Election Results

This comment by Instapundit's Glenn Reynolds sums up my feelings:

The message for the Republicans -- and the Democrats -- is that they need to do much better. The GOP, as I noted before, made a number of "unforced errors" that took them from a strong to a weak position -- not because they spent political capital, but because they squandered it. They were too busy stuffing their pockets and taking their base for granted, and -- whether or not they lose big or lose small -- they could have done beter, without sacrificing any of their principles, if they'd had a bit more self-restraint.

Meanwhile, the Democrats, even if they take both houses, will have to actually discover some governing principles -- and if they'd had those on display, they'd be running away with this election right now.

I'll do a round-up on German reactions (not too hard to predict) later.

Comments

[Alexandru Voicu]

Lieberman kept his seat. Yay!

[Scott_H]

The US mid-term election has been the lead story on the radio today in Bavaria -- even relegating the BenQ scandal, I mean story (involving {gasp} layoffs in Germany), to second place.

My wife asked, "So, what does this mean." I replied, "Most likely, nothing."

[James W.]

I think I pretty much have gotten a taste of what to expect from the German media by watching the news on RTL, ARD, and a few others over the last couple of weeks. Hell, even Rush Limbaugh made news by way of a 4-5 second video clip taken out of context from his Ditto-Cam--you know the Michael J. Fox thing. As usual, Limbaugh's clip was left to stand without a chance for rebuttal, and, of course, a professional was brought in to speak on behalf of Fox--all fair and balanced (yeah right).

There seemed to be so much joy in the German msm when reporting on the probability that BUSH would lose the majority in 1 or (hopefully?) 2 houses of Congress. All the reports that I had seen were laced with the "horrors" of Iraq--no mention of anything positive about Republicans, nor anything negative about Democrats. It's truly sickening to watch. Now, it seems there dreams have come true. I think I will just leave the TV shut off.

Of course, historically speaking, the Democrat win is not that impressive. George Bush is only one of three presidents (the only Republican) to gain seats during the midterm elections since the Civil War. The typical loss of House seats during a two-term presidency is about 65 or 67(?--correct me if I'm wrong). The Dems will be lucky to get 50% of that--and this in the 6th year of a 2-term presidency, during a war effort that's been, in my eyes, bashed by a MSM that's in cahoots with the Democrat party. If this is all the Dems can muster, then perhaps they are the party that's truly in trouble.

Now, we get to enjoy the next 2 years hearing the Dems call for investigations on the Administration, and my money is on an attempt to impeach Bush.

I believe things will get corrected in '08.

[Dan Kauffman]

The AVERAGE results of a 6 year, second term bielection since World War Two has been
about 30 seats in the House and 6 in the Senate to the Party out of Power. There are some races too close to call if the Democrats take all of them, they will end up with the aveage results.

You are correct about Bush's first term bielection results.

Arnold did take CA by storm ;-)

All this would be moot, if the wording of the 14th Amendment called for a Census of Citizens, instead of People, the Non-Citizen count which INCLUDES
Illegal Aliens gives the Democratic Party about 20+ Seats in the House they would not have otherwise.

Illegal immigrants shouldn't be counted in Census

[Pamela]

Yuck.

Well, it was expected. Did the Republicans deserve it? Yes. But I didn't.

For non-U.S. people here trying to figure out what happens now:

Too soon to tell. Two Senate seats are still too close to call. If the Republicans keep the Senate, we're looking at 2 years of gridlock. If they don't, well.....

[joe]

Actually the results are probably very good for the US and very bad for euroland. Good for the US as now the demos are going to have to step up and assume both responsibility and accountability.

Bad for euroland possibly in lots of ways. There will be a push for more support in the WOT. This will put NATO into play more than the members of the chocolate summit might want. The WTO will be at risk because the demos really are protectionist. You think the demos are going to allow Boeing to be at a disadvantage to EADS when two demo strongholds – WA and IL are home to Boeing. Don’t think so.

And of course last but not lease we have Iraq with a subset called Gitmor. I am sure the euros think Iraq will be less of a threat to them if the US were to withdraw. I kind of like that thinking myself.

Let us assume the demos lay the ground work for everything the euros want. The things off the table will be the ICC, Kyoto and a seat for Germany on the UNSC but in the big picture those are really minor, I think we can all agree. The question becomes “Will euroland be more prosperous and safer place, now?”

[WhatDoIKnow]

One thing is going to change, especially if the Democrats take the Senate as well. The tone of the American MSM will be quite different. If the economy and employment continue to do well, the tone will be much more positive, since the Democrats will be able to get at least some credit for that.

In the late 90's the newspapers were full of praise for the Democrats' handling of the good economy. News sections were upbeat and editorial sections were exuberant. In today's Republican good economy, news sections are cold and factual and editorial sections are critical of the economy. If Democrats get the Senate, that will change.

[James W.]

Thanks for the correction, Dan.

Now, I know where I got this from. Many may consider Ann Coulter over-the-top, but I don't doubt her numbers:

"This means that for Democrats simply to match the historical average gain for the party out of the White House during the first and second midterm, they would have to pick up 67 seats in the House and 11 seats in the Senate. They're about 30 Mark Foleys short of having that happen."

Oh great! It's now open season on Rumsfeld.

[neocon]

@JamesW:
Investigations, I'm sure.
But for impeachment, I think the dems don't have enough control of the Congress.

Anyway, I think it was all about Iraq, and this doesn't go well. We are not losing, but not winning either. It is like a stalemate.
Too bad about Santorum (I guess there are other fine men out there who lost, too)

Is it true that Bush was avoided by many republicans these days? That is what M$M said...

What do you think about a third party?
I'm sure that the republican position on issues like war, immigration was not the best. But many republicans did not wanna contradict Bush about that, I guess.

I do not understand why Europe is happy about that (the terrorist will be more audacious now, I would say, including Europe, the economy will not go better, and Europe needs a strong US, etc...)

On the other hand, the people get more and more ignorant, I think. It is not important what the politicians stand for, just the "image", the "charisma" and the rhetoric. Pathetic...

[Pamela]

Hi neocon,

My husband is a lobbyist and I work for/with him so we are deeply involved with the people and the individual contests. And we have sources that don't have websites. This early in the game, I can tell you there were 4 issues:

1. Iraq
It has been widely reported - accurately - that the American people are unhappy with the prosecution of the war. Unfortunately what has not been reported is the WHY. What we see is that about 65% think the war has not been prosecuted aggressivley enough (Fallujah should have been leveled after the contractors were killed, Muqtada al-Sadr is still breathing why? But the only thing the polls say is that people are 'unhappy' with the war in Iraq.

2. Immigration

The Republican base is absolutely divided on this. ICE (Immigration Control and Enforcement) has been targeting agricultural producers, raiding their farms. It's not just in the states that border Mexico - it's in upstate NY (for example) also. If you are a farmer that has hired a worker who is here legally, but has brought the family here illegally, when the ICE raids happen what do you do? You leave.
There are thousands of acres in NY (and California) that lost crops because there was no one to harvest them. Just among our clients alone, we've had 3 farmers in the last 3 months just call it quits.

In one district we work with, we finally got the Congressman to meet with ICE. ICE opened the books to show that all but 2 of their raids were in response to criminal activity that the local law enforcement had called them in for help.

Unfortunately, one of the raids noted as such was against one of our farmer clients. There was no criminal activity. ICE just raided the place at 3 in the morning.

BUT: If you are a businessman in one of the border states, the problem looks completely different. So, the base is divided and members of Congress got a severe case of whiplash. They really did not know whether to shit or go blind.

3. Fiscal discipline.

This administration has spent my money like a drunken sailer. Period

4. Corruption

This isn't just Jack Abramoff. A very good friend of ours (we thought) who was a Republican Congressman from Pennsylvania ran around on his wife with some woman who looks like a two dollar whore dressed up for a ten dollar rodeo. She claimed physical abuse, blah blah blah. He apparently settled for about half a million. Really. I adore his staff, but even they can't stand the man anymore. Why should the voters?

Too bad about Santorum

In the sense of the numbers for the Republicans, it is indeed too bad. But let me tell you, all Christian/family values posturing aside. Rick Santorum treated people like shit - including his constituency. Every client we have that ever met with him came away with one word. 'Asshole'. And don't get me started on his staff.

Is it true that Bush was avoided by many republicans these days?

Not many but some.

[neocon]

Hi Pamela
Thx for the infos
And I must say that I admire you ;)
About the war, this is something I don't get either. If what you say is true (the 65% saying the military wasn't aggressive enough), it's insane to vote democrat, who will shout as loud as possible "pull out". Even if the president decides in matters of external politics.
I didn't know that there are illegals who are sent back at all.
But as far as I know, Bush didn't want to do anything about the illegals (and there are more than 10 million), not to mention the open-border Nancy.
As about Santorum, tell me, I want to know. Two radio hosts that I listen almost daily to (Dennis Prager and Michael Medved) seem to appreciate the guy. But if you got something that says otherwise, shoot, I want to know it

[joe]

Well one thing for sure the economy will get a lot better now that the demos are back in power. I am sure in every M$M news cycle there is going to some glowing report about how well things are going.

[neocon]

:) that's right, Joe
What about a new party? (Lieberman could be a beginning)
Do you think it's a good idea? I personally do

[Pamela]

neocon
it's insane to vote democrat, who will shout as loud as possible "pull out"

First of all you need to understand that people vote in local elections. Yes, Rick Santorum and Don Sherwood (he of the two dollar whore fame) support the war but at the local level, their voters bailed. I don't have any stats to back this up, so this is simply my personal opinion. We have not been attacked on our soil since 9/11, so voters aren't evaluating their vote on the national/homeland security level but on the local level. At that level, those representatives failed their voters. Santorum because he's a jerk and Sherwood because...well.

I don't listen to radio but I read Dennis Prager and I like him very much. Rick Santorum embodied every value the right holds dear. And it can be argued that he voted as such (there is an undercurrent here about him and Spector - another post) but the bottom line is that as a person - one-on-one - he sucks.

I don't know how to explain this to non-U.S. people. Our elected officials - Senate or House - have local offices that anybody can walk into. And we expect service. Constituent service will get you re-elected every time. Mostly. I have some examples where it failed.

Jim Moran, that useless SOB, has an office about 2 miles from my house. Anyone can walk in and spill their guts. It is my impression - correct me if I'm wrong - that in Europe this is not the case. Your elected officials are really not accessible.

We see our elected officials at the grocery store and throw fruit at them.

(guilty on that count - ahem

[Mike H.]

neocon a third party has been tried twice in recent history, an anti-war party during Vietnam (I forget the name) and Ross Perot's party. Neither of them did well at all, although Clinton was the beneficiary of the Ross Perot effort.

As for your observation that it was senseless for the electorate to vote for the Dems if they wanted an agressive pursuit of the war. We (in the aggregate) are a bunch of self centered cowards. The Dems will utilize a number of time tested methods of running from Iraq and responsibility. The congress will de-fund the war (that includes the war on terror, not just Iraq) and turn it back into a criminal investigation. They will stall the appointments of high level administration replacements of Rumsfeld et al. Remember that they still have to totally discredit Bush so they can take power in 2008. This what we voted for this time and we obviously had an eye toward the future or we wouldn't have voted the way we did.

[Pamela]

Sorry neocon, forgot to address this:
But as far as I know, Bush didn't want to do anything about the illegals (and there are more than 10 million), not to mention the open-border Nancy.

Bush did but he got it wrong. Illegals are being sent back all the time. But we call it 'catch-and-release' - they come right back.

The absolute fundamental problem is that a huge part of this economy is fueled by immigrant labor. No one knows how much of it is illegal (And the Pew study that everyone uses to justify 10-12 million number is bullshit - the statistical method uses 'residuals' which in plain English means "scientific wild ass guess").

I've met tons of these people - all from South/Central America. Nobody is asking why these people are fleeing. Our son and his wife married relatively late in life and could not have biological children. But we are now grandparents. Our beloved Alex was born in Guatemala. And there is a huge push in Guatemala to stop the whole industry. Apparently, women are having babies just in order to sell them to American adoptive parents.

We can talk about immigration, illegal or otherwise until the cows come home. But none of this addresses the current fundamental problem - failed states in South/Central America.

[neocon]

@pamela
I do understand that this was a local election.
And yes, I still think the most people voted that way because of Iraq, and not because of the program of the candidates. And I am sure many democrats (more than republicans) don't stand for anything - Hillary being the best example.
Why do I think it was about Iraq?
1) Immigration- if the republicans didn't do anything, the democrats will do even less than that
2) Spending - no doubt Nancy will raise taxes and will be in favor of more spending
3) Economy- won't be better under Nancy in 1000 years
Only Iraq is left.

As about the illegals, when I said "didn't do anything" I actually meant "securing the border". Failed states in Latin America is not a american problem. But keeping them from entering the country illegaly is.
If we have a look at Nicaragua, Mexico or Venezuela, this is what the people want (presidents). Can you change that?

@mike h
not an "anti-imperialist" party, that wouldn't solve much ;)
but the people who think the republicans won't represent them anymore
there are several issues where they failed.
I forgot "trying to be less dependent on the arab oil", where the republicans don't seem to want to change much

So you are saying that people still have the Ross Perrot image when they think about a third party and say that it's not worth it?
On the other hand, such a thing would take time, of course.

Well, interesting point, thanks ;)

[Pamela]

Reading my and Mike H's posts may give European readers a taste of the diversity of opinions. What a hoot.

To let you know just how mercurial - and thoroughly pissed - American voters can be, I refer you to Daniel J. Flood

I know about this guy for only one reason. He rep'd the district that was home to my first husband [no, I don't collect them, please piss off].

This area of Pennsylvania has tons of people of slavic origin. That means they had relatives behind the Wall. If you wanted a family member granted asylum status in the U.S., Flood got it done (in the interest of full disclosure - Teddy Kennedy was a big part of this). He was amazing.

He never asked for thanks. He never asked for your vote.

But one thing you will never read in any biography: He ordered his clothes from Europe and did not wear suits made by workers of the Union Label.

Censored for bribery? Everyone knew about that. What a red herring. But he did not bow his knee to the Unions.

So - for non-US readers - US politics are a bit more - how shall I say - nuanced than you can imagine.

[neocon]

@pamela
what's the matter with you? it's the second time you say "you, non-US readers"

[Pamela]

@neocon
what's the matter with you? it's the second time you say "you, non-US readers"

enough. done.

[joe]

necon,

If the liberal left (redounded) want to start a third party I will be more than happy to send then a small check. What most often happens the is some stooge like Perot who starts a third party only to peel off votes allowing someone like Clinton to win. Therefore a third party is an awful idea or at least it is if you happen to be a conservative and truly care about America

[gringoude]

the thing that really scares me is that now bush will get his amnesty scheme, allowing up to 40 million new immigrants into the country. that is insane. balkanization is already now a big problem in many places. hispanics will soon be the majority, spanish the official language, al thanks to our "conservative" leader w. bush. the only thing that stood between him and his amnesty plan were house republicans. well, they are gone now. amnesty and his guest worker program will
-further increase overpopulation in some urban areas.
-further strain schools, pulling down their standards even further.
-increase health care cost for americans who subsidide illegal immigrants leeching of our systems.
-increase gang related crimes.
-put downward pressure on working class wages. (big biz love this, soon america will resemble places like the phillippines: the rich living in gated communities, everybody else living in squalor.
-increase balkanization. more mexican reconqusitas, even more billboards in spanish, press 1 for spanish...
wow....i`m just really angry right now, i love america, but i hate the way things are going right now.

[joe]

neocon

You might have missed this but there is a third party and a fourth and a lot more parties in the US.

In two Senate races the Libertian candidate pulled enough votes most of which would probably have voted for the Republican, giving the election to the demo.

.

[Mike H.]

neocon Pamela is right we are diverse, although as a Vietnam veteran I took a hit watching the boat people dying and listening to the oh so seldom reports from Cambodia. To see it in the wings again is enough to rip my stomach. And I can understand those servicemen who will be affected by a 'cut and run', not to mention the people who will wind up as the examples. I remember kerry assuring everyone that there would be minimal bloodshed after the pullout. The same will happen in this age.

[neocon]

Mike, I didn't say otherwise.
And I'm not in favour of "cut and run"
On the contrary, I know what happened in Vietnam after the pullout.