POINT: My prediction that the GOP would lose both the House and Senate has apparently come true. The House was a no-brainer, really; the Senate sure appears to be headed to a one-person Democrat majority. Obviously the Iraq War -- at least the way in which it's been handled -- was the big issue, and the Bush administration has but to look in the mirror for that popular discontent. This trickled down to vulnerable and semi-vulnerable House candidates. In addition, numerous scandals (Foley, Abramoff) tainted the Republicans. The GOP conservative base itself was miffed at their party for out-of-control spending and passive stances on illegal immigration, just to name two.
Oh -- and remember: Americans like divided government.
POINT: Democrats, who obviously will want the White House in '08, had better be careful, for lack of a better phrase, these next two years. Don't "overdo it." Potential impeachment hearings, tax hikes, Iraq defunding ... you'll blow your chance at the presidency. And God forbid there isn't another terror attack ...
POINT: Locally, the only conclusion I can come to is that Delaware voters really couldn't give a s**t. OK, maybe not overall, but at least regarding important statewide races like the Attorney General. In this most hotly contested race, voters elected Beau Biden over Ferris Wharton. This, despite there being light years of distance between the amount of experience the two have. In this race, it was akin to choosing a college professor and an 8th grader. Delaware elected the latter. And it really wasn't all that close: Biden won by over 5%.
Regarding local races, one main thought comes to mind: The "influence" of the local blogosphere and talk radio proved to be small to infinitesimal. Three of the local blogs which arguably covered local races the most thoroughly (and made strongly worded recommendations) -- Delaware Watch, Down With Absolutes and First State Politics -- proved to have virtually no effect. This is not a knock on these blogs by any means. As I commented elsewhere on a local blog (of all places!) Dana Garrett, Mike Matthews and Dave Burris deserve a ton of credit for highlighting issues and discussions which many would not even hear/know about had their blogs not existed. All three supported Ferris Wharton vociferously, and in the nuts and bolts of local House and Senate races, nothing at all changed except for one: John Kowalko defeated Stephanie Ulbrich in the 25th House district by 4%. The others?
Local talk radio proved similarly unpersuasive. WDEL pundits Rick Jensen and Gerry Fulcher were vociferously pro-Ferris Wharton, and outspoken on the need for the Delaware legislature to have "open government." Al Mascitti held similar views, and was also a supporter of Richard Korn. But again, what happened? Nothing. Only one close [local] race, where John Kowalko won.
I think people have to keep in mind that constituents in representative (and to a slightly lesser degree, senate) districts usually know their rep. (or senator) pretty intimately. If they consider him/her friendly and amiable, and pretty much agree with them on most issues, one (or even a couple) issues which others may deem important may not be viewed as such by the actual constituents. For instance, Gerry Fulcher on WDEL gave Wayne Smith a hard time about supposedly saying that his constituents don't care much about open government [that was heavily promoted by some local bloggers and talk radio pundits]. Wayne never said that. The point he was making was that he hadn't heard much, if anything, from his constituents about concerns that Delaware government was not open and that when asked, people were not bringing Senator Peterson's bill up as an issue but were talking about education, crime, the economy and the environment (and lately DNREC's yard waste ban).
PREDICTION: If the [recent] massive increase in electric rates didn't lead to a "clean sweep" -- or even a slight dust-busting -- in '06, the 2008 local election results aren't going to be much -- if at all -- different from yesterday's.
Nationally, I predict the Democrats will "overdo it" and this will lead to a Republican remaining in the White House and a retaking of the Senate in '08. The House, so far only an 11 person Democrat majority, will suffer some Dem. losses, but not enough for a GOP takeover. I agree with many bloggers today: The GOP lost the election yesterday, the Democrats did not win it.
PREDICTION 2: [Conservative] Talk radio and Fox News will see their ratings improve as the GOP now moves into minority status in the legislative branch. As Glenn Reynolds notes quoting Brian Maloney: "... the election results will be good for conservative talk radio, which thrives in opposition." Pundits like Keith Olbermann on MSNBC, whose ratings have been steadily climbing, will see declines.
OTHER NUGGETS:
And God forbid there isn't another terror attack ...
Meaning... ?
I think we all know that was a typo.
Posted by: Jake at November 8, 2006 04:23 PMTypo? Where? I'll get right on it.
Posted by: Hube at November 8, 2006 04:27 PMdan: Maybe I didn't put that phrase in the proper spot, but I thought the meaning is plain -- I don't trust the Democrats on the terror issue. If something happens, I fear they will hamstring the admin. in responding.
Posted by: Hube at November 8, 2006 04:30 PMOk. From the words leading up to it, it seemed like it could've meant "if there's another terrorist attack it'd blow the Dems' chance at the Presidency" -- because they'd be at fault for it. Didn't think you meant that, but just checking.
And as long the response is against the right people, nation, etc., the Dems wouldn't hamstring anyone.
Posted by: dan at November 8, 2006 06:16 PMLike in 1990, dan, when there were FAR more Dems onboard AGAINST ousting Iraq from Kuwait then there were Dems for ousting Saddam from Iraq in 2002? "Not hamstringing" like that, you mean?
But, I hope you're correct.
Posted by: Hube at November 8, 2006 06:26 PMSo... you're comparing the first Gulf War with the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, in terms of how the Democrats are likely to react?
If you're looking for a predictor of future behavior, might not a similar past scenario be a far better comparison? Mightn't it be a more apt analogy to compare a future terrorist attack with, say, one that already happened?
Consider the Democratic reactions (save one, I believe) to the invasion of Afghanistan -- that is to say, the correct and necessary response to the attacks?
Posted by: dan at November 8, 2006 11:12 PMA month into the Afghan War, many Democrat luminaries and their MSM friends were reminding us that Afghanistan was the graveyard of empires and declaring quagmire. You say that past behavior to a similar situation is the best indicator of future behavior. By that standard, Democrats have inevitably demonstrated a lack of resolve on national security.
Posted by: Jake at November 9, 2006 07:22 AMI'm sure you have some links to back that up.
Either way...."lack of resolve" vs. "utterly inept and misguided."
Guess we're screwed either way!
Posted by: dan at November 9, 2006 04:41 PMSo... you're comparing the first Gulf War with the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, in terms of how the Democrats are likely to react?
Wait -- what's this??? A liberal Democrat actually agreeing that Iraq had something to do with 9/11?? SAY WHAAAT?? Sorry for the sarcasm, but the point is that Iraq didn't have anything to do with 9/11, was well contained and Saddam a threat really to no one. Yet, many more Dems agreed to go to war in '02 than in '90 despite the fact that Saddam had invaded a sovereign country and threatened others, endangering the world's oil supply.
Posted by: Hube at November 9, 2006 04:51 PMI'm sure you have some links to back that up.
Happy to oblige. I know how hard it is for liberals to remember the autumn of 2001. From December 2001, an Instapundit round-up of individuals who were ready to chalk Afghanistan up as some degree of Vietnam with mountains. Blowhard John McCain made the list, but the rest are Democrats and their MSM enablers.
For the left, it doesn't matter where the war is, or if it has been waging a month or three-plus years. The lack of resolve is always the same.
Posted by: Jake at November 9, 2006 08:29 PM