The DEMS should take power of Congress

[luckydog71]

Given all of the bad press the GOP got this election cycle (and much of it was deserved), anything short of a major DEM victory in the house and senate would be a slap in the face for the DEMS.

The 6th year of a 2 term president has always been a loser for the sitting Presidence’s party. The war, the high deficit, the multiple scandals involving homosexual behavior, the huge illegal immigrant problem, plus many more minor incidents all lead to a major victory by the DEMS.

Should they not sweep into power in both houses, the only possible explanation would be Americans do not trust the DEMS with the reigns of power. The message would be clear that they make a great opposition party, but they have no idea how to lead. Like having our very own NDP.

Either way, I am a winner on Tuesday once the polls close, I will have had to suffer through the last political ad for the next 18 months.


So what is your predictions (noy how you would vote, what do you think the results will be?)

 

[sdw]

Given all of the bad press the GOP got this election cycle (and much of it was deserved), anything short of a major DEM victory in the house and senate would be a slap in the face for the DEMS.

The 6th year of a 2 term president has always been a loser for the sitting Presidence’s party. The war, the high deficit, the multiple scandals involving homosexual behavior, the huge illegal immigrant problem, plus many more minor incidents all lead to a major victory by the DEMS.

Should they not sweep into power in both houses, the only possible explanation would be Americans do not trust the DEMS with the reigns of power. The message would be clear that they make a great opposition party, but they have no idea how to lead. Like having our very own NDP.

Either way, I am a winner on Tuesday once the polls close, I will have had to suffer through the last political ad for the next 18 months.


So what is your predictions (noy how you would vote, what do you think the results will be?)

I don't think that the Republicans or Democrats will have a majority in the House. The next 3 - 6 months will be spent determining what the newly elected Independants will vote for.

I think that the Republicans will hold a bare majority in the Senate, they will probably need the Vice President to stick around and break ties. Since the Republicans will not be able to invoke closure, nothing much will be done by the Senate.

I can't see how anybody wins. The 2008 campaigns start on November 8th. Expect a constant stream of TV ads, Opinion Pieces and Special Interest Mailings as the Political Machines kick into overdrive to break the stalemate.

 

[dirtydan]

Given all of the bad press the GOP got this election cycle (and much of it was deserved), anything short of a major DEM victory in the house and senate would be a slap in the face for the DEMS.

Is that the newest spin? Are the Republicans surrendering on one hand but claiming if the defeat is not total and complete that somehow it's a victory for them and a loss for the Democrats?

The 6th year of a 2 term president has always been a loser for the sitting Presidence’s party. The war, the high deficit, the multiple scandals involving homosexual behavior, the huge illegal immigrant problem, plus many more minor incidents all lead to a major victory by the DEMS.

More Republican spin? I don't think every president has had such a tough time during the mid-terms in their second term. Listening to the news, the last US president to face a similar electoral situation as Bush was Jimmy Carter and that was in his first and only term.

Should they not sweep into power in both houses, the only possible explanation would be Americans do not trust the DEMS with the reigns of power. The message would be clear that they make a great opposition party, but they have no idea how to lead. Like having our very own NDP.

Your relentless misunderstanding of Canadian politics and the basics of the political spectrum continue to be amusing. The Democrats are by in far a center-right party. There is no viable left leaning party in US politics. Hell the Democrat the Republicans hate the most (WJC) was perhaps the most right-wing Democrat to take office in the 20th century.

Either way, I am a winner on Tuesday once the polls close, I will have had to suffer through the last political ad for the next 18 months.

The US could learn a thing or two from Canada about how to oversee political campaigns. BTW, I heard on the news that the age of the average poll worker is a whopping 72 years! Jesus Murphy, the "I like Ike" crowd is still in control!

So what is your predictions (noy how you would vote, what do you think the results will be?)

Democrats win control of the Senate and the House. Not as large as wins as thought possible, but nevertheless they take control. Republicans, following their nature, become more vicious and more outrageous in their neverending predictions of what will happen if the Democrats get power. The Republicans as are about as accurate as Jean Dixon ever was.

For me, if could vote, I wouldn't chose a Democrat or a Republican. I'd look to a third party candidate if that candidate roughly matched my politics.

 

[JustAGuy]

I don't think that the Republicans or Democrats will have a majority in the House. The next 3 - 6 months will be spent determining what the newly elected Independants will vote for.

Independents? Americans have no history whatsoever of electing independents in any significant numbers that could sway the balance of power in the House. It's basically a two party system and certainly one party or the other is going to have a majority after Tuesday's vote. It won't come down to independents holding the balance of power, of that you can be sure.

The only reason I'd like to see the Dems win either the House or the Senate will be so that George Bush can't appoint any more extreme right wing judges to the Supreme Court in the final two years of his administration. He's already done significant harm by appointing idealogues like Roberts and Alito and if another centrist judge were to croak or resign in between now and when Bush's term ends, the shape of America could be changed in a significant way for decades to come. Overturning Roe v Wade is the Holy Grail for right wing nutbars and if they get another of "their kind" on the Supreme Court, women wanting an abortion will find themselves back in the days of coat hangers and back alley abortionists. That would not be progress in my books. But then I'm not an evangelical Christian fanatic who believes that women should not be allowed to control their own destiny or that an embryo is a child from the moment of conception.

 

[OTBn]

So what is your predictions (noy how you would vote, what do you think the results will be?)

You mean if there are fair elections... no Diebold influences?

Senate: from the current 55 Rep / 44 Dem / 1 Ind to the newly elected: 51 Dem / 49 Rep

House: from the current 229 Rep / 201 Dem / 1 Ind / 4 Vacant to the newly elected: 240 Dem / 195 Rep

 

[DDawGG]

Hey LD!

Haven't seen you around lately, how have things been?

 

[Randy Whorewald]

 

[georgebushmoron]

Dems win control of either/both Senate and House by a small margin. It makes no difference anyways, as GWB is already a lame duck and will continue to be in the next 2 years. Already revolts in the GOP, GWB is powerless. The Republicans will have time to overhaul itself by the true conservatives before the 2 years are up... but will they want victory over a country that will be deeper in the ditch Bush dug for it by then?

 

[luckydog71]

Is that the newest spin? Are the Republicans surrendering on one hand but claiming if the defeat is not total and complete that somehow it's a victory for them and a loss for the Democrats?

DD - that is exactly right. The DEMS are going to win at least the house. So move the goal posts so that anything less than a huge upset is a loss for the DEMS.

Actually it is Nancy P who got that ball rolling.

 

[luckydog71]

Hey LD!

Haven't seen you around lately, how have things been?

Hey, DDawGG - good to hear from you......

Too much work and not enough BNO.

 

[sdw]

Independents? Americans have no history whatsoever of electing independents in any significant numbers that could sway the balance of power in the House. It's basically a two party system and certainly one party or the other is going to have a majority after Tuesday's vote. It won't come down to independents holding the balance of power, of that you can be sure.

The only reason I'd like to see the Dems win either the House or the Senate will be so that George Bush can't appoint any more extreme right wing judges to the Supreme Court in the final two years of his administration. He's already done significant harm by appointing idealogues like Roberts and Alito and if another centrist judge were to croak or resign in between now and when Bush's term ends, the shape of America could be changed in a significant way for decades to come. Overturning Roe v Wade is the Holy Grail for right wing nutbars and if they get another of "their kind" on the Supreme Court, women wanting an abortion will find themselves back in the days of coat hangers and back alley abortionists. That would not be progress in my books. But then I'm not an evangelical Christian fanatic who believes that women should not be allowed to control their own destiny or that an embryo is a child from the moment of conception.

There is still a 18% undecided rate in the polls for tomorrow. There is a move to vote independent that is being assisted by people like Lou Dobbs. There is the Haggard factor which got worse today with the release of a documentary that Haggard had done for post election release where he takes credit on behalf of his movement for the retention of power by the Republicans. Not going to pass, but clips of it are getting air play beside the pastor who read his apology in Colorado. That's going to keep some christians at home tomorrow and others will look for another person to vote for. Right now, I think that things have moved to a lot of Democrats getting elected. However, there are some places where the Independant looks to have a good chance.

What a difference a day makes. Who would have thought that Haggard would have made a documentary that could be used against the powers in the Right Wing Christian movement the day before the election?

Then there is the new Bush speach about how it was all about the oil. Bush is now trying to get people to vote their pocketbook by saying that they will lose the Iraqi oil if the Democrats are elected.

Then, and this is funny, Cheney is going hunting on election day.

Santa came early for the Democrats.

 

[LeBeau]

Dems win control of either/both Senate and House by a small margin. It makes no difference anyways, as GWB is already a lame duck and will continue to be in the next 2 years. Already revolts in the GOP, GWB is powerless. The Republicans will have time to overhaul itself by the true conservatives before the 2 years are up... but will they want victory over a country that will be deeper in the ditch Bush dug for it by then?

I agree with you GBM. If Americans are smart, they will vote in Democrats, the world has grown tired of the Republican right wing bullshit.

 

[HankQuinlan]

The Dems should win by default, just because there is nobody else. Both parties need a complete overhaul, along with the electoral system.

If all you get is ads suggesting that the other guy is a child molester (which seems to be the level of discourse) something is very wrong.

 

[luckydog71]

The Dems should win by default, just because there is nobody else. Both parties need a complete overhaul, along with the electoral system.

If all you get is ads suggesting that the other guy is a child molester (which seems to be the level of discourse) something is very wrong.

Hank, the dems should win by default. All they need to do is shut up. Not put forward any new ideas. Not say what their alternative would be to running the economy, solving immigration, implementing election reform, revamping the tax code, and on and on.... Oh just a minute, that is their campaign strategy.

If you made one simple change so political ads were subject to slander suits, negative ads would stop.

 

[OTBn]

Hank, the dems should win by default. All they need to do is shut up. Not put forward any new ideas. Not say what their alternative would be to running the economy, solving immigration, implementing election reform, revamping the tax code, and on and on.... Oh just a minute, that is their campaign strategy.

Not to get too far ahead of the "expected" results... one could ask why Americans are "expected" to provide Democratic majorities to the House and possibly to the Senate... particularly, as you infer, the Democrats have no position on the economy, immigration, election reform, taxation, and "on and on". Certainly Americans aren't so fickle as to vote change for the sake of change - just what might cause Americans to (expectantly) vote for the Democratic party during these mid-term U.S. elections? Why has the Republican party lost favour?

 

[HankQuinlan]

Hank, the dems should win by default. All they need to do is shut up. Not put forward any new ideas. Not say what their alternative would be to running the economy, solving immigration, implementing election reform, revamping the tax code, and on and on.... Oh just a minute, that is their campaign strategy.

If you made one simple change so political ads were subject to slander suits, negative ads would stop.

None of those things seem to matter. If you can get votes by constantly raising the fear factor, and if the media ignores all of the real issues, what is left? You don't need platforms, so you win by default (in this case, rightly).

 

[luckydog71]

Unfortunately an accurate generalization of Americans who vote (and the illegals who vote too) is we are uninformed and vote on pure emotion.

We generally believe the shit that comes across on the ads. Negative ads work best and there is no limitation on what can be said about your opponent.

The one who spends the most money wins and we never question were the money came from to run multi-million dollar campaigns. It comes from special interest groups and they expect something in return for the donation. And they get it.

Am I ever a cynic.

 

[JustAGuy]

There is still a 18% undecided rate in the polls for tomorrow. There is a move to vote independent that is being assisted by people like Lou Dobbs. Right now, I think that things have moved to a lot of Democrats getting elected. However, there are some places where the Independant looks to have a good chance.

I think we might be talking apples and oranges here, sdw. It sounds like you're talking about voters who are registered independents. That simply means they choose not to affiliate themselves with either party when they registered as voters. There's lots of those. But I was talking about candidates who are neither Republican nor Democrat. Now those are as rare as hen's teeth, particularly ones who are viable enough candidates to actually have a chance of winning an election. I believe Joe Lieberman is running as an independent for Senate because he didn't win the Democratic primary. He has an excellent chance of winning because he's been the incumbent senator for many years. But that can't be said of very many other independent candidates.

While independent voters are not affiliated with either party, they almost invariably vote for candidates who are either Republican or Democrat. They frequently don't make up their mind until they are actually at the polling station. According to the so-called "experts", the independent vote is expected to break heavily in favor of the Democrats today.

Then, and this is funny, Cheney is going hunting on election day.

I'm sure anyone who had planned on going hunting today and then found out Dick "Sharpshooter" Cheney will be hunting in their general area opted to stay under the covers and not come out all day, just to be on the safe side.

 

[sdw]

I think we might be talking apples and oranges here, sdw. It sounds like you're talking about voters who are registered independents. That simply means they choose not to affiliate themselves with either party when they registered as voters. There's lots of those. But I was talking about candidates who are neither Republican nor Democrat. Now those are as rare as hen's teeth, particularly ones who are viable enough candidates to actually have a chance of winning an election. I believe Joe Lieberman is running as an independent for Senate because he didn't win the Democratic primary. He has an excellent chance of winning because he's been the incumbent senator for many years. But that can't be said of very many other independent candidates.

While independent voters are not affiliated with either party, they almost invariably vote for candidates who are either Republican or Democrat. They frequently don't make up their mind until they are actually at the polling station. According to the so-called "experts", the independent vote is expected to break heavily in favor of the Democrats today.

Well, it looks like a total stalemate. The Democrats win the house, but not well enough to envoke closure and totally dominate. Nothing much going to happen there for the next 2 years. The Senate is looking as if bare control will be held by the Republicans, but again they will not be able to invoke closure and dominate. Nothing going to happen there, expecially as a number of them are going straight into Presidential bids. It looks like the Independents broke slightly for the Democrats, but not enough.

 

[Bartdude]

As I write, there's two seats still up for grabs in the Senate, Montana and Virginia....and the Democrat candidate's ahead in Montana, but the Republican ccandidate's ahead in Virginia....

Exit polls are also suggesting that Republican corruption was a bigger ballot box issue than Iraq, and that a significant proportion of voters were voting "against Bush"....