The Obama Presidency - hopes and predictions

[molson]

Originally Posted by Jon

But the rule of law should remain in force.

For those hand-picked by Obama?

Where's the line in the other direction? Do we need to try every enemy solider captured in Afghanistan in a United States civilian court? Do they need to be read Miranda Rights? Can they be searched? How about their 2nd amendment firearm rights? Does Saudi Arabia's constitution apply to me?

Now I'm just being silly. But wherever the line is, on both sides, it's clear that the decisions will actually be made, without any process whatsoever, by the executive branch. They will decide who's punished, who's detained, and who's set free. Just like the Bush administration. There is no rule of law here, there is only rule of men.

A tribunal system (like Nuremberg) is still the rule of law, if its applied consistently, in consistent contexts. A haphazard, arbitrary mess of civilian/tribunals/no trials whatsoever is the opposite of the rule of law. It's law-themed, but it's not really law.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Arles

Definitely. When faced with an unprecedented incident over the past 50 years in 9-11, Bush made the decision to use Gitmo as a holding place for captured suspected terrorists/enemy combatants with the use of military tribunals once the evidence had been gathered. Was it an optimal system? No. Did he hold people longer than he should have in certain instances? I would think so.

But, everyone knew the process and he was open with what he was doing. Many critics didn't like it, he took some heat and it ended up being an issue that the democrats beat him with (again, that's fair if you didn't like his process).

Obama campaigns on shutting down Gitmo immediately. Fine, but then he decides no to once he takes office. He then says he will given civilian trials to the terrorists to clean out Gitmo. Of course, we find that only applies to a small percentage. The WH states the selection for these trials has to do with some garbled jurisdiction/military issue. Then, we find that it's based entirely on how much evidence they have and how much positive publicity a civilian trial will give them.

So, despite being told Gitmo was closing ASAP and many will be given civilian trials, we find that outside of a couple publicity stunts - Obama will be continuing the same Bush policies he railed on in the campaigns. I would say that's a lot worse than what Bush did. Here are his exact words prior to being president:


Then, once he has a chance to make the changes he so eloquently discussed before being president - he passes and keeps Bush's policies in tact.

That's a pretty serious rewrite of history. Initially not only was there no process, but there was hostility to the idea of even having a process. Gitmo was chosen largely because it placed detainees outside of any nation's code of laws. The decision to use military tribunals came years later and was never codified into a workable system. When Obama took office there was no ongoing process at all, only general ideas of what might happen.

[molson]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

. Gitmo was chosen largely because it placed detainees outside of any nation's code of laws.

So prior to the Iraq war, prisoners of war will held where, in county jails?

[Jon]

Originally Posted by molson

For those hand-picked by Obama?

Where's the line in the other direction? Do we need to try every enemy solider captured in Afghanistan in a United States civilian court? Do they need to be read Miranda Rights? Can they be searched? How about their 2nd amendment firearm rights? Does Saudi Arabia's constitution apply to me?

Now I'm just being silly. But wherever the line is, on both sides, it's clear that the decisions will actually be made, without any process whatsoever, by the executive branch. They will decide who's punished, who's detained, and who's set free. Just like the Bush administration. There is no rule of law here, there is only rule of men.

A tribunal system (like Nuremberg) is still the rule of law, if its applied consistently, in consistent contexts. A haphazard, arbitrary mess of civilian/tribunals/no trials whatsoever is the opposite of the rule of law. It's law-themed, but it's not really law.

If you're admitting that you're being silly, why bother to make the argument. I can't speak for the Saudi Arabia constitution. But the United States Constitution applies to "persons." There is a process--the process that decides whether or not someone is an unlawful enemy combatant. If they are not found to be an unlawful enemy combatant (by a US FEDERAL court--not military), they are freed. This was established as the law BEFORE Obama was elected.

You make it sound as if there is no rationale for trying the five in the Southern District. It makes more sense to try the five AQ members here, then it does the Somali pirate. It's jurisdictional. It's where the worst damage of the crime occurred-in NYC--in the Southern District. It doesn't matter that they were apprehended in another state, nation, etc if the crime was committed here. That's why we have extradition laws--so they can be tried where the crime was committed, not where they were apprehended. This is not a novel concept.

We're acting as if the U.S. had never arrested a terrorist before--the US government has arrested and convicted hundreds of alleged terrorists (citizens and non-citizens alike) in the civilian court system.

Obama is having a hard time figuring out what to do. The prior administration left a huge mess when they decided to create a new class of person so they could avoid due process.

[Jon]

Originally Posted by molson

So prior to the Iraq war, prisoners of war will held where, in county jails?

Nice try to convolute the issue here--mixing 9/11 and the Iraqi War. Gitmo was designed to hold suspected AQ terrorists. Prior to that, they were held in federal detention facilities in the United States.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Jon

Nice try to convolute the issue here--mixing 9/11 and the Iraqi War. Gitmo was designed to hold suspected AQ terrorists. Prior to that, they were held in federal detention facilities in the United States.

So if Obama was president after 9/11, how would he have handled prisoners of war from Afghanistan? What would the theoretically "correct" course of action have been, regarding terrorists, prisoners of war, etc.

From your posts, you should be extremely upset about the way Obama is handling this. He is not applying the constitution. He's not applying any consistent rule of law.

The first part of my question above was serious - does the 4th amendment apply to United States soldiers overseas when interacting with enemy soldiers?

[SteveMax58]

Originally Posted by Jon

So how do you define act of war? Who can commit it? Was the original WTC bombing not an act of war because the accused was tried in civilian courts? Was the Timothy McVeigh bombing not an act of war (even though the groups he was associated with viewed it as part of the greater war). What about those that tried to bomb the Brooklyn Bridge a few years ago --they were also tried in civilian courts.

We should have defined for ourselves who we are at war with, and the "who can commit it" is taken care of. Naturally...external (or domestic) groups do not determine "war status" for us. None of the above cases were acts of war...at the time they were committed...and hence were handled appropriately. The first WTC bombing, likely should have been an instance to evaluate whether the associated group(s) of RBA should be considered enemies of the US (or "at war").

If those that commit these acts are committing acts of war, then the offenders are prisoners of war. In that case, we should apply the rules of the Geneva Convention. But, because our government doesn't want to do that, the government created this "unlawful enemy combatant" exception to get around both the Geneva Convention and the due process rights contained in the United States Constitution (which apply to persons, regardless of citizenship). Well, the Supreme Court said that this couldn't be done because those housed at Gitmo were entitled to seek relief in the US federal court system.

This is a problem with our domestic law. If/when the Geneva Convention defers to our own "domestic law", our domestic law, in turn should defer these POWs to military tribunals. So long as we are "at war" with a given group, we should not be considering their POWs "domestic criminals". But this requires official recognition of non-country/territory specific groups...which we (to my knowledge) do not do in any form. This is a mistake...as it is one thing to not recognize a group/government as eligible for diplomacy...but quite another not to recognize them as entity to apply applicable law to.

To me, it seems pretty straight forward that we would try the cases in the civilian court system. First, the Supreme Court has already stated that the detainees have the right to access the US Federal Court system. Habeaus corpus relief is now decided by the civilian courts, not military tribunals. Second, we've already tried cases like this in the civilian courts numerous times (including citizen and non-citizen AQ members). Third, I'm not concerned that our legal system will ultimately require a dismissal of the charges. There's already precedent on the books (esp here in the Second Circuit) regarding the admissibility of evidence obtained in a similar manner.

So, in your opinion, why would Obama (a lawyer himself) oppose this viewpoint now?

We're living in an interesting period of our history where we're trying to deal with a larger issue with many, many unresolved questions. There's bound to be confusion. But the rule of law should remain in force.

I would like to see our elected leaders facilitate the clarification of this, among many issues. Unfortunately...it was only worth clarifying when a different guy was President.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Jon

Nice try to convolute the issue here--mixing 9/11 and the Iraqi War. Gitmo was designed to hold suspected AQ terrorists. Prior to that, they were held in federal detention facilities in the United States.

So everyone that the united states military captured in the Gulf War and Vietnam and WWII were shipped to federal prisons? Did they all get civilian trials? They should have sued the United States for violation of their constitutional rights, as I bet a lot of those arrests/detentions were made without due process. They're certainly "persons" under the constitution.

There's lines to be drawn no matter what. On both sides.

[Jon]

Originally Posted by molson

So everyone that the united states military captured in the Gulf War and Vietnam and WWII were shipped to federal prisons? Did they all get civilian trials? They should have sued the United States for violation of their constitutional rights, as I bet a lot of those arrests/detentions were made without due process. They're certainly "persons" under the constitution.

There's lines to be drawn no matter what. On both sides.

See, I don't buy the assumption you're making--that the fight against Al Qaeda is the same as the Vietnam War, Gulf War, and WWII. Nation-states and terrorist groups are different.

And you're missing my point--in the past, terrorist threats against non-military United States places have been tried in civilian courts, and those individuals have been afforded constitutional rights because those rights attach to their trials.

Detainees in Gitmo are NOT the same as those individuals captured in Vietnam and in the original Gulf War--they were treated as prisoners of war. "Unlawful enemy combatant' is a new class of people created by the Bush administration to avoid the legal rights and treatment afforded to prisoners of war. Relief groups were able to visit POW's in WWII, Vietnam, and the Gulf War. Gitmo--no. If you are a POW, you have legal rights. Until the Supreme Court rejected the argument several times, the Bush administration position was that they don't have rights because they are not POW, they are unlawful enemy combatants (a term BTW, that is narrowly defined).

As I've said before on this board, the issue is not the fact they were apprehended in another nation. It's that the crime was committed in the United States. That's why some offenses committed by civilians on military installations, are tried in civilian courts. Others detained for offenses against the U.S. military installations (like the Cole bombing) are tried in military courts. It's a jurisdictional issue. I suspect that's what's going on here.

One more point--it's interesting that certain people are angry that the rule of law is not being respected by Obama, but had no problem with the Bush policy of detention without providing a basis of detention for an unlimited period of time. But, now, because it's Obama--oh my god---rule of law, rule of law.....

If you equate stopping terrorists with traditional warfare, fine. Then shouldn't domestic terrorists like Randall Terry be tried in military courts.

If you don't think that non-citizens should have rights under the constitution, fine. But then there's nothing left to debate (although it would really undermine the argument that a lot of pro-lifers have been making the last few decades---that unborn fetuses should be "persons" for the purposes of constitutional protections--if it's citizens, the argument fails, because it would require a fundamental change in citizenship law).

[SteveMax58]

Originally Posted by Jon

One more point--it's interesting that certain people are angry that the rule of law is not being respected by Obama, but had no problem with the Bush policy of detention without providing a basis of detention for an unlimited period of time. But, now, because it's Obama--oh my god---rule of law, rule of law.....

I'm still trying to figure out why you are not upset about Obama's refusal to observe the same interpretation that you have? So...you are fine with his selective civilian trials?

If you equate stopping terrorists with traditional warfare, fine. Then shouldn't domestic terrorists like Randall Terry be tried in military courts.

No, of course domestic(and many international) terrorists are not in the same category. "Terrorists" have different allegiances and agendas...we (rightfully should) pick the groups of "terrorists" we believe are a significant threat to our country and its citizens and consider ourselves to be "at war" with such groups.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by Jon

One more point--it's interesting that certain people are angry that the rule of law is not being respected by Obama, but had no problem with the Bush policy of detention without providing a basis of detention for an unlimited period of time.

My main issue with Obama is that he laid into Bush numerous times in the Senate and the campaign for keeping Gitmo open and not giving people held there fair trials. Then, once he was made president and had the power to change things, he decided not to and continue most of the Bush policies in Gitmo.

[Jon]

Originally Posted by Arles

My main issue with Obama is that he laid into Bush numerous times in the Senate and the campaign for keeping Gitmo open and not giving people held there fair trials. Then, once he was made president and had the power to change things, he decided not to and continue most of the Bush policies in Gitmo.

For a minute there, you sounded like a liberal. : )

I think he has made some substantial changes. He announced the closing of Gitmo and announced the review of cases to determine whether enemy combatants were being properly detained (of the 215, I believe that 30 have been released). The justice department is reviewing the remaining cases to determine whether military and civilian trials are appropriate, with the policy yet to be developed on the rest. That is a change from the previous administration's view of detention without proof.

It may not be as fast as some have wanted, but it is a shift in policy. And, he also has the benefit of additional information that he did not have before the election. It's like Bush and nation building--he said he wasn't for it, but look at his legacy. He put the United States in the position to nation build in two countries (I'm not judging the value of doing this, just pointing it out--that's a separate conversation).

[Jon]

Originally Posted by SteveMax58

I'm still trying to figure out why you are not upset about Obama's refusal to observe the same interpretation that you have? So...you are fine with his selective civilian trials?.

I'm not certain he doesn't agree with that interpretation. Using jurisdictional tools to determine where to try a case is nothing new. If a Gitmo detainee was apprehended in Afghanistan attacking a military installation, and they're classified as an unlawful enemy combatant, then a military trial is appropriate. If a Gitmo detainee, regardless of where he is apprehended, is apprehended for suspicion of a terrorist act on U.S. soil, then, like the hundreds of others who have been tried and convicted here, then the civilian mechanism is appropriate.

Unless we're given specific information on each case (which we know he won't do, or shouldn't, due to national security), we won't know the basis. Just because a national security process isn't shown to the world does nto mean one wasn't done. Look at the FISA courts.

BTW, please keep this up, I want to hit 500 posts (do I get like a promotion or something)? I've been a member since almost the beginning, but seldom post.

[Arles]

Honestly, I don't care about Bush. I thought he made some poor decisions (esp economically) in the last term. So, this "he isn't as bad as Bush" logic is a waste for me.

I just don't see much credibility with Obama given his comments in the campaign. He talked about "not being able to sleep at night" if Gitmo was open and he was in charge and railed into Bush incessantly. To be in position to make the changes that couldn't happen soon enough in 2006-2007 for him, but pass until mid to late 2010 is extremely hypocritical.

It's all fine and good to use aggressive rhetoric on things like accountability with stimulus spending, closing Gitmo and cronyism in the cabinet. But, when he has the chance to make different decisions as president and he doesn't - I don't see how he can keep much credibility.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by Jon

For a minute there, you sounded like a liberal. : )

I think he has made some substantial changes. He announced the closing of Gitmo and announced the review of cases to determine whether enemy combatants were being properly detained (of the 215, I believe that 30 have been released).

The Obama administration has released 30 so far this year. The Bush administration was releasing about 70 per year.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Jon

One more point--it's interesting that certain people are angry that the rule of law is not being respected by Obama, but had no problem with the Bush policy of detention without providing a basis of detention for an unlimited period of time. But, now, because it's Obama--oh my god---rule of law, rule of law.....

That's the issue with partisian politics. If Obama had chosen to do it the other way, the same people would be complaining about that. It's not about right or wrong, it's about being opposed to everything.

[SteveMax58]

Originally Posted by Jon

I'm not certain he doesn't agree with that interpretation. Using jurisdictional tools to determine where to try a case is nothing new. If a Gitmo detainee was apprehended in Afghanistan attacking a military installation, and they're classified as an unlawful enemy combatant, then a military trial is appropriate. If a Gitmo detainee, regardless of where he is apprehended, is apprehended for suspicion of a terrorist act on U.S. soil, then, like the hundreds of others who have been tried and convicted here, then the civilian mechanism is appropriate.

But this is my point...my understanding of the Geneva Convention argument is that

a) There is no such thing as an unlawful enemy combatant...one is either a POW or a civilian...and as such should be assigned as one or the other
b) If you presume POW status then the domestic laws of the Geneva-complying country are to be applied.

Beyond the basics of shelter, food, humane treatment, etc. stuff...my understanding (which is not scholarly) is that there are no express implications, nor requirements, of that domestic law. So, if our domestic law were to be such that identified groups of "bad people", allowed us to declare ourselves hostile or at war with such "groups", then we'd be able to defer all "groups" we are "hostile" with to military tribunals.

I'm not arguing the legalities of retro-actively doing this...I'm just merely pointing out a (seemingly reasonable) approach could have (and perhaps should have) been done.

[ace1914]

Originally Posted by Dutch

The Obama administration has released 30 so far this year. The Bush administration was releasing about 70 per year.

Originally Posted by RainMaker

That's the issue with partisian politics. If Obama had chosen to do it the other way, the same people would be complaining about that. It's not about right or wrong, it's about being opposed to everything.

I was just about to post this. He's damned either way. Although, now he's trying to cookie cut justice which doesn't seem right.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by molson

So prior to the Iraq war, prisoners of war will held where, in county jails?

Mostly in theatre, but also in the U.S. Nazi prisoners were held in camps all over the U.S.

Guantanamo had never been used as a detention facility. It was chosen because it seemed like it was beyond the jurisdiction of any court. It offered a place where detainees could be help indefinitely without access to attorneys and where torture, or enhanced interrogtion if you prefer, was unlikely to get court review. That's why it was such a big deal when the Supreme Court gave Gitmo detainees habeus rights.

[molson]

Someone posted this link from a liberal website here after one of the recent SCOTUS GITMO cases (the link was from 2002):

"The New York Times reported that the detainees may be held indefinitely—even if they are acquitted in a military tribunal. The Times report quotes Pentagon lawyer William J. Haynes II: “If we had a trial right this minute, it is conceivable that somebody could be tried and acquitted of that charge but may not necessarily automatically be released.”

Let that sink in: acquittal would not mean release. Why? Because these are “dangerous” people, Haynes says. How’s that a for a commitment to “this nation’s ideals, including the rule of law.” It appears the critics of military tribunals were not premature in voicing their concerns"

This was just considered horrible under Bush, but now acceptable under Obama. And he's gone further - they'll keep people even after a civilian aquittal (and just flat out detain others indefinitely)! The funny thing is, I know there was at least one pro-civilian trial post here that mocked aquittal fears noting that these people aren't going anywhere anyway. Though that was considered bad, just a year or two ago, under another administration.

[JPhillips]

Wait, I thought it was bad form to mention the previous administration. Now that's okay again?

[ace1914]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Wait, I thought it was bad form to mention the previous administration. Now that's okay again?

It is to prove a point.

[molson]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Wait, I thought it was bad form to mention the previous administration. Now that's okay again?

Actually, I think it would be funny if people continued to bash Bush for holding terrorists indefinitely.

Now I'm waiting for Obama to decide he's pro-torture, so I can watch the Democrats then shift on that too, and create all these after-the-fact rationalizations about why that's OK now.

[Jon]

Originally Posted by molson

Actually, I think it would be funny if people continued to bash Bush for holding terrorists indefinitely.

Now I'm waiting for Obama to decide he's pro-torture, so I can watch the Democrats then shift on that too, and create all these after-the-fact rationalizations about why that's OK now.

You do understand that the current administration's policy is substantially different than the previous administration's policy right? He's not rubberstamping the Bush policy--especially since Bush didn't believe in due process rights for the detainees, which is why the unlawful enemy combatant class was created in the first place. And, just so you know, I'm not coming at this as an Obama supporter. I'm coming at this as a process person.

Oh, as for the torture thing--he's already decided to continue extraordinary renditioning. That's an old story, and liberals were outraged by it. In all honesty, I think the liberals were too pissed off at other things to focus on this. As I've said numerous times before, during the primary and general campaigns, anyone that thinks he's Lefty McRed is going to be sorely disappointed. He's mostly a moderate, with some liberal leanings, and some conservative leanings. His position on gitmo is a mix of pragmatism and legalese.

(I was going to be more sarcastic based on your earlier posts assuming that all Obama people think alike--but then I saw you voted for Rutgers in your top 25).

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by Arles

My main issue with Obama is that he laid into Bush numerous times in the Senate and the campaign for keeping Gitmo open and not giving people held there fair trials. Then, once he was made president and had the power to change things, he decided not to and continue most of the Bush policies in Gitmo.

I agree!

...and if theyre acquitted they should be let go...

{now what happens on their way to the pastures is something I dont want to know about }

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

I agree!

...and if theyre acquitted they should be let go...

{now what happens on their way to the pastures is something I dont want to know about }

So you're in favor of a three tiered justice system? Military, civilian, and vigilante?

[Flasch186]

We always have had military tribunals, weve always had civilian

AND

We've always had vigilante, its just this last one we dont know about and we find out about 50 years later or never at all. Am I in favor of it? No, but I do know that it exists ALL over the world. Is it going to change? No. and if someone couldve snuck in and killed Hitler I'd have been for that.

What I dont think should exist and never has is the right to take someone off the street and put them in jail forever without ever charging them with anything at all.

[Jon]

Here's an article on the Washington Post that discusses the civilian vs military trial issue.

hxxp://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/19/AR2009111903470.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Not terribly shocking, but Iran is apparantly going to back out of yet another agreement. I'm not sure why anyone in the administration thought a direct negotiation with Iran would change anything. It sounded good in the campaign, but from a real-world perspective, it simply doesn't work.

Minister Says Iran Won’t Ship Uranium Abroad - NYTimes.com

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

It sounded idiotically naive in the campaign, because from a real-world perspective, it simply doesn't work.

Fixed that for you.

[JPhillips]

Rep. Buttars and I are pretty far apart politically, but I can see his point here:

"I meet with the gays here and there. They were in my house two weeks ago. I don’t mind gays. But I don’t want ‘em stuffing it down my throat all the time," - Utah Senator Chris Buttars

From Andrew Sullivan.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

Also he doesn't want them stuffing it in his kids face, which is fair.

[Edward64]

"I meet with the gays here and there. They were in my house two weeks ago. I don’t mind gays. But I don’t want ‘em stuffing it down my throat all the time," - Utah Senator Chris Buttars

That is pretty hilarious.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

Also he doesn't want them stuffing it in his kids face, which is fair.

[Autumn]

Originally Posted by Edward64

That is pretty hilarious.

Could he have possibly said that without realizing what he was doing? lol

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

An early change in the House already. Dennis Moore (D) has announced that he is retiring after 12 years in office. He's survived in a heavily Republican district for the Democrats, but was facing an uphill climb for reelection due to his support for Obama's policies judging from recent polls and news. This district will likely go back to the red side in the 2010 election.

Republicans line up to vie for Moore’s congressional seat - KansasCity.com

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

An early change in the House already.

Early compared to what? It's not earlier than the likelihood of IL-10 going to the Democrats after umpteen years of being on the GOP side of the ledger.

This district will likely go back to the red side in the 2010 election.

Unless the Palinites split the GOP vote, of course.

[JPhillips]

Doesn't seem early in comparison to NY-23 either.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Unless the Palinites split the GOP vote, of course.

I'll assume you're not fully aware of the situation. This isn't like the New York situation. It will go to the GOP. I'd bet my retirement savings that happens. Easy double-up there.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

I'd bet my retirement savings that happens. Easy double-up there.

Just like the Mizzou-Nebraska game

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

I'll assume you're not fully aware of the situation. This isn't like the New York situation. It will go to the GOP. I'd bet my retirement savings that happens. Easy double-up there.

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

a heavily Republican district

O RLY? Cook lists KY-3 as R+3. For reference, NY-23 is currently R+1, but in the last two cycles the Republican won with over 60% of the vote. Obviously I don't have local information, but honestly KY-3 seems just ripe for another GOP split courtesy of the Palinistas if a moderate Republican gets the nomination.

So I'm curious as to why you post this and ignore things like NY-23 and IL-10. Further, you describe it as an "early change" and "due to support for Obama's policies" as if to suggest a trend.

If you are indeed suggesting a trend, then honestly it's pretty simplistic, since any casual observer of American electoral politics knows that the President's party usually suffers in the first mid-term elections after his inauguration.

However, this year we have a more interesting trend: the likelihood that, in a number of races, the GOP may split its votes between moderate & conservative and allow either:

A) An easy D win in what should have been a competitive race (see IL-Sen)

B) A D win in what should have been an easy R victory (see NY-23)


I still think the Democrats will lose seats in the House next November, but the damage may be much less than expected if Palin & her ideological allies (pretty much the entire conservative GOP pundit class) can keep up their effort for the next 12 months.

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

O RLY? Cook lists KY-3 as R+3. For reference, NY-23 is currently R+1, but in the last two cycles the Republican won with over 60% of the vote. Obviously I don't have local information, but honestly KY-3 seems just ripe for another GOP split courtesy of the Palinistas if a moderate Republican gets the nomination.

So I'm curious as to why you post this and ignore things like NY-23 and IL-10. Further, you describe it as an "early change" and "due to support for Obama's policies" as if to suggest a trend.

If you are indeed suggesting a trend, then honestly it's pretty simplistic, since any casual observer of American electoral politics knows that the President's party usually suffers in the first mid-term elections after his inauguration.

However, this year we have a more interesting trend: the likelihood that, in a number of races, the GOP may split its votes between moderate & conservative and allow either:

A) An easy D win in what should have been a competitive race (see IL-Sen)

B) A D win in what should have been an easy R victory (see NY-23)


I still think the Democrats will lose seats in the House next November, but the damage may be much less than expected if Palin & her ideological allies (pretty much the entire conservative GOP pundit class) can keep up their effort for the next 12 months.

I would be very surprised to see any repeat of NY-23 on a widespread scale. It was easy for the Tea Party crowd to get involved in NY-23 because there weren't a ton of other races going on. I think you'll see some primary fights next year, but I wouldn't expect a lot of third party challenges.

[flere-imsaho]

Yeah, I don't expect it to be widespread either, and in fact it may not happen at all (12 months is a long time in politics). But it still remains more of a possibility than in previous cycles and in some particular cases (again, IL-Sen comes to mind), it could be quite critical.

[flere-imsaho]

Since this is a predictions thread, one thing I think might happen that would be truly interesting is a more-or-less equal disinterest in both parties come the election season.

Polls continue to show a large amount of the antipathy towards House Republicans holding over from the 2008 election. If House Democrats continue to bungle, they could be in a similar boat by polling time. Thus this could be one of the better cycles in recent history for well-funded independent candidates.

So my prediction is this: Since 1943, the greatest number of non-Republicans/non-Democrats in the House at any one time has been 2, and currently there are none - this next cycle will see more than 2 elected.