I thought it was a wash?
Posted on 11/10/2006 9:04:52 AM PST by screw boll
I know the Republicans lost; it is time for sole searching, etc. etc. The fact is, however, if 3,615 votes in Virginia and 1,423 votes in Montana had gone the other way, the Dems would have no Majority. My point? The Dems will not be the “Permanent Majority” for too long.
Here is the math: Web in Virginia won with a 7,231-vote margin – Half of it is 3,615. In Montana, Jon Tester won with a 2,847 margin – half of it is 1,423.
3,615 + 1,423 = 5,038.
Yep. God bless 'em both.
You're absolutely right. This is a fluke in many ways for the Dhimmis. If the DBM had been remotely fair, the GOP would still be in power. The DBM know this and are rejoicing at their power. And, yet, their influence continues to wane, thanks be to God!
For those who say thing about the dems winning instead of the GOP losing, the stats say otherwise...
It shows, in fact, a lack of GOP leadership - to lose by such margins says it all.
We lost a lot of seats in strongly republican districts, in many cases because the person we had was either proven corrupt or perceived as corrupt. We gave the people no choice. They will vote republican if they get a chance.
We will have to really screw up not to win FL-16 and TX-22 next time around, unless the winners there really deliver on conservative promises.
We may only need 10 seats to take back the house, and we should be able to do that. Especially if we have a presidential candidate that is strong.
Depending on his voting record, Webb will be senator for as long as he wants it. Webb was a very strong candidate because of his military creditials, authentic war hero status, and the fact that he has a son serving in Iraq. He ran a well-organized, but vicious campaign in the primary and state wide race. It bears mentioning that the WP endorsed Webb's opponent in the primary, Harrison Miller.
The trend is negative. There is no question that ground gained, is being lost, year after year, so we are not doing the right things, backing the right issues, and are generally abusing the gift that the voters gave us when they handed us the White House, and both Houses of congress.
So if the margins console you, then you must still believe that if you do the same thing in 2008, that you will somehow win it this time?
My excellent Congresscritter, conservative Republican Michael Fitzpatrick, LOST by 1,200 votes. (He is strongly pro-life, squeaky clean, low tax proponent, mostly supported the Iraq war, and has a fabulous family)
And in a suburban district that has a 186,000 to 160,000 REPUBLICAN voter registration edge.
I am convinced that Republicans were demoralized over the lack of VISION of the Iraq war, in addition to the recent corruption (Cunningham, Rey and Foley), and the illegal immigration "amnesty" screw up on the part of the Bush White House.
Add to the mix the tripling of media bias in this cycle, and you have the perfect storm for a GOP defeat.
As Laura Ingraham said, Republicans should have hope considering the razor slim margins in most DemocRat victories.
Not really. If you look at many of the races in places like Indiana, Kentucky, FLA, and PA there were many races that were close in 2004, but we won them at that time. Shaw, Northrup, and others always seem to squeak by until this time.
We will have to really screw up not to win FL-16 and TX-22 next time around, unless the winners there really deliver on conservative promises. .
True, there are districts out there that should be ripe for the picking.
We may only need 10 seats to take back the house, and we should be able to do that. Especially if we have a presidential candidate that is strong.
A lot will depend upon what is happening in Iraq and with the economy then. And there may be some other unseen event that could alter things. Also, you can't start with the asumption that we will hold on to all of the seats we have now. The Dems didn't lose an incumbent this time around.
No, I think there are changes to be made and a lot of work has to be done for 2008. I think the party needs to clean house and grow a spine.
So, it doesn't matter to you about the margin? Personally, it doesn't matter? The margins here tell me alot about the makeup of my state and county and that is important to me.
I guess we think differently.
I guess we do.....
Northrup had been in Congress for a long time, but all of her races had been very close and she had originally won in a seat that hadn't had a GOP representative in something like 150 years.
Ryun -- who had been elected in 1996 -- lost to an opponent whom he had beaten two years ago and who went out of her way to distance herself from the Democratic Party (she refused all DNC funds for her race). This is the kind of race Ryun could come back and win in two years.
Nancy Johnson originally won in the 6th District in CT back in 1982, but later became the 5th District representative when Connecticut's districts were re-aligned. Her seat was only "safe" in that the voters were content with a moderate who went out of her way to call herself "an independent voice in Washington." She was also one of the authors of the Medicare prescription drug plan in Congress, which pretty much tells me this wasn't a solid seat at all.
Weldon lost to a well-funded opponent (Joe Sestak) who ran a well-financed campaign, and who made his military background the major focus in what was arguably the most conservative Democratic campaign in the U.S. Weldon was also tainted by a whiff of scandal himself in recent weeks, which could not have helped him at all.
When the next terroist attack happens again in New York and the dems are in control let's see what happens.And it will be unfortunately a big one. I mean they want to be able to go at New York again because they know they can. They have the patience that Americans don't have. Most people I know have already forgot about 911. Not because they are trying to but because they don't believe we are at war. In other words it has nothing to do with them. It didn't happen in their city. And life goes on.They feel bad about what happen just like anyone dying, the family receives sympathy but after everyone is gone the family is alone and in pain. But when the next one comes along or suicide bombers start happening in cities all over the country, well that will have an affect on them. But I believe the enemy wants a bigger bang and lots of dead Americans.
I thought it was a wash?
You got that right and who do you think they are going to vote for? Who did they just vote for? Are the republicans that dumb?
I don't see how people can be as mad at republicans in 2008 as they were in 2006, with the democrats in charge of congress.
And people didn't really like the democrats, they polled very badly, just they were the only alternative.
The only way I see democrats not being a reasonable target for 2008 is if they govern like fiscal conservatives, in which case it might not be bad if we CAN'T beat them. IF they ever act like liberals, I think we should be able to take them out.
I am also hopeful that now that republicans don't have to protect their "majority", they might well get back to ethics and that should be bad for democrats, who can't well go to the voters and say they oppose ethics now that they won on it.
And some of what democrats promised about lobbying reform will be good if they pass it.
"In Montana, Jon Tester won with a 2,847 margin – half of it is 1,423. "
All that was needed was to hold Montanna's seat and the GOP would control the Senate's agenda. I don't see why we need to factor in Senator Allen's loss.
The GOP wasn't controlling the Senate's agenda when it actually did have the majority, so I don't see that this has made much of a change.
I wonder if that's less or more than the FREEPERS who didn't vote or voted 3rd party to "teach em a lesson."
I am so tired of this "blame someone else" BS. If the GOP had been doing their job in places like Montana, it wouldn't have mattered what the third parties did. The GOP blew the election, plain and simple. They did it because they played defense the whole way, and did a piss poor job of doing that.
Political parties have a platform FOR A REASON!!! As long as the GOP ran this as a couple of hundred individual races, with everyone from socialists like Arnold Schwarzenegger to paleoconservatives like Tancredo doing diametrically opposed agendas, all the time calling themselves "Republicans", they were almost guaranteed to lose a lot of seats.
The GOP lost because it has become feckless. It doesn't stand for anything, as a brand name, anymore. Are they for fiscal conservatism or pork for home districts? Are they for the 2nd A. or for banning weapons? Are they for aggressive tactics against terrorism or for wringing their hands over "torture"? Are they for stopping illegal immigration or for protecting cheap labor? Are they for Constitutional Constructionists on the USSC or for maintaining a 4-1-4 "balance"? Are they for reforming runaway bureaucracies like SS or are they for creating gigantic new ones, like Medicare Prescription Drugs freebies? Are they for increasing troops in Iraq, maintaining the present levels, or withdrawing? WHO THE HELL KNOWS???
Given all that, the muddled middle decided to take a flier on trying out Pepsi instead of Coke this time, because Pepsi advertised it was "better tasting".
The Dems will see to that. Unless Bush rubberstamps everything they want, they can blame a bad economy or the war in Iraq or terrorism on Bush. The Dems will continue to make him the villian for everything that goes wrong. Moreover, Congress will be investigating the Administration to get more ammunition.
And people didn't really like the democrats, they polled very badly, just they were the only alternative.
I don't know what people you are talking about, but the voters did make their feelings known. They want change, and maybe that includes the WH aw well.
The only way I see democrats not being a reasonable target for 2008 is if they govern like fiscal conservatives, in which case it might not be bad if we CAN'T beat them. IF they ever act like liberals, I think we should be able to take them out.
This is where the Dems are vulnerable. We should hold them to their promise about pay-go. The only problem is that they will cut defense to fund education. There are some real problems ahead with the entitlement programs. Unlike 1983, we should not go along with their solutions. We should press for private accounts and then let the Dems take the heat for raising FICA taxes, raising the retirement age, and reducing benefits.
And some of what democrats promised about lobbying reform will be good if they pass it.
This is a trojan horse. The Dems will protect their lobbyists.
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.