Turns Out I Did Predict This Election Result After All
I was thinking it, of course — and I gently hinted at it — but I didn’t want to say it out loud. But it turns out I already had . . . five months ago.
In May, complaining about the Gang of 14 deal, I said:
There is no guarantee that Republicans will have as many Senators in late 2006 as we have today. I personally believe it will be a bloodbath on Election Night 2006. We might not even control the Senate when it’s all over.
Too bad we didn’t confirm more judges while we still had the chance.
Today, we see evidence that Kennedy is still a weasel — meaning we don’t have firm control of the Supreme Court. And, we just lost the Senate.
Bush has confirmed his last decent judge.
For those of you who care.
P.S. Spoons did pretty well on the predictions too.
I agree that losing the Senate is what makes this hard to swallow. Now the only way to get a conservative nominee through the Democrat-controlled judiciary committee is with a stealth candidate … and we all know how that works out.
But take heart, Patterico, because there was already a 1-in-3 chance President Bush wouldn’t nominate a conservative. So even if the GOP had won the battle in the Senate, conservatives could have easily lost the war based on Bush’s track record with nominees.
DRJ (1be297) — 11/8/2006 @ 10:33 pmCome to think of it, you could even argue President Bush has a 1-in-2 record when it comes to conservative SupCt nominees. Bush nominated Roberts and Miers. I think the GOP base was responsible for Alito. You have to admit, that’s not the best odds even if Republicans had held the Senate.
DRJ (1be297) — 11/8/2006 @ 10:37 pmMy family is weird. We deal with disappointment in a very peculiar way.
This morning as I drove my teens to school we listened to The Kraken music from Pirates of the Caribbean – Dead Man’s Chest, and we pictured the Republicans as the men on the ship and the Democrats as the Kraken.
The polls were like the ripples coming toward the ship – that can’t be good.
Then it struck. They fought back – did we hurt it? I think we just made it angry.
A tentacle pulls Santorum overboard, then Talent, then Burns, then Allen.
Finally, as the organ plays, Congress is lifted completely out of the water and cracked like a toothpick.
‘Twerent no survivors.
Amphipolis (fdbc48) — 11/9/2006 @ 5:56 amfor his next supreme court appointment, why doesn’t bush pick a smart guy like alex kozinski? he’s the best of the 9th circuit.
assistant devil's advocate (c4769b) — 11/9/2006 @ 6:47 amhow many of you knew that “santorum” became an eponym in 2003?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santorum_%28sexual_slang%29
Staying in the shallows is no good. It will eventually get you – if you have sold your soul.
Amphipolis (fdbc48) — 11/9/2006 @ 6:59 am“‘Twerent no survivors.”
-Amphipolis
That’s hilarious, actually.
But you are weird.
Leviticus (43095b) — 11/9/2006 @ 7:12 amReaping and sowing:
For me, the nomination of Harriet Miers, and the formation of the Gang of 14, were the turning points where I realized GWB was openly ignoring key elements in the Conservative agenda. He was taking Conservatives for granted and didn’t show the slightest appreciation for their past support nor was he sufficiently interested in maintaining their support. He just didn’t need us anymore.
Then, Republican Party front men, in a convincing demonstration of the ethics of demagogues, even accused Conservatives opposed to Miers of harboring prejudice against the advancement of women, never mind Miers wasn’t remotely qualified for the Supreme Court.
Insult had been added to injury, the seeds of Conservative discontent had been planted. GWB’s support for an amnesty program for illegal aliens provided all the water and nurture necessary to bring that bitter crop to harvest on November 7th.
mokus (56972e) — 11/9/2006 @ 10:21 amI agree, Mokus. For some voters, I think immigration was a much bigger factor in the past election than many people realize. President Bush realizes how controversial immigration is and that’s why he wants to sign off on amnesty and a guest worker program during the next 2 years. He wants immigration off the table so it’s a fait accompli before the next election.
From a party standpoint, I think he’s brilliant but he’s still wrong. It’s another example of the pragmatic Bush who values political process over principles. I know we have to be pragmatic about politics but this past election proves that when the GOP abandon its principles, it does so at its peril.
DRJ (1be297) — 11/9/2006 @ 11:55 amI can’t get the tune out of my mind
Da da da – da da da Da da da
da da da Da da da – da da da Da da da
And it’s all over.
Amphipolis (fdbc48) — 11/9/2006 @ 12:28 pmI’m not sure I see Bush’s amnesty program as a victory of pragmatism over principle. I think President Bush firmly believes in amnesty and guest workers, just as I think he believed in Harriet Miers. The biggest problem as a conservative has been that President Bush has been ignoring anyone who didn’t tell him what he wanted to hear (this isn’t a criticism solely from the right, but from the left, as well).
What happened with Congress, for me, was another matter. I was disgusted at the wasteful spending and pork barrel projects (the bridge to nowhere corked it for me). Call me cynical, but the Mark Foley scandal and the Tom De Lay stuff just struck me as politicians doing what they do. I voted Republican solely because I knew that what Democrats would do to me would be infinitely worse.
sharon (dfeb10) — 11/9/2006 @ 1:25 pmIf GWB “firmly believes in amnesty” then clearly he intends to reward law breaking invaders with US citizenship. Any movement in that direction and we’re likely to see a Conservative Party on the ballot in 2008, with all that would imply.
mokus (56972e) — 11/9/2006 @ 1:57 pmI double agree with #7 comments by mokus.
krusher (199ded) — 11/9/2006 @ 2:27 pmDoes anyone have a comparison of the “Gang of 14” and the losers from Tuesday? A couple went down in flames, but how many of the others were up for re-election this time around?
Al (2e2489) — 11/9/2006 @ 6:29 pmAl: among the seven Republicans among the Gang of 14, three (Chafee, DeWine and Snowe) were up for re-election this year. Of those three, only Snowe was re-elected.
Xrlq (739fa7) — 11/9/2006 @ 7:07 pmDoes anyone have a comparison of the “Gang of 14″ and the losers from Tuesday? A couple went down in flames, but how many of the others were up for re-election this time around?
As near as I can tell from my very hasty internet research, here’s the status on the Republican members of the Gang of 14:
McCain: not up for re-election this year
Graham: not up for re-election this year
Warner: not up for re-election this year
Snowe: re-elected by a wide margin
Collins: not up for re-election this year
DeWine: defeated by a moderate margin
Chafee: defeated by a moderate margin
So two out of the three who were up for re-election were defeated. I don’t think that’s enough to draw any conclusions from. I didn’t check the Democrats from the “Gang”, though.
hymnia (dca723) — 11/9/2006 @ 7:14 pmWhat an amazing prediction, Patterico!
On the other hand, you might. Impressive going out on a limb there!
Personally, I predict we might win in Iraq. I also think it may not be cloudy tomorrow.
Christoph (9824e6) — 11/9/2006 @ 7:40 pmThe talk about the gang of 14 reminds me of a great quote I saw on the American Spectator blog on Wednesday.
“If someone put a gun to my head and told me I had to choose between McCain and Hillary, I’d mark the ballot for Hillary. Then I’d tell him to pull the trigger.”
Jeff C. (428193) — 11/9/2006 @ 8:48 pmWell, I wasn’t looking for a ‘trend’ so much as a silver lining or making lemonade.
Al (2e2489) — 11/9/2006 @ 9:20 pmSantorum gut beat BADLY and he was a conservative with a 90+ rating by the American Conservative Union.
John Ryan (dd3d89) — 11/9/2006 @ 9:23 pm“If someone put a gun to my head and told me I had to choose between McCain and Hillary, I’d mark the ballot for Hillary. Then I’d tell him to pull the trigger.”
That’s a good one.
I think I’d just say: “Uh, no I don’t.”
Patterico (de0616) — 11/9/2006 @ 9:50 pmChristoph,
There was an aspect to the prediction that was slightly less equivocal.
Patterico (de0616) — 11/9/2006 @ 10:07 pmTrue.
Christoph (9824e6) — 11/9/2006 @ 11:01 pmRe #19, Rick Santorum got beat for two main reasons: he represents a very blue state, and because he supported RINO Arlen Specter.
Santorum had been able to overcome the disadvantage of a hostile political environment before, but that was when the political winds were more favorable. This time the winds were against him, plus the Dem candidate ran well.
Santorum, for all his many excellent qualities, ignored conservative principles and adopted the conventional wisdom of political pragmatists when he supported a notorious RINO. That opened the door for the Gang of 14, and that mistake cost him the support of enough conservatives to turn the tide against him in Dem dominated Pennsylvania.
mokus (56972e) — 11/10/2006 @ 10:36 amMokus: huh? You’re saying that the voters of Pennsylvania punished Santorum for supporting the other Senator from Pennsylvania?
I have a very difficult time believing that.
aphrael (e0cdc9) — 11/10/2006 @ 11:04 amChristoph: given what the popular wisdom was at the time, that prediction was a stretch.
aphrael (e0cdc9) — 11/10/2006 @ 11:04 am[…] Contrary to my recent dour predictions, Ed Whelan — whom I greatly admire — says that we can still confirm conservative judges. He notes that 11 Democrats voted for Clarence Thomas in 1991, and adds: A lot has changed since 1991, but the changes cut in both directions. The Democrats have gotten more unified — and nastier — on judicial confirmations since then, but the high-profile politics of a Supreme Court nomination enhances the case for confirmation of a strong pick. Opponents can’t rely on obscure procedures to block the nomination. They need to make their case openly, and in the Internet age, unlike with the 1987 nomination of Judge Bork, their distortions won’t go unanswered. […]
Patterico’s Pontifications » Ed Whelan: Bush Can Still Confirm Conservative Judges (421107) — 11/10/2006 @ 11:28 amRe: aphrael’s question in #24
It’s a bit complex. In the 2004 GOP Primary, RINO Arlen Specter was running against a legitimate Conservative, Pat Toomey. Santorum’s support for Specter angered Social and Fiscal Conservatives in Pennsylvania. They considered it a fundamental betrayal of conservative principle.
Only two short years later, Conservatives refused to support Santorum in this year’s GOP Primary. Although he was running unopposed, the undervote for Santorum totaled 22,000 fewer votes than Lynn Swann received. The handwriting was on the wall.
Santorum’s expedient rejection of a true Conservative in favor of a RINO cost him the trust and support of Conservatives. However, given the breadth of the Dem wave, it’s not clear he could have overcome Bob Casey even with the GOP’s Conservative base behind him. But, without it, Santorum never really had a chance.
mokus (56972e) — 11/10/2006 @ 2:39 pmcool site
Jackson Sydney (cd2997) — 11/29/2006 @ 9:52 am