Iraq and the midterms ...

[welshTerrier2]

"it's the economy stupid" ... well, maybe it is and maybe it isn't ... one thing's for sure though, Iraq will play a major role in next year's midterm elections ... and as things stand right now, bush and the republicans are on the short end of the stick ... a recent poll that asked which party should control Congress showed the Democrats up 48 to 39 ...

but that's a snapshot view of where we are today ... and the question relies on a "nationalized" view of the parties ... a nationalized view is one that looks beyond a head-to-head contest between a specific republican and a specific Democrat and asks which party is better overall ... to nationalize the election, the Democratic Party would have to get voters to focus more on the policies of the parties than on individual candidates ...

Democrats should be heartened by current polls that show Americans would prefer to see them in charge of the Congress ... but the situation and the politics of Iraq are not static ... by next year, expect the republicans to be deserting the neo-con ship like rats running from a burning building ... and expect the Democrats to remain on their current, entrenched message of "look at us; we are tough on defense" ... the Party seems to be rigidly adhering to the "we can do Iraq better but Democrats don't 'turn tail and run'" message ...

so where does that leave us next year ???

let's assume that Iraq will remain a mess into the midterms and that, if anything, voters will grow even more weary of the endless occupation and reports of dead American troops than they are now ...

the question becomes, in this setting, will the Democratic Party be able to nationalize Iraq as a political issue during next year's midterms? and what will the effect be of a Democratic candidate criticizing bush's failures in Iraq but calling for continued occupation until "success" is achieved??? and how will a republican candidate do who is "showing the courage of speaking out against the leadership of his own party" and calling for the more popular alternative of withdrawal???

the politics of Iraq look pretty good today for the Democrats when viewed through a nationalized lens based on a static view; perhaps they don't look quite as good speculating about next year's changes ...

Comments ???

[Zensea]

1. $200 billion and counting

That's how you nationalize it.
Think what $200 billion would have done if spent in the United States instead.

[welshTerrier2]

2. that may not work ...

all a republican candidate has to do is point at the Democrat and say "he voted for the $200 Billion also" ...

the spending is out of control but a republican saying "enough is enough" running against a Democrat who's saying "we can do better but we shouldn't withdraw" hardly "nationalizes" the huge cost of Iraq ...

[Zensea]

3. What makes you think the repug will say enough is enough?

... and that the Dem will say we can do better instead of let's get out?
If you narrow the premise as far as you do of course you're right.
But what about a Democrat running against an incumbent repug? It would be a little hard to point at the Dem and say they voted a certain way if they weren't even in office at the time.

Dems that do what you say would have trouble nationalizing it, doesn't mean it's not possible to nationalize it.

[welshTerrier2]

5. it's speculation based on two factors ...

one, i expect the republicans to run against a failed policy from a lame duck president who is tumbling in the polls and two, the Democratic Party is pushing a "we're tough on defense message" ... i doubt they will be willing to call for an end to the war ...

thus far, virtually no Democrats have called for immediate or near-term withdrawal in spite of a recent NY Times / CBS poll that showed 52% of Americans want withdrawal from Iraq ASAP ... it's not a matter of knowing what position the parties will take next year; the premise of my questions in the OP was based on a "best guess" scenario ...

[Zensea]

6. Best guess or worst case?

Guess it's all in how you interpret what the premise is based on.
Looks to me like you're stacking the deck.
Me? I don't really know what the future will bring, I was just saying that there is a way to nationalize the issue -- whether the Democrats will do so or get caught in the scenario you propose I don't know.

[welshTerrier2]

7. and the answer is ...

both ...

it's my best guess and i also think it's the worst case ...

[Zensea]

8. Agreed, so what to do?

I think this is an instance where constituents need to put serious pressure on their representatives. Over and over and over, even if it seems not to be working.
Maybe they will get the message in time.

[welshTerrier2]

9. we're in total agreement ...

the reason i posted this was to show what i think is the most likely scenario and show that it is a political loser regardless of the current trend in the polls ...

and your statement is the gold standard: "this is an instance where constituents need to put serious pressure on their representatives."

that's exactly what we need to be doing ... if they think our votes are guaranteed or automatic, there's just a little less than zero chance they will respond to us ... we need to be clear and very up front with them: if you fail to represent us and fail to work for common ground with us, we will not support you ... let them know early; let them know often; let them make their choice ...

if they won't represent our views on the issues we care about most deeply, voting for them makes no sense at all ... at least not for me ...

[welshTerrier2]

4. oops ... please ignore ...

[TayTay]

10. Well, it's all about 'them'

the voters. (As it always is.) So something like, "Are you REALLY safer now than you were before 9/11?" Most people no longer feel that they are. They know the score, know how much has been spent and who is feathering their nests on the taxpayers dollar. That nationalizes it.

[welshTerrier2]

11. it's not that easy though ...

Democrat: "Are you REALLY safer now than you were before 9/11?" (i agree most Americans realize we are not) ...

republican: "At least regarding Iraq, my opponent is right ... we aren't safer and in spite of our best efforts in Iraq, i think it's time to admit that we've done all we can there ... to remain longer will only make things worse ... but my 'Democrat' opponent wants to turn his back on the majority of Americans who have had enough of this war ... he wants to blame me for Iraq when he voted for each and every Iraq spending bill himself ... one of us has learned to adapt to the situation and the will of the voters; one of us has not ... that's for you, the voters, to decide ... i think it's time to bring the boys home; my 'Democrat' opponent apparently does not ..."

when two candidates are running against each other, it's not easy to nationalize an election ... it can be done but it's not easy ... and i don't know about you, but the script above does not feel like a winner to me ...