Posted on 11/10/2006 9:04:52 AM PST by screw boll
Not only that but many House seats were decided on razor slim margins.
There are something like 40 Democratic House members representing districts that Bush won in 2004, and you can be sure none of them have any long-term certainty about the duration of their stay in Washington.
That's meaningless.
Ford lost the National election by less than 10,000 votes, I believe it was Indiana and Hawaii.
A close loss is still a loss.
We wouldn't have lost if we were good enough.
This is all true and shouldn't be overlooked. (keeping in mind that some GOP votes stayed home, some voted third party, etc....not every vote lost to GOP was a switch to D's...still, the point is spot on).
I'm searching and I found these.
Seriously, if the Republicans had run a halfway decent campaign and didn't waste a penny on trying to keep losers like Chafee in power I think we could of won. Too much effort was made to keep RINOs around.
I have to admit...that makes me feel better. I have been feeling awful alone out here in 'Tester'country, especially with his smiling face plastered all over the newspapers around here.
We need to make every secretary of state at the state level a republican. Every voter roll should be purged of suspect, dead, illegal registrations. Voting should require ID that is verified with driver liecense or motor vehicle renewals. Voting registration should be tighter than car ownership.
And that's how elections can go. Remember, Bush was elected by 537 votes in Florida in 2000.
Yes, this shift in Washington hardly portends a new Democratic majority. The 2008 elections should be equally close, I think there are more vulnerable Dem. senators up for re-election then. Plus all these Dem. congressmen elected by narrow margins will have to run again. Plus, 2008 is a presidential year.
That's it? Talk about razor thin!
But regardless, your point is it's a slim majority and we just needed a few more points (relatively speaking) on our side to make the difference.
Good point to which I agree whole heatedly. When the analysts sit down and crunch the numbers for results based on facts, I hope they will make the same observation.
So was it a lack of conservative votes or libertarians voting L instead of R?""
I see both as answers.
This whole mess has only onboldened the terrorists.
The Dems cannot censure Clinton nor Kennedy for their behaviors.
We are sitrting ducks for the terrorists.
Lock and Load.....
I hate to bring this up but our dalliance in the minority might be longer than people relaize.
The 2008 makes this year look like a walk through the park
Races to watch
1.1 Retiring Senators
1.2 Possible retiring Senators
1.2.1 Wayne Allard (R) of Colorado
1.2.2 Joe Biden (D) of Delaware
1.2.3 Susan Collins (R) of Maine
1.2.4 Thad Cochran (R) of Mississippi
1.2.5 Elizabeth Dole (R) of North Carolina
1.2.6 Pete Domenici (R) of New Mexico
1.2.7 Chuck Hagel (R) of Nebraska
1.2.8 Jim Inhofe (R) of Oklahoma
1.2.9 John Kerry (D) of Massachusetts
1.2.10 Frank Lautenberg (D) of New Jersey
1.2.11 Carl Levin (D) of Michigan
1.2.12 Pat Roberts (R) of Kansas
1.2.13 Jay Rockefeller (D) of West Virginia
1.2.14 Ted Stevens (R) of Alaska
1.2.15 John Warner (R) of Virginia
1.3 Notable Democratic incumbent races
1.3.1 Dick Durbin of Illinois
1.3.2 Tom Harkin of Iowa
1.3.3 Tim Johnson of South Dakota
1.3.4 Mary Landrieu of Louisiana
1.3.5 Mark Pryor of Arkansas
1.4 Notable Republican incumbent races
1.4.1 Lamar Alexander of Tennessee
1.4.2 Saxby Chambliss of Georgia
1.4.3 Norm Coleman of Minnesota
1.4.4 John Cornyn of Texas
1.4.5 Lindsey Graham of South Carolina
1.4.6 Mitch McConnell of Kentucky
1.4.7 Jeff Sessions of Alabama
1.4.8 Gordon Smith of Oregon
1.4.9 John Sununu of New Hampshire
Looking at the incumbant list what strikes me is we have a much much tougher row to hoe than the Dems
Lets not even talk about if we dont by the grace of God get these Governorships back in Ohio, Colo, etc and somehow get Calif the redistricting under the Census will be brutual
Well perhaps our gop "leaders" will have some tie to contemplate & focus. Come back in 08 a LOT SMARTER!
Republicans were one candidate away from holding the Senate.
Montana elected a Democrat called Not Conrad Burns. Given a choice between two candidates called Not Conrad Burns there is little doubt Montana would have chosen the Republican.
Unfortunately, and unaccountably, despite the evident popularity of not being Conrad Burns, Republicans ran the only candidate in the entire state who was not Not Conrad Burns.
Nothing really changed, the country is still as divided as before. The difference was the Rats finally decided that they would be willing to sacrifice the stranglehold the liberal kooks had in the party, to win an election. They basically kicked out all the centrists, but they finally realized they would never win another election unless they would allow some pro-life, pro-gun, religious candidates to run.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.