Molly Ivins (Truthdig): Don’t Count the Republicans Out

[Dudley_DUright]

Stunning coincidence. The verdict in the long-running trial of Saddam Hussein in Iraq is now due two days before our congressional elections in November. Astounding. How ineffable.

<snip>

Let’s start with the easy end, the Senate. From the book “Off Center” by Jacob S. Hacker and Paul Pierson, as recently quoted by Eric Alterman in his blog: “The mismatch between popular votes and electoral outcomes is even more striking in the Senate. Combining the last three Senate elections, Democrats have actually won 2.5 million more votes than Republicans. Yet now they hold only 44 seats in that 100-person chamber because Republicans dominate the less populous states that are so heavily overrepresented in the Senate. As journalist Hendrik Hertzberg (of the New Yorker) notes, if you treat each senator as representing half that state’s population, then the Senate’s 55 Republicans currently represent 131 million people, while the 44 Democrats represent 161 million people.”

OK, we all know about the small-state advantage in the Senate. How did the People’s House get so far out of fair? Paul Krugman explains: “The key point is that African-Americans, who overwhelmingly vote Democratic, are highly concentrated in a few districts. This means that in close elections many Democratic votes are, as political analysts say, wasted—they simply add to huge majorities in a small number of districts, while the more widely spread Republican vote allows the GOP to win by narrower margins in a larger number of districts.”

<snip>

So how come I’m not thrilled? Because I watched this happen two years ago—same rejection of the Iraq war, same disgust with Bush and Co., same understanding Republicans are for the rich, period, same polls showing D’s with the lead going right into Election Day. And the same geographic gerrymander and same wall of money in the last two weeks. I’m not close to calling this election, and I’m sure not into celebrating anything yet.

more...

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/200601018_molly_ivins_count_republicans_out/

[alarimer]

1. I think the verdict, if it is guilty, will guarantee the Repubs

a victory. Is it just a coincidence that the verdict is due two days before the election? I don't think so. I am sure the whole trial is just a show trial anyway with the verdict already in the bag.

[Rhiannon12866]

3. Well, we already know that Saddam is guilty.

Can you imagine that the verdict will be innocent?! But the timing of this is certainly suspect, just as everything is that the Republicans have been doing for the past six years...:grr:

[elehhhhna]

10. It won't mean JACK to my ex-repp friends & neighbors.

They do NOT care about SH.

[Carni]

12. Honestly I don't see how...

In real time I Haven't talked to anyone that gives a damn about Saddam or his fate in months...I don't think he's a focal point with anyone but about 20% of die hard bushists.

I don't think anything short of bushit catching bin forgotten and making him cry on live television would pull this one out for the repukes--JMO

[brooklynite]

16. Why would this remotely make a difference?

Saddam will be found guilty, and that day or the next, another hugh bombing will occur in Baghdad. How do the Republican's get traction out of this?

[Rhiannon12866]

2. Excellent points, as always. K&R, from me... :-)

:-)

[Dudley_DUright]

4. Do I hear one more recommend for Molly to get her to "greatest" status?

[Proud Liberal Dem]

5. How?

How will Saddam's verdict skew the election in the GOP's favor? Removing Saddam Hussein and his regime from power and capturing or killing the remnants of his regime were virtual guarantees as a result of our invasion and their removal from power has done NOTHING to stem the ongoing tide of violence that has been raging in Iraq for 3+ years now. Even killing the #1 terrorist Zarqawi didn't change much, if anything, in terms of the violence in Iraq. I think that everybody here can agree that Saddam and his regime are bad people and did bad things (to their own people) but does anybody really expect a "guilty" verdict to change anything in regards to the violence in Iraq? He and his regime are being prosecuted for things that we didn't even invade Iraq to resolve (at least based on what were told at the time of the invasion). Oh, sure they'll certainly be some self-congratulatory remarks by Bush and some MSM coverage and discussion of the event but I don't understand how a "guilty" verdict for Saddam (which was virtually assured from the start) will benefit the GOP. I'm not naive enough to think that the MSM and the GOP won't hail the verdict as some kind of "vindication" or "validation" of their decision to invade/occupy Iraq but I don't see how the GOP should rightfully be able to benefit from a verdict that establishes nothing that validates what we were told we were going to war for in Iraq nor will it do anything to stem the tide of violence engulfing Iraq. Knowing that they will likely exploit it, we need to make sure to get the message out there that while Saddam deserves whatever verdict he gets, it ultimately does not validate our invasion or our continued occupation nor does it change the fact that Saddam Hussein was prosecuted for reasons other than that which we were told that invading Iraq was intended to address. Also, it should be pointed out that his verdict will likely have no effect on the violence in Iraq. Anybody else have any other ideas on possible responses by our Democratic leaders?

[alarimer]

6. I think the GOP will try to play it up

And the sheep will fall for it, as usual. We can try to get ahead of it but it won't do any good because the Republicans will lie their asses off.

That's the pessimist in me, I am afraid. I just have a feeling the fix is in for this election, given the voter purging going on in Ohio and probably in other states as well.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

7. I Hope You're Wrong

The polls have been consistently good for Democrats this past year and bad for Bush and the GOP. The races also may not end up being close enough for the GOP to steal. I'm not ruling out any possible last minute "hook or by crook" (mostly by crook) reversals of fortune for the GOP this time but Iraq seems to be a real SORE spot with a lot of people here right now and I doubt that the conviction of Saddam Hussein is going to do much to change their minds about it. I think that most people have mentally "left" Iraq and want us out of there now (or in the near future) and our troops back home. I'm sure that the Iraqis (the INC, Shiites, and Kurds, anyway) might be happy with the verdict but I doubt it's going to do much for the GOP or for the prospect of peace in Iraq, especially since the Sunnis will likely be inflamed by the verdict. We'll see what happens.

[cassiepriam]

8. Why would the repugs start being honest now and not rig the elections? nt

[Stand and Fight]

9. I disagree on this one...

Even the die-hard Republicans I talk to already know that Saddam is going to be found guilty. They do not care. It has been a foregone conclusion since the day that we invaded that once caught, if caught, he would be put on trial and found guilty. Republicans and Democrats have known that alike in this country. I believe that the affect of a guilty verdict is being grossly overestimated. Now if Osama bin Laden -- I know that was all the rage in 2004 and 2002 -- then you could bet your ass on a Republican sweep... Never mind that they were the party in control of the White House when America was attacked.

I do not think the end of this trial will matter all that much because at the end of the day the majority of Americans are against the war in Iraq and believe that we were misled into it. The majority of Americans are also quite unhappy with Bush and his Republican gang of thugs.

[elehhhhna]

11. Hear hear! Unless OBL shows up as a surprise character

witness and GW kills him w/ his bare hands on live cable, this won't mean JACK.

[Laurab]

13. As much as I love Molly Ivins I disagree with her here

I don't know anyone who gives a damn, really, about the Saddam trial. I know a ton of people who care about the war, Katrina, loss of civil rights, attacks on the Constitution. The page scandal, IMO gets many of the "Joe six-pack" and "hockey mom" types.

I really think Saddam is a non-issue.

[muriel_volestrangler]

14. It depends on how much you think media coverage swings votes

or opinions. Saddam's trial may seem a non-issue now - but it's getting no media coverage. But when he's found guilty (and if there's ever been a trial that's been a foregone conclusion, this is it), it will dominate the news. And I'm sure the Republicans will try to squeeze every last bit of publicity and 'justification' from it, and the media will, by and large, let them, and pay almost no attention to what Democrats say.

It depends on how much that can actually affect voting - you may not know people for whom it would (and that would be a good indication of the upright society in which you move), but there may be Republicans who weren't going to vote this time, after the page scandal, Katrina and so on, but who might get persuaded to vote for "the guys who got Saddam".

[rodeodance]

15. i am very cautiouly optimistic. But we are not 'there' yet.