Re: Telling political fact
 

I think that you are oversimplying things on both ends. The republicans are very good at party discipline, but what that means is that they work out their own internal differences behind the scenes. And maybe Bush has threatened to veto certain proposed legislation if it were not changed to suit him and we just don't know.

Also since history shows the party controlling the white house to do poorly in midterm elections, the repubs have a high priority on maintaining a common message and not appearing divided. This unity will allow them to pick up votes from the center from voters who might not like the repub policies 100%, but also don't like the discord that frequently characterizes the democrats' dealings amongst themselves. This can be readily seen in the fact that the democrats focus on saying NOT to whatever Bush is for, but can't among themselves agree on an alternative set of policies to present to the voters.

Re: Telling political fact
 

[ QUOTE ]
Also since history shows the party controlling the white house to do poorly in midterm elections, the repubs have a high priority on maintaining a common message and not appearing divided. This unity will allow them to pick up votes from the center from voters who might not like the repub policies 100%, but also don't like the discord that frequently characterizes the democrats' dealings amongst themselves.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you are misinterpreting why incumbent parties tend to lose midterm elections. The dominant theories explaining this phenomenon focus on the problems congressmen have differentiating themselves from the party at large and the current administration. Thus, the perceived homogeneity that attends parties with substantial discipline is generally an electoral weakness and certainly not an advantage. That is why party leaders in congress will commonly figure out whether they have breathing room on a vote, and then parcel out the "right" to go against the party line to congressmen who are up for reelection. This is also why many congressional votes appear to be closer than they really are.

Re: Telling political fact
 

But for the voters to see that perceived homogeneity as a weakness, they have to see an alternative. The democrats don't provide that. They just keep saying NOT. All they would need to do is even provide an unsound alternative to repub policies to be perceieved as providing a counterweight. But they don't.

"NOT" isn't enough to win elections.

Re: Telling political fact
 

[ QUOTE ]
But for the voters to see that perceived homogeneity as a weakness, they have to see an alternative. The democrats don't provide that. They just keep saying NOT. All they would need to do is even provide an unsound alternative to repub policies to be perceieved as providing a counterweight. But they don't.

"NOT" isn't enough to win elections.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree that the Democrats would be well-served to come up with some better ideas. I'm not sure that has much to do, however, with how voters in general react to their representatives voting with their parties straight down the line. It does, of course, matter in terms of how this election will play out. I would also suggest that the power of "NOT" can actually be quite strong in many cases, although I agree it will likely be insufficient in this upcoming election.