The midterm election of 2006- three GOP scandals

tarrant77

So, I've always wondered how bad the 2006 midterm elections could have been for the GOP. As it actually happened, in the house they lost 27 seats and in the senate they lost 6, losing control of both for the first time since 1994. Its been argued that the Mark Foley congressional page scandal helped push it. But there were two other sex scandals that could have made it much worse.

ABC News actually had the beginning of the Dennis Hastert scandal at the same time, but could not find any corroboration to the sister of one victim.

Larry Craig was doing EXTREMELY risky behavior, and could have been caught at any time.

Imagine all three coming out JUST before the election, and the devastation on their numbers.
 
Last edited:
Vidal

Vidal

Wendell said:
The effect of which could be blunted if Hastert resigned.
Click to expand...

I think it further cements a narrative. If it happens in August and he resigns in a week or two fine. If it breaks 2-3 weeks before the election and Hastert starts by denying - which seems likely in a pre-Me Too era -that could definitely be worth 1-2 points in a swing district. Maybe 3 or 4 depending on how the national GOP and Bush handle fallout. Democrats gained another 21 seats in 2008. Probably could’ve picked a few more off, but with Bush with a veto pen I’m not sure it really matters that much other than from a branding perspective for the GOP.
 

Wendell

Vidal said:
I think it further cements a narrative. If it happens in August and he resigns in a week or two fine. If it breaks 2-3 weeks before the election and Hastert starts by denying - which seems likely in a pre-Me Too era -that could definitely be worth 1-2 points in a swing district. Maybe 3 or 4 depending on how the national GOP and Bush handle fallout. Democrats gained another 21 seats in 2008. Probably could’ve picked a few more off, but with Bush with a veto pen I’m not sure it really matters that much other than from a branding perspective for the GOP.
Click to expand...
You're not going to get a me too era that early. It would destroy the Clintons as a brand.
 
Last edited:

Expat

Timing is pretty key. If you could have it so that it becomes big enough that comment from various pols seems reasonable, but that it seems vague enough that the GOP rank and file feel they can safely offer a defense, THEN hit paydirt, the narrative going into the homestretch is going to be, “local congressman offers full-throated defense of likely pedophile” (or what have you, as the case may be).

That’s how you get it to break bigger than just three seats, I reckon. You can usually find a way to shift a handful of votes out of a hundred. More conservatives stay home in embarrassment, the next percentage of most-likely bandwagoneers who broke GOP IOTL break Dem ITTL.

Maybe returns are diminished, but I’m seeing up to 20 seats the GOP won IOTL that we’re within reach based on pollster ratings.
 

Snowstalker

The only Senate seat that could maybe flip off that is Tennessee, which was the closest Republican win and might flip off heightening of the already-existing backlash to the "Playboy party" ad (if it gets seen as especially hypocritical when the #3 Republican in Washington is outed as a sexual predator). Arizona's Senate race was barely decided by single digits, Ensign won by 15 points, and every other Republican won with over 60% of the vote.
 
Last edited:

Expat

Decided to look at this election in more detail.

1% (or less) swing flips the seat:
FL 13
NV 1
NJ 7
NM 1
NY 25
NC 8
OH 2
OH 15
PA 6
WY AL
Total: 10

2%
CO 4
CT 4
IL 6
MI 7
NY 26
NY 29
VA 2
WA 8
Total: 8, cumulative 18

3%
CA 4
ID 1
MI 9
NV 3
OH 1
Total: 5, cumulative 23

4%
FL 8
IL 10
MN 6
Total: 3, cumulative 26

5%
AZ 1
CA 50
IN 3
KY 4
NE 2
NE 3
Total: 6, cumulative 32

Wyoming really surprised me. I'll admit a uniform 5-point swing would be on the outer edges of what you can do without ASBs, and even 4 seems unlikely. 3 points seems highly doable, given the right 2-3 weeks of news.
 

Expat

tarrant77 said:
Considering that he only lost by 2.7%, can Harold Ford win in these circumstances?
Click to expand...

For sure. Though it’s hard to see him winning in 2012. He gives the Dems the smallest amount of breathing room in 2008, assuming that goes the same (though any minor butterfly is gonna affect MN).
 

Wendell

Electorates have short memories and these would not all occur simultaneously. The thing to remember here is that a Hastert who does not go out o his terms is one who can spill the beans on all of sexual harassment/assault settlements involving members of Congress while they're sill in office.
 

tarrant77

Expat said:
For sure. Though it’s hard to see him winning in 2012. He gives the Dems the smallest amount of breathing room in 2008, assuming that goes the same (though any minor butterfly is gonna affect MN).
Click to expand...

It would be interesting having him run for president like Obama did in 2008. Or a VP nomination.
 

Expat

tarrant77 said:
It would be interesting having him run for president like Obama did in 2008. Or a VP nomination.
Click to expand...

In a vacuum, I don't see that happening. You could easily write a TL where it happens. But given minimal butterflies to the macro-level trajectory of the Democratic Party since...well, too recently to mention in any detail, he's going to be on the right flank of the Dems in most TLs.

You could try to have him evolve. Perhaps if he somehow pulls off an upset in 2012, realizes he's probably not going to get so lucky in 2018, and just starts a shadow campaign for 2016 right away- taking positions that set him up for a national constituency, rather than the rather conservative line he'd have to toe to cater to Tennessee. A guy like that, he's going to get a cabinet post at the very least.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top