The Republican Stand: High-Risk, High-Reward

[Duckus]

A recent article I was reading about the GOP opposition to the stimulus bill mentioned how Republicans saw this stand as an opportunity to bring their party back to life. The party leadership sees the stimulus policy as being a failure and being their political issue to take back some power in 2 years. Now I am speaking entirely about politics, not about economics, but this seems to be a pretty risky move by the Republicans. It appears that the entire future of the party (at least for the next few decades) is entirely in this "anti-stimulus" basket. That is some BALLS. I am actually pretty impressed.

If the economy does improve (even just looking like things are getting better) and the stimulus is given credit for that improvement in 2 years, is the Republican party as we know it almost completely finished for the next 10-20 years?

On the flip side, if the economy tanks even further and in 2 years and we are worse off then we are now, is the Republican party taking back power in the Senate and getting closer to even in the House?

Again, speaking JUST about politics, it seems to be an extremely high-risk, high-reward stand by the Republicans. It could bring the party back to life, but it could put them back even further than Bush did.

Again, try and keep the economic debate out of this as there are a TON of threads on that already. This is to debate how each party could be effected by their stands on this issues.

[PokerPacker]

ugh, the part of politics I hate the most... the politics.

[DjTj]

I think it's a good political strategy. There is at least a 50/50 chance that the economy will still be in a funk 2 or 4 years from now. They are in dire straits now, and they migh as well push all-in.

...I wish the Democrats had made the same gamble on the Iraq War. Either Kerry or Hillary would certainly be President right now if one of them had just taken a stand and voted against the war.

[McD5]

Looks like no risk from where I sit.

1. What do they have to lose?

2. The bill looks packed with payoffs to environmental groups and so forth. It reaks of Pelosi. Very little seems stimulative at all.

[alexey]

Now I am speaking entirely about politics, not about economics, but this seems to be a pretty risky move by the Republicans. It appears that the entire future of the party (at least for the next few decades) is entirely in this "anti-stimulus" basket. That is some BALLS. I am actually pretty impressed.
I do not think this is about balls... What else would they do?

I think they have pushed all of their chips into the pot several years ago, back when they were all marching lock-step off a cliff. This was back when staying together was the #1 priority and disagreement was unpatriotic. Now they are basically just sitting there and watching the game from the sidelines, watching the natural course of events develop, doing the only thing they can, etc.

[SUSkinsFan]

On the flip side, if the economy tanks even further and in 2 years and we are worse off then we are now, is the Republican party taking back power in the Senate and getting closer to even in the House?I really don't see the Republicans taking the Senate back in 2010. The gap they have to overcome is simply too great. If the stimulus tanks I think the margin will be somewhere around 55-45. The House will probably also take 2 elections for the Republicans to take back if the economy gets REALLY bad.

But, if the economy does well than the Republicans are going to take a beating in 2010 and probably 2012 (just not as bad)

[sacase]

I don't see the stimulus helping the economy, its just a pay of to certain Dem groups. That being said, if the economy tanks and people are having serious issues and government spending is out of control, you will see the Republicans take back office pretty fast in 2010, especially when they can point out they were against govt spending which in all lifelyhood can cause us more problems.

[techboy]

But, if the economy does well than the Republicans are going to take a beating in 2010 and probably 2012 (just not as bad)

I don't know about that... I actually find it hard to believe that the Republicans are going to lose many more seats than they have, simply because the ones they have left, for the most part, tend to be really safe seats. Most of the seats in danger have already been lost, I'd suspect.

On the other side, for the Democrats, having a huge majority means they have that many more seats to defend, and some of those will be in areas they don't traditionally win, but which they swept up in the anti-Bush pro-Obama momentum.

This probably is less true in the Senate, where they only go a third at a time and change is slower, but I'm pretty sure that's more or less it for the House.

[Smoot Point Really]

For a Republican to support this would mean they aren't conservative and likely never truly were. Why is it "politics" if a Republican stands against this bill, but if a Democrat stands against a War it's "principle"? I admit that if a non-conservative (of any ilk) is against this bill, then it would be politics. Just like the "Code-Pink" crowd of the Democratic party would be standing on principle in opposition to the war, but someone who supports wars when Democrats are in office and then doesn't support them when Republicans are in office would be playing politics.

[alexey]

I don't know about that... I actually find it hard to believe that the Republicans are going to lose many more seats than they have, simply because the ones they have left, for the most part, tend to be really safe seats. Most of the seats in danger have already been lost, I'd suspect.

On the other side, for the Democrats, having a huge majority means they have that many more seats to defend, and some of those will be in areas they don't traditionally win, but which they swept up in the anti-Bush pro-Obama momentum.

This probably is less true in the Senate, where they only go a third at a time and change is slower, but I'm pretty sure that's more or less it for the House.
According to data data gathered by Wiki the Senate is not looking too good for Republicans:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_elections,_2010

Your point seems overly simplistic even if it's focused on the House. It's not like Dems won a close one in every race they had a chance to win. It's not like all districts that sent Rs into the House are guaranteed to send Rs again in 2010. You also may be confusing things like disillusionment with Republican Party and shifting demographics (rural->urban) with a simplistic idea of anti-Bush/pro-Obama momentum.

Chances that the stimulus will turn out to be a spectacular failure are low. That may happen only if the whole economy goes to the crapper. Otherwise it will look good. People may start having dangerous thoughts like "finally our money is being spend on right things".

[skinsfan_1215]

Yeah in VA we had 2 GOP senators for a long time. Now, in the course of 2 elections, those seats are both controlled by Dems. And I don't see anyone the VA GOP party can run against them that would have a real chance at taking the seats back.:2cents:

[Thiebear]

It's the minorities job to fight a bad bill to atleast get some of the crap removed from it.

I think Snow is the 5th most liberal in the Senate ;).

[SkinsHokieFan]

If the economy does improve (even just looking like things are getting better) and the stimulus is given credit for that improvement in 2 years, is the Republican party as we know it almost completely finished for the next 10-20 years?

.

Regardless of what happens with the economy, the Republican party is dead for more along 40-50 years.

2010 is already a very uphill climb in terms of regaining the Senate. That would take a miracle. The house ditto. President Obama will cruise to re-election in 2012 (in particular if Palin is the nominee). Once more and more people begin to get comfortable sucking on the teet of the welfare state, why would they vote for people whose rhetoric would claim to eliminate it?

You know a party is in trouble when it has no house seats in New England, only 3 out of 29 house seats in NY state, and no state north of the mason-dixon line voted for its Presidential candidate (save for some out west like Montana)

[techboy]

You also may be confusing things like disillusionment with Republican Party and shifting demographics (rural->urban) with a simplistic idea of anti-Bush/pro-Obama momentum.

And you might be doing the opposite. Only time will tell, I guess.

[Duckus]

For a Republican to support this would mean they aren't conservative and likely never truly were. Why is it "politics" if a Republican stands against this bill, but if a Democrat stands against a War it's "principle"? I admit that if a non-conservative (of any ilk) is against this bill, then it would be politics. Just like the "Code-Pink" crowd of the Democratic party would be standing on principle in opposition to the war, but someone who supports wars when Democrats are in office and then doesn't support them when Republicans are in office would be playing politics.

I think you are trying to find a slight against the GOP where there is not one intended. The stand can be based on principle, but still has political effects. Regardless of why members of congress vote for and against the bill, it will have a great impact in 2010 and 2012 depending on the state of the economy.

[Thiebear]

Regardless of what happens with the economy, the Republican party is dead for more along 40-50 years.


and to think the republicans were saying the same thing in their intoxicated glow of 1994.

[SkinsHokieFan]

I think you are trying to find a slight against the GOP where there is not one intended. The stand can be based on principle, but still has political effects. Regardless of why members of congress vote for and against the bill, it will have a great impact in 2010 and 2012 depending on the state of the economy.

To me, this is very easy politically.

We are 20 some months from a midterm election. If the economy is back on track by November 2010, regardless of how you voted, Dems will get the credit

So why not go the "I told you so" route. Much safer and the more obvious move in my opinion

[SkinsHokieFan]

and to think the republicans were saying the same thing in their intoxicated glow of 1994.

I think 1994 was set up by many unique circumstances. Including the AWB being signed into law 8 weeks prior to an election.

1994 itself was a miracle. Up until about 2 weeks before the election nobody thought both the House and Senate would flip the way they did.

The changing demographics are producing more people who PREFER a welfare state as opposed to those of us who PREFER an individual state

[Smoot Point Really]

I think you are trying to find a slight against the GOP where there is not one intended. The stand can be based on principle, but still has political effects. Regardless of why members of congress vote for and against the bill, it will have a great impact in 2010 and 2012 depending on the state of the economy.

The slight implied is that the GOP would put party politics over concern for the economy. You might not see that as a "slight", but someone who supports opposition to the stimulus bill entirely on principle and thinking that it would damage the economy would and should see it as a slight.

[Thiebear]

I think all these bills are crap to include Ex-President Bush's.
Thats not politics.

[alexey]

The changing demographics are producing more people who PREFER a welfare state as opposed to those of us who PREFER an individual state
That's some overly simplistic bull right there.

[alexey]

The slight implied is that the GOP would put party politics over concern for the economy. You might not see that as a "slight", but someone who supports opposition to the stimulus bill entirely on principle and thinking that it would damage the economy would and should see it as a slight.
I believe he was talking about Republicans that have a say in this, not Republicans that follow them. It would be silly to deny that there are plenty of "true believers" out there.

[Kilmer17]

Any GOPer i n the house just survived this last election. Nothing short of getting caught in bed with a live boy or dead girl will hurt their chances for re-election. The "core" that is left is as solid as it gets. Of COURSE they are going this route. 1- They actually believe it. 2- Even if they are wrong, it wont hurt them.

More interesting in my opinion is the flip side. Every Dem (save 3 or 4 in the house) is supporting this bill? Really? Now THAT's something that can come back and bite a bunch of House members the next election. Especially those Dems in moderate and downright Conservative districts.

[alexey]

Any GOPer i n the house just survived this last election. Nothing short of getting caught in bed with a live boy or dead girl will hurt their chances for re-election. The "core" that is left is as solid as it gets. Of COURSE they are going this route. 1- They actually believe it. 2- Even if they are wrong, it wont hurt them.

More interesting in my opinion is the flip side. Every Dem (save 3 or 4 in the house) is supporting this bill? Really? Now THAT's something that can come back and bite a bunch of House members the next election. Especially those Dems in moderate and downright Conservative districts.
Let's say Dems gain some seats in the Senate (going over 60) and loose some seats in the House while keeping the majority. How is that going to change things around? As far as I know the House cannot fillibuster.

[Kilmer17]

Let's say Dems gain some seats in the Senate (going over 60) and loose some seats in the House while keeping the majority. How is that going to change things around? As far as I know the House cannot fillibuster.

18 months from now, if the stimulus hasnt worked, Dems wont win more seats in the Senate. In fact, they'll have to defend 2 or 3 more in special elections caused by appointments. Take NY. They will have to vote on Governor (Patterson has to run in special because he took over), and BOTH Senate seats. If the stimulus isnt working, voters will split tickets AT BEST. Shumer will win, but Rudy will destroy whomever the other Dem is running (if he runs).

I suppose its possible, just not likely. The GOP will run a national campaign to keep the Dems from 60. And if they have the ammo, they'll be succesful.

[dockeryfan]

To me, this is very easy politically.

We are 20 some months from a midterm election. If the economy is back on track by November 2010, regardless of how you voted, Dems will get the credit

So why not go the "I told you so" route. Much safer and the more obvious move in my opinion

Hoping for the economy to fail. Preventing a stimulus so the economy will get worse. (That's what the democrats will argue)

That could easily backfire for the republicans.

[alexey]

18 months from now, if the stimulus hasnt worked, Dems wont win more seats in the Senate. In fact, they'll have to defend 2 or 3 more in special elections caused by appointments. Take NY. They will have to vote on Governor (Patterson has to run in special because he took over), and BOTH Senate seats. If the stimulus isnt working, voters will split tickets AT BEST. Shumer will win, but Rudy will destroy whomever the other Dem is running (if he runs).

I suppose its possible, just not likely. The GOP will run a national campaign to keep the Dems from 60. And if they have the ammo, they'll be succesful.
According to Wiki (predictions section) it's not looking too good for GOP in 2010 Senate elections:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_elections,_2010#Senate_Contes ts_in_2010

Yes a spectacular fail by the stimulus would change things around. However, after several years of seemingly flushing money down the drain, seing things actually being built with investment by the government could have quite an effect on people.

[Kilmer17]

According to Wiki (predictions section) it's not looking too good for GOP in 2010 Senate elections:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_elections,_2010#Senate_Contes ts_in_2010

Yes a spectacular fail by the stimulus would change things around. However, after several years of seemingly flushing money down the drain, seing things actually being built with investment by the government could have quite an effect on people.

No doubt that a quick turnaround will help the Dems in the Senate. But looking at the wiki list. There are just as many at risk Dem seats as at risk GOP seats.

[DjTj]

To me, this is very easy politically.

We are 20 some months from a midterm election. If the economy is back on track by November 2010, regardless of how you voted, Dems will get the credit

So why not go the "I told you so" route. Much safer and the more obvious move in my opinionThe counter-argument is equally valid. If the economy is still sour by 2010, regardless of how you voted, Dems will get the blame.

Why stick your neck out and oppose this right now? You only really need about half the party to take a hard line, and there will still be plenty of opportunity for finger-pointing. Republicans in moderate districts might as well hedge their bets and vote for the stimulus. That will protect them come 2010 if the economy really does recover.

The Iraq War vote was a great model for this. While a lot of Democrats caved on that vote and it hurt the careers of several politicians, especially Kerry, the Democratic Party still reaped all the benefits from Iraq going sour. Republicans could compromise and take that route, but instead they are pursuing the high-risk, high-reward strategy - they will maximize their gains if the economy goes poorly, but they will be severely punished if we see a recovery.

[Kilmer17]

The counter-argument is equally valid. If the economy is still sour by 2010, regardless of how you voted, Dems will get the blame.

Why stick your neck out and oppose this right now? You only really need about half the party to take a hard line, and there will still be plenty of opportunity for finger-pointing. Republicans in moderate districts might as well hedge their bets and vote for the stimulus. That will protect them come 2010 if the economy really does recover.

The Iraq War vote was a great model for this. While a lot of Democrats caved on that vote and it hurt the careers of several politicians, especially Kerry, the Democratic Party still reaped all the benefits from Iraq going sour. Republicans could compromise and take that route, but instead they are pursuing the high-risk, high-reward strategy - they will maximize their gains if the economy goes poorly, but they will be severely punished if we see a recovery.


Why is it so hard to believe that the remaining GOPers are 1- From very conservative districts where their constituents oppose it. 2- Believe that the Dem Stimulus package is a BAD thing for our country and are simply voting the way they think is right?

And again, why isnt the flip side of this issue being examined by ANYONE?

[DjTj]

Why is it so hard to believe that the remaining GOPers are 1- From very conservative districts where their constituents oppose it. 2- Believe that the Dem Stimulus package is a BAD thing for our country and are simply voting the way they think is right?I think both those things are true, but I will again raise the Iraq War vote. Democratic Senators from California, Massachusetts, and New York voted in favor of the war in Iraq despite their own constituents opposing it. Presumably, they decided that we had to go to Iraq for the sake of national security, and they chose to defy their constituents.

Also, your second point is inextricably linked with the political gamble. If you believe that the stimulus is a bad thing for the country, then you are predicting that it will fail, and staking your political future on it. The funny thing about playing politics is that, in a political system that works, a political decision should align a politician's own interests with those of his constituents. From where we are sitting, it is often very difficult to distinguish between "playing politics," "voting your conscience," and "representing your constituents."


And again, why isnt the flip side of this issue being examined by ANYONE?The flip side is not as interesting. Democrats have very little choice here. Do you think a Democrat in a conservative district is really going to win reelection if the economy tanks? Their opponent will run a million ads with Pelosi and Obama, and "but I voted against the stimulus" is not going to cut it. I think Republicans have much more flexibility in how they can choose to react here ... Whether the reason is principle or politics, they are undoubtedly choosing the high-risk, high-reward strategy.

[alexey]

Why is it so hard to believe that the remaining GOPers are 1- From very conservative districts where their constituents oppose it. 2- Believe that the Dem Stimulus package is a BAD thing for our country and are simply voting the way they think is right?
Lack of intellectual honesty.

[Kilmer17]

Lack of intellectual honesty.

Yet, perfectly okay to think that EVERY Dem agrees with it?

Cmon now.

[techboy]

As far as I know the House cannot fillibuster.

No, they can't. A simple one vote majority is enough for the Speaker to ram through pretty much anything he or she wants.

Also, the House has to consider whether or not a provision is germane, whereas as Barney Frank once noted, in the Senate, they think that germane was one of the Jackson 5.

It's funny. Just a few years ago some of my Republican friends were infuriated at the Gang of 12 for preventing the Senate from "going nuclear" and removing the 60 vote rule to end Democrat fillibusters. At the time, I told them that they'd regret it sooner or later, because the Democrats would be back in power.

Now, of course, it's clear that the Gang of 12 saved them from themselves, and it's the Democrats that have pipe dreams of a permanent majority.

[Kilmer17]

Im not following your logic D on the Iraq comparison.

If a Pol from a state where people opposed it, and they themselves opposed it, then the only reason to vote for it was political. And in fact, would be a direct CONTRAST to what the GOPers are being accused of doing here.

They are making NO politcal hay out of this. The media is portraying it as "roadblocks" etc. But the fact is, Obama and the Dems really dont need to GOP to agree with it. I havent heard a peep about a filibuster threat, and certainly Collins, Snowe and Spector wouldnt go along with one (even if they wont vote yes on the package).

So the reality here, is that the Dems want the GOP to agree with them because they fear failure and it's repercussions. Why SHOULD the GOP join them?

[PeterMP]

Im not following your logic D on the Iraq comparison.

If a Pol from a state where people opposed it, and they themselves opposed it, then the only reason to vote for it was political. And in fact, would be a direct CONTRAST to what the GOPers are being accused of doing here.

They are making NO politcal hay out of this. The media is portraying it as "roadblocks" etc. But the fact is, Obama and the Dems really dont need to GOP to agree with it. I havent heard a peep about a filibuster threat, and certainly Collins, Snowe and Spector wouldnt go along with one (even if they wont vote yes on the package).

So the reality here, is that the Dems want the GOP to agree with them because they fear failure and it's repercussions. Why SHOULD the GOP join them?

I think his point is that SOME Republicans should vote for it so that as a party they hedge their bets.

IF the economy improve and ALL Republicans have voted against it, the Republican party as whole will take a beating next time.

IF you are Republican AND you voted for it, IF the economy tanks, it is going to be difficult for a Dem to attack you for voting for it, BUT IF the economy does well ALL Republicans will be vulnerable to the attack of 'Well, you voted against the stimulus and were wrong.'

As a collective, there is no need to take that risk if it is going to pass anyway.

[Kilmer17]

I think his point is that SOME Republicans should vote for it so that as a party they hedge their bets.

IF the economy improve and ALL Republicans have voted against it, the Republican party as whole will take a beating next time.

IF you are Republican AND you voted for it, IF the economy tanks, it is going to be difficult for a Dem to attack you for voting for it, BUT IF the economy does well ALL Republicans will be vulnerable to the attack of 'Well, you voted against the stimulus and were wrong.'

As a collective, there is no need to take that risk if it is going to pass anyway.

Right. So why are they? The only answer left is that they actually believe in what they are doing. Politics be damned.

[PeterMP]

Right. So why are they? The only answer left is that they actually believe in what they are doing. Politics be damned.

Well, there is at least one other option. They all believe the economy is going to tank w/ or w/o and none of them want to be the person that CAN'T crow, 'I knew the stimulus was going to fail' into the future.

[Kilmer17]

Yes, but they are saying that NOW.

[PeterMP]

Yes, but they are saying that NOW.

No, they're saying the Dem stimulus package is bad.

If Obama put a package together that was tax cut heavy, they'd essentially be forced to get on board even if they believed the economy was still going to tank.

Of course, Obama won't do that so it is a moot point.

[DjTj]

Im not following your logic D on the Iraq comparison.I'm just pointing out that it is possible to defy your constituents, and that it is a perfectly viable political strategy.


If a Pol from a state where people opposed it, and they themselves opposed it, then the only reason to vote for it was political. And in fact, would be a direct CONTRAST to what the GOPers are being accused of doing here.I haven't taken a full survey of GOP Congressmen, but I doubt that every single one is from a district that opposes the bailout. At least some of them must be defying their constituents ... what do people in Indiana think? Or Missouri? Or Louisiana? Or Ohio? A lot of people in America appear to support the stimulus:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/114202/Obama-Upper-Hand-Stimulus-Fight.aspx


They are making NO politcal hay out of this. The media is portraying it as "roadblocks" etc. But the fact is, Obama and the Dems really dont need to GOP to agree with it. I havent heard a peep about a filibuster threat, and certainly Collins, Snowe and Spector wouldnt go along with one (even if they wont vote yes on the package).

So the reality here, is that the Dems want the GOP to agree with them because they fear failure and it's repercussions. Why SHOULD the GOP join them?I won't tell them what they SHOULD do, but I think the GOP COULD choose to vote for the stimulus as a low-risk political strategy ... they have chosen to vote against it as a high-risk political strategy. It's ALL political strategy (or at least strategy is difficult to distinguish from principle in politics). That's my point.

[Midnight Judges]

The political problem Republicans will have in voting against the stimulus is that they will be on record as voting against a quarter trillion dollars worth of tax cuts.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123393201756256999.html