A Democratic year?

Thank you, Mr. Lofquist for your common sense! Everyone seems to be getting hysterical. I don't know what's going to happen in November, but I doubt it's going to be a Dem landslide.

Spot On! I've turned the TV off, recognizing I know who I will vote for (holding my nose).

Of the Senate seats up for election in 2008, 23 are held by Republicans, 12 are held by Democrats. 5 Republicans are retiring and two Republican seats are held by appointees. Given these numbers, it would be impossible for Republicans to retake the Senate, even in a good year. I expect Democrats to make gains in the Senate. Remember, taking advantage of open seats and appointees was how the Republicans took the Senate in 1994.

Democrats will probably also gain in the House because Democrats have been much better at recruiting strong local candidates. That's why the Democrats won the three special elections. They recruited strong, moderate, candidates, who could win the districts.

The conventional wisdom is wrong about the Presidential race. McCain wins and wins big. Here's why:

1. November is a long way away, and Republicans have nowhere to go but up in the polls. Bush is a lame duck and the Republicans are out of power in Congress. They will have a hard time making any more mistakes.
2. McCain leads his party by 15-20 points. He is easily the most popular man in the GOP. If the Republicans can merely crawl out of the electoral basement, McCain wins easily.
3. The electoral college map favors McCain. (Hillary's case against Obama) Obama can run up the score in cities and college towns, but that won't win him the states he needs to win.
4. McCain has the support of 15-20% of Democrats. Obama has the support of 5% of Republicans. In contrast, Bush and Kerry each had the support of about 10% of members of the opposite party.
5. Too many Democrats, especially those associated with the Obama campaign, are betting against US Military success. George B. McClellan had Lincoln beat in the summer of 1864 on a platform of ending the war. A few Union victories later, Lincoln won in a landslide.
6. Democrats are not good at winning Presidential elections. Since the Civil War, only four Democrats have won a majority of the popular vote: Samuel Tilden, who won the popular vote, but lost the electoral college in 1876; FDR, who did it four times; LBJ in 1964; and Carter, who managed slightly over 50% against Ford in 1976. All other Democratic Presidents were elected on pluralities.

I predict a 1988 sized victory for McCain.

I sure I have hope you are right! Your Charisma sure makes me want to believe that History will guide us to the country we love that allows us to cling to our guns and religion.

Let us hope you are right. I think the Republicans have lost sight of their mission but perhaps they are getting the message? I know one thing, the democrats would be a utter disaster for this nation. Obama with a majority would usher in a era of economic demise and government growth we can ill afford. I only wish McCain was anything but a RINO.

I hope you are right. An Obama Presidency would be bad news for the country. Although I am no fan of Sen. McCain, at least one voice saying No! to Pelosi would be nice. How many times will he be saying no remains to be seen.

From your lips/pen to God's ears!

You mean Carter beat Ford in '76, right? Otherwise, some excellent points.

Carter beat Ford in 76, not 80. But, I hope you are right.

This election will be a repeat of 2006, the only difference being the Presidency. Republican leaders do not want to lead, they are content being in second. Why? Beats me.

Sir,

1. Carter defeated Ford in 1976, not in 1980.

2. You are certainly correct, barring any gaffes or surprises this election is McCain's to lose.

I hope your right...but what about the Repubs losing those special elections...not to mention all the "rebranding" garbage that GOP bigwigs are spouting. Plus all that cash the democrats have raised and the fact that they are motivated to take back the white house and congress.
What do we have...??? McCain??? He's busy talking to Michelle Obama about a cabinet position and getting Keith Olberman as his vp canditate...to ya know...reach across the isle to the psychotic section of the democratic party...
I'm just sayin'

You are a wise man. It would be interesting to hear you talk about politics with Rush and Bob Grant.

Clinton won in 1992 with 43%, not 37%. Bush got 37%. Perot got most of the rest.

It looks like a Democratic year to me. McCain may hold the presidency for the Republicans because he is a very odd Republican who appeals to a very broad range of people, but all the polls say that the Democrats will make further gains in the House and Senate and I don't think they have a bad track record at forecasting elections.

Thanks for something positive in this regard.

I am not happy about it but will vote RINO over Democrat and pray you are correct about what the rest of America does.

Mr Lofquist may be right but he assumes most Americans are capable of logic and reason. Thanks to our dumbed down, PC, multicultural Democrat NEA run public education, America is a nation of lemmings representated by a gang of left wing criminal Democrats and RINOs. It will take an extreme national disaster to wake up America and by then it may be too late.

Dream on - It will unarguably be a liberal year - even if the victor has an "R" behind his name.

I think I know why the CW is so baseless. For years, the liberal power struture in this country have been waiting with baited breath for their incubating eggs to hatch. The eggs being the indoctrinated youth. And they think that these youth are ready and willing to vote.

Oh Lordy I hope you are right! Although I don't have much faith in the Republicans right now either. If there was a sane choice on the independent ticket, for once, I just might jump this year. But the thought of Hillary Clinton or B. Hussein Obama in the White House is quite nauseating...come to think of it...so is the thought of John McCain.

I believe Carter beat Ford in 1976 and Reagan beat Carter in 1980.

I agree with this comment 100%. In fact, I think that Congress is really RIPE FOR THE PICKING. That's right, The GOP COULD pick up seats if they got their act together. With Congressional approval ratings near single digits lows, a GOP with it's act together could win back a good chunk of what it lost. Now take a look at the seats the Republicans have lost. a good number of them were lost because, now hold onto your hats, kids, the Democrats were running as CONSERVATIVES. That's right kids, many of these Congressional seats were lost because the man with the "D" after his name was running the the right of his repiublican counterpart. The problem is that once they get into Washington, Pelosi and Reid strap muzzles and choke collars on these rookie congressman and tell them to tow the line, or else. First of all, the GOP needs to tell voters that while these Democrats may SEEM for be conservative, once they get to Washington, they'll be muzzled and forced to tow the leftist party line, that they need to take on a platform of TRUE conservatism, low taxes and controlled spending, and you'd find that people will buy into it. Hey, people booted out the republicans this past time for a) arrogance and a few corrupt politicians b) out of control spending and c) the perceived economy. However ,the GOP still needs to wake up, stop acting like Democrats and head their heads out of their posteriors. But this CAN be done.

There is much hand wringing about McCain but he brings forward two important issues, issues important to the voters security and spending. I part with him on global warming and partially on immigration(more complex issue than a sound bite or two) but I sure trust him a lot more on the security issue. Everyone is responding to American's concerns but in reality when the details of government action to ameliorate those concerns are known, Democrats lose. I am now of an age where I have no choice, Medicare it is for me. That is a typical Democrat plan, a 100% solution to a 30% problem. Republicans including GWB screwed things up pretty badly in terms of individual liberty. GWB did so trying to co opt the Dems on their ground, always a mistake and by being too loyal to folks who served him very poorly. The Congressional Republicans got in bed with K Street. If we are to retake the Congess it will be through tough primary fights knocking off a couple of the old bulls. These old bulls are no different than those of the other party, they stand for nothing except holding office because they know elsewhere they are worthless. Retaking COngress will take a lot of change in personnel.

we're just hearing from the democrats. i highly doubt true republicans would honestly support the far left liberal policies the democrat party has embraced.

i also doubt the moderate democrats are happy to see their party swing so far to the left as well.

Roy,
I would very much like to believe you, but I don't for the following reasons:
1)Bush campaigned twice as a conservative before fecklessly growing government by at least a third and buying into environmentalist fear mongering on warming--As Peggy Noonan has opined, he has broken the coalition and allowed the blue-bloods in Congress to break the bank.
2) McCain is a RHINO with more in common with Scoop Jackson than Reagan. The only people he excites are the moderate middle. The base, ignorant for the most part of the Stalinist resurgence lurking beneath the Obama campaign (see excellent recent articles by Kyle-Anne Shiver in AT and NRO) is apt to stay home or choose Bob Barr as a protest vote. You alluded to Ross Perot's impact on electing Clinton--could be much worse in '08.
3) The RNC is clueless and the current flock of hens in Congress is feckless. They stand for nothing and have no brand identification to peddle. They are liberal's writ small and therefore will be slaughtered by Ninny Pelosi and Shmuckie Schumer's insurgents masquerading as Blue-Dogs (a la Joe Sestak and Jim Webb).

Roy,
I would very much like to believe you, but I don't for the following reasons:
1)Bush campaigned twice as a conservative before fecklessly growing government by at least a third and buying into environmentalist fear mongering on warming--As Peggy Noonan has opined, he has broken the coalition and allowed the blue-bloods in Congress to break the bank.
2) McCain is a RHINO with more in common with Scoop Jackson than Reagan. The only people he excites are the moderate middle. The base, ignorant for the most part of the Stalinist resurgence lurking beneath the Obama campaign (see excellent recent articles by Kyle-Anne Shiver in AT and NRO) is apt to stay home or choose Bob Barr as a protest vote. You alluded to Ross Perot's impact on electing Clinton--could be much worse in '08.
3) The RNC is clueless and the current flock of hens in Congress is feckless. They stand for nothing and have no brand identification to peddle. They are liberal's writ small and therefore will be slaughtered by Ninny Pelosi and Shmuckie Schumer's insurgents masquerading as Blue-Dogs (a la Joe Sestak and Jim Webb).

I have been waiting for someone to say what you said. I believe the demos hate the Clintons who discraced the oval office and the whole administration with their antics. When Hillary loses the nomination I think upon running for her re election Senate seat in N.Y. I think she will lose big. The Demos want the Clintons out of office completely. And this is their chance to do it. Rosalie Gau Sacramento ca.

While I hope the author is correct, I have seen nothing from the Republicans to suggest a theme upon which to campaign,, much less an agenda.

This is shaping up to be our first European-style election, pitting the Socialists against Socialist Lite.

If Republicans want to lose an election, being like the opponent, but not quite as much, is a sure-fire way to accomplish that.

When the Republicans (1) have a coherent, well-articulated theme like the Contract With America and (2) present a conservative agenda that illustrates the differences between them and the Democrats, they win.

When Republicans follow the theme, "Forget about us, our opponents are even worse," they lose. As they should.

Which Republicans are we going to see this fall? So far, it has been too much of the latter and not nearly enough of the former.

While I hope the author is correct, I have seen nothing from the Republicans to suggest a theme upon which to campaign,, much less an agenda.

This is shaping up to be our first European-style election, pitting the Socialists against Socialist Lite.

If Republicans want to lose an election, being like the opponent, but not quite as much, is a sure-fire way to accomplish that.

When the Republicans (1) have a coherent, well-articulated theme like the Contract With America and (2) present a conservative agenda that illustrates the differences between them and the Democrats, they win.

When Republicans follow the theme, "Forget about us, our opponents are even worse," they lose. As they should.

Which Republicans are we going to see this fall? So far, it has been too much of the latter and not nearly enough of the former.

As for Bubba's point: The Republicans can no longer credibly note how the Democrat that seems conservative will not be allowed to be conservative in Washington. Why? Because Republicans have been doing the same thing to their conservatives.

I will NOT vote for Juan McNutt if the Hilda Beast gets the nod from the Dems, O-Bom-Ba, he scares me, I'd have to pull the lever for Juan and then run outside and Up Chuck!

Very Depressing!

Carter beat Ford in 1976, not 1980. And even then, had Ford not immediately pardoned Richard Nixon (the right decision in hindsight) he might have won election to a full term. Another theory holds that Carter's support was steadily eroding and Ford was slow to find his voice. Ford needed just a few more weeks of campaigning to overtake Carter and save the country from the nightmare that was the next four years.
A similar story might be written about 2008 in the wake of a McCain loss, which is not at all unlikely.

Heres a simple truth. I will never vote for a Democrat! I will hold my nose and vote for McCain, like every other thinking adult in America!

Thank you all very much for your comments. I will attempt to address most of them.

First, the factual errors have been corrected by Mr. Lifson.

My points are based on history. Our politics have been remarkably stable since the founding. We have seen long periods where one of the parties has dominated. We are slow to change. The Constitution was written with this as its primary goal, according to the Federalist Papers.

Most people are lead astray by what they hear. Two apocryphal quotes illustrate:

Lady to Adlai Stevenson: "All the smart people are going to vote for you.". Stevenson: "That won't be nearly enough.".

New York lady: "I can't believe Nixon won. Nobody I know voted for him.".

Why do people vote the way they do? Many studies show that party affiliation is determined, in descending order, by: Parents; Family; Friends; Church; Coworkers; Social Clubs and least: Media and reason. That's just the way it is. A Republicans couldn't get elected dog catcher in the South for 100 years after the Civil War.

Why do people vote for the other party? Either they perceive their party's candidate as "radical" or they have reasoned that their party allegiance is in error. The former will usually switch back like the Reagan Democrats. The latter will switch permanently and rarely switch back.

Thus, I base my comments on a history that is remarkabl consistent. The anomalies occured because of extraordinary events.

As to this election, Obama is far too liberal to get elected. He is also anti-war. This didn't sell during Vietnam when the casualties were much higher, there was a draft and people didn't believe that the war was a national interest. The best rational was the "Domino Theory". There is his association with a radical church, a terrorist and an indicted associate.

I think this adds up to a big win for McCain. Many Democratic insiders are shaking in their boots in fear of what Obama might mean for the down-ticket candidates.

I hope that this clarifies my original letter. Again, thank you for your comments.

Regards,

Roy

'JFK and Nixon tied in the popular vote, even though Nixon was extremely unlikeable.'

Nixon wasn't unlikeable at all. If he was, he wouldn't have won any election. JFK won in 1960 because the votes from Illinois were falsified. Even then, he won 4 states less than Nixon (22 vs 26).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election%2C_1960

Ford also won more states than Carter, and lost by a slim margin to the then-governor of Georgia. He would've won hadn't he misspoken about Poland being 'free' from the USSR in 1976.

Goldwater wasn't a radical. It was just that LBJ stole the hearts of Americans because of his socialist 'Great Society' promise.

Dear Mr. Mazurak,

In response:

"Nixon wasn't unlikeable at all. If he was, he wouldn't have won any election."

I witnessed that election. Nixon was known as "Tricky Dick". The media despised him more than they currently despise Bush. Conventional wisdom has it that Nixon's "5 o'clock shadow" in the first presidential TV debate cost him dearly. Yes, there was skullduggery in Chicago. Nixon chose not to contest it. He felt that it wouldn't be good for the country. What a contrast with Gore!

"Ford also won more states than Carter, and lost by a slim margin to the then-governor of Georgia."

Yes, it was a narrow loss. I think his handling of the Mayaguez incident was much more damaging than the comment about Poland. My point is that Dems only seem to win when extraordinary events occur.

"Goldwater wasn't a radical."

He most certainly was! From the Encyclopedia Britannica: " in politics, one who desires extreme change of part or all of the social order". Radical does not always mean left-wing. They told me that if I voted for Goldwater we would end up in a terrible land war in Asia. I did and we did.

Regards,

Roy

I would feel better about McCain's chance's of victory, if he didn't seem so determined to win the Democratic Nomination! You noted how GHWB lost to Clinton because of a 3rd party challenge. It would seem the risk to McCain is 10 greater given his stances on both global warming and immigration.

Is it just me, or are we looking at the 3 worst candidates to run for President since.... Well, since I don't know when! None of these people seem to be qualified for the job.....

Although we have had long periods where one party has dominated, there is usually a break in the middle to let both sides catch their breath.
Thirty six years of Democratic control beginning in 1933 was broken by Eisenhower's eight years.
Republicans dominated presidential politics for almost fifty years after the Civil War but Grover Cleveland broke it up twice. Even periods of one-party dominance are not an unbroken string. The American people like to keep both parties on their toes. It keeps us free.

Dear Mr. Dugger,

There were three significant third parties in the 20th century: Teddy Roosevelt's Bull Moose, George Wallace and Ros Perot. They all caused the side that they were closer to to lose.

I see no chance of a 3rd party in this election. The semi-successful three mentioned took a couple of years to build.

As to immigration and global warming:

McCain knows that these issues will be resolved by Congress. The President has only the veto power to change what they decide.

On global warming, McCain does not want to have this as an issue in this election. He is using the Bush playbook by agreeing with the opposition when it doesn't matter to kick the can down the road.

As to the 3 worst candidates, wait until you've been around a while. You'll see worse. I know I have.

Regards,
Roy

"I see no chance of a 3rd party in this election"

I am going to be optimistic and pull the lever for our troops and their mission which means I am blackmailed into voting McCain however, there is already a third party created by McCain-Feingold called the Soro Billionaire 527's Party and Obama is their candidate du jour.

Now this would be the irony of all ironies, McCain is defeated by his very own McCain-Feingold.

I do hope McCain is prepared to get down and dirty becaseu he has $100's of millions of nasty Hollywood/Moveon.org coming his way; the Left is vicious and 'by any means necessary' is their main mantra.

A lot of thoughtful comments. I tend to agree with Mr. Lofquist, I wouldn't bet against history. But I disagree that McCain is a poor choice, in fact he was my choice in 2000. One cannot deny his experience in both the military and foreign relations. The rest is of far less importance until specific nomination are made. Commonsense will prevail. Obama's far from mainstream American thought and while we never could agree to the perfect candidate, McCain is unquestionably closest to mainstream America. One historical fact Mr. Lofquist does not mention is that the preponderance of presidents since the founding of the Republic have had significant military experience. But few that I can think of have had the experience quite like John McCain. Come November the war in Iraq will be winding down, the economy is already showing some signs of improvement and as unpopular the polls are rating GW, the simple fact he is still at least 10% or more favorable than congress. A couple of more gaffs from Obama should seal his fate and another from the likes of Pelosi, such as her statement that Iran won the battle for Basra, should open the eyes of most Americans. One cannot define just how much resentment exists among Democrats in regards to how the DNC ran their nominating process, my own feelings is that it is substantial. Democrats are making a lot of noise about signing up so many new voters, particularly college students and African Americans. Getting them to the polls in November may be quite a different chore.

Lets see Obama or RINO, DUH.
I'm forced to choose RINO, because guitar singing Huckleberry's (decision that His religion was better than any others Mr. Rommey's and the countries decision to not want a Real Conservative. Then Guilliani just melted away in the heat of battle (we're lucky he wasn't a General in charge of an important war for example. Of couse there was Ron Paul- the mirrored twin of Ralf Nader cum Bob Barr. I could go on and on but the joke is really on us Conservatives im not sure of the out come but,hope for McCain. Republicans are not suppose to speak bad of our choice(s), but, Obama/Pelosi/Reid/Kennedy/Shulmer guarantees me voting for RINO, but, it's Obama who will get us all killed.
All conservatives must make a pledge to vote in November with better vitality and swear to turn back to true conservatism or leave the party. It's really that simple guns/prayer/secure border and drill our own oil - no amnisty and a tight fiscal policy(s). Am I the only one who continues to see instutional marxism/socialism/communism marching in and not by the back door or in dark rooms?
How can common sense laws not be common sense as long as they are not made of new cloth of Our Constitution. OBAMA will be played like a marionette.