Makes sense.

But I'd have more respect for Republicans if they won on actual policies supported by the majority of Americans.

Is that the backup plan?

The strategy is a trade off. On the one hand you risk losing those who want to "go with the winner". They would hear who seems to be on top and pull the lever to join with the expected winners.

On the other hand, you would give pause for consideration for those who would sit out or vote the other side as an expression of disgust with their side. By making their vote more than a protest, but part of enabling a Pelosi speakership, they can possibly rethink if they are cutting off their nose to spite their face.

I think the democrats are especially vulnerable to this. The basic mindset of "its not the individual's responsibility but society/the groups responsibility" makes it easier for them to rationalize they don't need to do their bit as "the others" have things well in hand. Republicans tend to put more emphasis on individual responsibility, so are more likely to show up to vote even if they think it is in a losing effort.

Now let me pose another counter example. Suppose the GOP is a great closer and ends up not losing or even gaining seats in the house or senate. The house is much harder to track, but for the senate, it isn't hard to imagine the GOP actually ending up with an increased number of seats. Yes lots of things have to go right, but it is at least as likely as the loss of six seats. Now imagine that schenario and then think of the liberal conspiracy theorist who would see it as proof that all US elections are rigged.

I just fell out of my chair. I'm watching the weekend talk shows. The democratic talkig heads who did more damage to the image of the U.S. worldwide in the past three years with the 'Wilson/Plame joke than all the wars in history have done are now out blaming it all on Fitz. I guess Fitz told them to go around the world blasting the president and his staff with slanderous statements with absolutely no proof, or by the way they talk now he must have ordered them to do it.
All I see in the democratic party is the largest group of anti-americans/ traitors and liars that have ever been assembled as a government body. Anyone that will look at the facts will see the exact same thing. They (democrats) are more dangerous to the people of the country than all the terrorists in the world. Are there really enough deranged people in the country to vote this bunch into office? Just remember, when you do you will have to live with it or attack Washington with heavy weapons. LMAO

It's all about who shows up to vote. Also, those polls of all adults include people who can name the three stooges but not the three branches of government. The only poll that counts is the one on election day. Where have I heard that before?

Oh, I think this is definitely happening. This was my first instinct when I saw Santorum rebounding. Santorum was the perfect candidate for those swing voters and fiscal cons disillusioned with the 2005-2006 GOP to take out their anger on. He represents both the way that GOP pols are losing touch with their roots back home (I mean, come on, what was that book of his if not a primer for a national run?), as well as the faux churchiness that the DC GOP establishment has been putting forth to create the illusion of conservatism (e.g., put forth a marriage amdt that has no chance of passing to trick voters into thinking your party's conservative, all while spending like drunken sailors and attempting to place a Souter clone on SCOTUS).

But with so many seats now in danger, those same secular fi-cons and GOP leaning swing voters are now realizing that a vote to punish their congresscritter or senator may end up being a vote for Reid or Pelosi to have actual power in DC. And at least 51% of the country presumably doesn't want that. Hence the comeback, albeit a small one, of guys like Santorum.

Sadly, too many folks at Lorie/DJ/Alex's old site, which shall remain unnamed, Redstate and Freerepublic are still mouthing the "maybe we deserve some time in the wilderness to teach a lesson" line. And to hink their childish behavior will only bring about more silliness like the attack on the 9/11 movie.

eddiebear ~ I remember hearing that "you only hear explanations of how losing is really winning from the losers."

You don't win by losing. Winners win; losers lose. If losers come back and win sometime, it isn't because of their losing but, rather, in spite of it.

The whole idea of "winning by losing" is best addressed by Mr. Eric Cartman, who opined, "Sounds like a bunch of hippy crap to me."