Superman said:
Oh I don't know. I still like Hardball and Keith Olbermann. Tucker Carlson has gotten a little better since he left CNN and I find myself agreeing with SOME of what he says but he's still too conservative for me. I don't like Scarborough at all.

All in all I think MSNBC is more "Balanced" than most of them. IMO :yay:


That's Hardball With Chris Matthews and then later Countdown with Keith Olberman to be exact.

I swear I watch O'Reily on Fox all the time, specifically because I disagree with him. I disagree with Tucker a lot, but I have no beef watching the show, because the conversation flows both ways on the show. Someobdy else will come on and talk with him.

I don't judge a show based on the views of the reporter. Hardball is my favorite show on television, and Chris Matthews hardly even voices his own opinion. He just asks the right questions, that the politicians don't want to answer.
 
Maxwell Smart said:
This article really illustrates why the Democratic party sucks.

The ****ers need to learn what it means to be a liberal and back off from all this crap of trying to move to the right and being hazy on where they stand.

No that article illustrates why the Democratic Party sucks at the moment because after the 2004 election, they didn't take a bit of self-reflection, the continued on with their same tactic of "We're not Republicans," the only difference is that the Republicans have f**ked up so badly that it's working this time. This is going to bite them in the ass in 2008 if the Republicans do some self-reflecting.
 
Maybe this is why the Republicans are going to encourage voters to vote for Democrats? Brilliant!
 
This is why I hate political parties, the actual candidates, issues, platforms etc - all that matters is the donkey and the elephant :(

I could care less is Republicans lose the senate or the house - what I am worried about is a congress that would force the troops out of Iraq.
 
hippie_hunter said:
No that article illustrates why the Democratic Party sucks at the moment because after the 2004 election, they didn't take a bit of self-reflection, the continued on with their same tactic of "We're not Republicans," the only difference is that the Republicans have f**ked up so badly that it's working this time. This is going to bite them in the ass in 2008 if the Republicans do some self-reflecting.

there was nothing wrong with the democrats in 2004. they didn't simply rely on the "hate bush" motto. they clearly said what they stood for and what they wanted to do. fight poverty, repair our image, protect civil rights, balance the budget etc.

they reflected and said, hey that wont work at this point in time, so for this election in 2006 our motto will be "we aren't republicans" and it's a great plan. It's working. They are going to come out of this with a huge majority. Democrats don't suck at the moment. both parties always sucked.

And they will keep congress for a very long time just like they had before republicans took it in 94.
 
Spider-Bite said:
there was nothing wrong with the democrats in 2004. they didn't simply rely on the "hate bush" motto. they clearly said what they stood for and what they wanted to do. fight poverty, repair our image, protect civil rights, balance the budget etc.

The Demecrats had a clear message? They were trying to play both sides of the National Defense coin and failed. That is what got John Kerry in trouble. If the Kerry would of stuck with one plan on the War on Terror I have no doubt he would of won the election. He didn't and the rest is history.
 
Spider-Bite said:
there was nothing wrong with the democrats in 2004. they didn't simply rely on the "hate bush" motto. they clearly said what they stood for and what they wanted to do. fight poverty, repair our image, protect civil rights, balance the budget etc.
They didn't do a good job at repairing their image in 2004, both parties claim to fight poverty and protect civil rights (actually doing it is another matter on the other hand), and they certainly weren't going to balance the budget with John Kerry's health care plan and lack of plan to solve the upcomming social security crisis.

they reflected and said, hey that wont work at this point in time, so for this election in 2006 our motto will be "we aren't republicans" and it's a great plan. It's working. They are going to come out of this with a huge majority. Democrats don't suck at the moment. both parties always sucked.
"We aren't Republicans" is a terrible plan. It shows that they are not going out to earn the voters votes. The only reason why it's working is because the Republicans are being extremely incompetent right now.

They are certainly not going to win a large majority. I will tell you that. It is not going to happen, at the most, they are going to get a slim majority and Congress will remain as incompetent as ever.

The reason why I say at the moment, because maybe some day, they'll do some much needed self-reflection (which they should have done in 2004). This "We're not Republicans" strategy is going to bite them in the ass come 2008 if the Republicans do a self-reflection.

And they will keep congress for a very long time just like they had before republicans took it in 94.
Like I said, if the Republicans do a self-reflection, the Democrats slim majority is not going to last for a very long time. If the Republicans return to their smaller government, balanced budget, moral values, yadda, yadda origns along with taking a more moderate route (Rudy Gulliani, Lincoln Chaffe, Arnold Schwarzenegger, John McCain, Olympia Snowe, Susan Collins, John Warner, and others), the Democrats are going to get their asses handed to them around 2008/2010
 
StorminNorman said:
The Demecrats had a clear message? They were trying to play both sides of the National Defense coin and failed. That is what got John Kerry in trouble. If the Kerry would of stuck with one plan on the War on Terror I have no doubt he would of won the election. He didn't and the rest is history.

the reason kerry lost was because of gay marriage. when polled america said the issue that mattered most to them was moral values which translates to "we don't like gay people" If Kerry had originally voted against the Iraq war, he'd have lost his job and been replaced with somebody who would have voted for it anyways. If he had continued to support the invasion of Iraq he'd have lost by an even wider margin. And I don't doubt for a second that for the last year and half America has regretted electing Bush.

the election was very close. and in key swing states gay marriage was on the ballot helping to energize conservative voters in those states.
 
hippie_hunter said:
They didn't do a good job at repairing their image in 2004, both parties claim to fight poverty and protect civil rights (actually doing it is another matter on the other hand), and they certainly weren't going to balance the budget with John Kerry's health care plan and lack of plan to solve the upcomming social security crisis.

how about raising taxes? I wont deny kerry made a thousand false promises he wasn't going to keep. Like all poticiains he wasn't a hundred percent honest. you gots to see through it all. for the last half of the century every republican we have ever had has given us a deficit and every democrat we have ever had has given us a surplus. Republicans are practially open about their opposition to fighting poverty. They say it's not the government's job, that only socialistic and communist countries do that. They call it big bad government intervention. Why do you think the poverty rate went up and not down?

"We aren't Republicans" is a terrible plan. It shows that they are not going out to earn the voters votes.

double digit leads would suggest otherwise.
The only reason why it's working is because the Republicans are being extremely incompetent right now.

why is what makes it a good plan for this particular election. everybody with a brain knew that republicans weren't going to deliver anything worth our time, so they sat back and let them ruin themselves. I knew it was going to work right after the last election. I said to myself, if they do this, they will win. most voters can't comprehend a lot of stuff like this, so it doesn't do any good to talk about stuff that is over their heads. just let them see what republicans will give them, so they got nobody to blame but republicans. It worked. And it worked really well.

They are certainly not going to win a large majority. I will tell you that. It is not going to happen, at the most, they are going to get a slim majority and Congress will remain as incompetent as ever.

they have a huge lead in the polls. huge. and with each passing week the gap is growing. only like 30 something percent of the country is planning to vote for a republican in their district. They need 15 seats to win? I predict they win 25 or 30.

The reason why I say at the moment, because maybe some day, they'll do some much needed self-reflection (which they should have done in 2004). This "We're not Republicans" strategy is going to bite them in the ass come 2008 if the Republicans do a self-reflection.

It wont have any bearing in 2008. In the words of Tom Delay "it's not that dems don't know what they stand for. They do know. they just don't want the voters to know" we already know that in 08 we will have a republican president. they did what they had to do in order to get congress. I doubt anything else would have worked. This isn't going to cost them the presidency in 08 because they weren't going to have it anyways. This way at least they will have congress. this also gets them new faces to gain experience for a 2012 presidental run, without having to defend having voted for the Iraq war.

Like I said, if the Republicans do a self-reflection, the Democrats slim majority is not going to last for a very long time. If the Republicans return to their smaller government, balanced budget, moral values, yadda, yadda origns along with taking a more moderate route (Rudy Gulliani, Lincoln Chaffe, Arnold Schwarzenegger, John McCain, Olympia Snowe, Susan Collins, John Warner, and others), the Democrats are going to get their asses handed to them around 2008/2010
[/QUOTE]

actually when republicans elect a liberal or moderate republican that will de-energize their base severely. not to mention more and more states will allow gay marriage, and republicans will get blamed for not having the power to stop it. In 2012 we will have a liberal president and dems will still have congress probably for the next two decades.
 
Darthphere said:
Spin me like a record....

The fact that someone got PAID to write that Bizarro Logic piece is superultramegamindbogglingsupreme.

jag

bear
 
jaguarr said:
The fact that someone got PAID to write that Bizarro Logic piece is superultramegamindbogglingsupreme.

jag

bear



I want that job.
 
I think you forget how gongressional elections work. in 2008 there wont be so many open races like there are now. 99% of the time incumbents get re-elected. It's not very often that so many races don't have incumbents like this one, and it's very rare for the country to become so one sided like it is now as well.

republican politicains are getting blamed by right wing voters for gay marriage at this point in time, becuase they failed to ammend the constitution. It's not their fault, because it's almost impossible, but the right voters blame them. as more and more states allow gay marriage that will start helping demcortas get high approval ratings from their party, because the majority of dems support it. when dems bring home the troops that will also help us look good.

the reason for this landslide election is that republican voters are staying home, moderates are voting dem, and dems are voting dem.

republicans were never the party of family values in the first place. bieng anti- anything different does not automatically make you the party of family values. and for right now they are the exact opposite. Who does Bush think he is denouncing another man or woman's family? who do republicans think they are trying to outlaw another person's family?

and republicans wont ever return to lower spending becuase they will always take us to war which costs money.
 
Spider-Bite said:
how about raising taxes? I wont deny kerry made a thousand false promises he wasn't going to keep. Like all poticiains he wasn't a hundred percent honest. you gots to see through it all. for the last half of the century every republican we have ever had has given us a deficit and every democrat we have ever had has given us a surplus. Republicans are practially open about their opposition to fighting poverty. They say it's not the government's job, that only socialistic and communist countries do that. They call it big bad government intervention. Why do you think the poverty rate went up and not down?
A 1% increase is not dramatic like many tend to beleive.

double digit leads would suggest otherwise.
That's because the Republicans are f**king up. The Democrats are doing absolutely nothing to earn their votes. Nothing at all. And the fact that someone is even defending it is pathetic partisan hackery.

why is what makes it a good plan for this particular election. everybody with a brain knew that republicans weren't going to deliver anything worth our time, so they sat back and let them ruin themselves. I knew it was going to work right after the last election. I said to myself, if they do this, they will win. most voters can't comprehend a lot of stuff like this, so it doesn't do any good to talk about stuff that is over their heads. just let them see what republicans will give them, so they got nobody to blame but republicans. It worked. And it worked really well.
And just you wait, when the Democrats take Congress, Congress will still continue to be extremely incompetent, if not more.

they have a huge lead in the polls. huge. and with each passing week the gap is growing. only like 30 something percent of the country is planning to vote for a republican in their district. They need 15 seats to win? I predict they win 25 or 30.
That's because of Republican dumbasses doing stupid crap like saying "Macaca" and the "Eye of Mordor is not looking at America" or disgusting pedophiliac freaks having affairs with underage boys like Mike Foley or corrupt asshats like Tom DeLay and Duke Cunningham taking bribe money. The Democrats lead has nothing to do with their own efforts. It is an undeserved victory. And trust me, they are not going to win that many seats. At most they will 20, no more than 25, mark my words!

It wont have any bearing in 2008. In the words of Tom Delay "it's not that dems don't know what they stand for. They do know. they just don't want the voters to know" we already know that in 08 we will have a republican president. they did what they had to do in order to get congress. I doubt anything else would have worked. This isn't going to cost them the presidency in 08 because they weren't going to have it anyways. This way at least they will have congress. this also gets them new faces to gain experience for a 08 presidental run.
History says otherwise, that when the Republicans had major losses in the White House or Congress, they reinvigorated themselves and managed to either cut their losses or retake what they've lost within a time period of an election or two (1980 and 1994)

actually when republicans elect a liberal or moderate republican that will de-energize their base severely. not to mention more and more states will allow gay marriage, and republicans will get blamed for not having the power to stop it. In 2012 we will have a liberal president and dems will still have congress probably for the next two decades.
The Democrats will never hold the White House or Congress for two decades. They don't have the staying power the Republicans tend to have. However, I will also say that the Republicans are never going to hold Congress for two decades.
 
hippie_hunter said:
A 1% increase is not dramatic like many tend to beleive.

we should be aiming for a day when there is no poverty. it doesn't matter if it's 1% or a half a percent. making it go up is the opposite of fighting poverty. imagine if it kept going up.

And just you wait, when the Democrats take Congress, Congress will still continue to be extremely incompetent, if not more.
when the troops come home they will have high approval ratings.
That's because of Republican dumbasses doing stupid crap like saying "Macaca" and the "Eye of Mordor is not looking at America" or disgusting pedophiliac freaks having affairs with underage boys like Mike Foley or corrupt asshats like Tom DeLay and Duke Cunningham taking bribe money. The Democrats lead has nothing to do with their own efforts. It is an undeserved victory. And trust me, they are not going to win that many seats. At most they will 20, no more than 25, mark my words!

I think they might be desrving since they resist bribes more often.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"