| paramendra |
Posted
on 06-Nov-02 09:40 AM
Republicans Take Back The Senate And Retain The House: What Now For Democrats?
- Looks like Bush played Saddam to the tune. And, golley, the record amount of money he raised.
- The Democrats did not have a leader, or an articulated alternate vision, or a plan. Being outspent massively did not help. Even on the economy, their rhetoric was not muscular enough.
- They were depending too much on the historical trend that the opposition gains in mid-term elections.
- Now more tax cuts, and more conservative judges?
- What does this mean for 2004?
The Associated Press (on AOL) ------------
Republicans also enjoyed financial superiority. A Federal Election Commission analysis said the Republican National Committee and its congressional campaign arms had outraised their Democratic counterparts by $184 million through mid-October.
But the terrorist attacks of 14 months ago sent Bush's approval ratings to stratospheric levels. The threat of more attacks, coupled with Bush's threat to use military force against Saddam Hussein in Iraq, complicated Democratic efforts to turn the election into a referendum on the economy.
In one regard, the midterm elections marked the end of an era.
New restrictions on campaign fund raising take effect Wednesday. With the exception of any recounts or run-offs, political parties will no longer be able to accept unlimited donations from unions, corporations and wealthy individuals.
Ironically, that marked an ominous development for the Democrats, the party that supplied most of the votes needed to approve the new restrictions.
The two parties were roughly equal when it came to raising so-called soft money over the past two years.
Most of the fund-raising disparity - $162 million - came in so-called hard money, the limited donations that will remain legal.
|
