Replies

I agree. It's important, however, to remember that politics usually, like most football games, is a game of "inches." The Senate was nearly held by a few thousand votes; and a shift of maybe 30,000 votes might have changed the house outcome. Or whatever, but the point is, it is always pretty close. That's why I was saying a year ago that we could actually aim for a 60 seat majority. In retrospect, it looks galaxies away, but if the Republicans who should have won, had won (Burns, Allen, Talent), and if those who stood an outside chance of winning had gotten some breaks (Santorum, Chafee, DeWine), well . . . . The point is, the difference between losing control and absolutely dominating is a handful of races, plus a very narrow margin in many other races.

I agree that BECAUSE it has now made Dems incumbents, and set us up for even more difficult 2008 defenses, it looks tough.

My sports analogy on this is that we were on the one yard line about to score, up 20-0, just before the half, and threw an interception that was run back for a TD, and now the other team thinks they have the momentum and all the advantages, and we, on the other hand, missed n opportunity to crush them.

My sports analogy on this is that we were on the one yard line about to score, up 20-0, just before the half, and threw an interception that was run back for a TD, and now the other team thinks they have the momentum and all the advantages, and we, on the other hand, missed n opportunity to crush them.

That was mine too! :-)

It's important, however, to remember that politics usually, like most football games, is a game of "inches." The Senate was nearly held by a few thousand votes; and a shift of maybe 30,000 votes might have changed the house outcome.

It is about winning and losing and not the margin of victory. A few hundred votes in Florida decided the 2000 election. Those seats lost in the Senate will stay lost for another 6 years at least. You can't create the same conditions and circumstances in each election, which stands by itself. In 2008, we will have different players in the Senate races and a Presidential election. Incumbents have an inherent advantage, which is why it is so difficult to defeat them.

My sports analogy on this is that we were on the one yard line about to score, up 20-0, just before the half, and threw an interception that was run back for a TD, and now the other team thinks they have the momentum and all the advantages, and we, on the other hand, missed n opportunity to crush them.

A better one may be that we lost this regular season game and hope to beat them in the rematch. My point is that something very historic just happened. An incumbent President just lost both houses of Congress in a midterm. It only happened in 1946, 1994, and 2006 as best as I can determine. I find explanations that this is just part of the political cycle to be pollyanish and way off base. I guess I am old enough to remember when the Dems controlled Congress and the Reps were just bystanders when it came to making decisions. Internal Dem politics, the solid, conservative Southern Dems battling the liberal Dems, were what counted in a country that was essentially one party when there was a Dem President. The Reps were happy when a few crumbs were tossed their way.

We have lost some hard earned gains and squandered a real opportunity to cement our power base. It was hubris and a lack of cojones to use our power to achieve what we were sent to Congress for. We also lost two of our brightest starts, Santorum and Allen, who have all but been destroyed as a political force in the future. It was a very costly election.