Elizabeth Dole (R-Delusionville) Reports

[William Seger]

Somehow (I suspect a prankster friend), I got on Elizabeth Dole's National Republican Senatorial Committee mailing list. With *'s polling numbers going in the toilet, she has the difficult job of rallying the faithful, so here's her prognosis for 2006, published in this week's The Hill magazine.

The Hill
Focus on: Election 2006
Dems' lurch to the left will hurt them in 2006
By Sen. Elizabeth Dole (R-N.C.)

In a bizarre tactic that has left many Democrat strategists and centrist Democratic groups puzzled and disturbed, the Democratic leadership has jumped even further to the left since their last election defeats. The results have been staggering and numerous, and well-documented in the press, and have caused an acute case of political heartburn among many Democrat members and liberal pundits.

Shortly after the 2004 election, left-wing radical group Move-On.org proudly pronounced that "Now it's our party: we bought it, we own it and we're going to take it back." And it was of course correct on all accounts.

Enter Howard Dean as the chairman of the Democratic National Committee. He was too liberal to win the Democratic primary for president because he ran to the left of the more "conservative" senator from Massachusetts, John Kerry. Now he's reaching out to red-state voters with his pessimism and negativity.

The congressional leadership for the Democrats has formed an alliance with the extreme left as well. MoveOn.org and the Daily Kos are featured guests on conference calls and in meetings to develop strategy with Sen. Harry Reid (Nev.) and Rep. Nancy Pelosi (Calif.). By contrast, Republicans offer clear principles and solutions to the problems confronting the American people. The outlook for protecting the majority in the United States Senate looks good as a result.

Let's look at the facts about the upcoming elections.

The Democrats must defend 18 seats, compared to 15 seats on the Republican side. The GOP also has 14 out of 15 incumbent senators running for reelection, while the Democrats have lost at least three senators to retirement in Maryland, Minnesota, Vermont and potentially a fourth in New Jersey.

One important statistic tells us that, since 1914, almost 80 percent of congressional incumbents have been reelected. And of the nine winners of Senate elections in 2004, only one member did so by defeating an incumbent. Yet the Democrats have hung their hopes for a Senate majority on defeating incumbent Republican senators across the board in such places as Arizona, Missouri and Montana -- all of which broke strongly Republican last year.

As for open seats, thanks to the welcome news that Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison will continue serving Texas in the Senate, Republicans are defending only Tennessee. If there is any question on how a Senate race in the South will go for the party of Howard Dean and MoveOn.org, a quick look at the races in North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia and Louisiana from the last cycle should answer that question.

So, just ignore the "bizarre tactics" and go back to sleep, Repugs. :rofl:

[FrankBooth]

1. Wow.

The insight is staggering. I think the Democrats should just throw in the towel on 2006.

(I can't bring myself to use emoticons, so please imagine the sarcasm)

[napi21]

2. OK Liddy, let's think abput this.

You say there are 14 Pub Senate seate up for reelection and the Dems have lost 3 to retirements. You have to consider at least 1 Pub who PROMISED he wouldn't run again...Sen Frist. Remember he said he wouldn't run for another term? How about those Pubs who will be linked to Abramoff?

You have a valid point that most incumbants are usually reelected. I must add though that sometimes the voters get very upset with an administration and just decide to vote the bums out!

[jobycom]

3. It's a predictable, proven, and dangerous (for us) strategy

They will simply try to make the Dems seem more extreme to the general public than the Republicans do. Also, they will continue to divide us from the inside, splitting the "liberal" and "conservative" sides of the party.

In the end, they hope that no matter how bad they have failed, they can make us look worse, and they can divide us from the inside.

It can work, too. Low approval numbers for one party doesn't mean a victory for the other. We have to make people see us a vibrant and optimistic, or they can still win.

[William Seger]

6. True

"We have to make people see us a vibrant and optimistic."

Yes, we need a progressive version of a Contract With America -- something that hits them on every point where we have the advantage and ties it all together.

[countmyvote4real]

4. Did she do this analysis all by herself?

I think not.

BTW I cracked up at the (R-Delusionville)

[Virginian]

5. left-wing radical group Move-On.org

Move-On isn't radical. Make sure you let your friends know this. It isn't like the Symbionese Liberation Army. It doesn't resort to violence. It wants the Constitution to apply to everyone equally. Is that radical?

The Right wing groups are radical. They want to scrap our Constitution and come up with a Church/state government. They want us to all spend Sunday mornings praying to their God. They want to put the tax burden on the poor. They want to restrict what consenting adults do in their own homes. They want to remove the protections for the working class and allow corporations to run roughshod over the employees. They want to outlaw unions. They want to restrict a woman's ablility to get adequate prescriptions and health care. They want to eliminate lawsuits against corporate evil doers who pollute our waters and air. They want to cut social services. What they want will push civilization back into the era of serfs. Now that's radical.