Ah, the bitter taste of lowered expectations. Why not: "If on November 8, Nancy Pelosi can't levitate the U.S. Capitol using the power of her mind, the Democrats will have failed." I guess just showing up and losing will be a victory for the Republicans, eh?

Clown - when did you turn into a spin doctor for Dean?

Anything less than complete control is failure.

What, that nutty scream guy? Angryclown's only allegiances are to truth, justice and the American way. But his bullsh1t detector is mightily aroused at the notion that you'll be crowing about a pretend Republican win as the Democrats caucus to appoint Speaker Pelosi.

Pelosi on her expected accession to the Speakers' chair: "The gavel of the Speaker of the House is in the hands of special interests, and now it will be in the hands of America's children."

Yeah, baby!

I am starting to worry about you Democrats. Seriously.

I hear constant boasts about "winning big" in November, when any rational analysis makes that uncertain, at best. You seem to be deluded by your own sense of entitlement, or your sense of your own moral and intellectual superiority, and most likely both.

I am concerned because you have so much of your self-esteem on the line. It isn't healthy.
Consider the possibilities:
-If you win big it will be only because you are willing to lie, cheat and steal to do it. What kind of victory is that? And if you don't care, what moral authority can you possibly have to preach to the rest of us?
-If you win narrowly, you will have failed to meet expectations, and support for your agenda will wither along with your ability to deliver it. Even if you "get it together," you have been so non-specific as to what your agenda is, yet set expectations so high, that you can only fail. Anything specific you have said is so impracticable as to be (hopefully) easily defeated and if not (hopefully) easily vetoed.
-The best thing you could do for yourselves and the nation would be to lose, and that your ego will simply not tolerate. Should that happen, though, the nation will avoid the disaster that your reckless and senseless policies would inflict upon us. You will then be in a position to form the "loyal opposition" and develop some real, positive alternatives for the next election. If you can.

The thing we need to remember is that for the left, results don't matter as much as intent. They will win because they are the best intentioned party. Any positive is a huge victory. They can't deal with defeat, it drives them nuts. IMHO, as hard as they have worked in Minnesota, the only things close to a lock are CD-4 and CD-5.

I think that what people are forgetting is that, historically, the party in power almost always loses a few seats in mid-term election. So for the Dems to claim anything other than an overwhelming victory is, in fact, a kind of defeat. Gaining a few seats and calling it anything other than historical precedent is sort of like saying "See, we TOLD you that water is wet"... Add to this the fact that when Republicans lose they usually come back stronger in two years time. So one would think that with a Presidential election in two years the Dems would almost prefer to lose this round. After all, it does no good to win the battle and lose the war.

In the event that the Dems do take over either or both houses of Congress, I see one of two scenarios playing out. One is Nancy Pelosi being unable to work with Pres. Bush due to too many burned bridges. The other is that the Dems pursue "investigation and impeachment". This option would lead to charges by the Republicans that the Democrats had no plan after all, that they only wanted to "get George Bush". Either way, it would spell Republicans back in control in two years time.

As I said earlier, maybe the best thing the Dems can do is "throw the fight". Otherwise they may find out first hand that, to paraphrase football coach Bill Walsh, it's easier to get to the top than it is to stay on top...

Gee, JustMe, investigating the Bush administration sounds like a terrible idea! We all remember what a pasting the Democrats took in 1974 and '76.

I know it's easy for you right-wing kooks to forget, but in a democracy, the side with the most votes wins.

Unless Republicans get the most votes. Then it's a Diebold conspiracy.

Technically, it's the side with the most /honest/ votes, or should be. Dead people, illegal immigrants, and people that vote 10 or 12 times should not determine the "winner."

Actually, Clown, there are several instances in American politics where the person with the most votes did not win, especially if one looks at the American presidency.

AC's understanding of history only goes back to 2005, if that.

JustMe blathered: "Actually, Clown, there are several instances in American politics where the person with the most votes did not win, especially if one looks at the American presidency."

I will not listen to you slandering our president, JustMe. Bush won the 2000 election fair and square, 5 to 4.

[niggling, pointless comment expunged by blog owner]