What would we be without wishful thinking?
Dems are getting excited about the prospects of a reversal in their electoral fortunes come November 2006. E.g. Kevin Drum:
2006 UPDATE....Speaking of Republican hegemony, the Washington Post reports that the GOP is having a hard time finding good candidates to run against Democrats in 2006. Apparently their prospects are suddenly looking a bit dimmer than they were a year ago....Drum's readers chime in:
...critical mass has been achieved. Prepare for that pesky pendulum to change courses any minute now.I don't know that I can overstate how dangerous this unwarranted optimism is for Democrats. There is no such thing as the "pendulum," and the rhetoric here is almost identical to what I heard all over the place going into 2002 and 2004.
Posted by: Global Citizen on October 10, 2005 at 1:42 AM
Yep. "Payback Tuesday" for sure coming up.
Posted by: tbrosz on October 10, 2005 at 2:00 AM
The last five years are a blip on the screen. The great Republican majority and movement in America has ended up like everything else they've touched--bankrupt, abandoned and floating like a corpse in the canal.
Posted by: Pale Rider on October 10, 2005 at 7:16 AM
OF COURSE. Any moron can see that 2006 is not going to be a good Republican year. We're roughly a year away, and things ain't lookin' good across the aisle.
Posted by: Tony Shifflett on October 10, 2005 at 9:54 AM
Not to mention that Democrats still haven't done anything to ensure a fair election next time around. You can have all the pendulum swings and GOP scandals and demographic shifts and attractive candidates you want, but it won't amount to anything if nothing is done about Diebold black-box voting.
At least one of Kevin's readers gets it, and quotes the Johns Hopkins report on Diebold:
The most fundamental problem with such a voting system is that the entire election hinges on the correctness, robustness, and security of the software within the voting terminal. Should that code have security relevant flaws, they might be exploitable either by unscrupulous voters or by malicious insiders. Such insiders include election officials, the developers of the voting system, and the developers of the embedded operating system on which the voting system runs. If any party introduces flaws into the voting system software or takes advantage of pre-existing flaws, then the results of the election cannot be assured to accurately reflect the votes legally cast by the voters.