Most Likely Dems To Jump To GOP? (Vanity)

Me | 8/21/09 | Ocarterma

[Ocarterma]

Powerful analysis: Think....what happens to the Dems not up for reelection until 2012 if they see a massive GOP tidal wave but the pubbies fall just shy of taking congress in 2010? What will they be thinking? We could see your theory in actuality very shortly after the November 2010 as the (back door negotiations begin).

[GLDNGUN]

Why would a Democrat jump to a minority party?

Did you read my analysis? They would so in order to keep their seat and jump the sinking Obama Titanic.

[GLDNGUN]

Powerful analysis: Think....what happens to the Dems not up for reelection until 2012 if they see a massive GOP tidal wave but the pubbies fall just shy of taking congress in 2010? What will they be thinking? We could see your theory in actuality very shortly after the November 2010 as the (back door negotiations begin).

Well, ALL House members are up in 2010, so your thoughts could apply to democratic Senators not up until 2012. So, yes, it might go something like this...Nazi Pelosi rams through a liberal Health Care bill complete with the "public option". Some "conservative" dems vote AGAINST it. There is public outrage that the House has jammed through a bill highly unpopular. The dems that voted against it see the writing on the wall and in the polls, that the democrats are cooked in 2010. They jump the sinking Obama Titanic to distance themselves from Obama, Pelosi, and the democratic party. They say the familiar "we didn't leave the party, the party left us". They then run as republicans (after an unopposed primary election) in 2010 and return to Congress as "heroes" by their constituents for opposing Obama and making their "courageous" switch. Meanwhile, as the dems feared, they get slaughtered in 2010. Along with the defections, they lose 30+ seats and basically lose HALF of their majority margin. In the Senate, the GOP does well enough to bring the balance close to a 50-50 split. THEN, as you suggest, a democrat or 2 that will be up for election in 2012, jumps ship. This gives the balance of power to the GOP in the Senate, or at least make it 50-50 (and remember how the dems screamed for "power sharing" when it 50-50 under Bush?). The dem or 2 have the cajones to jump ship because they see how it paid off for the House dems that did it, and they want to get back into office in 2012.

[NeoCaveman]

The only 3 who might be worth it are Walt Minnick of Idaho, Gene Taylor of Mississippi and Dan Boren of Oklahoma.

[darkangel82]

Taylor is a ‘rat and will be for life.

[doodles2]

"Do you know what your strategy will result in: More Democrats because there will be more conservative republicans voting against conservative (or even more than not conservative) republicans than we WILL get Democrats to vote against liberal Democrats: FAIL! It’s better to pick the best candidates (on an individual basis) whatever party they are in, than for conservative republicans to vote against conservative republicans “because they’re the incumbents”..where’s the logic in that??"

Some how I thionk you comment is supposed to make me than the strategy could pu8t us in a worse place ... but, I don't see how we can cen worse than this. What I do see is that voting for incumbents tells them and future candidates that we don't care what they do once they are in office.

You mention picking the best candidates. What I see currently is a scattering of pretty good candidates that are afraid to speak out publicly against really bad candidates. I can't understand why it is bad to vote them both out.

[MayflowerMadam]

“One supposes he did what he felt he needed to do to survive politically”

I don’t think one has to “suppose”. He stated that he couldn’t win as a Republican, implying clearly that it was all about him and not the country.

[JSDude1]

Because I do NOT want to vote against Conservative Republicans (or geninuely conservative Democrats, Independents where/if) they exist, because that IS Plain STOOUPID for our movement..(just because they’re ‘Incumbents’?..Dumb move).

HOWEVER I can understand the sentiment “Vote the bums out”, it just doesn’t make good strategy polically!

[Sargent]

Fourty seats would do it.

As of tonight 40 is attainable. Heck, the assumption is 20+ already.

[doodles2]

I would agree with your sentiment about not voting against a true conservative. However, I absolutely believe that the culture in side the beltway is so corrupt that no one is serving who will not put incumbency above the nation.

Example - Sandy Berger. Not one conservative made a stink about his slap on the wrist for treason or demanded to put him through a trial and learn what he stole, what he shredded and who put him up to it.

Example II - Able Dnager - not one conservative stood up to demand a full investigation into the manipulation of the 9/11 commission and the attacks on our data mining team.