Pundit Silliness

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2006
Posted on Mon Nov 06, 2006 at 10:16:39 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

I do not know how they come up with this stuff:

Some Democrats worry that those forecasts, accurate or not, may be setting the stage for a demoralizing election night, and one with lasting ramifications, sapping the party’s spirit and energy heading into the 2008 presidential election cycle.
“Two years ago, winning 14 seats in the House would have been a pipe dream,” said Matt Bennett, a founder of Third Way, a moderate Democratic organization. Now, Mr. Bennett said, failure to win the House, even by one seat, would send Democrats diving under their beds (not to mention what it might do to all the pundits).

“It would be crushing,” he said. “It would be extremely difficult.”
Mr. Cook put it more succinctly. “I think you’d see a Jim Jones situation — it would be a mass suicide,” he said.

Who in the heck told them this? This is nuts. Sure I and most Dems would be disappointed. We expect to take the House and should. But crushing? For crissakes.

Let me tell you what would have crushed me, if the Dems had not pivoted hard on the Iraq issue and made it the centerpiece of their campaign. I would have been crushed if the Dems did not try to make this election a referendum on Bush. I would have been crushed if the Dems had not run against a Rubberstamp Republican Congress. I would have been crushed if Dems had not tried to field good candidates all over the country. I would have been crushed if the Dems had let themselves be psyched out by Karl Rove and the Media into believing they need some type of "positive agenda" or a "plan for Iraq."

This year's Dems did not bite on any of this bullspit. They ran the right race, with the right candidates and the right attitude.

I think it will get us the House and maybe even the Senate. But if it does not I will be disappointed but not crushed.

You know why? Because we saw Fighting Dems this cycle, setting the agenda, not running away from the fight on Iraq, taking on Bush and the Rubberstamp Republican Congress.

The Dems have run the right campaign. Will it be good enough? I think it will. But if it is not, I won't be crushed. Just disappointed. You give it your best and put your best foot forward. That is all you can do. Dems did that. That's all we can ask.

< Election 2006: The Pre-Mortem | Election Day Blogging >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Pundit Silliness | 20 comments (20 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

you want idiotic? (none / 0) (#1)
by cpinva on Mon Nov 06, 2006 at 11:47:09 PM EST

read marc fisher's column, in the wash. post. that takes idiotic to a whole new level.

i've decided a change of careers is in order: instead being a reasonably well paid auditor & fed. tax law expert, i'm going to become an obscenely well paid political "pundit".

anyone can play, they make 6 or 7 figure salaries, and the more completely inane and ridiculous the drivel you write and verbally spew, the more in demand you become. hell, i'll have a "cottage" on the hamptons in no time flat!

the best part is, absolutely no one will call you on your nonsense. i could write that the democrats were responsible for the spanish inquisition, and if they take the house, torquemada is in line to become the next speaker.

not one of my fellow pundits, or the so-called journalists would challenge me on it. they would look at me, with completely straight faces, and ask what i thought about torquemada's dungeon agenda, and how it might affect our effort in iraq.

just try it, it's a game for the entire family to play!

Stealing a smaller loss (none / 0) (#2)
by Dadler on Tue Nov 07, 2006 at 12:08:46 AM EST

Theoretically, all it would take is just enough election chicanery (a little fraud, a little intimidation, a little hacking here and there, etc.) to allow the GOP a less significant loss, which would allow them to further hammer the press's credibility as reporter, pundit, forecaster, critic, everything. Not aimed at those of us who already know this, of course, but at those who either don't or remain on the fence and wait to be swayed.

It's only crushing... (none / 0) (#3)
by kdog on Tue Nov 07, 2006 at 08:42:01 AM EST

if you think the Dems are the answer to our country's ills. I sure don't. I think the answer lies outside our 2 crooked corrupted parties. The 10% less dangerous Dems ain't gonna cut it anymore.

The 10% less dangerous Dems... (none / 0) (#4)
by Edger on Tue Nov 07, 2006 at 08:55:46 AM EST

...ain't gonna cut it anymore.

You may be right, kdog. A politician is a POLITICIAN, after all. And, after all is said and done, most of them usually pander to the highest bidder.

But, the democrats have seen a shining example of wehat happens when a party in power doesn't cut it.

Maybe I'm naive, but I like to think the Democrats at least have the capacity to learn from what they've seen the past few years, rather than "stay the course' dictated by dogma and special interests.

: Doubtful (none / 0) (#5)
by kdog on Tue Nov 07, 2006 at 09:46:48 AM EST

Edger my brother....I just see no evidence that a Dems will do anything but "stay the course", meaning continued occupation. The military industrial complex hedges their bets...they've got both sides paid off no matter what lies they spew and pandering they do to the public. We will be in Iraq well into the next decade regardless...unless we get a serious influx of unpurchased independents into office. Every incumbent has failed us...I can't bring myself to vote for any incumbents.

Redoubt? (none / 0) (#6)
by Edger on Tue Nov 07, 2006 at 10:06:55 AM EST

We will be in Iraq well into the next decade regardless

Maybe...

Every incumbent has failed us...

Heavy sigh... yes. I just hope thing are moving away from the path of the past few years, however slowly. Maybe over time some momentum will build? Though I imagine it wil take a generation or more to repair the damage that's been done in the past six years.

Hope, you know?

I've got hope (none / 0) (#11)
by kdog on Tue Nov 07, 2006 at 10:53:59 AM EST

I've got hope edger...it just doesn't lie with the democratic party. My hope is that within a generation or so, the 2 party system can be dismantled by a rush of independents and a barrage of anti-incumbent voting. That's our only hope to preserve the republic.

The Dems controlled Congress during the majority of the age of the military industrial complex, it's not just the last few years edger...we are talking over 50 years of policy...where is the hope they will reverse course? That's a pipe-dream my friend. Any individual Dem looking to spark some change would quickly be silenced by the DNC.


Re: I've got hope (none / 0) (#12)
by Edger on Tue Nov 07, 2006 at 11:07:44 AM EST

Please don't get me wrong... I agree completely with you. I just know that right now there is no chance of a congress composed of a majority of independents. I think it has to start by booting out the rethugs. And unfortunately, for now that means giving congressional control tho the democrats. It's a lesser of two evils choice, no question. But I think it's an incremental move in a direction towards a down the road possibility that enough people can be educated to, and will learn, what you already know.

You're way ahead of the capacity of most, I think. :-)


Oh Boy... (none / 0) (#16)
by kdog on Tue Nov 07, 2006 at 03:52:23 PM EST

That's a scary thought edger...lol.


: Re: Oh Boy... (none / 0) (#17)
by Edger on Tue Nov 07, 2006 at 04:01:51 PM EST

Don't look behind you, whatever you do. It is scary back there! Heh!

Confrontational politicking (none / 0) (#7)
by Edger on Tue Nov 07, 2006 at 10:24:51 AM EST

Post-Tuesday Thinking

Indeed, what happens after Tuesday is something of a sore subject with several of Bush's advisers.
They refuse to discuss the possibility of life with a Democratic speaker of the House, presumably Representative Nancy Pelosi of California. And whenever the subject of the president's last two years come up, the aides make sure everybody knows that Bush intends to go out with a bang, not a whimper.
Asked Monday about plans for a possible Democratic-controlled Congress, Tony Snow, the White House spokesman, repeated his standard refusal to discuss the topic, then added, "Here's the thing that you do need to know, which is that the president plans for a very active final two years of his presidency."
He added, "So the president is going to be very aggressive, and he's not going to play small ball."

Iran?

well said, (none / 0) (#8)
by msobel on Tue Nov 07, 2006 at 10:26:35 AM EST

this is a decades long fight, we have done very well in two years. We have a distributed grassroots infrastructure that influences campaigns significantly. this is not the campaign the dccc or dscc planned and it is turning out better.

New battle shapes up over terror detainees (none / 0) (#9)
by Edger on Tue Nov 07, 2006 at 10:33:08 AM EST

And it looks like there is some hope the Military Commissions Bill may end up declared unconstitutional.

The federal appeals court in Washington "will have to decide whether the pending lawsuits brought by the 430 or so remaining prisoners at Guantánamo should be thrown out, as the Bush administration has argued, or whether the new law is unconstitutional, as civil liberties groups have contended." and whatever they decide will probably force the question into the SC.

KARL ROVE'S (none / 0) (#10)
by Edger on Tue Nov 07, 2006 at 10:46:38 AM EST

NIGHTMARE SCENARIO

What happens Tuesday? What happens when the exit polls show Democrats leading Republicans 60/40 or 70/30 even? "Oh my God," exclaims Karl shivering once again, his entire Machiavellian career coming apart at the seams; it's too late, can't go back, the machines are already preprogrammed, can't get the memory cards back now . . . they're gonna know!

a congress full of independents.... (none / 0) (#13)
by cpinva on Tue Nov 07, 2006 at 12:19:16 PM EST

would be completely useless. if they are indeed "independent", there would be no common cause uniting them. if there was common cause uniting them, they would no longer, by definition, be independent,they'd be just another political party, probably two or three.

not surprisingly, i submit they would very quickly begin to resemble the present republican & democratic parties.

the pablum that "both parties are the same" is utter and complete nonsense, promoted mostly by republicans, who want you to think that, so it will be easier for you to re-elect republican incumbents. after all, if both parties are the same, better the candidate you know.............

Re; a congress full of independents.... (none / 0) (#14)
by Edger on Tue Nov 07, 2006 at 12:29:34 PM EST

Hunh. Good points, cpinva. Without common cause it would be pretty fractious, indeed.

I took kdogs thoughts to mean independent in the sense of not being bought off and beholden to big money interests. I do think there can be common cause on that, with enough independence of thought and philosophy among them to ensure good spirited debates and decision making based on finding 'common good', rather than forced by party lines and dogma.

What do you think? And kdog?


finding 'common good' (none / 0) (#15)
by Edger on Tue Nov 07, 2006 at 12:45:57 PM EST

In other words, I can imagine "common cause" varying from issue to issue, and being something that a congress full of independents without an "all encompassing" common philosophy aka repubs or dems would have to find again in each debate.


well said (none / 0) (#18)
by kdog on Tue Nov 07, 2006 at 05:05:53 PM EST

You summed up my thoughts well edger. Independent, unbeholden representatives finding a common cause on an issue by issue basis, guided by their conscience and the will of their constituents.

The opposite of what we have now...beholden reps voting party lines guided by the will of lobbyists and special interests.


: Re: summed up (none / 0) (#20)
by Edger on Tue Nov 07, 2006 at 05:23:45 PM EST

I do have one question though, kdog.
How come it often seems that it's only the old hippies and lefty longhair freaks that think this way? Aren't we supposed to have become the people our parents warned us about?
Ummm... well... then again, maybe we did. Speaking strictly for myself of course. ;-)

Actually (none / 0) (#19)
by kdog on Tue Nov 07, 2006 at 05:08:46 PM EST

I've always said I see the Dems as approx. 10% less dangerous. They are not the same, just not different enough on the big issues to me...drug war, war, corporate power.

And I always err on the side of the challenger, never the incumbent.
