David Brooks:Republicans will lose the House in November

[killerbush]

For those of you who didn't see Face the Nation yesterday, conservative columnist David Brooks came right out and said the Republicans will lose control of the House come this November. Here is the crux of Brooks' statement.

"Right, there's the war. There's really a torpor in this administration. They're not doing anything right now. I think the Republicans will lose the House, and privately, they admit that. For a year, they were saying we got it sewn up because of redistricting. We'll lose, but not control of the House. About two weeks ago, conventional wisdom changed, and now, we're in trouble".

Brooks is not the only Republican very worried about the GOP losing control of either the House, Senate, or both. Privately, Republicans are scared shitless at the prospect of Nancy Pelosi becoming majority leader, John Conyers leading investigations of Bush, and Democrats rolling back some of the Republicans sacred cows. All I can say is, GOD I HOPE SO!!!!


http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/04/03.html#a7773

[Selatius]

1. If I controlled the election machines, I'd give Democrats the House, too.

It would be a perfect way to insulate against charges that the system is rigged. By showing Democrats can win, one can then state that there are no problems with e-voting and that democracy is safe in the US.

[cassiepriam]

33. Yep, they're gonna have to throw us a bone to make it all look legit.

[Tiggeroshii]

39. as desirable as that logic sounds...

I think that there's too much at stake for the GOP for them to allow the Dems any power. All thye'd need to say is that the polls are off. Just like they were in Ohio in 2005, for the president in 2004 and for a lot of Democrats in 2002. The Colombus Dispatch pretty much invited that rhetoric right on in after November of 05, when those election initiatives were polled ayt winning by more than 40% margins.

[cassiepriam]

40. Yes, you have a point, and the public would buy the Repug BS

about the exit polls, just like last time.

Maybe Repugs won't want Dems to have a toehold...

[Tiggeroshii]

42. Also

It's beginning to become a trend that exit polls aren't even being practiced. At least they weren't released or by news organizations in 2005, and it's looking like they won't be used in 06 or 08 because of their "lacking of credibility proven through the 00 and 04 elections."

[cassiepriam]

43. Absolutely incredible, a reliable source of data is dismissed

because it doesn't match the crooked elections.
Let's get rid of any data that doesn't support the
cabal in power.

You are right, why let the Dems even get a toe hold,
it is now a one party system forever.

Until Bush blows up the planet that is.

[MadMaddie]

2. So they admit the redistricting was done to favor Republicans...

they are cheaters and they deserve everything that comes their way!!

[MissWaverly]

5. If David Brooks (NYT/conservative pundit) is sad/ it's over

the bottom has fallen out, wasn't he twittering on and on last Winter about a Republican
Spring. He is always giving Bush bouquets of praise, if he's saying things are bad then
they have hit rock bottom.

[Tinksrival]

17. Melman admits to

Bush's little problem........(poll #'s??)



:rofl:

[MissWaverly]

21. There's a problem that I am worried about

I am worried about the republicans fleeing their party in droves and remaking our party
into the old Republican Party, I believe we should have a 2 party system but I think after
all our donations and hard work to see our party taken over by the discontents (who would
not be???)

[springhill]

29. It's never over with this administration.......

Diebold, Diebold, Diebold!!!!!!

[WCGreen]

15. Get a grip.....

When the dem's controlled the state house mechanisms to redraw the districts....

They did the same thing.....

It's politics....

to the victor go the spoils.....

[bscottsmith]

34. shimbush needs to go

john shimkus "shimbush" illinois 19th cd a big bush backer NEEDS TO GO!
www.stoverforcongress.us

[Mz Pip]

3. Yawn

I'll believe it when I see it on that WednesdaY morning.

We can't get cocky. There is much work to do. Let's not get complacent because DeLay called it quits.

There is nothing more than the Repugs would like us to believe than this 2006 race is a done deal for the Dems. They are sneaky. They are slimey and they are unprincipled.

Don't let them make you think this will be a given.

Mz Pip
:dem:

[mitchtv]

10. Make that two yawns

IF the Dems displayed some notion that they are an opposition party, I would be happy. They are experts at circular firing squads and compromise.The is tons of work ahead. Someone better start organizing Hispanic voters, soon. If they are not 18 yet,they will be soon, there are many born here, the party needs new blood , around here. Senior are willing to drop their allegiances , too

[RoyGBiv]

4. A small rant ...

I swear by all that is holy, if Democrats -- and by that I mean us, not the politicians -- don't get themselves fired up over the 2006 elections immediately and quit this hand wringing over who the 2008 Presidential candidate will be until *after* this Fall, I am going to crack some skulls. I don't *care* at this point if it's Hillary or Clark or Moonbat Whampum who has the upper hand. It doesn't matter right now.

More to the point, Congress is more important than the Presidency, in the current context especially. Only with a Democratic Congress do we have any hope at all of a) investigating these bastards, much less actually convicting them of anything and b) as you say, rolling back some of these Republican sacred cows. If we have a Republican Congress for the final two years of Shrub's term, it makes no difference if his poll numbers are low. Lame duck doesn't mean anything if the Congressional leadership is your lapdog.

Anyway, thanks for this. It's the first mention of the 2006 elections I've seen here that's given me any perspective on the matter in quite awhile.

[killerbush]

6. Moonbat Whampum???

There's a name I've never heard of.

[RoyGBiv]

9. He's my candidate of choice ...

The only person I will be supporting for President until January of 2007 when the fallout of midterms starts to become known.

Good guy ... just spends a little too much time in caves. :-)

[Telly Savalas]

26. Moonbat Whampum is a DINO!

[MissWaverly]

7. Let them stand for our values not Joe Lieberman

Joe (Gotta Go) is a Bushbot, and Obama is rushing to his side, I wish they would rush
to the aid of the American people, I am sick of Bush, and I am sick of a do-nothing
spend all Pork Congress and I am sick of Pug-Lite.

[killerbush]

12. What the hell does this have to do with Lieberman

Who by the way is going to crush Neddy boy back into oblivion

[MissWaverly]

20. Lieberman is another Bush supporter

Lieberman had shown an independent streak, standing with conservative Republicans on such key issues as privatization of Social Security, school vouchers and opposition to "racial preferences."

http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:BuJAaKgoKBQJ:www.goacta.org/press/articles/WP/WP%25209-19-00.htm+Lieberman+on+George+BLush&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=4

the problem is that we need checks and balances not sock puppets, we need unbiased, objective reporting of the facts and an opposition party. What we have is a bunch
of lap dogs, who fawn all over Bush.

[TreasonousBastard]

11. A small confession...

I pretty much ignore anyone who talks about '08, unless it's to mention that '08 means nothing until '06 is decided.

To me, talk of '08 is trolling or the inability or unwillingness to deal with the election this year-- none of which should be acceptable here.

And, yeah, we have been given the chance to take back the Hill and bring sanity back to the country-- if we would just stop bashing the Democrats we have and get down to electing some more of them.

But, I suppose sitting on a discussion board as a keyboard warrior blaming Diebold, the DLC, and spineless Democrats already in Congress for the defeat we predict is a lot easier than actually fighting to win.

[RoyGBiv]

16. I'm with ya ...

I guess that much is obvious, but I wanted to reiterate the point.

I occasionally spend entire days avoiding more threads than I view because the hot topic of the day is something about 2008.

Related tangent: I was polled today by a local news station asking for opinions on the various Congressional candidates serving and/or running in my district. I saw the results of the poll on the news earlier, and it appears one of the main things they were trying to judge was what level of awareness people even had of who were their reps and who was running against them, if anyone was running. (Or maybe that's what it became when they couldn't get enough data on people's actual opinions of the candidates.) I was among less than 10% who was actually able to answer all the questions with an answer other than some variation "I don't know," which includes answers that were just wrong, as in the person polled thought they knew who their rep was but actually didn't.

I dare say a some people who are completely knowledgeable about candidates who may or may not be running in 2008 haven't a single clue who is running in their district for midterms. That is tragic.

[TreasonousBastard]

18. Another related tangent...

A few years ago, Marge Roukema, moderate Republican with a very safe seat in Northern Joisey, ran afoul of the neocons running the show and they put up a wingnut in the primary. She won by a hair even though they starved her campaign, and then they pulled the same thing two years later-- when she just told them to bugger off and retired.

Two years later, when the schmuck who replaced her was running for re-election, something like 30% of the respondants to a local poll thought Roukema was still in office and running.

It's not the media-- Pogo was right... "We have met the enemy. and it is us."

[Clark2008]

41. But the rub is this: if I support someone in 06 who is a Dem

but you don't like that Dem, then nothing is being accomplished.

Me? I can work for the Dem in my state and STILL look at 2008. Of course, I can walk and chew gum at the same time, too.

I really don't see this as an either/or proposition. People can work on both.

[LaPera]

8. Let's hope the Dem's DON'T listen & not become just the way Rove wants

the Dem's...OVER-CONFIDENT!!

And we wake up and the republicans "somehow" squeaked by and kept the majority...If the electronic voting machines are what the republicans are counting on...of course they want the demos over confident and closer races are easier to steal...

Lots of work to be done...We can't listen to the republicans and the media for what we need to do!!!!

[zalinda]

13. Of course he says they're going to lose

Someone has to clean the mess that this administration has left, and no repub wants to do it.

zalinda

[incapsulated]

14. It's ours to lose

But I don't underestimate the Dem's ability to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

I think we will gain a small minority. It could've been larger, with a Newt-like plan, but I will take whatever margin we get.

[mrgorth]

19. If we do win

we'd sure as hell better govern so that the people know the difference between them and us. IMMEDIATELY:
Law against corruption
National Health Care legialation

Let shrub or even McCain veto all of it if they want but let the people know that we're trying.

[DuaneBidoux]

22. just imagine the sweeeet sweeeet investigations that would follow

[McCamy Taylor]

23. I havent heard this conceded elsewhere. Sounds fishy. Keep working Dems.

The GOP is pulling out all the stops. The recent media lynching of McKinney, the flurry of stealth Freeper posts here at DU designed to get us in-fighting over whether or not we should be standing up for African-americans who are targetted by Rush and Co. ---all these are the signs of a RNC in for the long haul election wise. There is the conspiracy to deprive NOLA of its vote. There is who knows what kind of election fraud planned in California (how will they decide who gets to vote?). Ohio could well be under martial law before this fall with its poll numbers so unfavorable to the GOP.

Hell, if they have to, they will take a page straight out of V for Vendetta and IMPORT bird flu to the US, unleash it on us and then Rummie's Company will have an unexplained shortage of anti-virals in the areas that the administration would prefer to see not vote.

So, complacency is for sucks. Keep on getting out the vote and working for your congressional and senate candidate. A double digit lead makes it harder for them to use E-vote fraud without getting caught.

[saltpoint]

25. Agreed that there's plenty of work left to do but I am beginning

to feel a little breeze through the screen door.

And I like it.

[McCamy Taylor]

24. Buchannan Just Said GOP Strategy is to Say Everything Header Says

I kid you not. He was on Countdown. He said that the way for the GOP to win the fall election was the scare the base by telling them that a Democratic win means

1. Rangel in control of a committe (close to conyers)

2. Impeachment

3. Rollback of tax cuts ( aka GOP sacred cows)

Be very very afraid of the advise expressed in this thread header. I do not consider it a winning strategy--unless you want the same thing that Pat Buchannan wants.

[Telly Savalas]

27. It's a sound strategy and one Democrats use.

A lot of Republicans are disappointed with the performance of their elected officials. So it's only natural for party leadership to adopt a stance of "we may not be doing too whoopie, but look at what would happen if we let those guys win the House." Such rationale is used daily at DU to encourage the Democratic base to stand behind less than perfect candidates.

[beltanefauve]

28. And don't forget their old standby:

"The Democrats don't have a plan!" Things might be grim, folks, they say, but stick with the ol' GOP because the Democrats don't have a plan!

[Kablooie]

30. I don't believe it.

The Neocons are too content and happy with themselves right now.
This could only mean that they have something horrifying up their sleeves.

Perhaps war in Iran. Perhaps rigging the elections. Perhaps instigating riots in the US so Bush can
declare martial law and eliminate the election.

They just don't seem desparate which is a terrible sign.

[alcibiades_mystery]

31. And the "Amazing Republican Comeback Victory 2006" Narrative takes shape

How fucking stupid are the people on DU who believe this shit?

That's the question I'd like answered.

Will they be "demoralized" again, when the GOP retains the House by 8-12 seats? Will they be on these boards sniping at each other over strategy, blue doggery, yellow doggery and other stupidities? You betcha!. Because stupid fucking internet Democrats never learn.

[Totally Committed]

32. Privately, Republicans are scared shitless at the prospect of Nancy Pelosi

becoming majority leader, John Conyers leading investigations of Bush, and Democrats rolling back some of the Republicans sacred cows.

I am personally counting the minutes and seconds until this happens! I can't wait!

TC

[Jack Rabbit]

35. The Democrats investigate Bush and Cheney . . .

PELOSI FOR PRESIDENT IN 2007

[Imagevision]

36. There will be heavy voting machine manipulations, no other choice!

for GOP. Besides, they've already done it and pulled it off, why not do it again, around the world it's getting to be quite popular, just rig the election and let them try to prove it?!!

[BlueIris]

37. DU grown-ups, help an ankle-biter here: when was it last Dem-controlled?

I remember the take-over in '94, (freshman in high school) but can't recall if Dems controlled it before that...

[wiggs]

38. This is a GOP talking point for fundraising and motivation purposes.

We started hearing this a couple of weeks ago and we'll hear it up until election night...along with how important it is for GOP to get out to vote on illegal immigration in order to keep America from becoming Mexico.

Buckle up. Here we go...

[orleans]

44. they'll lose the house if DEMS GROW A SPINE

and fight back against the attacks they'll throw at us--such as all us TAX AND SPEND liberals!