If you were a Democratic strategist, wishing on next week...

[sterlingice]

(This thread is irregardless of what happens next Tuesday- I don't presume to know what will happen; this is more a hypothetical)

However, if you're a Democrat looking at the big picture (ok, stop laughing). Do you really want to take control of both houses? The problems out there right now (Iraq, disappearing middle class, etc) are not something that can be fixed in two years, particularly with Bush in the White House.

Certainly a lot can happen in 2 years and Presidential elections, particularly with an incumbent leaving, are a lot more about the candidates and their personality than the parties in charge. Still, every little bit helps, especially if you're the hapless blue staters. Do you really want whoever your candidate will be in 2 years saddled with "see, they had Congress and they did nothing"? We saw in the 80s and 90s when each party had bigger majorities and stronger leadership than now and they fought with an opposing President for everything.

I would think the best scenario for the Dems is to take back one chamber of Congress but not the other so that they can still block politically harmful issues as well as just play politics in general so as to help frame the question. However, there won't be significant ammunition for the GOP to attack them on "they were in charge and nothing changed". Then again, I'm not sure how much of a big deal that really is.

SI

[Peregrine]

Well when the Republicans are already saying flat out that if the Democrats win, the terrorists win, isn't that already a lot worse than "they didn't get anything done?" I don't think they're too worried about this. I doubt they will take control of the Senate, but if they do I'm sure they'll be glad to be able to control the nomination process for any Supreme Court justices.

[Bonegavel]

I think regardless of what is going on, you want your party to control things. In your example, should the dems take control, they should use the next 2 years to show the country why they should be elected again regardless of the problems.

[Butter]

No way the Dems are getting the Senate.

But I agree with what Bonegavel said. You have an opportunity at party control of either or both houses, you better try to seize it.

[albionmoonlight]

I doubt they will take control of the Senate, but if they do I'm sure they'll be glad to be able to control the nomination process for any Supreme Court justices.

That's the key. The Judiciary is becoming amazingly right-wing and deferential to executive authority. (The Harriet Miers debacle is instructive here. The GOP controlled both the Senate and the White House, but had their nominee shot down from the right.). As someone who beleives in the importance of indivdual liberty, and who beleives that an independent judicary is the best way to preserve that liberty, I really want to judges selected to be brilliant middle of the road thinkers.

Note: I don't want to threadjack here, but I just wanted to comment on the post.

[Peregrine]

I really want to judges selected to be brilliant middle of the road thinkers.


They have a name for this kind of judges - losers of elections. In any case, this is a good reason why non-partisan judicial elections should become nationwide.

[JonInMiddleGA]

In any case, this is a good reason why non-partisan judicial elections should become nationwide.

???

(I'm confused here, since I live in a non-partisan judicial election state but the likely party affiliations tend to be pretty obvious, so I'm not really seeing the gain from the non-partisan tag)

[sachmo71]

I would pray to god that John Kerry has his larynx removed.

[albionmoonlight]

???

(I'm confused here, since I live in a non-partisan judicial election state but the likely party affiliations tend to be pretty obvious, so I'm not really seeing the gain from the non-partisan tag)

Yeah. Non-partisan does not really work for anyone who is paying attention. All of the Republican candidates have signs that say "SMITH: Conservative." Not to hard to figure out what that means.

I guess the one area in which they might have an effect is preventing someone who pays no attention before the election from voting for judges based on a straight party ticket.

[Subby]

irregardless
OH NO YOU DI'INT!

[MalcPow]

It kind of depends who you are a democratic strategist for. Obama has made his name with eloquent speeches about how we are all Americans blah blah blah, and has positioned himself as a kind of uniting cross-party figure. If the Dems win the House, and Congress is split, and we have two more years of bickering idiocy and inaction, then '08 sets up nicely for Obama to stick to the same playbook of charisma and eloquence, and coming together as a nation to be all that we can be or some such. And Obama can win the Democratic primary, which is the major vulnerability of the right's "unifier," McCain.

Clinton is about as not this cross-party unifying character as anyone can be. Same with Kerry. Same with Gore. In many ways it's a more straightforward campaign for them if the Dems don't win the House as it's going to take more of a 'throw the bums out' push for them to get the votes. Polarizing characters need more polarizing circumstances to win elections, and a split Congress spreads some of the blame around making it difficult to run that kind of campaign.

So yeah, it really depends on who your horse is, all Dems are not the same in this case.

[timmynausea]

I'd think a Democratic strategist would be thrilled to gain control over both, not just because gaining power is the ultimate goal, but because of the perceived momentum the party would gain.

[SportsDino]

If they operate transparently, creating good legislation that Bush then vetoes out of spite, then in 2008 the Dems run on a platform of "Republicans are obstructing the best interests of the American people" and because they have a record of trying and being blocked, all the poop falls on the Republicans.

If they operate transparently, creating good legislation, that Bush does not block, and theoretically the country improves, the members on both sides that were the most notable for cooperation/policy making would look best, and the extreme ends of the parties would have a slightly harder time dealing with moderate opponents. In any case, both Dems and Republicans could win, depending on whether they were a help or a hindrance.

If they operate secretively, pushing out pork barrel incompetency like most political work in recent history, then does it really matter? The only difference between Dems and Reps is whether they wear a blue button or red button on election day in 2008.

As an independent, I'd be happy for the first or second, I don't mind giving credit to the Republicans or the Democrats when they actually do something worth praising. I do think that the Republicans have been abusive of the power they have been given in the past couple administrations. They were given the opportunity to "get their way", and instead of supporting some of the foundations of what the Republican Party supposedly stands for, they have instead chosen a path of pushing as much for their cronies and special interests as possible, at the expense of the American people and troops (regardless of your stance on the American war effort on Iraq you have to agree that the no-bid contract abuse of the supporting contractors, both for troop support and rebuilding efforts, is an unforgivable disrespect of the lives we have spent to invade and 'secure' the country of Iraq).

Hell, I would have been happy with just a strict implementation of the Contract with America, even though I don't agree with parts of it, at least its sticking to your guns and doing what you have decided is best for the country, not sneaking about and selling us out to campaign contributors.

So I really think the Dems should relish an opportunity to get in a power position, they have the chance to show they are worth it, but I must admit I doubt they'll live up to it.

[Toddzilla]

No way the Dems are getting the Senate.While I agree it is a longshot, it's much closer than you may think:

Of the 5 "tossup" states, Montana, Missouri, Tennessee, Virginia, and New Jersey, a Democrat leads in 3 (MT, VA, NJ) , a Republican leads in TN, and MO is a tossup. If those 5 states go as indicated, it is a 49-49 democratic majority, with MO the toss-up and CT going to Holy Joe Leiberman.

I think, however, that MO and VA will ultimately be carried by the GOP, which gives them a 51-48 majority plus Leiberman.

I wouldn't say No Way, but it's not very likely.

[Fighter of Foo]

If the Dems win big in the house, they'll take the Senate too. They're at worst a 60/40 underdog to do so.

[SFL Cat]

http://www.nationalledger.com/artman/uploads/irak.jpg

John Kerry......secret GOP operative? :D

[Grammaticus]

They have a name for this kind of judges - losers of elections. In any case, this is a good reason why non-partisan judicial elections should become nationwide.

I think this stinks. Very few people follow judicial decisions to actually know a judge's opinion on how they interpret the constitution. If you look at local elections where judges are voted in, all of them say they cannot give you their opinion on anything as they may have to rule on that someday in court. They all say they will uphold the constitution. Duh, but are you liberal or concervative as that will tell us how you will interpret the constitution.

I suppose if they had to get elected, the political parties would diligently tell everyone how the judges ruled on prior cases. But then you would have these nasty elections that everyone is complaining about now. It would also take away the supposed "influence" of appeasing voter to get elected rather than upholding the constitution. Whatever that means to that individual.

It actually works fairly well the way it was setup. Although it would be nice to see some of the judges that fail to follow the constitution, actually get impeached.

[SackAttack]

While I agree it is a longshot, it's much closer than you may think:

Of the 5 "tossup" states, Montana, Missouri, Tennessee, Virginia, and New Jersey, a Democrat leads in 3 (MT, VA, NJ) , a Republican leads in TN, and MO is a tossup. If those 5 states go as indicated, it is a 49-49 democratic majority, with MO the toss-up and CT going to Holy Joe Leiberman.

I think, however, that MO and VA will ultimately be carried by the GOP, which gives them a 51-48 majority plus Leiberman.

I wouldn't say No Way, but it's not very likely.

Since when is 49-49 a majority when you don't control the President Pro Tempore? ;)

[MrBigglesworth]

However, there won't be significant ammunition for the GOP to attack them on "they were in charge and nothing changed".
I think you have to win when you can and not worry about elections two years from now, when who knows what the situation will be. It's not like the GOP won't find another thing to attack the Dems on. Two years from now they will be blaming the Dems for losing the Iraq war. The House is almost a certainty at this point, and as someone else pointed out the Senate would be important for judicial reasons.

[Toddzilla]

Since when is 49-49 a majority when you don't control the President Pro Tempore? ;)I had to edit the post since I forgot about Holy Joe, and I forgot to take out that part :)

Actually, who knows what that guy is thinking? He *still* maintains he's going to caucus with the Democrats, but if the Senate goes 50-50, I'm sure the GOP will make it worth his while (i.e. committee positions) to go the other way.

I also think the Demogratic leadership has said they would NOT appoint Lieberman to any committee positions if he were to run independent against the winner of the primary (Lamont), so it remains to be seen if they follow through.