Top Gingrich Lieutenant Predicts GOP Will Lose 25-30 House Seats
From a piece just posted at the New York Times wrapping up the anxiety in top GOP circles about what's going to happen on Tuesday:
Joe Gaylord, who was the political lieutenant to Newt Gingrich when he led the Republican takeover of the House in 1994, said that based on polling he had seen in recent weeks, he expected his party to lose 25 seats to 30 seats on Tuesday. That general assessment was repeatedly echoed in interviews with Republicans close to the White House and the Republican National Committee.“It’s very grim,” Mr. Gaylord said. “Things are dreadful out there.”
Elsewhere in Adam Nagourney's piece, we learn that GOP party leaders are expecting to lose seats held by Reps. Curt Weldon, Chris Chocola and John Hostettler, as well as Senators Mike DeWine and Rick Santorum, and probably those of Senators Lincoln Chafee and Conrad Burns. The piece also notes that Republicans see this election as the first major test of the built-in advantages the GOP's tried to wire for itself with gerrymandering in recent years. If Dems win a majority of the national vote without winning one or both Houses on Tuesday, the rigged national system will be the reason why. Read the whole thing here.
J. McCutchen
I don't wish to minimize either the dangers that will flow if the will of the people is not reflected in the election outcome nor do I wish dispute the conclusion that either way, the system is "rigged". It is impossible to overstate the consquences of such a failure of the US political system were it to happen
But isn't money, it isn't gerrymandering. It is incumbency that riggs the system.
If this is a "Wave Election" say, the Dems take 45 seats in the House, that's only 10% of the bums.
The system is rigged alright. But it has been for a long, long time
November 4, 2006 2:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's all those things. Incumbency brings with it a money advantage (not to mention a franking privilege to put out 2 years of nothing but good news). And gerrymandering helps protect incumbents, too. All those things matter.
And, as you point out, these things have been true for a long time. I'm fine with all that.
What concerns me is the question of whether the votes get counted accurately, so that the "official" results actually reflect the way the people voted.
In this election, it is clear that enough people will go to the polls -- and I'm not talking about a national aggregate; I'm talking about majorities in enough individual races all across the country -- with numbers sufficient to change control in at least the House.
Should the "official" result be otherwise, then I believe it will indicate cheating on a wider scale than previously seen.
We know they can and will cheat, because they did it before. And there is no reason to believe they won't try this time, because the stakes are higher than ever. (Can you say "subpoena"? Can you say "high crimes and misdemeanors"? Can you say "war crimes"?)
So I am concerned about that. The fact that we need a super-majority of the overall popular vote to change power in the Congress doesn't bother me. I am confident that the votes are out there, and will be cast on Tuesday. But I worry that they won't be counted correctly.
And if that happens, it means that we've lost our democracy. I don't think it's too early to start thinking about what to do in that case. Protest, sure. But where and when and in what numbers? I worry that most of the nation are just numb and gullible, and would simply accept the lame explanations of the media, and the talking points of the right wing pundits who dominate it. I'm no conspiracy theorist, really. But I think this is worth thinking about.
-- ARG
November 4, 2006 6:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think it's too early to start thinking about what to do in that case. Protest, sure. But where and when and in what numbers? I worry that most of the nation are just numb and gullible, and would simply accept the lame explanations of the media, and the talking points of the right wing pundits who dominate it.
No, it's not too early. If another theft takes place, the rationale for the GOP's retaining power will be whirring out of MSM fax machines within seconds, and it'll be a matter of hours before the Received Wisdom kicks in.
Heck, they might turn it around again and challenge a dozen close results all the way to Christmas, then get the House to swear in GOP losers in the lame duck session, just to change the script.
If it happens again, they'll be prepared. They'll be calling the play. Will we have the defense?
November 4, 2006 8:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
If they do the "fix" (again), this will be really, really bad news for our demoacracy. What next? With habeas corpus gone and torture legalized, taking to the streets is going to be exceedingly dangerous. Besides, only about 10 other people would be there. Where's everybody else? Watching Survivor, of course. Canada is looking pretty good these days, like it did during the Viet Nam genocide.
--JMW
ps check out the new video at www.amnestyusa.org
November 4, 2006 10:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Frankly, I am angry at the cheating, but the truth is that IF the Republicans somehow managed to squeeze out a tie where they barely hold onto power for another two years, does anybody think they can govern?
They will use their power to force through all kinds of horrible bills, but they will only drive the country further into the ground.
If Bush's popularity is less than 40% right now, and Congressional approval ratings are lower than that what will they be after another two years of Republican mis-rule?
If they manage to delay the day of reckoning (which I seriously doubt) it will only get worse for them.
Think what would be the consequences! Bush would take a Republican victory as vindication to do everything he wants -- including dragging the nation into war with Iran (he will probably try to do this anyway, but his power will be more limited with a Democratic Congress).
Think that's going to be popular?
Things cannot possible turn around for the Republican party until AFTER they give up power. Then they can sit back and critique the Democrats and attack them.
Their party is really much more effective in opposition than they are in power. They just got lucky that Bush sneaked into the White House based on electoral FRAUD and then 9-11 happened before the nation could thoroughly repudiate him (which was well on the way to happening).
See this article by Billmon which brilliantly sums up these points: http://billmon.org/archives/002390.html
"What might have happened if 9/11 had not happened is an interesting hypothetical. After successfully negotiating with (read: peeling the shirt off) the "moderates" and passing Bush's first round of tax cuts in the spring of 2001, the administration then began to act as if it saw the way clear to move hard right -- that is, until Jim Jeffords's defection swung the Senate to the Dems and temporarily brought the whole project to a crashing halt.
And then, of course, everything changed.
Or rather, nothing changed -- except that the Rovians were handed a political windfall of the highest order."
That 9-11 effect is now finally wearing off. And it's not coming back. Y9ou can only squander so much goodwill of the country before people simply won't trust you any more.
November 5, 2006 11:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
Dworkin, I mostly agree with what you say here. If the Republicans find a way to steal this election, they will continue to govern badly, and public support for their regime will continue to decline.
But will it matter? Given another two years without any serious investigation, given another two years to further rig the mechanics of our electoral process, given new tools to suppress opposition, like the Military Commissions Act of 2006, and perhaps given the chance to appoint another Supreme Court justice -- what will stop them from protecting their "majority" ad infinitum??
You and I, and many others, are keenly aware of what is going on here. But most of America is sleeping. If they get their wake-up call too late -- and maybe next month will be too late -- then it will be a long road back for our democracy.
Imagine some challenges to the manufatctured election results. Imagine protests and serious questions about the legitimacy of the outcome. But also imagine (it's not a stretch) some new manufactured emergency -- say, an invasion of Iran. And then rhetoric calling for unity behind the president, and the government, followed by accusations that the protesters are doing the bidding of the enemy we're fighting. Then imagine that some protesters are arrested and accused of helping the terrorist cause. The president appoints a commission, led by Vice President Cheney, and a few of these protesters are declared "enemy combatants" and jailed. They are interrogated -- aggressively -- and urged to "name names". Much of this is done in secret, but word of what's happening is definitely allowed to get out. Soon the protests stop. Some in the media speak out. But they are investigated by the government, too. The truly brave land in jail. The majority of the population just clams up to protect themselves. And then, where are we?
Does this sound outrageous? To me, it doesn't. I certainly hope I'm wrong. But if my worst fears are realized come Wednesday morning, then I don't know what we'll do. Let's hope I'm just being paranoid.
-- ARG
November 6, 2006 12:30 AM | Reply | Permalink