Democrats Eye November Landslide

Status
Not open for further replies.
I would really like to see some primary battles between Republican candidates who believe in the USA founding principles and the free spending, open border incumbent candidates. No matter how badly I dislike the Bush administration I doubt that I will vote for the Socialist Party of the USA, the Democrat Party.
 
Malone has the most astute answer IMO. There are only 30 competitive currently Rep held seats, and 16 competitive seats currently in Dem hands.

The Dems need to pick up a net 15 seats. That means holding all their own and gaining fully half of the competitive Rep seats. The vast majority of seats - on both sides of course but currently dominated by Reps - have been gerrymandered into perpetual one party rule. And of course the votes are counted - 80% or more of them anyway - by two companies who are both closely tied to the Reps.

Will there be a significant swing towards the Dems in the overall number of votes cast? Yes, undeniably. Just the easily evident phenomenon of Republican disgruntlement with the current administration's willful combination of incompetence, arrogance and secrecy will do that - as every Rep who stays away or votes third party will be one less vote in the red column, even if few or none vote in the blue column themselves.

IIRC it runs about 49-32 overall for who the general population would like to see run Congress, with the 49 definitely not being Republican. That however is not how elections work. Even in the Senate we will not see that kind of swing as a US-wide 49-32 says nothing about Utah or Wyoming or Idaho. I'll predict that what we actually see is a lot of 52-48 Dem seats becoming 60-40 Dem seats instead, which changes absolutely nothing, and a lot of 60-40 Rep seats becoming 52-48 Rep seats instead, which changes absolutely nothing. Then we have to factor in the "I hate what the national Republicans are doing but MY Republican incumbent is smarter/nicer/more religious than his opponent so I'll vote for him anyway" mindset of those who vote personality and locally-driven rather than pragmatically

Hard to go out on a limb 5 months plus ahead but I'm guessing a razor thin and impossible to hold consistent 50-49-1 Dem Senate and a reduction of the Rep majority in the house to 4 or 5 seats instead of 30.

If I'm right what that means is a lot harder conference committee hearings and hopefully a slight brake on the worst excesses of the misadministration due to Senate committees changing hands. I highly doubt the swing in national vote totals will actually swing both House and Senate into Dem hands. best I can hope for is that a very lopsided result between popular vote and makeup of the legislative branch will get people talking about the electoral system as a whole again and deal with the issues of gerrymandering and imbalance of power between the states, which are non-partisan problems with our current system.
 
It doesn't matter who I vote for since the Dems will take all Mass's nine House seats and the Kennedy is not going anywhere, except if he dies, then another Kennedy will take his place. As it stands now I believe the Dems will take the senate in the fall. Its not written in stone, but I am praying everyday that they do, and I am not religious. They will probably not win the house, but will have enough seats to be able to hamper the Republicans in passing any new anti-civil rights bills.
 
Is that really "high road"? Do you appreciate it when people use "Repugnican" and "ReTHUG" to refer to the other side?

Hey, it doesn't bother me a bit. And I are one!

Actually, thanks. The worst I could think of to call my party traitors was "pubbies." I like "repugnican." Because I find our current reps repugnant.
 
The good news for the Democrats: Today they are winning generic "If the election were today would you vote for a Democrat or a Republican?" polling questions.

The good news for the Republicans: The Democrats have to run individual candidates, not generics, many of whom will be unpalatable electoral choices.

Personally, I wouldn't mind seeing some RINO scalps nailed to the door. The stupid party needs to wise up before the evil party regains control of Congress.
 
Gerrymandering?

dmallind:

Malone has the most astute answer IMO. There are only 30 competitive currently Rep held seats, and 16 competitive seats currently in Dem hands.

The Dems need to pick up a net 15 seats. That means holding all their own and gaining fully half of the competitive Rep seats. The vast majority of seats - on both sides of course but currently dominated by Reps - have been gerrymandered into perpetual one party rule. And of course the votes are counted - 80% or more of them anyway - by two companies who are both closely tied to the Reps.

As if the Democrats haven't done the same thing in California. The only reason Arnold won is the Democrats selected from their usual short list of party crooks and panderers.

As far as which party is going to win the next election, the result will come down to which party does the most to self destruct. Lately, the Democrats have been very good self destruction. It remains to be seen if the Republicans can do worse.
 
Perhaps you missed the bolded part.....

The Dems need to pick up a net 15 seats. That means holding all their own and gaining fully half of the competitive Rep seats. The vast majority of seats - on both sides of course but currently dominated by Reps - have been gerrymandered into perpetual one party rule.
 
Gerrymandering?

dmallind:

Malone has the most astute answer IMO. There are only 30 competitive currently Rep held seats, and 16 competitive seats currently in Dem hands.

The Dems need to pick up a net 15 seats. That means holding all their own and gaining fully half of the competitive Rep seats. The vast majority of seats - on both sides of course but currently dominated by Reps - have been gerrymandered into perpetual one party rule. And of course the votes are counted - 80% or more of them anyway - by two companies who are both closely tied to the Reps.

As if the Democrats haven't done the same thing in California. The only reason Arnold won is the Democrats selected from their usual short list of party crooks and panderers.

As far as which party is going to win the next election, the result will come down to which party does the most to self destruct. Lately, the Democrats have been very good self destruction. It remains to be seen if the Republicans can do worse.

BTW, St Paul could be aptly described as Berzerkley on the Mississippi. It would have been better to have kept the original name: Pigs Eye.

See: http://www.lareau.org/pep.html

St. Paul - the Beginnings
Home to thousands of Native Americans for centuries, the earliest known name for St. Paul is that which it was called by the Indians: IM-IN-I-JA SKA, which, translated into English means "White Rock", it's name having been taken from the high limestone bluffs in the area. In 1819, the sound of soldiers and construction first disturbed the silence of the forest and rivers at the confluence of the Minnesota and the Mississippi rivers. The imposing gray walls of Fort Snelling soon overlooked the rivers from a vantage point high above on the steep cliffs. It wouldn't be long before the inevitable squatters camp grew up in the shadow of the fort, and the thriving community of Mendota grew nearby. And the original inhabitants, as everywhere else in the New World, would be shunted off to find new homes wherever the invading Europeans would allow them to settle.

Soon, the more privileged military officers and the residents of Mendota, became disturbed at the life style of the residents of the squatters camp, most of whom were refugees from the ill-fated Selkirk Colony in Manitoba. They were especially disturbed about the activities of a notorious, though popular, retired fur trapper whose talents had been turned to moonshining, Pierre "Pig's Eye" Parrant. The whiskey trade quickly infuriated the straight-laced Major Talliaferro, Ft. Snelling's Indian Agent, who soon issued a proclamation banishing the squatters from lands controlled by the Fort. This forced them to move down the river to the northeast, just outside the Fort's jurisdiction.

This site, then known as Fountain Cave, was located near what is now in the southern part of St. Paul, Minnesota. A small monument today marks a spot on the riverbank near where the small group settled. Soon after they set up their new squatter camp, Major Taliaferro decided they were not quite far enough out of his sight, extended the jurisdiction of the Fort to include the Fountain Cave site, and sent his soldiers to burn the new encampment. The settlers were again forced to move further down the river, this time settling on the north bank in what is now part of downtown St. Paul.

Who? Where? What?
It is the intent of this site to provide an alphabetical guide to the persons, the places, and the things that loom important in the history of this interesting city. We're concentrating here on the years immediately leading up to the incorporation of St. Paul in 1849. This includes the colorful period when our town as known as Pig's Eye, Lambert's Landing, and finally St. Paul. This is when Pig's Eye Parrant's tavern was the watering hole for rivermen serving on Louis Robert's steamboats, and the population consisted of fur trappers, Native Americans, discharged soldiers, and lots of other folks with itchy feet and lofty dreams. The muddy swamp they settled is today one of the most pleasant and liveable cities in the United States. Hopefully, this document will encourage the reader to pick up one of the many fine books on the history of the capital city of Minnesota.
 
Yes coming from a guy who lists his location as a refrigerator box, that is a damning indictment of a city in the suburbs of which I have resided for about 8 years. I am of course such a jingoistic sheep of low self-esteem that such a criticism of the nearest widely-known city to my home cuts me to the very quick, and that I realize that its faults, real and perceived, are not only mirrored in my own total inadequacy, since everyone takes on in toto the nature of their closest major city as it is perceived by those who have likely never set foot in it, but of course also make my opinions and insight as worthless as if I lived in....well, a refrigerator box.

Thanks so much for that devastatingly powerful example of real argument that completely cut the wind from my sails. I am in complete awe and shall remain a faithful puppy dog to your vastly superior self hereafter.
 
I would really like to see some primary battles between Republican candidates who believe in the USA founding principles and the free spending, open border incumbent candidates. No matter how badly I dislike the Bush administration I doubt that I will vote for the Socialist Party of the USA, the Democrat Party.

That's the thing. It's hard to think of a Democrat who would be a better choice than a Republican, to someone with generally Republican leanings, when push comes to shove. There are a few, but not many.
 
interesting

these posts always interest me. SOme points are good, some arn't. Here's my $0.02.

It seems to me that the GOP has lost touch with it's base recently. However I believe that the DNC lost touch with its a long time ago.
I think the next president wil be a dem, because the liberal media has Joe Sixpack so brainwashed that its plain unbelievable. If Joe 6-Pack gets up in the middle of the night to urinate and stubs his toe he reflexively curses Bush.
I do not believe the current administration is the best thing since Keg beer, but they arn't that bad either. National unemployment rate is at 4% (not too shabby), the economy is going strong, and we are winning a war (despite what the news tells you).
I think people will vote dem just to spite the current administeation. Although the dems have no cohesive plan on ANYTHING. But as ignorant and brainwashed as most people are I dont think that will matter much. I hope I am wrong.
On an unrelated topic in my opinion Hillary Clintan will probably run and win:fire: my primary concern with this is her stance on gun control. However my real fear is that some nut will asassinate her just because shes a woman (or for many othe rreasons) and she will become a martyr for the anti gun movement. She will do more damage that was than by passing legislation.
Also I am against subsidized health care. Canada has that and it doesnt work. Long waits, bad care, & outrageous property taxes to pay for it all. Or so I'm told by Canadians.
 
Huh?

dmallind:

Yes coming from a guy who lists his location as a refrigerator box, that is a damning indictment of a city in the suburbs of which I have resided for about 8 years. I am of course such a jingoistic sheep of low self-esteem that such a criticism of the nearest widely-known city to my home cuts me to the very quick, and that I realize that its faults, real and perceived, are not only mirrored in my own total inadequacy, since everyone takes on in toto the nature of their closest major city as it is perceived by those who have likely never set foot in it, but of course also make my opinions and insight as worthless as if I lived in....well, a refrigerator box.

I had to borrow a copy of "How to Speak Minnesotan" (http://shorterlink.com/?6J55GB) in an attempt to understand the above. You don't live in St Paul, but in one of it's suburbs, or are you saying St Paul is a suburb of Minneapolis? Now if you are picking on me because of my choice of residence, that's just not done, it's not PC, especially in the blue part of Minnesota. However, if that's some kind of invite to come up and enjoy a little of Minnesota's easy welfare, I'll think about relocating.


Thanks so much for that devastatingly powerful example of real argument that completely cut the wind from my sails. I am in complete awe and shall remain a faithful puppy dog to your vastly superior self hereafter.

Sorry, I'm not looking for a dog. Have you considered running a singles add?
 
I read this a little too close to dinner time....:barf:

If the Republicans lose this November they can blame themselves for going limp wristed spineless RINO on us conservatives. I am a life long Republican and I am disgusted with how they ran as conservatives and govern as moderates. This is the most tone deaf Congress where it comes to listening to the will of the Republican base. They seem more concerned with pandering to liberals,the very people who will never vote for them. They deserve the nickname the Stupid Party this year. My Senators are great examples DeWine and Voinovich have been a huge disappointment.:fire: :banghead: :cuss: I can only think of one reason to vote for Mike DeWine this fall.:scrutiny: ....The President may get two more Supreme Court vacancies in the next two years....without a Republican Majority he will have to settle for another Souter style nominee......With a Republican Majority we might get hopefully someone like Michael Luttig.
 
That's enough between you two, or the Mods will crack heads. Now back to your regularly scheduled thread...
 
One problem that still hasn’t been addressed by the Dems is that there party is being led by the far left extremists. This alienates a large portion of the rank-and-file party members. Also, the left still hasn’t offered up any kind of answers for the problems that concern the nation. They ran in 2004 on an “anybody but Bush” platform and that didn’t work then because people wanted them to say what they stand for. There is an inherent problem here. With the far left in control of the party, saying what they stand for alienates moderate and conservative leaning Dems. But, not saying what they stand for offends many on the far left that want to see their agenda pressed.

There answer seems to be, do nothing and watch the Republicans collapse from within. I have a feeling that this is going to backfire. Yes there is currently dissension in the ranks of the Republican Party mostly due to the RINOs in the party not performing as the rank-and-file party member want but the alternative to not voting is even worse. At least a RINO has to keep the appearance of being a Republican which means they can’t venture too far to the left.
 
I am fortunate enough to live in a house district that is ably represented by a decent Republican - Tiberi. Unfortunately, I am going to have to shut my eyes, hold my nose, choke back the bile and vote for DeWine as the Democrats were stupid enough to finagle Sherrod Brown into the Senate race. I believe this race will be close and may hinge on how the gubernatorial race goes. The Democrats in that race nominated a centrist, pro-gun (A rating by GOA), Methodist minister who is running against an ultra conservative Republican who is snuggling up to the Christian Taliban so closely he is in danger of violating one of his platform planks. Either way, we are going to get a pro 2A governor, an F rated senator, and we will still have that idiot with the Howdy Doody ears and the three dollar haircut from Cleveland as our other Senator (rated I believe D- by the GOA). At least I should retain a fairly decent Republican House member.
 
It will be the first time in over 30 year that I will just stay home.

I'm not silly enough to vote for a third party. Nor will I vote for the "best of two evils" by voting for a Republican. If you practice that philosophy, they will think that you approve of their actions, and will feed you more of the same crap.

YES, I think the Republicans will get a well deserved full blown ass-kicking, and usher in the Democrats.

There are rare times that you have no choice but to take the poison.
 
I don't come here often- try to stay over in reloading. I get so mad thinking about this my BP spikes. One side of my family stroked out in their 40s. The other side pushed 100. I'm trying to at least split the difference.

My two Senators- Shelby/Sessions are Aok. Rep Aderholdt has weasel tendencies. Every time I think of that d*** Bush I want to put my fist through sheetrock. I've never liked him, and I've voted GOP since RMKs first term. His daddy pulled a fast one and the apple apparently doesn't fall far from the tree. I will NEVER again vote for the lesser of two weasels. Period.
 
TGT -- I don't see voting third party as silly. In fact, I'd say it makes the most sense when you're otherwise tempted to stay home.

It's rather like leaving a penny on the table when getting poor service at a restaurant. That way they know they weren't forgotten.. they just sucked.
 
TGT, nows a great time for an organized third party to have a real impact and be successful. (Ross Perot had a great impact, but was not successful)

Republicans have done a disservice to conservatives. The growing deficit is the antithesis of what conservatives stand for, etc etc etc.

Democrats have started to alienate a large part of their "core". Lower class blacks and whites with a high school diploma or less education, and Labor Unions. These people have lost the most jobs and money due to illegal aliens. And social services, such as, free clinics or county hospitals have offered fewer services to them due to illegal aliens. Democrats have shown that they will kowtow to special interest even if it's committing suicide.

Congress as a whole, has a 37% approval raiting, the President has a 52% approval raiting (Source: March 15 2006, USA TODAY) People are unhappy with Congress.

But come election time, it'll be status quo, no real change for either party. Neither one has offered a viable alternative to the other.
 
Control of the congress will go to whomever does the best job of: 1. Getting their core constituency to show up; and 2. Convincing the center that they have a compelling solution to the issues: taxes, health care, economy and jobs, cost of education (especially higher education), and the proverbial tar baby - family values.

If one believes the USA Today numbers, immigration is a deal breaker to only the hardcore right and left. I personally don't believe that is true but we will see.
 
.308win wrote
The Democrats in that race nominated a centrist, pro-gun (A rating by GOA), Methodist minister
Yes they did...well sort of... Strickland is not philosophically pro-gun. He just votes that way because he thinks that best represents his constituency. I know this well, before redistricting I was in his 3rd district. He would not be adverse to going anti gun if he would become a statewide candidate.If he thought the majority of Buckeyes wanted more gun control. He has said as much. After all he put Lee Fisher:barf: on the ticket for Lt. Gov. That will be his Achilles Heel. Fisher is the most anti gun politician in Ohio, except for perhaps Eric Fingerhut:barf: . By doing this I have been reminding every pro-gun dem I know that yeah Teddy is pretty good on how he votes on guns so far but he has shown his true colors by putting Fisher on the ticket. I then remind them that Fisher not only voted for gun control but wrote bills he hoped would become laws. I also remind them if Ted becomes Governor and has to step down for any reason we are stuck with Lee as Governor....That would be worse than the RINO embarassment we have now......Bobby" My Grandaddy is rolling in his grave" Taft. :banghead:

Ken Blackwell is our best hope.....our only hope now that he has defeated Petro.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top