I apologize for interjecting something hopeful

into the stew of pessimism and candidate squabbling.

The dems have an excellent chance to build a better Senate with a sizable majority next year. And if they do, we have a better chance of passing progressive legislation and getting out of Iraq, if we have a dem president- even if it's Clinton.

In New Mexico, Udall is in and he's way ahead of Heather (Nipple) Wilson. A new poll has him at 55% and her at 38%.

In Colorado, Tom Udall's cousin, Mark, has a good chance of beating Bob Schaeffer who's way on the right. Both Udalls have good progressive/liberal voting records. Both voted against the IWR.

In NH, Jeanne Shaheen shouldn't have too tough a time beating John Sununu. She's generally considered an old fashioned liberal.

In Oregon, the Udall cousin we want voted out, Gordon Smith, is polling under 50%. He does have a boatload of money and the likely dem candidate for the dems, the House leader, is behind. In addition, there's a third party candidate, Frohmeyer. But it's doable, and Oregon's blue majority is growing.

In Virginia, Mark Warner, who is not a progressive, but is a strong improvement over John Warner, will beat the crap out of Jim Gilmore, right wing nut.

In Alaska, not a very dem friendly state, the repuke party has been imploding due to corruption. This is another state where the odds aren't bad for a dem pick-up.

In Kentucky, Mitch is having real problems, and polling just about 50%, sometimes hovering under, and sometimes just over.

In Maine, Susan Collins is substantially leading Tom Allen, but I think this one will be the surprise win for dems. Tom Allen is a strong candidate and Collins has handed him lots of ammunition in the form of unpopular votes. He's doing well raising money too.This would be a very sweet victory. Most analysts put this race in their top ten list.

In MN, Norm Coleman is in trouble. Al Franken is raising a lot of money, and Ciresi is also a possibility. Either one will run a strong race against Norm.

There are other repuke Senators who are likely to announce their retirements. Even MS could be in play.

The House too could see a number of dem pickups. 16 repuke reps have announced their retirement. Only 4 dems have. Increasing the number of dems in the house by 10 or so would give cover to blue dogs and new dems. It would be more difficult for them to vote with the repukes.

I'm more interested in Senate and House races than the presidential race, though I do want a dem president. When we have sizable dem majorities in Congress, the odds of passing progressive legislation is much better.

You may now ignore this hopeful news, and return to doom saying.

:-) MKJ

info on this, hit post and for some reason it didn't go through and got wiped out. But there is good news re the House and Senate.

;):D:hi:

Seriously, thanks for the upbeat news, cali!:thumbsup:

Pretty important, too. Especially with the way the court is now.

And want to see a dem prez. I just think the Senate and House are equally important.

Neither Franken or Ciresi are running well against Coleman. We need a different candidate in Minnesota to win.

I would not trust them to pass an agenda. Many of those would side with the Republicans and they would be asking for more Senators to help pass their agenda. I guarantee you if they had 67 votes in the Senate, they would have a difficult time getting the 60 votes to continute the debate on just about any issue. The Senate is corrupt. It needs to be cleaned. I have much more faith in the House than I do in the Senate.

Strong majorities always make a difference for the party holding them.

They couldn't even pass healthcare reform. They dilly-dallied around and lost both houses of Congress. The blue dogs and DINOs will always find a way to prevent meaningful reform unless we get some new blood in the Senate and get rid of some of the flotsam.

The last time the Democrats had 67 or more seats was:

89th Congress (1965-1967)
Majority Party: Democrat (68 seats)
Minority Party: Republican (32 seats)
Other Parties: 0
Total Seats: 100

And that would be the congress that enacted LBJ's Great Society. It is vanishingly unlikely that 2009 will see a 67 seat majority, but if it did we could perhaps expect major changes.

However that brings us to your point, which I believe was a reference to this Congress:

103rd Congress (1993-1995)
Majority Party: Democrat (57 seats)
Minority Party: Republican (43 seats)
Other Parties: 0
Total Seats: 100

As you note, because of deep divisions within the Democratic Party over social policy issues, divisions going back to the Reagan Neocon-Neoliberal ascendency, in fact very little in the way of progressive legislation was accomplished. Those divisions remain in place, a fact that the OP routinely ignores in post after post after post.

Passed a budget bill which eliminated deficits (that were record for the time only to be broken last year in terms of constant dollars) and created surplusses. Passed a crime bill which reduced violent crime to levels lower than since the 1970's. Reduced poverty to below the levels of the late 1970's and tied with those at its lowest. Reduced minority unemployment to the lowest levels ever recorded. Could it have done better, yes. But it did pretty well.

They did, on the other hand, 'end welfare as we know it', and pass nafta. The deficit reduction, along with other events of that era, occurred because of demographics and economic conditions outside legislative control. Attributing those events to legislative activity is inane.

The crime bill, which enacted real gun control and put over a hundred thousand cops on the street reduced crime massively. The Clinton economic plan massively reduced poverty. I am sick to death of hearing right wing talking points about government not impacting these areas. It wasn't some massive coincidence that this prosperity occured.

The crime rate started its decline in '92. How exactly could Clinton's policies, not yet in effect, have managed that miracle? (Hint, there was a demographic driver to the crime rate decline.)

But if you have any proof at all that the clinton gun control and '100,000 cops on the streets' had a causal effect on a drop in crime rates, please do provide the links.

As for the economy, while Al Gore did in fact have a lot to do with the creation of the internet, and thus indirectly with the technology driven economic boom of the 90's, Clinton's tax reform and deficit reductions did not. Once again, if you have actual evidence to the contrary, please do post it.

Yes it was coincidence that there was a boom in the 90's. Bush the not quite so stupid was unlucky to have slept in the white house for the recession prior to that, and that helped lose him the election. Following recessions, oddly enough, there is generally a recovery, and in the 90's new technology pushed that recovery into a massive bubbly boom. Bill drew a good hand.

The rightwing is convinced that the dreaded government has way too much effect on the economy, can do no right with respect to regulating the same, and is oddly also convinced that the government can end crime as we know it with police, prisons, and executions. Clinton shared a lot of those views.

it has nothing whatsoever to do with economic policy. Every single Democratic administration in the post war era outperformed every single GOP one with one exception. Carter did very slightly worse than Reagan. Now, maybe it is just luck but I highly doubt it.

As to crime. It declined in every single year of the Clinton administration and started to increase when he left.

majority, they use it well. And let's face it, the 1993-1995 Senate was not only the tail end of 40 years of largely dem dominance, and lots of real and perceived corruption. You, of course, ignore that. It's only to be expected, Mr. Stupidity, that you would.

Yes, it's near impossible that the dems would gain 16 seats. It's not improbable to see them gaining 7, and yes that changes a lot.

What does it change, Mr. Stupidity? Well, for one thing, Habeas is restored. SCHIP is passed. The odds of getting out of Iraq increase by a substantial amount. Guantanamo is closed. Are those insignificant issues to you?

Look, you want to cling to your doomsday scenarios and conspiracy theories, feel free. Others, and I'm among them, prefer to focus on the possibility of things improving. You appear to beconstitutioanally incapable of granting that that's even a possibility. How sad.

Edited to correct that the House was also dem.

we had the House then too. The House and Senate were lost in 94 and thus the Congress of 95 was GOP.

thanks for the correction.

You're wrong.

Much of the Democratic majority in Clinton's first term came from southern Democrats, Democrats who were replaced by Republicans up through 2004 (where 4 southern Democratic seats went Republican).

The next Congress will represent a real shift in the political balance as the last northeastern "liberal" Republicans are voted out, the border southern states continue to trend blue, and the mountain west continues it's trend toward moderate Democrats.

But so far what we have seen is that the Senate and House have sizeable blocks of 'new dem/dlc/bluedog/whatever' Democrats who pretty consistently vote the Corporate Kleptocracy & War Party line.

go real blue real fast on election night a year or so from now.

The fighting Romney's were forced to eat macaroni and cheese while fighting the war on terror getting their dad elected. What a sacrifice they are making. Have you Googled Ace McCain ?

I agree that primary talk here has the smell of Rove.

from Kansas.

Brownback said he would not run again. If he means it we may (just rumor) have a run for Sebelius for his seat. Speculation as well for at least one of the congressional seats held by a Republican.

"Democrats are maintaining stable and nearly landslide leads in both the race for President as measured by generic performance (51-41) and the named ballot for Congress (52-42 percent)."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/07/31/surveys-show-house-dems-m_n_58592.html

ineffectually divided on the presidential choice("we" meaning most progressives not just DU and "ineffectually" applying to same) we should have been focusing on the other races. Waiting for a dem president has sidelined the more important task of making the party more progressive and successful all the way down. No presidency can effect a sea change to replace that need. Whatever help it might be comes after 2008.

We need way more posts on the other national and state candidates who will need to see the influence of our time and money if we are to make any difference at all to the really important goals.

Yes, this is not only more hopeful but both more constructive and necessary. Had we united totally behind a frontunner we easily would be doing the same thing. Without unity there we have been wasting too much steam on displaying division and lack of influence. Even to the point of people dropping out of voluntarism or discussion altogether! No matter who is president, the real work is much broader and will just be beginning.

A simple, most important reminder from Cali.

I'm willing to give the Dems the benefit of the doubt through 08. If they pick up stronger majorities in congress, I feel they will start to turn this country around. If not, then we can start cleaning house.

I'm glad to see a thread like this - all the tip/haircut/big house/hand on heart anthem type threads are really starting to ruin DU for me. Thanks Cali!

Dole is currently only polling at 47% against Jim Neal and at 45% against Kay Hagan. Neal and Hagan are utterly unknown outside their areas and Neal is openly gay. Both are losing to her by double digits but for an incumbent to be under 50% against total unknowns is bad news for the incumbent.

It would be great to see NC competitive.

she would be dead. As it is I think we have a shot at her. She is where Florio was in 1993. Whitman was an unknown dillitante but Florio lost due to being toxic. Similarly, Dole could well lose this race as much as our candidate win.

I totally agree... it's what I've believed and felt all along. I don't understand the Clinton hatred, because that congress you're speaking of - which I believe is exactly what we'll get - would never allow her to go too far to the right - ever - even if she actually is as bad as everyone here says (and I don't believe she is).

:toast:

Dems have more opportunities now than ever as the GOP is in meltdown mode.

Let's just make sure those Dems who are elected understand they represent their constituents, not corporate donors. That's the real challenge.

I look forward to it. And when Wilson gets defeated maybe she will give up her house seat too, I would love nothing more than to see her thrown out of there. Fingers crossed.

There is a good chance that Richardson will drop out of the presidential race and join the senate race, if that happens his win is pretty much guaranteed.

Wilson's seat is open. In fact, all three House seats in your state are now open, and Udall's whomping Heather in the polls.

ended up losing by I think 500 votes. Hope Richradson realizes that his presidential bid is pretty much over and joins the race, he would be a shoe in. If not Udall will hopefully do good, personally I would prefer him over Richardson if I wasn't worried about electability.

we are heading into what is shaping up to be the most exciting election of my lifetime.

I am particularly looking forward to the prospect of electing a liberal to the Senate here in Colorado. That will be a bellweather - a sign that things truly have changed.

and there is still some speculation he will retire. If he does, form AG Mike Moore has at least a 50/50 shot at taking the seat.

about something that worries a lot of us.

Even in states that are not considered that red, candidates are being picked to run without any thought as to what they stand for and without any thought about their belief system being Democratic in the traditional sense.

By that I refer to the way they are shoving the pro-choice women and the gay community out of the left side of the big tent.

I also mean the way there are just enough Democrats to vote to pacify those of us who fear what Bush is doing, and just enough Democrats to give Bush his agenda.

SO....if the Democrats are going to give Bush his war money, his free trade, his fast tracking power, refuse to tax the upper echolon....lecture the rest of us for being too liberal..

Then is it called Democratic control in name only?

Here at DU, right now right here....is the only time in my life I have been talked down to for being too liberal. It is truly an amazing thing to watch. Because I lay out how I and many others feel...and it is truth...I have the worst possible label applied to me by those who consider themselves to be righteous centrists.

The biggest mistake our party could make at this juncture in time is to just keep on acting like the other party.

any specifics so it's hard to know what you mean. You say that:

"Even in states that are not considered that red, candidates are being picked to run without any thought as to what they stand for and without any thought about their belief system being Democratic in the traditional sense."

As I'm sure you noted, my post is about the Senate. What states and what candidates are you referring to?

What candidates for the Senate are shoving pro-choice women and the GBLT community out of the tent? Tom Udall in NM? Nope; strongly pro-choice and friendly to the GBLT community. Same with Mark Udall in CO. Jeanne Shaheen? No. Tom Allen in Maine? Certainly not. Even Mark Warner in VA is pro-choice and pro civil union, and for ending discrimination against gays and Lesbians. Al Franken? C'mon.

So who are you referring to?


As far as you having "the truth" on your side, sorry, I don't look at things that simplistically. You don't have a market on truth, anymore than I do.

:shrug:

I said it's simplistic to think that you- or anyone else- has a franchise on "the truth".

Taking umbrage over a perceived slight is a good way of getting out of actually backing up vague and broad assertions though.

And I think you know how my post was meant. I was pretty clear.

We are not going to leave Iraq, we are most likely going to twiddle thumbs while Bush bombs Iran, we are going along with Bush's judges...oh, wait we already did that.

I am glad we will likely get more Democrats next time. But with the old "red state must vote red" philosophy, we might just keep getting redder while calling ourselves bluer.

:shrug:

it.

You don't know the future. You may think you do, but of course, none of us actually do. It's arrogant to think that you do.

Yes, the dems have been disappointing at times, but not all of that is attributable to the dubious DU conventional wisdom that their complicit, corrupt and inept. Some of it has to do with the fact that in the Senate they have a razor thin majority, and in the House it's not all that much better. Yes, the leadership is weak, but some of your assertions are simply false. The dems have blocked a substantial number of right wing appointments to the federal bench. They were in the minority when Alito and Roberts were nominated, and they didn't control the JC.

You clearly are not up to date about some of the dems running for the Senate in red or purple states.

And it's absurd to make the claim that more dems in the Senate will make it redder under the guise of blue.

In many ways that has been true. I think you know that I am not a one or even two issue person, but I am alarmed at what is going on in the guise of being bi-partisan.

I was not especially referring to the Senate, but now that you mention it I did talk about it recently. And fairly, I think. But sadly.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/1633

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/1627

I do actually keep up with the candidates through DFA, and the blogs Open Left and others. They are right on top of the Senate races.

I am not talking against any of them, but there is a pattern in both Houses of Congress....that we must keep our so-called "base" in line. No lectures are given to the other sides' base....only to our side. That concerns me.

And no, I am not especially offended. Just irritated. The Democrats have a pattern of keeping their activists in line. They lump us all in with groups like Code Pink....even those of us who find some of their stuff over the line. I respect them, but it bothers me.

But you see, that does not matter. To our party leaders we are basically someone to lecture and keep in our place. Even someone like me who was raised just about as conservatively as one can be raised and still be considered a Democrat.

:shrug:

Good post, cali

We will not have veto proof majorities, no matter the size of the victory we win congressionally in '08.

I want a Dem president, because in the modern era of American politics, the presidency shapes the course of the country. A Dem president will appoint thousand and thousands of sub cabinet members and his/her administration, through executive order and department level decisions, will have a profound effect on every American. To say nothing of all the Federal judges the next President will appoint.

If, given the choice, I'd rather we had the Presidency and lost Congress. Of course, in the best of all worlds, we will have both.

Having a larger majority in the Congress is going to be as important as having a Dem president. This is how we can get things done. (Never mind the compromise that one of our candidates keeps touting as necessary to make change.)

new website targeting Roadblock Republicans?

The rumor is that he is going to retire and we have a strong Democrat, State Senator Charlie Justice, that could easily win in our district. He beat back a Repug that threw everything but kitchen sink at him to take the senate seat.

:sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm:

I'm kidding!!! I really hope for more big gains next year - I'm optimistic! :-)

Just got online after a day away and -- hope? With details?

Is this allowed? Can it continue?
----------
Thank you to the mysterious crusader who broke ranks with this thread.


:loveya: :kick:

as long as the votes get cast and counted accurately!

And you should apologize because you think, just because somebody is labeled "Democrat," that they will carry out reforms any differently than the Pink Tutu Democrats we already have.


"We'll be glad to teach you newbies the Daddy Dubya Bend-Over Dance!"

and your post is ignorant. Take a look at... oh, never mind. There's nothing to be done about stubborn ignorance clinging to DU myths.

:hi:

Hekate