No marketer worth his pay launches a product in August. Summer is behind us and the electorate, presumably, is paying attention. Campaign 2006 begins now. It's an off-year election, and one in the president's second term at that, so it's assumed that the party out of power--that would be the Democrats--picks up seats. So how to determine who wins the election? My own barometer tells me that the Democrats need to win back the House of Representatives, return to their camp with some big-name scalps, and pick up more than three seats in the Senate to claim a true victory. Those aren't unreachable benchmarks, are they? The Republicans pulled off a 54-seat House swing in 1994 and the Democrats pulled off a 48-seat House swing in 1974. Those are clear victories. All signs are pointing to a Democratic victory this year. But there's a reason why votes, rather than polls, determine elections.

I see lots of room for Democratic failure. I came across this linked from a DailyKos entry:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/08/31/opinion/main1956701.shtml

Even if it were possible for Democrats to create a national platform, moreover, doing so might be too risky this cycle. Thomas Mann of the Brookings Institute recently cautioned Democrats against getting into policy specifics because Republicans will jump at any chance to divert the voters' attention from a retrospective focus on the GOP's policy failures. The New Republic's Peter Beinart goes a step further, arguing that Democrats should aspire to be the "party of no ideas" in 2006.

Sure, that's been great up until this point. But how will running on having no ideas work in debates?

Garbage in, Garbage out.

They are the party of no idea's already, which works in the republican's favor.
Scratch that, their policy is what it's been for the past 6 years. "We hate Bush and refuse to work on ANYTHING with the republicans".

That's a good metric for measuring the Democrats' success or failure in this election Dan.

The current CW is that the Democrats will take the house and five senate seats, one short of a majority in the Senate. George Allen is doing his best to give them the sixth they need to take both houses.

Its a tough road for them though. Despite the national mood, Democrats face this mid-term election with the most gerrymandered district slate in American history and is up against a proto-authoritarian party.

Opus, the partisan bickering in Washington is about the only thing that's still bi-partisan anymore.

Its not the Democrats insitgating the partisanship, both sides are at fault.

If anything it's more on the republicans cuz they're the ones in power.

HeHe

The republicans are the one's responsible for how the democrats chose to act?
Pelosi made not cooperating in any way shape or form the standing order for the democrats.
They are responsible for their own actions/inactions.

I think you're wrong Opus, Pelosi has been the refreshing face of reason for the Democrats. Better yet, she'll bring those good old San Fransico values to the House Leadership if given a chance.

The Democrats will pick up seats, but I doubt they will carry either house.

More likely, I think, there will be record low voter turnout.

I'm no fan of Pelosi's, but I think its rediculous to saythat in a Democracy the opposition's role is to lie down and let the majority do its work.

The first reason for the Democrats uncooperativeness is the enchaned partisanship in Washington, which has a hell of a lot more to do with Karl Rove and Fox News than with anything the Democrats have done.

The second reason for the Democrat's unwillingness to cooperate is the fact that the honestly believe that Republican policies are hurting the country and that they would do more good than harm in opposing their agenda.

The bottom line is that bi-partisanship is in steep decline, but the Democrats didn't start this trend, it started in 1994 and has continued on even since.

We need a true uniter in 08. A John McCain or a Mark Warner.